[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 40893-40895]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58128; File No. SR-FICC-2007-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Applicant and
Member Disqualification Criteria

July 9, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on April 30, 2007, the Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change and on
February 7, 2008, and March 19, 2008, amended the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared substantially by FICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend FICC's Government Securities
Division's (``GSD'') and Mortgage Backed Securities Division's
(``MBSD'') (collectively, ``Divisions'') rules concerning applicant and
member disqualification criteria.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC 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

    The purpose of this filing is for FICC to amend GSD's and MBSD's
rules concerning applicant and member disqualification criteria in
order to make the Divisions' rules consistent with the rules of FICC's
affiliated clearing agencies, the National Securities Clearing
Corporation (``NSCC'') and The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''). The
proposed rule changes cover the following areas:
1. Management Consideration of Disqualification Criteria \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ GSD Rule 2A, Section 3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GSD's membership qualification rules currently require FICC's Board
of Directors to determine whether the presence of certain negative
factors affecting a membership application should constitute the basis
for denying membership to such applicant. Information that might
disqualify an applicant (referred to in GSD's rules as
``disqualification criteria'') include the applicant being subject to a
statutory disqualification \3\ or conviction of various crimes such as
bribery. The disqualification criteria in GSD's rules similarly apply
as standards for continued membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39) (definition of ``statutory
disqualification'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC proposes to change GSD's disqualification criteria to allow
FICC's management, instead of FICC's Board, to determine whether the
presence of a potential disqualifier should prevent an entity from
obtaining or continuing membership in GSD. Such change would conform to
the rules of MBSD, DTC, and NSCC, which allow such determinations to be
made by management.
2. Associated and Affiliated Persons
    GSD's and MBSD's respective rules also apply certain applicant and

member disqualification criteria to persons ``associated'' (in GSD's
rules) or ``affiliated'' (in MBSD's rules) with the applicant or member
firm. FICC states that it is not always practical for it to ascertain
which individuals are ``associated'' or ``affiliated'' with a
particular entity and therefore proposes to amend these rules to
conform them to its internal surveillance procedures and make them
consistent across both Divisions. Accordingly, references to persons
``associated'' or ``affiliated'' with the member or applicant would be
changed to references to ``controlling management,'' which will include
those officers of the applicant or member that are currently screened
by FICC's Risk Management department pursuant to internal
procedures.\4\ In addition, FICC proposes to add language to its rules
that would require applicants to inform FICC as to any member of its
controlling management that is or becomes subject to statutory
disqualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Proposed GSD Rule 1 and MBSD Article I (``The term
`controlling management' shall mean the Chief Executive Officer, the
Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Operations Officer, or their
equivalents, of an applicant of Participant.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Monitoring of Objective Disqualification Criteria
    Under the proposal, GSD's disqualification criteria would be
amended to reflect an approach that such criteria should be objectively
and practically monitored. Specifically, FICC proposes to delete one
disqualification criterion that refers to an applicant being subject to
``closer than normal'' surveillance by a regulatory body. FICC states
that this event might not be reported in a regulatory background check.
    In addition, MBSD's rules currently contain only two criteria that
may be the basis for denial of a membership application, including: (i)
An applicant's subjection to a statutory disqualification or similar
order by another examining authority and (ii) an applicant or an
associated person of the applicant making a misstatement of a material
fact in connection with its membership application or thereafter. MBSD
proposes to add GSD's remaining disqualification criteria, which would
result in the Divisions' having identical disqualification criteria.
    Finally, FICC proposes adding a provision to both Divisions' rules
that would clarify FICC's right to deny membership to an applicant or
member if FICC learns of any factor or circumstance that might impact
the suitability of that particular applicant or member as a
participant.
4. Additional Changes
    FICC proposes to make the following changes to provide additional
uniformity among the Divisions' rules, NSCC, and DTC:
     Adding to both Divisions' disqualification criteria
violations of the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers
Act,\5\ since those statutes apply to their current membership base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending GSD's definition of ``self-regulatory
organization'' to include those entities that are foreign equivalents.
The same definition for ``self-regulatory organization'' would be added
to MBSD's rules.
     Removing the word ``willful'' from both Divisions'
disqualification criteria concerning an applicant's or an applicant's
controlling management's violation of the specified federal statutes or
any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. FICC believes that a
violation of these provisions, whether or not willful, should be
considered as a potential disqualification criterion.
     Deleting references in GSD's rules to Section 153 of
Chapters 25 and 47 of Title 18 of the United States Code (``Code'')
because the crimes covered by these statutes (i.e., embezzlement,
forgery, false statements, etc.) are captured by the current
disqualification criteria. References to those portions of the Code
that deal with mail and wire fraud (Sections 1341, 1342 and 1343) would
remain. This provision, as proposed, would also be added to MBSD's
rules.
    Conforming changes would be made to the cease to act provisions of
GSD's rules (Rule 21, ``Restrictions on Access to Services'') in order
to ensure consistency within the rules and across the Divisions.
    FICC states that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because they provide consistency and
transparency with respect to the applicant and member disqualification
criteria in the GSD and MBSD rules, thereby promoting the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC believes that the proposed rule change does not impact or
impose any burden on competition.

