[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11706-11712]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04431]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74384; File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change
Consisting of Proposed Amendments to MSRB Rules G-1, on Separately
Identifiable Department or Division of a Bank; G-2, on Standards of
Professional Qualification; G-3, on Professional Qualification
Requirements; and D-13, on Municipal Advisory Activities

February 26, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On November 18, 2014, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of proposed
amendments to MSRB Rules G-1, on separately identifiable department or
division of a bank; G-2, on standards of professional qualification; G-
3, on professional qualification requirements; and D-13, on municipal
advisory activities (the ``proposed rule change''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 5,
2014.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73708 (December 1,
2014), 79 FR 72225 (December 5, 2014) (the ``Proposing Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On February 5, 2015, the MSRB submitted a response to the
comments on the proposed rule change \5\ and filed Amendment No. 1
(``Amendment No. 1'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letters from Anonymous, dated December 25, 2014; Leslie
M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
dated December 26, 2014 (``SIFMA Letter''); Anonymous Attorney, on
behalf of a registered investment advisor and municipal advisor
(``Anonymous Attorney''), dated December 26, 2014 (``Anonymous
Letter''); Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel, Investment
Company Institute (``ICI''), dated December 29, 2014 (``ICI
Letter''); and Terri Heaton, President, National Association of
Municipal Advisors (``NAMA''), dated January 27, 2015 (``NAMA Letter
No. 1'').
    \5\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Lawrence P.
Sandor, Deputy General Counsel, MSRB, dated February 5, 2015 (``MSRB
Response Letter No. 1'').
    \6\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Lawrence P.
Sandor, Deputy General Counsel, MSRB, dated February 5, 2015.
Amendment No. 1 partially amends the text of the proposed rule
change to revise Rules G-1(a)(ii)(B), G-3(a)(i)(A)(2) and G-
3(b)(i)(B) by deleting the following clause: ``Except to the extent
a person must be qualified as a municipal advisor representative to
perform such services.'' The MSRB believes that it would be
premature to include such clause until certain foundational rules
regarding municipal advisors are approved and effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters on Amendment No. 1.\7\
On February 20, 2015, the MSRB submitted a response to the comments on
Amendment No.1.\8\ On February 25, 2015, the MSRB submitted Amendment
No. 2 (``Amendment No. 2'' and together with Amendment No. 1, the
``Amendments'').\9\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the Amendments from interested persons and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by the Amendments, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letters from Dave A. Sanchez Attorney at Law
(``Sanchez''), dated February 12, 2015 (``Sanchez Letter''); and
Terri Heaton, President, NAMA, dated February 12, 2015 (``NAMA
Letter No. 2'').
    \8\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Lawrence P.
Sandor, Deputy General Counsel, MSRB, dated February 20, 2015
(``MSRB Response Letter No. 2'' and together with MSRB Response
Letter No. 1, the ``MSRB Response Letters'').
    \9\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Michael Cowart,
Assistant General Counsel, MSRB, dated February 25, 2015. Amendment
No. 2 partially amends Amendment No. 1 to correct a technical error
in a quotation of rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    According to the MSRB, the purpose of the proposed rule change is
to establish professional qualification requirements for municipal
advisors and their associated persons and to make related changes to
select MSRB rules.\10\ A full description of the proposed rule change
is contained in the Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 3 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Proposed Amendments to Rule G-1

    The proposed amendments to Rule G-1 includes language to provide
that, for purposes of its municipal advisory activities, the term
``separately identifiable department or division of a bank'' would have
the same meaning as used in 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(d)(4).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exhibit 5 of the Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Amendments to Rule G-2

    The proposed amendments to Rule G-2 add a basic requirement that no
municipal advisor shall engage in municipal advisory activities unless
such municipal advisor and every natural person associated with such
municipal advisor is qualified in accordance with the rules of the
Board.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Amendments to Rule G-3

Apprenticeship
    MSRB Rule G-3 currently requires a municipal securities
representative to serve an apprenticeship period of 90 days before
transacting business with any member of the public or receiving
compensation for such activities.\13\ The MSRB believes that dealers
and municipal advisors should determine the length and nature of the
initial training for newly registered persons, consistent with industry
feedback and the approach taken by Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'').\14\ Accordingly, the proposed amendments to Rule
G-3 eliminate the apprenticeship requirement for municipal securities
representatives and, similarly, do not propose an apprenticeship
requirement for municipal advisor representatives.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 3 at 9.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Registration Classifications
    The proposed amendments to Rule G-3 create two new registration
classifications: (i) Municipal advisor representative; and (ii)
municipal advisor principal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule G-3 define a ``municipal advisor
representative'' as a natural person associated with a municipal
advisor who engages in municipal advisory activities on the municipal
advisor's behalf, other than a person performing only clerical,
administrative, support or similar functions.\17\ The proposed
amendments to Rule G-3 require each municipal advisor representative to
take and pass the Municipal Advisor

Representative Qualification Examination prior to being qualified as a
municipal advisor representative.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule G-3 define a ``municipal advisor
principal'' as a natural person associated with a municipal advisor who
is qualified as a municipal advisor representative and is directly
engaged in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal
advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated
persons.\19\ The proposed amendments to Rule G-3 require each municipal
advisor to designate at least one municipal advisor principal.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed amendments to Rule G-3 require any person
who ceases to be associated with a municipal advisor for two or more
years (at any time after having qualified as a municipal advisor
representative) to take and pass the Municipal Advisor Representative
Qualification Examination prior to being qualified as a municipal
advisor representative, unless a waiver is granted.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSRB Waiver
    The proposed amendments to Rule G-3 and the Supplementary Material
permit the MSRB to consider waiving the requirement that a municipal
advisor representative or municipal advisor principal pass the
Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification Examination in
extraordinary cases: (1) Where the applicant participated in the
development of the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination as a member of the MSRB's Professional Qualifications
Advisory Committee (``PQAC''); or (2) where the applicant previously
qualified as a municipal advisor representative by passing the
Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification Examination and such
qualification lapsed pursuant to Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Proposed Amendments to Rule D-13

    Currently, Rule D-13 defines municipal advisory activities as the
activities described in Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the
Act.\23\ The proposed amendments to Rule D-13 incorporate Commission
rules into the definition by providing that the term ``municipal
advisory activities'' means, except as otherwise specifically provided
by rule of the Board, the activities described in Section
15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 3 at 5.
    \24\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Technical Amendments

    The proposed rule change would also make minor technical amendments
to select MSRB rules, such as amending Rule G-3(a)(ii) to correctly re-
letter G-3(a)(ii)(D) as G-3(a)(ii)(C).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Effective Date

