[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52912-52914]
[DOCID:fr30au10-20]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0866; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-065-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Model 427 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Tail rotor driveshaft hanger bearing bracket part number (P/N)
427-044-223-101 has been found cracked due to fatigue. It has been
determined that the fatigue cracking was initiated by a tooling mark
left during manufacture.
    The existence of tooling marks on the bracket could lead to
bracket failure, loss of tail rotor drive and, consequently, loss of
control of the helicopter.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 14,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0866;
Directorate Identifier

2010-SW-065-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We specifically
invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and
energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments
received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued AD No. CF-2010-17, dated June 2, 2010 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Tail rotor driveshaft hanger bearing bracket part number (P/N)
427-044-223-101 has been found cracked due to fatigue. It has been
determined that the fatigue cracking was initiated by a tooling mark
left during manufacture.
    The existence of tooling marks on the bracket could lead to
bracket failure, loss of tail rotor drive and, consequently, loss of
control of the helicopter.

The MCAI requires you to rework the tail rotor driveshaft hanger
bearing bracket. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bell Helicopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29,
REV A, dated November 17, 2009. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 30 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $10,200, or $340 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
require parts costing $5,034, for a cost of $5,034 per product. We have
no way of determining the number of products that may need these
actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Docket No. FAA-2010-0866;
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-065-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 14, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model 427 helicopters, all serial numbers
(SNs), certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 65: Tail
Rotor Drive.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Tail rotor driveshaft hanger bearing bracket part number (P/N)
427-044-223-101 has been found cracked due to fatigue. It has been
determined that the fatigue cracking was initiated by a tooling mark
left during manufacture.
    The existence of tooling marks on the bracket could lead to
bracket failure, loss of tail rotor drive and, consequently, loss of
control of the helicopter.

The MCAI requires you to rework the tail rotor driveshaft hanger
bearing bracket.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Applicable to SNs 56001 through 56073, and 56077: Within 30
days after the effective date of this AD, inspect both sides of the
hanger bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, for cracks following Bell
Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV A, dated
November 17, 2009.
    (i) If no cracks are found during the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight rework both sides
of the hanger bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, following Bell
Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV A, dated
November 17, 2009.
    (ii) If cracks are found during the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight replace the
hanger bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, with a new hanger bracket, P/N
427-044-223-101, that has been reworked following Bell Helicopter
Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV A, dated November 17,
2009.
    (2) Applicable to all SNs: As of the effective date of this AD,
you may not install replacement tail rotor driveshaft hanger
bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, unless the bracket has been inspected
and found free of cracks and has been reworked following Bell
Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV A, dated
November 17, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD No. CF-2010-17, dated June
2, 2010; and Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29,
REV A, dated November 17, 2009, for related information.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 19, 2010.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-21582 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 65786-65787]
[DOCID:fr23no07-114]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56796; File No. SR-MSRB-2007-05]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Rule G-27, on Supervision

November 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 8, 2007, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by the MSRB. The MSRB has filed the proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to Rule G-27 to clarify that the requirements
of the rule apply solely in connection with the municipal securities
activities of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
(``dealers'') and their associated persons. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site (http://www.msrb.org),

at the MSRB, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change will amend Rule G-27, on supervision, to
clarify that the requirements of the rule apply solely in connection
with the municipal securities activities of dealers and their
associated persons. Rule G-27 has previously been amended, with an
effective date of February 29, 2008, to strengthen the supervisory
procedures and controls of dealers effecting transactions in municipal
securities, as well as to ensure a coordinated regulatory approach
with, and to facilitate inspection and enforcement in this area by, the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (the ``new supervisory
requirements'').\5\ In its filing with the SEC of the new supervisory
requirements, the MSRB had stated that, as a general principle, the
requirements of Rule G-27 apply only with respect to those registered
persons who engage in municipal securities activities and those offices
in which municipal securities activities are undertaken.\6\ The
proposed rule change will explicitly incorporate this limitation on the
applicability of Rule G-27 throughout the language of the rule, in
addition to correcting certain cross-references and making certain
formatting changes to improve clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55830 (May 30,
2007), 72 FR 31122 (June 5, 2007) (SR-MSRB-2006-09). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56478 (September 20, 2007), 72
FR 54702 (September 26, 2007) (SR-MSRB-2007-03).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54930 (December 13,
2006), 71 FR 76400 (December 20, 2006) (SR-MSRB-2006-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section

15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\7\ which provides that the MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the public interest.