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

    FICC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. FICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 No. SR-FICC-2007-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FICC-2007-04. 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 FICC's principal office and on FICC's Web
site at <http://ficc.com/gov/gov.docs.jsp?NS-query=#rf>. 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 No. SR-FICC-2007-04 and should be
submitted on or before August 6, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16230 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 67525-67526]
[DOCID:fr14no08-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0578]

Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee of the Pediatric
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Pediatric Advisory Committee on FDA, and certain
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 9,
2008, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Location: The Legacy Hotel & Meeting Centre, 1775 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Carlos Pe[ntilde]a, Office of Science and Health
Coordination, Office of the Commissioner (HF-33), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, rm. 14B-08),
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
8732310001. Please call the Information Line for up to date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On December 9, 2008, the Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee
(subcommittee) of the Pediatric Advisory Committee will meet to discuss
a referral by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) of a clinical
investigation that involves both an FDA regulated product and research
involving children as subjects that is conducted or supported by DHHS.
The clinical investigation is entitled ``Children's Oncology Group
Protocol ASCT0631: A Phase III Randomized Trial of Granulocyte Colony
Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Stimulated Bone Marrow vs. Conventional Bone
Marrow as a Stem Cell Source in Matched Sibling Donor
Transplantation.'' Because the clinical investigation would be
regulated by FDA, and conducted or supported by the DHHS, both FDA and
the Office for Human Research Protections, DHHS, will participate in
the meeting.
    After presentation of an overview of the IRB referral process,
background information on the use of G-CSF stimulated bone marrow in
stem cell transplantation, an overview of the protocol and the
referring IRB's deliberations on the protocol, and a summary of public
comments received concerning whether the protocol should proceed, the
subcommittee will discuss the proposed protocol and develop a
recommendation regarding whether the protocol should proceed. The
subcommittee's recommendation will then be presented to the FDA
Pediatric Advisory Committee on December 9, 2008; the announcement of
the December 9, 2008, Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting can be found
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2008 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the subcommittee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
December 2, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on December 9, 2008. Those
desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact

person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the
evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of
proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before November 24, 2008.
Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by November 25, 2008.
    Electronic comments should be submited to http://
www.regulations.gov. Select Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0578 entitled ``G-CSF
Stimulated Bone Marrow IRB Referral'' and follow the prompts to submit
your statement. Written comments should be submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Please submit comments by
4:30 p.m. on December 2, 2008. Received comments may be viewed at
http://www.regulations.govor may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Carlos Pe[ntilde]a
at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: November 5, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-27118 Filed 11-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

December 15, 2014

The Honorable Dana Aunkst

Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA  17105-2063

Dear Acting Secretary Aunkst:

On September 9, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP)
from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.  The SIP
revision requests redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, and
approval of the maintenance plan of the Allentown 2006 24-hour PM2.5
area.  EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and
technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Rose Quinto, Office of Air Program Planning, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  She is
the principal contact for this rulemaking.