    The MSRB requested that the proposed rule change become effective
60 days following the date of Commission approval.\26\ The MSRB stated
that the effective date of the Municipal Advisor Representative
Qualification Examination will be announced by the MSRB with at least
30 days notice.\27\ The MSRB further stated that prospective municipal
advisor representatives will have one year from the effective date of
the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification Examination to pass
such examination.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 3 at 10.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB's Response

    The Commission received five comment letters in response to the
proposed rule change (four of which provide substantive comments) and
two comment letters in response to Amendment No. 1.\29\ The Commission
received MSRB Response Letter No. 1 in response to comments regarding
the proposed rule change and MSRB Response Letter No. 2 in response to
comments regarding Amendment No. 1.\30\ A full description of the
comments, MSRB responses, and amendments are contained in the comment
letters, the MSRB Response Letters, and the Amendments, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra notes 4 and 7.
    \30\ See supra notes 5 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SIFMA Letter

Professional Qualifications Examination
    SIFMA believes that persons currently qualified to perform
municipal securities activities should also be qualified to perform
municipal advisor activities.\31\ In other words, SIFMA believes that
after the effective date of the proposed rule change, the Series 52
qualification examination should be sufficient for both municipal
securities representatives and municipal advisor representatives.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See SIFMA Letter at 2.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the new regulatory regime for municipal advisors and the
differences in the roles of municipal advisor and securities
professionals, the MSRB does not believe the Series 52 examination (or
the general securities representative examination that qualified
municipal securities representatives before November 7, 2011) would
sufficiently determine whether a municipal advisor professional meets a
minimal level of competency to engage in municipal advisory
activities.\33\ The MSRB stated that the focus of the Series 52
examination is not on municipal advisory activities.\34\ The MSRB
further stated that the questions being developed for the Municipal
Advisor Representative Qualification Examination target the job
responsibilities of municipal advisor professionals.\35\ The MSRB noted
that the roles and job responsibilities of municipal advisor
representatives and municipal securities representatives are distinct,
and the body of law that applies to each type of professional reflects
the differences in such roles and responsibilities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 3.
    \34\ Id. at 3-4.
    \35\ Id. at 4.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA is concerned that development of a new qualification
examination would take an additional two to three years.\37\ SIFMA
states that because the Series 52 examination currently exists there
would be no unnecessary delay in developing test material and
administering the test, thereby avoiding an unnecessary delay in
testing.\38\ SIFMA also contends it would be faster and more cost
efficient for municipal advisor professionals to take the Series 52
examination.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \38\ Id. at 4.
    \39\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB does not agree with SIFMA's assertion that developing a
new qualification examination would take an additional two to three
years.\40\ The MSRB stated that PQAC has been working expeditiously in
developing the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination.\41\ The MSRB also reiterated its position that it does not
believe the Series 52 examination would test the basic competency of
municipal advisor professionals.\42\ The MSRB believes that while it is
hard to dispute that using an existing exam would be faster and less
costly, such an approach would fail to demonstrate basic competency of
municipal advisor

professionals to engage in municipal advisory activities.\43\ The MSRB
stated that the costs, timing, and efficiency of the proposed rule
change should only be appropriately compared to reasonable regulatory
alternative--a criterion the Series 52 examination does not meet.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 4.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id. 4-5.
    \44\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA suggests that developing a separate test for municipal
advisor professionals is an inefficient process and unfairly burdens
the large percentage of municipal advisor professionals who are
associated with municipal securities dealers.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See SIFMA Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB does not believe that such individuals would be unfairly
burdened by a new test.\46\ To the contrary, the MSRB believes that
failing to develop a separate test for municipal advisor professionals
could place individuals not associated with dealers at a competitive
disadvantage and could result in an undue burden on small municipal
advisors.\47\ The MSRB stated that the market for municipal advisory
services is separate and distinct from the market for the services of
municipal securities brokers and dealers and, as such, it is both
appropriate and reasonable that all professionals providing municipal
advisory services should be evaluated according to identical criteria,
regardless of the status of their employer.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 5.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grandfathering Current Municipal Securities Representatives
    SIFMA suggests that if the MSRB decides to continue with the
development of a new test for qualification as a municipal advisor
representative, then associated persons currently qualified as
municipal securities representatives should be grandfathered in as
municipal advisor representatives, if they so choose.\49\ SIFMA
believes that this methodology would be consistent with other major
changes to qualifications examinations.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See SIFMA Letter at 5.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by reiterating its view that grandfathering
would be inconsistent with the intent of Congress.\51\ The MSRB
believes that requiring municipal advisor professionals to take and
pass a basic qualification examination ensures that these individuals
possess a minimum level of understanding of the role and
responsibilities of municipal advisors and the applicable rules and
regulations.\52\ The MSRB stated that investors, municipal entities,
and the general public will be better served by a regulatory regime
that requires all municipal advisor professionals to pass the same
basic competency test.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 5.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Analysis
    SIFMA believes that the cost-benefit analysis contained in in the
Proposing Release was inadequate.\54\ SIFMA suggests that the MSRB
conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule change prior
to its approval.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See SIFMA Letter at 6.
    \55\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by stating that it considered the costs and
benefits of the proposed rule change and even utilized the cost
estimate per individual test taker provided by SIFMA in determining the
likely initial cost to the industry and the likely ongoing expense.\56\
The MSRB also refined its estimate of the initial cost based on the
number of Form MA-Is filed with the SEC by registered municipal
advisors (as of January 20, 2015), which the MSRB stated is not
materially different from the cost estimate used in its economic
analysis.\57\ The MSRB believes its economic analysis was sound and
that no further analysis is warranted.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 6.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Education Requirement for Municipal Advisor Representatives
    SIFMA suggests that the MSRB develop continuing education
requirements for municipal advisor representatives.\59\ SIFMA believes
this concern was not addressed by the proposed rule change.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See SIFMA Letter at 6.
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by stating that such suggestion is not relevant
to the proposed rule change.\61\ The MSRB noted that the Act requires
the MSRB to provide continuing education requirements for municipal
advisors and it will likely consider rulemaking on this topic in the
near future.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 6.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PQAC Nomination Process
    SIFMA and its members believe that the process for nomination to
the MSRB's PQAC should be fully transparent and the members of PQAC
should be listed on the MSRB's Web site.\63\ Also, SIFMA further states
that it is in the best interest of every industry member to ensure that
the test questions that are developed are fair, even-handed and
suitable for a basic competency examination.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See SIFMA Letter at 6.
    \64\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that it understands the concern raised by SIFMA and
believes that its examinations are developed in a fair, even-handed and
suitable manner.\65\ The MSRB stated it contemplated publishing the
names of PQAC members but is concerned that such transparency will
undermine the test development process.\66\ The MSRB believes that it
is not appropriate to publish the names of PQAC members given the
importance of confidentiality and the integrity of the process.\67\ The
MSRB further stated that it contracts with an external testing
professional to ensure the overall integrity of the test development
process, including the selection of PQAC members, is fair and in
accordance with accepted standards for professional test
development.\68\ Nevertheless, the MSRB stated that it will consider
providing more information about the selection process and the criteria
used by the MSRB to select PQAC members.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 6.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id. at 7.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ICI Letter