    The Board believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate
transactions in municipal securities and protect investors and the
public interest by clarifying that the requirements of Rule G-27 apply
solely in connection with the municipal securities activities of
dealers and their associated persons.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Board does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it does not modify
existing rule obligations and applies equally to all brokers, dealers
and municipal securities dealers.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The MSRB has received four letters requesting guidance on or
amendments to the new supervisory requirements in Rule G-27, as well as
a delay in the effectiveness of the new supervisory requirements. In
summary, these commentators sought to understand the circumstances
under which individuals must be qualified as either municipal
securities principals or municipal fund securities limited principals
in dealers' offices in which supervisory responsibilities are
undertaken. The clarification provided by the proposed rule change that
the new supervisory requirements of the rule apply solely in connection
with the municipal securities activities of dealers and their
associated persons, as the MSRB had previously enunciated in the
original filing of the new supervisory requirements, should resolve
these and other ambiguities regarding the operation of these new
provisions.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days from November 8, 2007, the date on which it was
filed, and the MSRB provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the filing date, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-MSRB-2007-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2007-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2007-05 and should be
submitted on or before December 14, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22780 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12561-12564]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05260]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0275; A-1-FRL-9924-17-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Rhode Island; Transportation Conformity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode
Island on February 21, 2014. This revision includes a regulation
adopted by Rhode Island that establishes procedures to follow for
transportation conformity

determinations. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards. The intended effect of this action is to
approve Rhode Island's transportation conformity regulation into the
Rhode Island SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the
Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 11, 2015, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by April 9, 2015. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2014-0275 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0275, Anne
Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-R01-OAR-
2014-0275. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
State Air Agency; Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental
Management, 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Arnold, Air Quality Unit, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background
    A. What is transportation conformity?
    B. What are the transportation conformity provisions of SAFETEA-
LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users)?
II. Rhode Island's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What is transportation conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under Section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit
projects, and other activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the
purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment, and those redesignated to attainment after
1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A of the
Clean Air Act, for the following transportation related criteria
pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The transportation
conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and
provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.
    In the CAA, Congress recognized that actions taken by Federal
agencies could affect State, Tribal, and local agencies' ability to
attain and maintain the NAAQS. Congress added section 176(c) (42 U.S.C.
7506) to the CAA to ensure Federal agencies' proposed actions conform
to the applicable SIP, Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) or Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. That
section requires Federal entities to find that the emissions from the
Federal action will conform with the purposes of the SIP, TIP, or FIP,
or not otherwise interfere with the State's or Tribe's ability to
attain and maintain the NAAQS.
    The CAA Amendments of 1990 clarified and strengthened the

provisions in section 176(c). Because certain provisions of section
176(c) apply only to highway and mass transit funding and approval
actions, EPA published two set of regulations to implement section
176(c). The Transportation Conformity Regulations (40 CFR 51, Subpart
T, and 40 CFR 93, Subpart A), first published on November 24, 1993 (58
FR 62188), address Federal actions related to highway and mass transit
funding and approval actions. The General Conformity Regulations (40
CFR 51, Subpart W, and 40 CFR 93, Subpart B), published on November 30,
1993 (58 FR 63214), cover all other Federal actions. These two
conformity regulations have been revised numerous times. Today's action
focuses only on transportation conformity.
    When promulgated in 1993, the Federal transportation conformity
rule at 40 CFR 51.395 mandated that the transportation conformity SIP
revision incorporate several provisions \1\ of the rule in verbatim
form, except in so far as needed to give effect to a stated intent to
establish criteria and procedures more stringent than the requirements
stated in these sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Specifically, those sections are: 51.392, 51.394, 51.398,
51.400, 51.404, 51.410, 51.412, 51.414, 51.416, 51.418, 51.420,
51.422, 51.424, 51.426, 51.428, 51.430, 51.432, 51.434, 51.436,
51.438, 51.440, 51.442, 51.444, 51.446, 51,448, 51.450, 51.460, and
51.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the transportation conformity provisions of SAFETEA-LU?