	     Sincerely,

							/s/

David L. Arnold, Acting Director

                          			            Air Protection Division

cc:  Joyce E. Epps, Director, PADEP Bureau of Air Quality

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50706-50708]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0868; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-027-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Airplanes

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
certain SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes. 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:

    A TBM700 operator reported an occurrence where, as a result of
handling the standby compass lighting bulb cover in flight, both
essential bus bars (ESS BUS 1 and ESS BUS 2) failed, leading to loss
of a number of instruments and navigation systems.
    The technical investigations carried out by SOCATA have shown
that the cause of this occurrence was that the electrical protection
of some TBM 700 aeroplanes is insufficient to allow in-flight
handling of the standby compass lighting cover when energized.
    This condition, if not corrected, may compromise the ability of
the pilot to safely operate the aeroplane under certain flight
conditions due to the increase of workload.

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 September 30,
2011.

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.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
SOCATA--Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France;
telephone: +33 (0)5 62 41 73 00; fax: +33 (0)5 62 41 7-54; or in the
United States contact SOCATA North America, Inc., North Perry Airport,
7501 South Airport Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone:
(954) 893-1400; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.socatanorthamerica.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2011-0868;
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-027-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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2011-0130, dated July 8, 2011 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    A TBM700 operator reported an occurrence where, as a result of
handling the standby compass lighting bulb cover in flight, both
essential bus bars (ESS BUS 1 and ESS BUS 2) failed, leading to loss
of a number of instruments and navigation systems.
    The technical investigations carried out by SOCATA have shown
that the cause of this occurrence was that the electrical protection
of some TBM 700 aeroplanes is insufficient to allow in-flight
handling of the standby compass lighting cover when energized.
    This condition, if not corrected, may compromise the ability of
the pilot to safely operate the aeroplane under certain flight
conditions due to the increase of workload.
    To address this unsafe condition, SOCATA have developed a
modification which consists of installing a protection fuse on the
wire at the standby compass connector, introduced by SOCATA Service
Bulletin (SB) 70-192-34.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires installation
of a protection of the electrical wire at the standby compass
connector.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    DAHER-SOCATA has issued TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB

 70-192, dated April 2011. 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 124 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $350 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $53,940 or $435 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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:

SOCATA: Docket No. FAA-2011-0868; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-
027-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 30, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial
numbers 148, 434 through 572, 574, and 576, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 34:
Navigation.

Reason

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

    A TBM700 operator reported an occurrence where, as a result of
handling the standby compass lighting bulb cover in flight, both
essential bus bars (ESS BUS 1 and ESS BUS 2) failed, leading to loss
of a number of instruments and navigation systems.
    The technical investigations carried out by SOCATA have shown
that the cause of this occurrence was that the electrical protection
of some TBM 700 aeroplanes is insufficient to allow in-flight
handling of the standby compass lighting cover when energized.
    This condition, if not corrected, may compromise the ability of
the pilot to safely operate the aeroplane under certain flight
conditions due to the increase of workload.
    To address this unsafe condition, SOCATA have developed a
modification which consists of installing a protection fuse on the
wire at the standby compass connector, introduced by SOCATA Service
Bulletin (SB) 70-192-34.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires installation
of a protection of the electrical wire at the standby compass
connector.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 6 months after the effective
date of this AD, install a protection fuse on the wire at the
standby compass connector following the Accomplishment Instructions
in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-192,
dated April 2011.

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: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-

4090; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2011-0130, dated July 8, 2011; and DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft
Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-192, dated April 2011, for related
information. For service information related to this AD, contact
SOCATA--Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France;
telephone: +33 (0)5 62 41 73 00; fax: +33 (0)5 62 41 7-54; or in the
United States contact SOCATA North America, Inc., North Perry
Airport, 7501 South Airport Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.socatanorthamerica.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 9, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20820 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