    ICI recommends that the MSRB reconsider its current approach to
develop only one examination for representatives because such approach
will result in use of an examination that does not sufficiently test
competencies relevant to the advisory representative's business and is
inconsistent with the approach taken by other self-regulatory
organizations.\70\ ICI suggests that the MSRB utilize at least two
examinations--one for representatives of a municipal advisor whose
advisory activities are limited to municipal fund securities, and one
for representatives whose advice is limited to municipal securities
other than municipal fund securities.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See ICI Letter at 2.
    \71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by stating that it believes that individuals who
engage in municipal advisory activities regarding municipal fund
securities should demonstrate knowledge of all of the rules and
regulations governing municipal advisors.\72\ The MSRB stated that
these rules and regulations

generally will apply to all municipal advisors, regardless of the
product that is the subject of the advice provided.\73\ As such, the
MSRB believes that all municipal advisors should have knowledge of the
regulatory framework and the basic obligations of municipal
advisors.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 7.
    \73\ Id.
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICI stated that it recognizes its recommendation of two
examinations may impose additional burdens, however, ICI believes such
approach is consistent with the manner in which self-regulatory
organizations have long implemented examination requirements.\75\ ICI
further stated that there is a long-standing self-regulatory
organization practice of developing discrete examinations based on the
nature of the business conducted.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See ICI Letter at 3-4.
    \76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by noting that self-regulatory organizations
have developed a number of qualification examinations; however, most of
these examinations are focused on the role of the investment
professional, such as compliance officer (Series 14), investment
adviser (Series 65), operations professional (Series 99), research
analyst (Series 86 and 87), equity trader (Series 55), financial and
operations principal (Series 27), general securities principal (Series
24), general securities sales supervisor (Series 9 and 10), and general
securities representative (Series 7).\77\ The MSRB stated that for each
of these examinations, a test taker may be required to demonstrate
knowledge of a variety of products, consistent with the role of the
individual; even where an examination is limited a candidate is
expected to be familiar with a variety of products.\78\ Consequently,
the MSRB believes its approach to the Municipal Advisor Representative
Qualification Examination is consistent with its prior practice and the
practice of other self-regulatory organizations.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See MSRB Response Letter at 7-8.
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Anonymous Letter

    Anonymous Attorney believes that individuals who are Chartered
Financial Analyst (``CFA'') charterholders should be exempt from the
proposed Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification Examination
requirement in the manner suggested by the CFA Institute (``CFAI'') in
the CFAI's response to MSRB Regulatory Notice 2014-08.\80\ CFAI
proposed that the examination requirement be constructed in a modular
fashion with one component focusing on the knowledge of business and
the second component devoted to the rules and regulations of the
municipal securities market.\81\ CFAI also requested that CFA
charterholders be granted a waiver from the examination component
focusing on the knowledge of business.\82\ Anonymous Attorney believes
that separating the examination into two modules can be undertaken with
minimal effort.\83\ Anonymous Attorney also stated that the examination
requirement is burdensome and concluded that such examination could
drive some CFA charterholders out of the municipal advisory
business.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See Anonymous Letter No. 1 at 1.
    \81\ Id.
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Id. at 2.
    \84\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that it recognizes the requirements established by
CFAI for CFA charterholders and understands that fixed income
securities are covered on its examinations.\85\ However, the MSRB
explained that the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination will focus on the role and responsibilities of municipal
advisor professionals and the rules and regulations governing their
conduct.\86\ The MSRB highlighted that the Municipal Advisor
Representative Qualification Examination will not solely test a
candidate's knowledge of municipal securities.\87\ In addition, the
MSRB stated that Anonymous Attorney has not provided any evidence that
the CFA examinations (Levels I, II or III) test an individual's
knowledge of the role and responsibilities of a municipal advisor.\88\
The MSRB believes the assertion that CFA charterholders may be driven
out of the market because of the new test is purely speculative.\89\
The MSRB further stated that Anonymous Attorney offers no information
regarding the number of CFA charterholders that are engaged in
municipal advisory activities or why they would be in any different
position than individuals who passed other qualification
examinations.\90\ Given that the costs and time associated with
receiving and maintaining a CFA charter exceed any reasonable estimate
of the costs to complete a new municipal advisor examination, the MSRB
stated its expectation that the new exam would add only marginally to a
CFA charterholder's professional qualification expenses.\91\ For the
foregoing reasons, the MSRB does not believe that a modular examination
for municipal advisor professionals would be appropriate.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 8.
    \86\ Id.
    \87\ Id.
    \88\ Id.
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ Id.
    \91\ Id. at 8-9.
    \92\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. NAMA Letter No. 1

    NAMA supports the efforts of the MSRB to set professional
qualification standards for municipal advisor professionals.\93\ NAMA
believes the MSRB has taken the most cost-effective approach at this
time.\94\ Additionally, NAMA supports the decision by the MSRB to have
a uniform competency requirement for all persons deemed to be municipal
advisor representatives regardless of whether such persons have passed
other examinations (such as the Series 52 or Series 7
examinations).\95\ Consistent with the proposed rule change, NAMA does
not believe that the MSRB should grandfather individuals who have
passed such examinations.\96\ NAMA suggests, however, that the MSRB
continue to evaluate the feasibility and wisdom of supplemental or
targeted subject matter examinations.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See NAMA Letter No. 1 at 1.
    \94\ Id. at 2.
    \95\ Id. at 1.
    \96\ Id. at 2.
    \97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB does not believe that a supplemental or targeted subject
area examination approach is appropriate.\98\ The MSRB believes it has
a demonstrated commitment to seeking ways to improve regulatory
efficiency generally and would be open to assessing alternative
approaches to the assessment of professional qualifications once the
municipal advisor regulatory framework is fully implemented.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 1 at 9.
    \99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Sanchez Letter and NAMA Letter No. 2