    On August 10, 2005, SAFETEA-LU was signed into law streamlining the
requirements for conformity SIPs. Prior to SAFETEA-LU being signed into
law, states were required to address all of the Federal conformity
rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs.
    Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address and tailor only
three sections of the conformity rule in their conformity SIPs. These
three sections of the Federal rule which must meet a state's individual
circumstances are: 40 CFR 93.105, which addresses consultation
procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which requires that written
commitments be obtained for control measures that are not included in a
Metropolitan Planning Organization's transportation plan and
transportation improvement program prior to a conformity determination,
and that such commitments be fulfilled; and, 40 CFR 93.125(c) which
requires that written commitments be obtained for mitigation measures
prior to a project level conformity determination, and that project
sponsors must comply with such commitments. In general, states are no
longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the
other sections of the conformity rule. This provision took effect on
August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.

II. Rhode Island's SIP Revision

    On February 21, 2014, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RI DEM) submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This SIP revision
includes Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 49,
``Transportation Conformity.'' The stated purpose of this regulation is
to fulfill the requirement to establish a SIP revision that addresses
the three sections of the Federal transportation conformity rule
discussed above.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision

    We have reviewed Rhode Island's SIP submittal to ensure consistency
with the Clean Air Act, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and EPA regulations
governing state procedures for transportation conformity and
interagency consultation (40 CFR part 93, subpart A and 40 CFR 51.390)
and have concluded that the SIP submittal is approvable. Specifically,
Rhode Island's Regulation No. 49, ``Transportation Conformity,''
adequately addresses the three sections of the Federal transportation
conformity rule discussed above (consultation procedures, written
commitments for control measures and mitigation measures, and project
sponsors' compliance with such commitments).
    In addition, Rhode Island's February 21, 2014 SIP revision meets
the requirements set forth in section 110 of the CAA with respect to
adoption and submission of SIP revisions. The approval of Rhode
Island's transportation conformity SIP revision will strengthen the
Rhode Island SIP and will assist the state in complying with the
Federal NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is approving Rhode Island's
transportation conformity SIP revision to comply with the most recent
Federal transportation conformity requirements.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP,
Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 49,
``Transportation Conformity.''
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 11,
2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse
comments by April 9, 2015.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on May 11, 2015 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 11, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart OO--Rhode Island

0
2. In Sec.  52.2070 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding a
new entry entitled ``Air Pollution Control Regulation 49'' after the
entry for ``Air Pollution Control Regulation 45'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA Approved regulations.

                                      EPA-Approved Rhode Island Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
          State citation                Title/subject     effective date    EPA approval date     Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Air Pollution Control Regulation    Transportation            10/20/2011  3/10/2015 [Insert
 49.                                 Conformity.                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-05260 Filed 3-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60447-60448]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18963]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG23-264-000.
    Applicants: North Bend Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: North Bend Wind Project, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230825-5228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG23-265-000.
    Applicants: Five Wells Storage LLC.
    Description: Five Wells Storage LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5346.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1728-016.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of The Dayton Power and
Light Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230824-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2095-006.
    Applicants: Midwest Generation, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding
Upstream Transfer of Ownership to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5285.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-983-005.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: ISO-NE/NEPOOL; One Hundred Eighty-Day Informational
Comp. Filing Order 2222 to be effective 3/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5370.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-973-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: NMPC Compliance Filing in
response to July 28 Order re: SPC Project to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5294.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1996-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing on Update to
Definition of Emergency Action in ER23-1996 to be effective 7/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5336.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2144-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1883R12 Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2023.