securities, including a finder, must register as a broker-dealer unless
an exemption from registration is available. By contrast, while
solicitors may fall within the definition of ``investment adviser''
under the Advisers Act, the Commission has taken the position that a
solicitor who engages in solicitation activities in accordance with
Rule 206(4)-3(a)(2)(iii) is an associated person of an investment
adviser and is not required to register with the Commission as an
investment adviser solely as a result of those activities.\77\ An
investment adviser that uses a solicitor's services must treat the
solicitor as an associated person to the extent the solicitor acts as
such for the adviser, and the adviser has a responsibility to supervise
the solicitation activities.\78\ In addition, the Advisers Act
regulation focuses on disclosure to clients of the solicitor's material
conflicts of interest.\79\ We request data and other information on the
enhancement to meaningful investor protection as well as the benefits
and costs of harmonizing requirements relating to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Requirements Governing Payments of Cash Referral Fees by
Investment Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 688 (July
12, 1979).
    \78\ Id. An investment adviser's supervision obligations are
discussed below.
    \79\ For the staff's discussion regarding potential
harmonization of requirements related to the use of finders and
solicitors, see Study at 132-133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Harmonizing the existing regulatory requirements applicable to
finders and solicitors, generally.
    b. Establishing similar disclosure requirements regarding any
conflict associated with the solicitor's and finder's receipt of
compensation for referring a retail customer to an investment adviser
or broker-dealer?
    3. Supervision: Effective supervisory systems and control
procedures are important investor protection tools, as they can help
firms identify and prevent abusive practices. As the Study notes, while
both broker-dealers and investment advisers are required to supervise
persons that act on their behalf, broker-dealers are subject to more
specific supervisory requirements, including rules that expressly
require broker-dealers to, among other things, establish a supervisory
system, conduct periodic inspections of branch offices and supervise
outside business activities and private securities transactions of
associated persons.\80\ As discussed above, investment advisers are
also required to adopt compliance policies and procedures, which
generally would include policies and procedures for the supervision of
persons associated with an adviser.\81\ Further, the Advisers Act code
of ethics rules (Advisers Act Rule 204A-1) specifically requires, among
other things, that an investment adviser pre-approve acquisitions of
securities in any initial public offerings or in limited offerings by
certain of its investment advisory personnel. Investment advisers are
also required to disclose to clients certain material outside business
activities of their supervised persons.\82\ We request data and other
information on the enhancement to meaningful investor protection as
well as the benefits and costs of harmonizing requirements relating to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Existing broker-dealer supervisory obligations generally
require firms to, among other things, establish and maintain a
supervisory system for their business activities and to supervise
the activities of their registered representatives, principals and
other associated persons for purposes of achieving compliance with
applicable securities regulations, including the rules relating to
principal trades. See NASD Rule 3010. Moreover, broker-dealers are
required to ``establish procedures for the review and endorsement by
a registered principal in writing * * * of all transactions * * * of
its registered representatives with the public relating to the
investment banking or securities business of such member.'' NASD
Rule 3010(d)(1).
    \81\ See supra note 77.
    \82\ See Part 2A of Form ADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Harmonizing supervisory requirements of investment advisers and
broker-dealers, generally.
    b. Establishing a single set of universally applicable requirements
versus scaling requirements based on the size (e.g., number of
employees or a different metric) and nature of a broker-dealer or an
investment adviser? Please identify any particular requirements that
should apply to both broker-dealers and investment advisers, and any
requirements that should not apply to both, and why or why not. If
requirements were scaled, what would be appropriate metrics and
thresholds? \83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ For the staff's discussion regarding potential
harmonization of requirements related to supervision, see Study at
135-136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Licensing and Registration of Firms: Broker-dealers and
investment advisers register with the Commission and/or states using
forms that are similar but separate. In addition, broker-dealers must,
prior to commencing business, satisfy FINRA's membership application
process, which aims to fully evaluate relevant aspects of applicants
and to identify potential weaknesses in their internal systems, thereby
helping to ensure that successful applicants would be capable of
conducting their business in compliance with applicable regulation.
Investment advisers are not subject to this type of review by the
Commission. As stated in the Study, substantive review of investment
adviser applications could improve investor protection as it could help
prevent firms that are unprepared to engage in the advisory business or
to meet the obligations they will be assuming under the federal
securities laws from entering the advisory business. We request data
and other information on the enhancement to meaningful investor
protection as well as the benefits and costs of harmonizing
requirements relating to:

