[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75380-75383]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0926; FRL-9763-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications
Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas and Permits
for Major Stationary Sources Locating in Nonattainment Areas or the
Ozone Transport Region

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ).
These revisions allow the terms and conditions of various elements of
the preconstruction program in Virginia to be combined into a single
permit, establish limitations for issuance of Plantwide Applicability
Limits (PALs), provide clarification to the exemption to Virginia's
permitting rules regarding the use of alternate fuels and make minor
administrative amendments. This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0926. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerallyn Duke,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 7, 2012 (77 FR 55168), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR
proposed approval of amendments to Virginia's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) programs
to allow the terms and conditions of various elements of the
preconstruction permit program in Virginia to be combined into a single
permit, establish limitations for issuance of Plantwide Applicability
Limits (PALs), and clarify exemptions to Virginia's permitting rules
regarding the use of alternate fuels. The formal SIP revision was
submitted by Virginia on September 27, 2010.
    The SIP revision will allow preconstruction permits for major
stationary sources to be combined into one permit with certain
restrictions and conditions. Each action to combine permit terms and
conditions must include a statement referencing the origin of each term
or condition in the combined permit, its effective date and whether it
is state and/or Federally enforceable. All terms and conditions of
contributing permits must be included in the combined permit without
change, with certain exceptions, and the combined permit will supersede
the contributing permit.
    In addition, the SIP revision establishes state operating permits
as the sole mechanism for issuing PAL permits. On December 31, 2002 (67
FR 80186), EPA published final rule changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52
regarding the CAA's PSD and nonattainment NSR programs that are
collectively known as NSR Reform. These changes included provisions
that would allow major stationary sources to comply with a PAL to avoid
having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements
of the major NSR program. The proposed SIP revision would limit
establishing PALs to state operating permits and no longer allow PALs
to be established through major or minor NSR permits.
    In 2008, the Virginia General Assembly amended Va. Code Sec.
10.1322.4 to allow exemptions for alternative fuels and raw materials
from permit requirements. The SIP revision updates and restructures the
exemptions to ensure that there are no conflicts between the Virginia
Code and Federal regulations, including the SIP.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    This SIP revision consists of revisions to the VADEQ regulations at
9VAC5 Chapter 80, Article 8 (Permits for Major Stationary Sources and
Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Areas) and Article 9 (Permits for Major Stationary Sources and
Modifications Locating in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport
Region). The following regulations under Article 8 are revised: 5-80-
1615 (Definitions), 5-80-1625 (General), 5-80-1695 (Exemptions), 5-80-
1925 (Changes to permits), 5-80-1935 (Administrative permit
amendments), 5-80-1945 (Minor permit amendments), 5-80-1955
(Significant amendment procedures), and 5-80-1965 (Reopening for
cause). Under Article 9, Regulations 5-80-2010 (Definitions), 5-80-2020
(General), 5-80-2140 (Exemptions), 5-80-2200 (Changes to permits), 5-
80-2210 (Administrative permit amendments), 5-80-2220 (Minor permit
amendments), 5-80-2230 (Significant amendment procedures) and 5-80-2240
(Reopening for cause) are amended. Under Article 8, Regulation 5-80-
1915 (Actions to combine permit terms and conditions) is added and
under Article 9, Regulation 5-80-2195 (also called ``Actions to combine
permit terms and conditions'') is added.
    EPA is approving Virginia's SIP submission dated September 27, 2010
that consists of the following actions that pertain to Virginia's PSD
and nonattainment NSR Programs: (1) Adding provisions to allow the
terms and conditions of the various elements of the NSR Program to be
combined into a single permit; (2) establishing state operating permits
as the sole mechanism for issuing PALs; (3) clarifying certain
exemptions from permitting for alternative fuels to ensure no conflict
with federal law and regulation; and (4) making minor administrative
amendments.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the

Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the
violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from
disclosure documents and information about the content of those
documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment.
The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1)
Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary
environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Llaw, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
PSD and nonattainment NSR programs consistent with the Federal
requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a
state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state
enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA,
including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce
the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of
any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under
section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
audit privilege or immunity law.
    Other specific requirements of the regulations and the rationale
for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the September 27, 2010 SIP submission pertaining
to Virginia's PSD and nonattainment NSR programs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 19, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action