    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5308.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2157-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1887R13 Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5320.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2159-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1889R12 Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5326.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2160-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1891R12 Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5333.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2163-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1897R13 Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5339.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2612-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Revisions to Cost
Responsibility Assignments for RTEP in ER23-2612 to be effective 11/9/
2023.
    Filed Date: 8/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230825-5185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2639-001.
    Applicants: NRG Business Marketing LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding
Upstream Transfer of Ownership to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5275.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2711-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-08-25 PLA No. 5 Time
Ext--CDWR to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230825-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2712-000.
    Applicants: North Bend Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization, Request for Related Waivers to be effective 10/25/
2023.
    Filed Date: 8/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230825-5206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2713-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 7049; Queue No. AE1-163/AE2-281 to be effective 7/27/
2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2714-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the PJM Tariff,
OA and RAA RE GDECS Clean-Up to be effective 10/28/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5357.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2715-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4940; Queue No. AE2-034 to be effective 7/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5364.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes.
    For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 28, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18963 Filed 8-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 63873-63874]
[DOCID:fr18oc10-113]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63073, File No. SR-MSRB-2010-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule
G-37, on Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal
Securities Business

October 12, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On August 25, 2010, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change which consists of an interpretive
notice regarding Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions
on municipal securities business. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 9, 2010.\3\
The

Commission received no comment letters about the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62830 (September 2,
2010), 75 FR 54930 (the ``Commission's Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of an interpretive notice
regarding Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on
municipal securities business.\4\ Under Rule G-37, certain
contributions to elected officials of municipal securities issuers made
by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (``dealers''),
municipal finance professionals (``MFPs'') associated with dealers, and
political action committees (``PACs'') controlled by dealers and their
MFPs (``dealer-controlled PACs'') \5\ may result in prohibitions on
dealers from engaging in municipal securities business with such
issuers for a period of two years from the date of any triggering
contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule G-37 defines municipal securities business as: (i) The
purchase of a primary offering of municipal securities from an
issuer on other than a competitive bid basis; (ii) the offer or sale
of a primary offering of municipal securities on behalf of an
issuer; (iii) the provision of financial advisory or consultant
services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a primary
offering of municipal securities in which the dealer was chosen to
provide such services on other than a competitive bid basis; or (iv)
the provision of remarketing agent services to or on behalf of an
issuer with respect to a primary offering of municipal securities in
which the dealer was chosen to provide such services on other than a
competitive bid basis.
    \5\ The MSRB has previously stated that the matter of control
depends upon whether or not the dealer or the MFP has the ability to
direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the
PAC (MSRB Question & Answer No. IV. 24--Dealer Controlled PAC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule G-37 requires dealers to disclose certain contributions to
issuer officials, state or local political parties, and bond ballot
campaigns, as well as other information, on Form G-37 to allow public
scrutiny of such contributions and the municipal securities business of
a dealer. In addition, dealers and MFPs generally are prohibited from
soliciting others (including affiliates of the dealer or any PACs) to
make contributions to officials of issuers with which the dealer is
engaging or seeking to engage in municipal securities business, or to
political parties of a state or locality where the dealer is engaging
or seeking to engage in municipal securities business. Dealers and MFPs
are prohibited from circumventing Rule G-37 by direct or indirect
actions through any other persons or means.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule G-37(d) provides that no broker, dealer or municipal
securities dealer or any municipal finance professional shall,
directly or indirectly, through or by any other person or means, do
any act which would result in a violation of sections (b) or (c) of
the rule. Section (b) relates to the ban on business and Section (c)
relates to the prohibition on soliciting and coordinating
contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to changes in the financial markets since the adoption of Rule
G-37 and recent market turmoil, many dealers have become affiliated
with a broad range of other entities in increasingly diverse
organizational structures. Some of these affiliated entities (including
but not limited to banks, bank holding companies, insurance companies
and investment management companies) have formed or otherwise maintain
relationships with PACs (``affiliated PACs'') and other political
organizations, many of which may make contributions to issuer
officials. Such relationships raise questions regarding the extent to
which affiliated PACs may effectively be controlled by dealers or their
MFPs and thereby constitute dealer-controlled PACs whose contributions
are subject to Rule G-37. Further, such relationships raise concerns
regarding whether the contributions of such affiliated PACs, even if
not viewed as dealer-controlled PACs, may be used by dealers or their
MFPs to circumvent Rule G-37 as indirect contributions for the purpose
of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business. As a result,
the MSRB has filed the proposed rule change to provide additional
guidance with regard to the potential for affiliated PACs to be viewed
as dealer-controlled PACs. A more complete description of the proposal
is contained in the Commission's Notice.
    The MSRB has requested an effective date for the proposed rule
change of sixty days after Commission approval of the proposed rule
change.