    a. Harmonizing the licensing and registration requirements
applicable to firms, generally.
    b. Harmonizing the disclosure requirements in Form ADV and Form BD
to the extent they address similar issues.
    c. Imposing a substantive review of investment advisers prior to
registration similar to, or distinct from, the review applicable to
broker-dealers.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ For the staff's discussion regarding potential
harmonization of requirements related to licensing and registration
of firms, see Study at 136-137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Continuing Education Requirements for Persons Associated with
Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers: Associated persons of broker-
dealers are required to fulfill continuing education requirements. No
such requirement exists for investment adviser personnel at the federal
level, who instead must disclose to clients their education and
business background. As noted in the Study, continuing education can
help to further a regulatory goal that investors are served by
professionals that are knowledgeable in current industry trends,
practices and regulations.\85\ We request data and other information on
the enhancement to meaningful investor protection as well as the
benefits and costs of harmonizing requirements relating to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ For the staff's discussion regarding potential
harmonization of requirements related to continuing education
requirements, see Study at 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Harmonizing the continuing education requirements applicable to
the associated persons of investment advisers and broker-dealers,
generally.
    b. Requiring associated persons of investment advisers to be
subject to federal qualification examinations and continuing education
requirements?
    6. Books and Records: Books and records are important for firms to
facilitate effective supervision and compliance, and for regulators to
access information and verify the entity's compliance with applicable
requirements. Broker-dealers are required to retain all communications
received and sent, as well as all written agreements (or copies
thereof), relating to a firm's ``business as such,'' \86\ whereas
advisers are required to retain a more limited set of records falling
into specific enumerated categories. As noted in the Study, ''[t]hese
differences limit the effectiveness of internal supervision and
compliance structures and the ability of regulators to access
information and verify the entity's compliance with applicable
requirements.'' \87\ We request data and other information on the
enhancement to meaningful investor protection as well as the benefits
and costs of harmonizing requirements relating to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See Exchange Act Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and (b)(7); 17 CFR
240.17a-4(b)(4) and (b)(7).
    \87\ See Study at 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Harmonizing the recordkeeping requirements applicable to
investment advisers and broker-dealers, generally.
    b. Applying the ``business as such'' record retention standard to
investment advisers?
    7. Other Potential Areas for Harmonization: We request information
and comment on whether there are other potential areas of harmonization
where the nature of existing investment adviser and broker-dealer
obligations differ and investor protection would be meaningfully
enhanced. In particular, we request data and other information on the
enhancement to meaningful investor protection as well as the benefits
and costs of harmonizing requirements relating to:
    a. Harmonizing a set of business conduct rules for both broker-
dealers and investment advisers, where relevant to investment advisers'
businesses.
    b. Harmonizing other requirements for broker-dealers and investment
advisers.
    c. Establishing a single set of universally applicable requirements
versus scaling requirements based on the size (e.g., number of
employees or a different metric) and nature of a broker-dealer or an
investment adviser.
    For each other potential area of harmonization addressed, please
identify any particular requirements that should apply to both broker-
dealers and investment advisers, and any requirements that should not
apply to both, and why or why not.

B. Request for Data and Other Information Relating to Changes in the
Marketplace for Personalized Investment Advice Resulting from
Harmonization

    The Commission requests the following data and other information
relating to changes in the marketplace for personalized investment
advice about securities for retail customers as a result of
implementing each area of harmonization described above. In providing
such data and other information, we request commenters follow the
Guidelines found in the Appendix to this request for data and other
information including the request therein for background information.
    1. Provide data and other information on the benefits and costs to
firms and retail customers, including synergies (i.e., enhanced cost
efficiencies for firms), specific examples of effects on investor
protection, and potential barriers to entry (i.e., cost prohibitions),
which would result from harmonization of each of the areas identified
above.
    2. Provide data and other information about alternative approaches
to harmonization that the Commission should consider, including options
for reducing costs on broker-dealers and investment advisers while
increasing the effective protection of retail customers.
    3. Provide data and other information describing the impact or
potential impact the implementation of the uniform fiduciary standard
of conduct, or any of the alternative approaches discussed in Part III
of this request for data and other information, would have on the
benefits and costs to firms and to retail customers of each area of
harmonization. Indicate, for example, whether harmonization of a
particular area of regulation would impact the costs or benefits
associated with complying with the uniform fiduciary standard and each
of the alternative approaches discussed above. Also provide comment and
data on whether the harmonization of one or more of the areas described
above has any impact (i.e., whether it enhances, detracts, or has no
impact) on the implementation of the uniform fiduciary standard of
conduct or any of the other approaches described in Part III of this
request for data and other information.
    4. For dual registrants, provide data and other information on any
cost savings and potential retail customer benefit of having a
consistent set of standards.
    5. Provide data and other information describing the extent to
which harmonization would increase or reduce retail customers'
confusion about the regulatory status of the person from whom they
receive financial services (i.e., whether the party is a broker-dealer
or an investment adviser) and provide information describing why.
Provide data and other information describing the extent to which
harmonization would increase or reduce retail customers' confusion
about the types of obligations owed to them and provide information
describing why.