    Sanchez expressed concern that Amendment No. 1 will effectively
create an exemption for municipal securities representatives who engage
in financial advisory and consultant services for issuers in connection
with the issuance of municipal securities (the ``subject activity'')
from having to pass the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination to qualify as municipal advisor representatives.\100\
Similarly, NAMA expressed concern that Amendment No. 1 would provide
municipal securities representatives

who engage in the subject activity an exemption from having to pass the
Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification Examination because the
subject activity would be considered municipal securities
representative activity.\101\ NAMA also stated that Amendment No. 1
expands the definition of municipal advisory activity, as provided by
the Act and Commission rules, because it appears to allow dealers and
bank dealers to engage in municipal advisory activity without proper
registration.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Sanchez Letter at 1.
    \101\ See NAMA Letter No. 2 at 1.
    \102\ Id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by clarifying that Amendment No. 1 would not
have the effect of limiting, and was not intended to limit, the
applicability of the municipal advisor regulatory regime, including
MSRB rules governing the municipal advisory activities of municipal
advisors, or to alter the definition of municipal advisory
activities.\103\ The MSRB noted that the determination of whether an
individual is engaged in municipal advisory activities is based on the
scope of the individual's activities, and not the individual's
status.\104\ The MSRB stated that due to such principle, a dealer and
its associated persons could simultaneously be subject to MSRB rules
applicable to dealers and MSRB rules applicable to municipal
advisors.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 2 at 2.
    \104\ Id.
    \105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that Amendment No. 1 would retain the current
language in the MSRB professional qualification rules to prevent any
confusion regarding the application of MSRB rules governing dealers to
the financial advisory activities of municipal securities
representatives while MSRB rules governing municipal advisors are
developed and implemented and until the MSRB makes any future
determinations regarding the application of such rules.\106\ The MSRB
further stated that any individual engaged in or supervising municipal
advisory activities must comply with the professional qualification
requirements for municipal advisor representatives, which will include
at a future date the taking and passing of the Municipal Advisor
Representative Qualification Examination.\107\ The MSRB also
represented that Amendment No. 1 has no bearing on the definition of
municipal advisory activities.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Id.
    \107\ Id. at 2-3.
    \108\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
as modified by the Amendments, as well as the comments received, and
the responses by the MSRB to such comments. The Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
    In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act, which provides that
the MSRB's rules shall provide that no municipal securities broker or
municipal securities dealer shall effect any transaction in, or induce
or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any municipal security,
and no broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal
advisor shall provide advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or
obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the
issuance of municipal securities, unless . . . such municipal
securities broker or municipal securities dealer and every natural
person associated with such municipal securities broker or municipal
securities dealer meet such standards of training, experience,
competence, and such other qualifications as the Board finds necessary
or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors and municipal entities or obligated persons.\109\ Section
15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act also provides that, in connection with the
definition and application of such standards, the MSRB may
appropriately classify municipal advisors and their associated persons,
specify that all or any portion of such standards shall be applicable
to any such class, and require persons in any such class to pass an
examination regarding such standards of competence.\110\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act because the proposed rule change requires
individuals who engage in or supervise municipal advisory activities to
pass a professional qualification examination which is an established
means for determining the basic competency of individuals in a
particular class. The Commission believes that requiring prospective
municipal advisor representatives to pass a basic qualification
examination will protect investors, municipal entities, and obligated
persons by ensuring such representatives have a basic understanding of
the role of a municipal advisor representative and the rules and
regulations governing such individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act provides that
the MSRB's rules shall provide professional standards with respect to
municipal advisors.\111\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act because
it would establish professional standards for those individuals engaged
in or supervising municipal advisory activities by requiring such
individuals to demonstrate a basic competency regarding the role of
municipal advisor representatives and the rules and regulations
governing the conduct of such persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act requires that MSRB rules not
impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is not
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection
of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons, provided that
there is robust protection of investors against fraud.\112\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act. While the proposed rule change
would affect all municipal advisors, including small municipal
advisors, it is a necessary and appropriate regulatory burden in order
to establish the baseline competence of those individuals engaged in
municipal advisory activities. Establishing a baseline competence is
necessary for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and
obligated persons. The Commission also believes such baseline
competence is in the public interest because it promotes compliance
with the rules and regulations governing the conduct of municipal
advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.\113\ The Commission believes that
the proposed rule change includes accommodations that help promote
efficiency. Specifically, the MSRB has provided a one-year grace period
for passing the examination. As noted by the MSRB, the grace period
provides

municipal advisor representatives with sufficient time to study and
take the examination without causing an undue disruption to the
business of the municipal advisor. The Commission does not believe that
the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
since it would apply equally to all municipal advisor representatives
who engage in municipal advisory activities. Furthermore, the
Commission believes that the potential burdens created by the proposed
rule change are to be likely outweighed by the benefits of establishing
baseline professional qualification standards and promoting compliance
with the rules and regulations governing the conduct of municipal
advisors. The Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule
change and notes that the record does not contain any information to
indicate that the proposed rule change would have a negative effect on
capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received five comment letters on the
proposed rule change and two comment letters on Amendment No. 1. The
Commission believes that the MSRB considered carefully and responded
adequately to the comments and concerns regarding the proposed rule
change and Amendment No. 1. For the reasons noted above, including
those discussed in the Amendments and the MSRB Response Letters, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended by the
Amendments, is consistent with the Act.

V. Solicitation of Comments on the Amendments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Amendments to
the proposed rule change are 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2014-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2014-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 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-2014-08 and should be
submitted on or before March 25, 2015.

VI. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change as Modified by the
Amendments

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended by the Amendments, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 1
partially amends the text of the proposed rule change to revise Rules
G-1(a)(ii)(B), G-3(a)(i)(A)(2), and G-3(b)(i)(B) by deleting the
following clause: ``Except to the extent a person must be qualified as
a municipal advisor representative to perform such services.'' \114\
Amendment No. 2 partially amends Amendment No. 1 to correct a technical
error in a quotation of rule text.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See supra note 6.
    \115\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes Amendment No. 1 will clarify and ensure that
municipal securities representatives or principals who engage in the
subject activity remain covered by applicable dealer regulations until
such time as the MSRB may determine that such activities are
appropriately covered by the developing municipal advisor regulatory
framework.\116\ The MSRB believes Amendment No. 2 would make a mere
technical correction.\117\ The MSRB does not believe Amendment No. 2
raises significant new issues or alters the substance of the proposed
rule change.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See supra note 6.
    \117\ See supra note 9.
    \118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, Sanchez and NAMA expressed concern that
Amendment No. 1 will effectively provide an exemption for currently
qualified municipal securities representative from having to take and
pass the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination.\119\ NAMA also believes that the Amendment No. 1 expands
the definition of municipal advisory activity because it appears to
allow dealers and bank dealers to engage in municipal advisory activity
without proper registration.\120\ The MSRB responded by clarifying that
Amendment No. 1 would not have the effect of limiting, and was not
intended to limit, the applicability of the municipal advisor
regulatory regime, including MSRB rules governing the municipal
advisory activities of municipal advisors, or to alter the definition
of municipal advisory activities.\121\ According to the MSRB, Amendment
No. 1 would retain the current language in the MSRB professional
qualification rules to prevent any confusion regarding the application
of MSRB rules governing dealers to the financial advisory activities of
municipal securities representatives while MSRB rules governing
municipal advisors are developed and implemented.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See supra note 7.
    \120\ See NAMA Letter No. 2 at 1-2.
    \121\ See MSRB Response Letter No. 2 at 2.
    \122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the revisions in Amendment No. 1 are
being made to address the perception of a regulatory gap and are
consistent with the purpose of the proposed rule change. The Commission
believes that the revision in Amendment No. 2 is being made to correct
a technical error. The Commission does not believe the revisions
included in the Amendments raise significant new issues or alter the
substance of the proposed rule change because the proposed rule change
will retain the current rule language in Rules G-1(a)(ii)(B), G-
3(a)(i)(A)(2), and G-3(b)(i)(B). Accordingly, the Commission finds good
cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by