 III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change
and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB \7\ and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \8\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange
Act requires, among other things, that the MSRB's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in municipal securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\9\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act because it will help to inhibit practices constituting
real and perceived attempts to influence the awarding of municipal
securities business through contributions made by or through dealer-
affiliated PACs. The Commission also believes that the proposed rule
change will facilitate dealer compliance with Rule G-37 and Rule G-27,
on supervision. The proposal will become effective sixty days after
Commission approval of the proposed rule change, as requested by the
MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2010-07), be,
and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26131 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE

PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Kathryn Montague<PHONE_NUMBER>

Bayer CropScience LLC

PP# 9F7679

EPA has received a pesticide petition (9F7679) from Bayer CropScience
LLC, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180. by
establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide safener,
mefenpyr-diethyl including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring
residues of mefenpyr-diethyl
((RS)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-5-methyl-2-pyrazoline-3,5-dicarboxylic
acid) and its dichlorophenylpyrazoline metabolites] in or on the raw
agricultural commodity [sorghum, grain] at [0.01] parts per million
(ppm); [sorghum, forage] at [0.1] ppm; [sorghum, stover] at [0.05] ppm;
[grass, hay] at [0.05] ppm; and [grass, forage] at [1.5] ppm. EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may
be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism. The nature of mefenpyr-diethyl residues in plants
and livestock is

adequately understood. The residues of concern are combined residues of
mefenpyr-diethyl, also

known as
1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5-dicarboxylic
acid,

diethyl ester and its 2,4-dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline metabolites.

2. Analytical method. An enforcement method for plants has been
developed and

radiovalidation and independent laboratory validation (ILV) conducted.
The EPA has concluded

that this method is suitable for food tolerance enforcement of
mefenpyr-diethyl and its 2,4-

dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline metabolites.

M-36Ü357-Ü1-1

3. Magnitude of residues. The appropriate number of residue trials was
conducted in

sorghum and grasses in the appropriate locations in the United States to
support the requested

tolerances on the sorghum and grass commodities. Specifically, twelve
field trials were

conducted to measure the magnitude of total mefenpyr-diethyl residues
in/on sorghum forage,

grain, and stover or grass hay and forage following two foliar spray
applications of HUSKIE

herbicide to sorghum or grass. Residues of mefenpyr-diethyl and
2,4-dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline

metabolites were quantified in the harvested matrices (sorghum grain,
forage and fodder as well

as grass hay and grass forage) following a postemergence application of
Huskie Herbicide.

The highest average field trial (HAFT) total mefenpyr-diethyl residue in
sorghum forage

harvested at a 0-day PHI was 1.1 ppm (maximum residue 1.2 ppm); There
were no total

mefenpyr-diethyl residues greater than the LOQ (0.10 ppm) in sorghum
forage harvested at

either a target 7-day PHI or at ECH. There were no total
mefenpyr-diethyl residues greater than

the LOQ (0.01 ppm) in sorghum grain. The HAFT total mefenpyr-diethyl
residue in sorghum

stover was 0.06 ppm (maximum residue 0.06 ppm). The total
mefenpyr-diethyl residue

decreased with time in sorghum early forage but could not be assessed in
ECH forage, grain, or

stover due to residues being below the LOQ.

The HAFT total mefenpyr-diethyl residue in grass forage harvested at a
0-day PHI was 1.4 ppm

(maximum residue 1.4 ppm). The HAFT total mefenpyr-diethyl residue in
grass forage harvested

at a 7-day PHI was 1.2 ppm (maximum residue 1.2 ppm). No residues
greater than the LOQ of

0.05 ppm were observed in any of the hay samples harvested at a target
30-day PHI.

B. Toxicological Profile

The Agency published complete reviews of the safety of mefenpyr-diethyl
in the ‘Final Rule’

published in the Federal Register April 30, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 83,
Pages 23038-23046),

and in the Federal Register December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, No. 238, pages
74972- 74979).