    By the Commission.
    Dated: March 1, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

APPENDIX: Suggested Submission Guidelines for Comments

    This Appendix outlines the background and particular data and
other information we request commenters to provide and the general
guidelines we request commenters to follow when submitting data and
other

information. While we are particularly interested in receiving data
and other information that is empirical and quantitative in nature,
we welcome and encourage all interested parties to submit their
comments, including qualitative and descriptive analysis of the
benefits and costs of potential approaches and guidance. We ask that
commenters provide only data and other information that they wish to
make publicly available, and that commenters who may be concerned
about making proprietary or other highly sensitive data and other
information public may wish to pool their data with that of others
(e.g., through a trade association, law firm, consulting firm or
other group) and submit aggregated data in response to this request
for data and other information. While we request commenters to
provide enough data and other information to allow the Commission to
replicate findings, commenters should remove any personally
identifiable information (e.g., of their customers) before
submitting data and other information in response to this
request.\88\ Commenters can submit data and other information using
a sample of retail customers. We ask commenters to sample in a
manner which is independent of retail customer characteristics, and
to describe the sampling methodology including sample
identification, data collection, and any other important factor in
sample construction. Also, if possible, provide a description of the
population of retail customers not included in the sample. We also
ask commenters to provide a variable to allow the Commission to
distinguish among accounts. The variable should not incorporate
personally identifiable information, and can be as simple as a
random number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We ask commenters to provide a cover letter when submitting data
files to the Commission. As part of the cover letter, we ask
commenters to include documentation describing each field in the
data files including the units of measurement (e.g., percent,
thousands, thousands of dollars, millions, millions of dollars),
variable name, general and specific formats (e.g., number,
character, date, length of character field, format of date), and
value if missing (e.g., ``.'' or `` ''). Other important
documentation includes an overall description of the dataset, the
source of the information, and the time period of observations. We
ask commenters to send the data on a physical storage medium such as
a CD ROM or DVD, either in plain text or comma-separated values
(csv) files. We also ask commenters to clearly label the physical
storage medium, providing commenter name, date, and a short
description of the data files. Commenters can submit more than one
dataset if, for instance, the data is available on different systems
or in different locations. In this case, we ask commenters to
provide a variable in each dataset that links account information
and that allows the Commission to distinguish among accounts. We
also ask commenters to submit only one copy of the data files.

A. Commenter Identification and Background

    We request commenters to provide background information to add
context to submissions and improve our understanding of the current
marketplace:
    1. Indicate your status (or the status of your organization if
you are writing on behalf of an organization), as applicable, as a
Commission-registered broker-dealer, Commission-registered
investment adviser, associated person of a Commission-registered
broker dealer or Commission-registered investment adviser, dually
registered entity or individual, retail customer, or other (if
other, please describe).
    2. If you are (or are writing on behalf of) a broker-dealer,
investment adviser, or dually registered investment adviser/broker-
dealer, or associated person thereof, describe the firm's business,
including number and type of business segments, sources and total
amount of firm revenue, and the proportion of firm revenue
attributable to retail customers.
    3. If you are (or are writing on behalf of) a broker-dealer,
investment adviser, or dually registered investment adviser/broker-
dealer, describe the retail customer segment of the firm's business,
including the number and type of accounts (brokerage or advisory),
total asset value within each account type, and the proportion of
retail customers to whom the firm provides personalized investment
advice. If the firm is dually registered, also indicate the
proportion of accounts (based on the number of accounts and total
assets under management) that are advisory accounts and the
proportion that are brokerage accounts, and of the advisory
accounts, the proportion that are non-discretionary accounts. Also,
if the firm is dually registered, indicate the proportion of retail
customer advisory accounts and the proportion of brokerage accounts
receiving personalized investment advice.