the Amendments, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\123\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2014-08), as modified
by the Amendments, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-04431 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 22455]
[DOCID:fr25ap08-137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2008-16]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking
relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this
notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in,
this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0394 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Docket: To read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will post all comments we receive,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Frances Shaver<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0394.
    Petitioner: James Whitehurst.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  103.1(d).
    Description of Relief Sought: To permit Mr. James Whitehurst to
operate his unpowered ultralight glider at a weight more than 155
pounds to allow for the addition of a pilot safety device.

 [FR Doc. E8-9061 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Memorandum

Subject:		Telephone conversation between Nathan Topham, USEPA and Mark 				DeLaquil, Baker Hostetler

Date:			April 3, 2013

Participants:	 	Nathan Topham, U.S. EPA 			Mark DeLaquil, Baker Hostetler

On April 3, 2013, a telephone conversation took place between Nathan Topham and Mark DeLaquil.  Mr. Topham and Mr. DeLaquil discussed follow-up questions posed by Mr. Topham following a meeting between representatives of US EPA, Baker Hostetler, and East Penn that took place the morning of April 3, 2013.

The April 3, 2013 meeting is summarized in a separate memorandum included in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. East Penn requested the meeting to present information to US EPA related to East Penn's planned submission of a request for an alternative standard pursuant to CAA section 112(h)(3).

Mr. Topham asked if providing facilities discretion to choose which wall of a total enclosure to define as the "windward wall" would provide sufficient flexibility to resolve East Penn's uncertainty regarding placement of pressure monitors discussed when the parties met on April 3[rd]. Mr. Topham explained that the choice of windward wall would be added to the mandatory recordkeeping requirements and that this only applies when a totally enclosed area is inside of or a part of a larger structure shielding the enclosed area from the effects of ambient wind.

Mr. Topham also asked, "If US EPA provided clarification that a 15-minute averaging time for differential pressure monitoring data was intended in the 2012 final rule, would East Penn's concern related to demonstrating negative pressure inside of total enclosures be resolved?".

Mr. DeLaquil informed Mr. Topham that he would confer with his clients and follow up with US EPA after East Penn had considered EPA's questions.


USEPA 2002e 1 Metal already regulated under Part 503. Page 1 of 11 The following table presents the human health benchmarks that were identified for potential constituents in biosolids1.

Human health benchmarks for potential constituents in biosolids.

Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Acenaphthene 83 32 9 PAH 6.0E 02 I Acetaldehyde 75 07 0 odor 9.0E 03 I 2.2E 06 I 7.7E 03 calc Acetophenone 98 86 2 pharm 1.0E 01 I Aldrin 309 00 2 pest 3.0E 05 I 1.7E+ 01 I 4.9E 03 I 1.7E+ 01 calc Aluminum 7429 90 5 metal 2.0E+ 00 A intermediate MRL Ammonia 7664 41 7 odor 9.7E 01 H 1.0E 01 I RfD= 34 mg/ L Anthracene 120 12 7 PAH 3.0E 01 I Antimony 7440 36 0 metal 4.0E 04 I Antimony trioxide 1309 64 4 metal 4.0E 04 H 2.0E 04 I Arochlor 1016 12674 11 2 PCB 7.0E 05 I Arochlor 1254 11097 69 1 PCB 2.0E 05 I Arsenic, inorganic1 7440 38 2 metal 3.0E 04 I 3.0E 05 C00 1.5E+ 00 I 4.3E 03 I 1.5E+ 01 calc Barium 7440 39 3 metal 7.0E 02 I 5.0E 04 H Benz( a) anthracene 56 55 3 PAH 0.1 E93 BAP Benzenethiol ( thiophenol) 108 98 5 odor 1.0E 05 H Benzo( a) pyrene 50 32 8 PAH 7.3E+ 00 I 1 E93 BAP Benzo( b) fluoranthene 205 99 2 PAH 0.1 E93 BAP Benzo( j) fluoranthene 205 82 3 PAH 1.2E+ 00 C99b 1.1E 04 C99b 3.9E 01 C99b Benzo( k) fluoranthene 207 08 9 PAH 0.01 E93 BAP USEPA 2002e Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Page 2 of 11 Beryllium 7440 41 7 metal 2.0E 03 I 2.0E 05 I 2.4E 03 I 8.4E+ 00 calc Bidrin 141 66 2 pest 1.0E 04 I Biphenyl, 1,1 92 52 4 PBB 5.0E 02 I Bis( 2 ethylhexyl) phthalate ( DEHP; also di) 117 81 7 other 2.0E 02 I 1.0E 02 C99a 1.4E 02 I 2.4E 06 C99b 8.4E 03 C99b Bisphenol A 80 05 7 other 5.0E 02 I Boron 7440 42 8 metal 9.0E 02 I 2.0E 02 H Butanol, n ( n butyl alcohol) 71 36 3 odor 1.0E 01 I Cadmium1 7440 43 9 metal 5.0E 04 or 1.0E 03 I 2.0E 05 C00 1.8E 03 I 6.3E+ 00 calc RfD for water= 5E 4 &