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and

reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to
human risk. EPA has also

considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major

identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

1. Acute toxicity. Mefenpyr-diethyl has low acute toxicity by the oral,
dermal, and

inhalation routes of exposure. It is not a dermal irritant but is a
slight dermal sensitizer and ocular

irritant.

2. Genotoxicty. Mefenpyr-diethyl did not show any genotoxic potential.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Developmental toxicity was
not observed in

the rat at the limit dose (1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day))
but was observed in the

rabbit (abortions) at the same dose level producing maternal toxicity.
Mefenpyr-diethyl did not

induce any signs of reproductive toxicity or neurotoxic potential. The
developmental toxicity

studies in rats and rabbits, as well as the reproductive toxicity study
in rats, did not demonstrate

any prenatal or postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
reproductive toxicity following

exposure via the diet at concentrations of 0, 200, 1000, and 5000 ppm
for two generations. There

is a lack of evidence of neurotoxicity in any study on mefenpyr-diethyl
and therefore there is no

concern for neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to mefenpyr-diethyl.

4. Chronic toxicity. Repeat exposure via the dermal route did not induce
any treatmentrelated

effects at dose levels up to and including the limit dose. Repeated
exposure studies via

the oral route demonstrated that the target organs are the liver and
hematopoietic system in dogs,

mice, and rats. Mefenpyr-diethyl was negative for carcinogenicity in
rats and mice, and classified

as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''

5. Animal metabolism. Metabolism studies indicate that mefenpyr-diethyl
is rapidly

metabolized, widely distributed, and primarily excreted via the urine
and feces during the first 24

hours.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The metabolic profile for mefenpyr-diethyl
appears to be

substantially similar in plants, animals and the environment. The
primary identified metabolites

in rats, ruminants, poultry, plants and the environment are the three 2,
4-dichlorophenylpyrazolone

metabolites which are included in the risk assessment and for tolerance
setting

purposes.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential
risks due to

chronic and acute dietary exposure of the U.S. population and selected
population subgroups to

residues of mefenpyr-diethyl and its two 2,4-dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline
metabolites. These

assessments included current and proposed uses of mefenpyr-diethyl.

, Version 2.14), which is

licensed to Bayer, was used to estimate the chronic and acute dietary
exposure. This software

uses the food consumption data from the 1994-1998 USDA Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake

by Individuals (CSFII 1994-1998).

No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single exposure (dose) was
identified from oral

toxicity studies in the database. Therefore, an acute dietary endpoint
was not selected and

an acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted.

The cRfD was established based on increased liver weights in the chronic
dog study. The

LOAEL for this study was 260 mg/kg/day (M/F) with a NOAEL = 51.0
mg/kg/day. This

study is supported by the chronic rat study, which shows a similar NOAEL
(48

mg/kg/day). Application of the normal 100X uncertainty factor results in
a cRfD/cPAD

of 0.51 mg/kg/day. Results from the chronic dietary exposure analysis
described below demonstrate a reasonable certainty of no harm to the
overall U.S. population or any population

subgroup from the proposed use of mefenpyr-diethyl on sorghum and grass
grown for

seed.

i. Food.  The tier 1 chronic risk assessment was conducted using the
results of

field trials conducted at maximum label application rates and the
shortest pre-harvest

intervals on the proposed label. No adjustments were made to account for
dissipation of

residues during storage, transportation from the field to the consumer,
washing or

peeling. Therefore, the actual dietary exposure will be less than that
presented here.

The chronic dietary exposure estimated the percent of the chronic
reference dose (cRfD)

for the overall US population and various subpopulations. In this
analysis, total exposure

was less then 1% of the chronic RfD for the US Population and all
population subgroups.

Therefore, the chronic exposure estimates are below EPA's level of
concern for the

overall U.S. population as well as all subpopulations.

ii. Drinking water. EPA’s Tier 1 EDWCs for surface and ground water
were generated

using FIRST and SCIGROW, respectively. Based on the results of these
simulations,

μg/L for use in the human-health risk

assessment. Potential water residues are included in the dietary
exposure calculated

above.