regarding Virginia's PSD and NSR permit programs may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 10, 2012.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries for Chapter 80, Sections 5-80-1615, 5-80-1625,
and 5-80-1695.
0
b. Adding an entry for Chapter 80, Section 5-80-1915, after the
existing entry for 5-80-1865.
0
c. Revising the entries for Chapter 80, Sections 5-80-1925, 5-80-1945,
5-80-1955, 5-80-1965, 5-80-2010, 5-80-2020, and 5-80-2140.
0
d. Adding an entry for Chapter 80, Section 5-80-2195, after the
existing entry for 5-80-2190.
0
e. Revising the entries for Chapter 80, Sections 5-80-2200, 5-80-2210,
5-80-2220, 5-80-2230, and 5-80-2240.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State
     State citation          Title/subject        effective      EPA  approval  date     Explanation [former SIP
                                                    date                                        citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         9 VAC 5, Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Article 8 Permits--Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant
                                               Deterioration Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-80-1615...............  Definitions........         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised 2 terms.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].
5-80-1625...............  General............         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-80-1695...............  Exemptions.........         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-80-1915...............  Actions to combine          7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    New.
                           permit terms and                     number where the
                           conditions.                          document begins].
5-80-1925...............  Actions to change           7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                           permits.                             number where the
                                                                document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-80-1945...............  Minor permit                7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                           amendments.                          number where the
                                                                document begins].
5-80-1955...............  Significant                 7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                           amendment                            number where the
                           procedures.                          document begins].
5-80-1965...............  Reopening for cause         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Article 9 Permits--Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone
                                                Transport Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-80-2010...............  Definitions........         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised 2 terms.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].
5-80-2020...............  General............         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-80-2140...............  Exemptions.........         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-80-2195...............  Actions to combine          7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    New.
                           permit terms and                     number where the
                           conditions.                          document begins].
5-80-2200...............  Actions to change           7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                           permits.                             number where the
                                                                document begins].
5-80-2210...............  Administrative              7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                           permit amendments.                   number where the
                                                                document begins].
5-80-2220...............  Minor permit                7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                           amendments.                          number where the
                                                                document begins].
5-80-2230...............  Significant                 7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                           amendment                            number where the
                           procedures.                          document begins].
5-80-2240...............  Reopening for cause         7/23/09  12/20/12 [Insert page    Revised.
                                                                number where the
                                                                document begins].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-30585 Filed 12-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Docket ID#: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0814

COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING

EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) in cooperation with Syngenta Crop Protection

PP9E7607

	EPA has received a pesticide petition PP9E7607 from the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4),  IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road east, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, in cooperation with Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., 410 Swing Rd., Greensboro, NC 27419, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.368 by establishing a tolerance for combined residues (free and bound) of S-metolachlor, S 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide, its R-enantiomer, and its metabolites, determined as the derivatives, 2-[(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-1-propanol and 4-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5-methyl-3-morpholinone, each expressed as the parent compound in or on the raw agricultural commodities: carrot, cucumber, okra,  sesame seed, sweet sorghum, leafy brassica greens subgroup 5B, turnip greens, melon crop subgroup 9A, caneberry crop subgroup 13-07A, blueberry, lowbush, bushberry crop subgroup 13-07B, onion, bulb subgroup 3-07A, and onion, green crop subgroup 3-07B  at 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 1.2, 1.2, 0.08, 0.08, 1.4, 0.15, 0.1, and 2.0 parts per million (ppm), respectively.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of S-metolachlor residues in plants is adequately understood based upon available EPA approved corn, potato, and soybean metabolism studies.  The metabolism of S-metolachlor involves conjugation with glutathione, breakage of this bond to form the mercaptan, conjugation of the mercaptan with glucuronic acid, hydrolysis of the methyl ether, and conjugation of the resultant alcohol with a neutral sugar.  EPA has determined that residues of concern in plants include parent and metabolites determined as the derivatives CGA-37913 and CGA-49751.

	2. Analytical method. The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II, Pesticide Regulation Section 180.368 lists a GC/NPD method (Method 1) for determining residues in / on plants and a GC/MSD method for determining residues in livestock commodities.  These methods determine residues of S-metolachlor and its metabolites as either CGA-37913 or CGA-49751 following acid hydrolysis.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.03 ppm for CGA-37913 and 0.05 ppm for CGA-49751. Syngenta has also developed a chiral specific analytical method to allow for the determination of residues that are specific to S-metolachlor.  It is this chiral specific method that Syngenta and IR-4 proposes for future use as the analytical enforcement method in support of these requested tolerances. Syngenta No. 1848-01 was used in several of the studies in this petition to analyze agricultural commodities.  The latter chiral specific method is the same as the updated tolerance enforcement method, except that chiral chromatography and LC/MS/MS are used to separate and quantitate the hydrolysis products SYN506357 (s-configured enantiomer of CGA-37913) and SYN508500 (s-configured enantiomer of CGA-49751).