B. Requests for Specific Characteristic Information

    We ask commenters to provide the following specific
characteristics when providing data and other information describing
retail customer demographics and accounts; broker-dealer or
investment adviser services offered; securities; and the claims of
retail customers in dispute resolution:
    1. Retail customer demographic information--age, wealth, income,
education, and risk profile.
    2. Retail customer account information--general type (brokerage
or advisory), specific type (e.g., clearing, execution-only, full-
service), amount of assets held, compensation arrangement (e.g.,
fees, commissions) and amount, investment strategy, the date of
account opening, and the state in which the account is held.
    3. Broker-dealer or investment adviser services offered--type
(e.g., include trade execution; product, transaction, and asset
allocation recommendations; and provision of customer-specific
research and analysis).
    4. Securities--type (e.g., stocks, bonds, funds, options,
structured products), CUSIP number or other standard identifier,
investment rating (if any), and date of initial retail customer
ownership.
    5. Security Positions--long or short position, number of shares/
units held, position value, and the currency of valuation.
    6. Retail customer claims evidence--nature of claim, forum for
claim, time to resolution, and outcome.
    If providing aggregate data and other information, we ask that
commenters fully describe the sample population, including the
number of retail customers and total assets under management, retail
customer demographics, account characteristics, and security
characteristics.

C. Submission Guidelines for Economic Analysis

    The market for personalized investment advice is difficult to
analyze because of the number of factors that empirical tests must
address in order to achieve definitive conclusions. While some
reports and studies address the market for personalized investment
advice, the difficulty to control for certain factors and/or
insufficient documentation of the empirical sample and methodology
results in interpretive difficulties. When submitting qualitative
and quantitative economic analysis, we request commenters adhere to
the following guidelines:
    1. The analysis should focus on non-discretionary retail
customer brokerage and advisory accounts. To the extent the analysis
focuses on institutional investor accounts or discretionary
accounts, if possible please specify this.
    2. Identify and discuss all underlying assumptions, including
actions that may be taken in response to a change in regulation. If
providing quantitative analysis also clearly articulate empirical
methodologies leading to analytical conclusions and provide tests
statistics to validate claims. Isolate the additional benefits and
costs from any additional assumptions made. If providing qualitative
economic analysis also identify and discuss all supporting evidence.
    3. Identify and distinguish initial benefits and costs
(including those associated with transitioning from existing
standards to potential new standards of conduct), and on-going
benefits and costs. Also identify whether certain benefits and costs
may decrease or increase over time. Indicate whether benefits and
costs are transaction-specific, account-specific, business segment
specific, or firm-wide. If possible, separate the benefits from the
costs and isolate by activity and by account type. When describing
transition costs, describe and explain any relevant actions that may
be taken in response to a change in regulation, including possible
ways to mitigate costs or increase benefits.
    4. Describe the sample population, including the number of
retail customers and total assets under management, retail customer
demographics, and account characteristics. And, if possible, provide
a description of the population of retail customers not included in
the sample.
    5. Submit data that would allow the Commission to replicate
findings.
    6. Identify which requested quantitative data, if any, is not
possible, or would be

prohibitively costly, to provide, and explain why.

[FR Doc. 2013-05222 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36609-36610]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 272

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0567; FRL-9162-6]

Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to codify in the regulations entitled
``Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs'', Oklahoma's
authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions
of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will
enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the
Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, the EPA is codifying
and

incorporating by reference the State's hazardous waste program as an
immediate final rule. The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the
immediate final rule because we believe these actions are not
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose them. We have
explained the reasons for this codification and incorporation by
reference in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get
written comments which oppose this incorporation by reference during
the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on
the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this
proposal. If we get comments that oppose these actions, we will
withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect.
    We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based
on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If
you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send written comments by July 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional
Authorization Coordinator, OR Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator,
State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733, Phone numbers:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
also submit comments electronically or through hand delivery/courier;
please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Julia Banks,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-15329 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P