RfD for food = 1E 3 mkd Captan 133 06 2 pest 1.3E 01 I 3.5E 03 H Carbaryl 63 25 2 other 1.0E 01 I Chlordane 57 74 9 pest 5.0E 04 I 7.0E 04 I 3.5E 01 I 1.0E 04 I 3.5E 01 calc Chlorfenvinphos 470 90 6 pest 7.0E 04 A Chlorine 7782 50 5 odor 1.0E 01 I 2.0E 04 C00 Chlorobenzilate 510 15 6 pest 2.0E 02 I 2.7E 01 H 7.8E 05 H 2.7E 01 H Chloronaphthalene, beta 91 58 7 chlorona p 8.0E 02 I Chlorpyrifos 2921 88 2 pest 3.0E 03 I Chromium ( III), insoluble salts1 16065 83 1 metal 1.5E+ 00 I Chromium ( VI) 1 18540 29 9 metal 3.0E 03 I 8E 6 or 1E 4 I 4.2E 01 C99b 1.2E 02 I 4.2E+ 01 calc Chromium ( VI)  chromic acid mists &

dissolved Cr aerosols1 18540 29 9 metal 8.0E 06 I Chromium ( VI)  Cr particulates1 18540 29 9 metal 1.0E 04 I Chrysene 218 01 9 PAH 0.001 E93 BAP Cobalt ( and cmpds) 7440 48 4 metal 2.0E 02 SF 2.0E 05 SF 2.8E 03 SF 9.8E+ 00 calc USEPA 2002e Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Page 3 of 11 Copper1 7440 50 8 metal * MCL only H Cresol, m ( 3 methylphenol) 108 39 4 odor 5.0E 02 I Cresol, p ( 4 methylphenol) 106 44 5 other 5.0E 03 H DDD ( p, p' dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) 72 54 8 pest 2.4E 01 I DDE ( p, p' dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) 72 55 9 pest 3.4E 01 I DDT ( p, p' dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) 50 29 3 pest 5.0E 04 I 3.4E 01 I 9.7E 05 I 3.4E 01 calc Decabromodiphenyl ether 1163 19 5 PBDE 1.0E 02 I Demeton 8065 48 3 pest 4.0E 05 I Di( 2 ethylhexyl) adipate 103 23 1 other 6.0E 01 I 1.2E 03 I Diallate 2303 16 4 pest 6.1E 02 H Diazinon 333 41 5 pest 9.0E 04 H 9.0E 03 A intermediate MRL Dibenz[ a, h] acridine 226 36 8 PAH 1.2E+ 00 C99b 1.1E 04 C99b 3.9E 01 C99b Dibenz[ a, j] acridine 224 42 0 PAH 1.2E+ 00 C99b 1.1E 04 C99b 3.9E 01 C99b Dibenzo( a, h) anthracene 53 70 3 PAH 1 E93 BAP Dibenzo[ a, e] pyrene 192 65 4 PAH 1.2E+ 01 C99b 1.1E 03 C99b 3.9E+ 00 C99b Dibenzo[ a, h] pyrene 189 64 0 PAH 1.2E+ 02 C99b 1.1E 02 C99b 3.9E+ 01 C99b Dibenzo[ a, i] pyrene 189 55 9 PAH 1.2E+ 02 C99b 1.1E 02 C99b 3.9E+ 01 C99b Dibenzo[ a, l] pyrene 191 30 0 PAH 1.2E+ 02 C99b 1.1E 02 C99b 3.9E+ 01 C99b Dibenzo[ c, g] carbazole, 7H 194 59 2 PAH 1.2E+ 01 C99b 1.1E 03 C99b 3.9E+ 00 C99b Dichlorobenzene, 1,4 106 46 7 odor 4.0E 01 A 8.0E 01 I 2.4E 02 H 1.1E 05 C99b 4.0E 02 C99b intermediate MRL Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4 ( 2,4

D) 94 75 7 pest 1.0E 02 I Dichlorvos 62 73 7 pest 5.0E 04 I 5.0E 04 I 2.9E 01 I Dieldrin 60 57 1 pest 5.0E 05 I 1.6E+ 01 I 4.6E 03 I 1.6E+ 01 calc USEPA 2002e Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Page 4 of 11 Diethyl phthalate 84 66 2 other 8.0E 01 I Diethylstilbestrol 56 53 1 DES 4.7E+ 03 H Dimethoate 60 51 5 pest 2.0E 04 I Dinitropyrene, 1,6 42397 64 8 PAH 1.2E+ 02 C99b 1.1E 02 C99b 3.9E+ 01 C99b Dinitropyrene, 1,8 42397 65 9 PAH 1.2E+ 01 C99b 1.1E 03 C99b 3.9E+ 00 C99b Dinoseb 88 85 7 pest 1.0E 03 I Disulfoton 298 04 4 pest 4.0E 05 I 2.0E 04 A intermediate MRL Endosulfan 115 29 7 pest 6.0E 03 I Endrin 72 20 8 pest 3.0E 04 I Ethion 563 12 2 pest 5.0E 04 I Ethyl p nitrophenyl phenylphosphorothioacetate 2104 64 5 pest 1.0E 05 I Fluoranthene 206 44 0 PAH 4.0E 02 I Fluorene 86 73 7 PAH 4.0E 02 I Heptachlor 76 44 8 pest 5.0E 04 I 4.5E+ 00 I 1.3E 03 I 4.6E+ 00 calc Heptachlor epoxide 1024 57 3 pest 1.3E 05 I 9.1E+ 00 I 2.6E 03 I 9.1E+ 00 calc Heptachlorobiphenyl, 2,2', 3,3', 4,4', 5

( PCB 170) 35065 30 6 PCB 0.0001 E98, W94 tcdd Heptachlorobiphenyl, 2,2', 3,4,4', 5,5'

( PCB 180) 35065 29 3 PCB 0.00001 E98, W94 tcdd Heptachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3', 4,4', 5,5'

( PCB 189) 39635 31 9 PCB 0.0001 W tcdd Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 67562 39 4 CDF 0.01 W tcdd Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 55673 89 7 CDF 0.01 W tcdd Heptachlorodibenzo p dioxin,

1,2,3,4,6,7,8 35822 46 9 CDD 0.01 W tcdd Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3', 4,4', 5 ( PCB 156) 38380 08 4 PCB 0.0005 W tcdd USEPA 2002e Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Page 5 of 11 Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3', 4,4', 5' ( PCB 157) 69782 90 7 PCB 0.0005 W tcdd Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3', 4,4', 5,5' ( PCB 167) 52663 72 6 PCB 0.00001 W tcdd Hexachlorobiphenyl, 3,3', 4,4', 5,5' ( PCB 169) 32774 16 6 PCB 0.01 W tcdd Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha 319 84 6 pest 8.0E 03 A 6.3E+ 00 I 1.8E 03 I 6.3E+ 00 calc Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta 319 85 7 pest 6.0E 04 A 1.8E+ 00 I 5.3E 04 I 1.9E+ 00 calc Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma

( lindane) 58 89 9 pest 3.0E 04 I 1.3E+ 00 H 3.1E 04 C99b 1.1E+ 00 C99b Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8 70648 26 9 CDF 0.1 W tcdd Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8 57117 44 9 CDF 0.1 W tcdd Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9 72918 21 9 CDF 0.1 W tcdd Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8 60851 34 5 CDF 0.1 W tcdd Hexachlorodibenzo p dioxin,