D. Cumulative Effects

EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding for
mefenpyrdiethyl

and any other substances and mefenpyr-diethyl does not appear to produce
a toxic

metabolite produced by other substances. Therefore, EPA has not assumed
that

mefenpyr-diethyl has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described

above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be
concluded that

aggregate exposure to residues of mefenpyr-diethyl presents a reasonable
certainty of no

harm. No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single exposure (dose)
was identified

from oral toxicity studies in the database. Therefore, an acute dietary
endpoint was not

selected and an acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted.

The chronic assessment indicated that exposure from residues in crops
utilized

<1% of the chronic RfD for the U. S. Population when food and water are
included. EPA

generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the cRfD. An
aggregate

assessment for the proposed uses for mefenpyr-diethyl demonstrates that
there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the US Population from
these uses of

mefenpyr-diethyl.

2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply
an

additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and
childre湩琠敨挠獡景琠牨獥潨摬攠晦捥獴琍捡潣
湵⁴潦⁲牰湡潰瑳渠瑡污琠硯捩瑩⁹湡桴潣灭
敬整敮獳漠桴慤慴戠獡湵敬獳䔍䅐搠瑥牥業敮⁳
桴瑡愠搠晩敦敲瑮洠牡楧景猠晡瑥⁹楷汬戠慳敦映
牯椠普湡獴愠摮挠楨摬敲⹮吠敨

l

m

‚

B*

B*

B*

B*

m

‚

Ú

‚

…

—

摧槓<	㜀$␸䠀$摧槓<ᰀtoxicological database for mefenpyr-diethyl
is complete for FQPA purposes and there are

no residual uncertainties for pre-/post-natal toxicity for
mefenpyr-diethyl. Based on the

available toxicity data the Special FQPA Safety Factor can be reduced to
1x.

Based on the exposure assessments described above and on the
completeness and

reliability of the toxicity data, it can be concluded that the dietary
exposure from the

proposed uses for mefenpyr-diethyl consumes <1% of the cRfD for all
subpopulations.

Thus, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from

aggregate exposure to mefenpyr-diethyl residues.

F. International Tolerances

No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) are

established for residues of mefenpyr-diethyl and metabolites in crop or
livestock

commodities.


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27784-27785]
[FR Doc No: E9-13695]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

June 04, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER99-2341-014; ER07-277-006; ER06-1334-008.
    Applicants: Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC, Spindle Hill Energy LLC,
Hardee Power Partners Limited.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts Under Market-Based
Rate Authority of Hardee Power Partners Limited, Spindle Hill Energy
LLC and Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090603-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-374-012; ER05-717-011; ER05-721-011; ER06-230-
008; ER07-810-006; ER08-1172-005; ER08-237-005; ER09-429-002; ER09-430-
002.
    Applicants: Forward Energy LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Spring Canyon
Energy LLC, Grays Harbor Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Willow
Creek Energy LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Wolverine
Creek Energy LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts Under Market-Based
Rate Authority of Spring Canyon Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 06/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090603-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-857-002.
    Applicants: Energy Resource Management Corporation.
    Description: Energy Resource Management Corporation submits for
acceptance First Revised Sheet 1 et al to its FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090604-0288.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1174-005; OA07-74-005.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: MATL LLP submits instant filing pursuant to the
directive in March 3 Order requiring MATL to submit a further
compliance filing w/in 90 days of the issuance of that Order.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090603-0153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1106-003.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: MATL LLP submits settlement agreement.
    Filed Date: 06/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090604-0491.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 15, 2009.
    Reply Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-749-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits First Revised
Sheet 232 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Fourteenth Revised Volume 2.
    Filed Date: 06/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090604-0287.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1164-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits informational
filing of its Annual Update of transmission service rates pursuant to
the APS Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090518-0317.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 09, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1180-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Request for Deferred Effective Date.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090528-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1261-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Company submits filing to
cancel CL&P's FERC Electric Rate Schedule No 580 et al.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090603-0154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1262-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Company submits amendment
to the Transmission and Ancillary Services Wholesale Revenue Allocation
Agreement between CL&P, et al.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090603-0155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1263-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Company submits revised
rate schedule cover sheet to cancel an Interconnection Agreement
between Dominion and PJM Group.
    Filed Date: 06/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090604-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 24, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. There is an eSubscription
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13695 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P