1,2,3,4,7,8 39227 28 6 CDD 0.1 W tcdd Hexachlorodibenzo p dioxin,

1,2,3,6,7,8 57653 85 7 CDD 0.1 W tcdd Hexachlorodibenzo p dioxin,

1,2,3,7,8,9 19408 74 3 CDD 0.1 W tcdd Hydrogen sulfide 7783 06 4 odor 3.0E 03 I 1.0E 03 I Ideno[ 1,2,3 cd] pyrene 193 39 5 PAH 0.1 E93 BAP Iodine 7553 56 2 metal 1.0E 02 A Lead and cmpds ( inorganic) 1 7439 92 1 metal 8.5E 03 C99b 1.2E 05 C99b 4.2E 02 C99b Malathion 121 75 5 pest 2.0E 02 I Manganese 7439 96 5 metal 1.4E 01 I 5.0E 05 I Mercuric chloride 7487 94 7 metal 3.0E 04 H 9.0E 05 C00 Mercury ( elemental) 1 7439 97 6 metal 3.0E 04 I USEPA 2002e Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Page 6 of 11 Methoxychlor 72 43 5 pest 5.0E 03 I Methyl mercury 22967 92 6 metal 1.0E 04 I Methyl parathion 298 00 0 pest 2.5E 04 I Methylchrysene, 5 3697 24 3 PAH 1.2E+ 01 C99b 1.1E 03 C99b 3.9E+ 00 C99b Mirex 2385 85 5 pest 2.0E 04 I Molybdenum1 7439 98 7 metal 5.0E 03 I Naled 300 76 5 pest 2.0E 03 I Naphthalene 91 20 3 PAH 2.0E 02 I 3.0E 03 I Nickel oxide1 1313 99 1 metal 1.0E 04 C00 Nickel, soluble salts1 7440 02 0 metal 2.0E 02 I 5.0E 05 C00 2.6E 04 C99b 9.1E 01 C99b Nitrochrysene, 6 7496 02 8 PAH 1.2E+ 02 C99b 1.1E 02 C99b 3.9E+ 01 C99b Nitrofluorene, 2 607 57 8 PAH 1.2E 01 C99b 1.1E 05 C99b 3.9E 02 C99b Nitropyrene, 1 5522 43 0 PAH 1.2E+ 00 C99b 1.1E 04 C99b 3.9E 01 C99b Nitropyrene, 4 57835 92 4 PAH 1.2E+ 00 C99b 1.1E 04 C99b 3.9E 01 C99b Octabromodiphenyl ether 32536 52 0 PBDE 3.0E 03 I Octachlorodibenzofuran,

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 39001 02 0 CDF 0.0001 W tcdd Octachlorodibenzo p dioxin,

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 3268 87 9 CDD 0.0001 W tcdd Parathion 56 38 2 pest 6.0E 03 H Pentabromodiphenyl ether 32534 81 9 PBDE 2.0E 03 I Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3', 4,4' ( PCB 105) 32598 14 4 PCB 0.0001 W tcdd Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,4,4', 5 ( PCB 114) 74472 37 0 PCB 0.0005 W tcdd Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3', 4,4', 5 ( PCB 118) 31508 00 6 PCB 0.0001 W tcdd USEPA 2002e Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Page 7 of 11 Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2', 3,4,4', 5 ( PCB 123) 65510 44 3 PCB 0.0001 W tcdd Pentachlorobiphenyl, 3,3', 4,4', 5 ( PCB 126) 57465 28 8 PCB 0.1 W tcdd Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8 57117 41 6 CDF 0.05 W tcdd Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8 57117 31 4 CDF 0.5 W tcdd Pentachlorodibenzo p dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8 40321 76 4 CDD 1 W tcdd Pentachloronitrobenzene 82 68 8 pest 3.0E 03 I 2.6E 01 H Phenol 108 95 2 other 3.0E 01 I Phorate 298 02 2 pest 2.0E 04 H Phosmet 732 11 6 pest 2.0E 02 I Phthalic anhydride 85 44 9 other 2.0E+ 00 I 2.0E 02 C00 Polybrominated biphenyls 67774 32 7 PBB 7.0E 06 H 8.9E+ 00 H Polychlorinated biphenyls 1336 36 3 PCB 2.0 ( food),

0.4 ( H2O) I 0.0001 ( evap congenr) I 2.0 ( dust,

aerosol),

0.4 ( evap c) calc Pyrene 129 00 0 PAH 3.0E 02 I Pyridine 110 86 1 odor 1.0E 03 I Selenium1 7782 49 2 metal 5.0E 03 I 2.0E 02 C00 Silver 7440 22 4 metal 5.0E 03 I Strontium 7440 24 6 metal 6.0E 01 I Sulfuric acid 7664 93 9 condition ing 1.0E 03 C00 TCDD, 2,3,7,8 1746 01 6 CDD 1.5E+ 05 H 3.3E+ 01 H 1.5E+ 05 H 1 W tcdd Terbufos 13071 79 9 pest 2.5E 05 H Tetrachlorobiphenyl, 3,3', 4,4' ( PCB 77) 32598 13 3 PCB 0.0001 W tcdd Tetrachlorobiphenyl, 3,4,4', 5 ( PCB 81) 70362 50 4 PCB 0.0001 W tcdd USEPA 2002e Constituent Name CASRN analyte group RfD ( mg/ kg d) RfD Ref RfC ( mg/ m3) RfC Ref CSFo ( per mg/ kg d) CSFo Ref URF ( per µ g/ m3) URF Ref CSFi ( per mg/ kg d) CSFi Ref TEF TEF Ref base Notes Page 8 of 11 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8 51207 31 9 CDF 0.1 W tcdd Tetrachloroethylene ( perchloroethylene) 127 18 4 other 1.0E 02 I 3.0E 01 A 5.2E 02 HAD 5.8E 07 HAD 2.0E 03 HAD RfC= 0.04 ppm Tetrachlorovinphos 961 11 5 pest 3.0E 02 I 2.4E 02 H Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate 3689 24 5 pest 5.0E 04 I Thallium ( I) chloride 7791 12 0 metal 8.0E 05 I Tin and compounds metal 6.0E 01 H Titanium tetrachloride 7550 45 0 metal 1.0E 04 A Toxaphene 8001 35 2 pest 1.1E+ 00 I 3.2E 04 I 1.1E+ 00 calc Trichloro 2 hydroxydiphenyl ether,

2,2,4 3380 34 5 other 4.0E+ 00 H Trichlorophenoxy) propionic acid, 2 ( 2,4,5 93 72 1 pest 8.0E 03 I Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4,5 93 76 5 pest 1.0E 02 I Triethylamine 121 44 8 odor 7.0E 03 I Trifluranlin 1582 09 8 pest 7.5E 03 I 7.7E 03 I Trimethyl phosphate 512 56 1 pest 3.7E 02 H Uranium, insoluble forms metal 8.0E 03 A intermediate MRL Uranium, soluble salts 7440 61 1 metal 3.0E 03 I 3.0E 04 A Vanadium 7440 62 2 metal 7.0E 03 H 7.0E 05 AC Warfarin 81 81 2 pharm 3.0E 04 I Zinc1 7440 66 6 metal 3.0E 01 I USEPA 2002e Page 9 of 11 Key to Table.

CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service registry number.

CSFi = Inhalation cancer slope factor.

CSFo = Oral cancer slope factor.

RfC = Reference concentration.

RfD = Reference dose.

TEF = Toxicity equivalency factor.

URF = Unit risk factor.

a Sources:

A = ATSDR MRLs ( ATSDR, 2002)

C99a = CalEPA chronic RELs ( CalEPA, 1999a)

C99b = CalEPA cancer potency factor ( CalEPA, 1999b)

C00 = CalEPA chronic RELs ( CalEPA, 2000)

E93 = EPA TEFs for PAHs ( U. S. EPA, 1993)

E98 = EPA TEFs for dioxins and furans ( U. S. EPA, 1998)

I = IRIS ( U. S. EPA, 2002)

H = HEAST ( U. S. EPA, 1997)

SF = Superfund Risk Issue Papers surr = surrogate W = World Health Organization TEFs ( Van den Berg et al., 1998). USEPA 2002e Page 10 of 11 References ATSDR ( Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2002. Minimal Risk Levels ( MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ mrls. html CalEPA ( California Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III. Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. SRP Draft. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online ( in two sections) at http:// www. oehha. org/ air/ chronic_ rels/ ragsii. html, http:// www. oehha. org/ air/ chronic_ rels/ RAGSp3draft. html.

CalEPA ( California Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part II. Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online at http:// www. oehha. org/ air/ cancer_ guide/ hsca2. html.

CalEPA ( California Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III. Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online ( in four sections) at http:// www. oehha. org/ air/ chronic_ rels/ 22RELS2k. html, http:// www. oehha. org/ air/ chronic_ rels/ 42kChREL. html, http:// www. oehha. org/ air/ chronic_ rels/ Jan2001ChREL. html, http:// www. oehha. org/ air/ chronic_ rels/ 1201Crels. html.

U. S. EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. EPA/ 600/ R 93 089. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.

U. S. EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables ( HEAST). EPA 540 R 97 036. FY 1997 Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.

U. S. EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. The U. S. EPA TEF Values. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ nceawww1/ dchem. htm U. S. EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo p Dioxin ( TCDD) and Related Compounds. Part I: Estimating Exposure to Dioxin Like Compounds. Volume 3: Properties, USEPA 2002e Page 11 of 11 Environmental Levels, and Background Exposures. EPA/ 600/ P 00/ 001Bc. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

U. S. EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Available online at http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/

Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A. T. C. Bosveld, et al. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors ( TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives 106: 775 792.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49741-49742]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER12-1155-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Notice of Effective Date--ER12-1155-000 to be
effective 8/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1734-000.
    Applicants: Plainfield Renewable Energy, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 20, 2013 Plainfield Renewable
Energy, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 8/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130806-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1865-001.
    Applicants: Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC.
    Description: Amended Application of Tesoro Refining and Marketing
Co LLC to be effective 7/30/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130806-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1991-001.
    Applicants: Desert Sunlight 250, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Desert Sunlight 250, LLC MBR Application
to be effective 7/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1992-001.
    Applicants: Desert Sunlight 300, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Desert Sunlight 300, LLC MBR Application
to be effective 7/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2118-000.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing--NedPower MBR Tariff Nuclear Waiver
to be effective 8/7/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130806-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2119-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Request of the New York Independent System Operator,
Inc. for a limited, one-time tariff waiver.
    Filed Date: 8/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130806-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2120-000.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro Electric Company.
    Description: Filing of E&P Agreement with First Wind to be
effective 8/8/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2121-000.
    Applicants: KASS Commodities.
    Description: KASS Commodities LLC Notice of Change in Status to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2122-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Fowler Ridge MBR Tariff Nuclear
Waiver to be effective 8/8/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.

    Accession Number: 20130807-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2123-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Revisions to Sch. 24 to Comply with Order 676-G
Compliance to be effective 10/7/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2124-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 08-07-13 RSG Allocation Improvements to be effective
10/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2125-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Second Revised Volume No. 12 to be effective 9/30/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130807-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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>.

    Dated: August 7, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19776 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 51297-51298]
[DOCID:fr02se08-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922; FRL-8704-1]

Draft Risk and Exposure Assessment Report for Nitrogen Dioxide
(NOX)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft report for public review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: On or about August 12, 2008, the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public
review and comment a draft document titled, Risk and Exposure
Assessment to Support the Review of the NO2 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard: Second Draft. This draft document has two
purposes: To convey the approaches taken to characterize exposures and
risks associated with ambient NO2, and to present the
results of these analyses.

DATES: Comments on the above reports must be received on or before
September 26, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0922, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0922.
     Fax: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922.
     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0922. The 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center home page at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Scott Jenkins, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (Mailcode C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which
``cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' The EPA then issues
air quality criteria for listed pollutants, which are commonly referred
to as ``criteria pollutants.'' The air quality criteria are to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.'' Under section
109 of the CAA, EPA establishes national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for each listed pollutant, with the NAAQS based on the air
quality criteria. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review
and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The
revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge
on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is
also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if
appropriate, based on the revised criteria.
    Air quality criteria have been established for the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and NAAQS have been established for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), an indicator for gaseous NOX. Presently,
EPA is in the process of reviewing the NAAQS for NO2. As
part of its review of the NAAQS, EPA is preparing an assessment of
exposures and health risks associated with ambient NO2. A
draft plan describing the proposed approaches to assessing exposures
and risks is described in the draft document, Nitrogen Dioxide Health
Assessment Plan: Scope and Methods for Exposure and Risk Assessment.
This document was released for public review and comment in September
2007 and was the subject of a consultation with the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on October 24 and 25, 2007.
Comments received from that consultation were considered in developing
the document titled, Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review
of the NO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: First Draft,
which was released for public review and comment in April 2008. This
document was the subject of a CASAC review on May 1 and 2, 2008.
Comments received from that review have been considered in developing
the document titled, Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review
of the NO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Second Draft,
which is being released at this time.
    This draft document is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_rea.html. It has two primary purposes:
To convey the approaches taken to characterize exposures and risks
associated with ambient NO2, and to present the results of
these analyses. The EPA has solicited advice and recommendations from
the CASAC by means of a review of the draft document at a public
meeting to be held on September 9-10, 2008 in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. A separate Federal Register notice will provide
additional details about this meeting and the process for
participation. In preparing a final risk and exposure assessment
report, EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and the
public at this upcoming meeting.

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Jennifer Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E8-20240 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P