	3. Magnitude of residues. Carrot: Fourteen magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in NAFTA Region 1A (PEI; one trial), Region 4 (FL and GA, one trial each), Region 5 (ON, two trials; QC, two trials; & WI, one trial), Region 6 (TX, one trial), Region 9 (CA, four trials) and Region 10 (WA, one trial). Foliar applications at 0.63 or 1.26 lbs ai/A were made postemergence at the 3-5 leaf growth stage during 2004. Carrots were harvested at normal maturity ranging from 26-121 days after application.  Total maximum residues in carrots  were <0.28 ppm when treated with the highest application rate.  Cucumber: Fifteen magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in Region 3 (MD, one trial), Region 4 (TN, NC, FL, and GA, one trial each), Region 5 (ON, three trials; QC, two trials), Region 6 (NM & TS, one trial each), and Region 10 (BC, three trials).  Foliar applications at 0.63 or 1.2 lbs ai/A were made postemergence at the 3-5 leaf growth stage during 2005.  Cucumbers were harvested at normal maturity ranging from 32-52 days after application.  Total maximum residues in cucumbers were <0.1 ppm when treated with the highest application rate. Okra: A tolerance is being proposed at 0.1 ppm based upon already existing tolerance in Vegetable, Fruiting Crop Group 8 (except Tabasco pepper). Sesame seed: Four magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in NAFTA Region 6 (TX, four trials) on sesame.  Applications were made as a preemergence broadcast application prior to crop emergence.  Sesame seed were harvested at normal maturity ranging from 101-128 days after application.  In addition, at one site a bulk sample was collected for processing. Total maximum residues in sesame seed from preemergence applications was <0.10 ppm.  Total maximum residues from processed sesame seed (processed fractions were oil and meal) was <0.1 ppm indicating that there is no potential for concentration of residues in the processed commodities of sesame seed. Sweet sorghum: Three magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in NAFTA Region 4 (TN, two trials) and Region 6 (TX, one trial) on sweet sorghum.  Applications were made preemergence broadcast prior to crop emergence at 1.0 or 1.67 lbs ai/A or early postemergence at 0.64 or 1.27 lbs ai/A.  Sweet sorghum was harvested at normal maturity ranging from 87-108 days after application.  In addition, at one site (TX) a bulk sample from the control and high treatment rate plot was collected for processing into syrup. Total maximum residues in sweet sorghum from preemergence applications or postemergence applications was <0.1 ppm.  Total maximum residues from processed sweet sorghum (molasses) was <0.15 ppm indicating that there is no potential for concentration of residues in the processed commodities of sweet sorghum. Leafy Brassica Greens Crop Group 5B Mustard Greens: Twelve magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in NAFTA Region 2 (NC-two trials; NJ-one trial), Region 3 (FL-one trial) Region 4 (TN-one trial), Region 5 (MI-one trial, ON-two trials), Region 6 (TX, one trial), Region 10 (CA, two trials) and Region 12 (BC, one trial) on mustard greens during 2004-2005.  Applications were made at 0.63 or 1.26 lbs ai/A preemergence or early postemergence as a broadcast application.   Harvests were made at normal maturity ranging from 20-40 days after the early postemergence applications and 33-62 days after the preemergence applications.  Total maximum residues in mustard greens ranged from 0.17-0.18 ppm at the low application rate and 0.43-0.67 ppm at the high application rate.  This data supports the leafy brassica greens, subgroup 5-B and turnip greens proposed tolerances. Turnip Greens: A tolerance is being proposed at 1.2 ppm based on proposed tolerance for Leafy Brassica Greens Crop Group 5B.  Melon Crop Group 9A: Cantaloupe: Eleven magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in NAFTA Region 2 (NJ; one trial), Region 4 (NC, one trial) Region 5 (MI, ON; one trial each), Region 5B (ON, one trial), Region 8 (TX, two trials), Region 10 (CA, three trials; NM, one trial) on cantaloupe during 2003.  Applications were made at 2 lbs ai/A 1] preemergence as a broadcast application to the row middles after laying plastic mulch or 2) preemergence or before transplanting prior to the laying the plastic mulch.   Fruit were harvested at normal maturity ranging from 61-112 days after application.  Total maximum residues in cantaloupe were <0.08 ppm regardless of the application method or timing.   Caneberry Crop Group 13-07A: Five magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in NAFTA Region 1 (PA, one trial, red raspberry), Region 5 (MI, one trial, red raspberry), and Region 12 (OR, three trials, one blackberry and two red raspberry) on cane berries.  A single post-directed banded application was made preemergence to the weeds and fruit were harvested at normal maturity 28-30 days after application.  Total maximum residues in cane berries from a single banded application was <0.08 ppm.   Bushberry Crop Group 13-07B: Eleven magnitude of residue trials were conducted under the direction of IR-4 in NAFTA Region 1, 2, 5, 10, 12 and PMRA Regions 5b and 12 on blueberry.  In highbush blueberry, a single post-directed banded application was made preemergence to the weeds and fruit were harvested at normal maturity 27-33 days after application. In lowbush blueberry, a single broadcast application was made preemergence to the weeds and fruit were harvested at normal maturity 27-33 days after application. Total maximum residues in bushberry from a single application was <0.04 ppm. Onion, bulb Crop Subgroup 3-07A and Onion, dry Crop Subgroup 3-07B: requested tolerances are based on existing tolerances for s-metolachlor on onion, dry bulb (0.1 ppm) and onion, green (2.0 ppm).

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  The data base for acute toxicity for S-metolachlor is complete.  S-metolachlor is moderately acutely toxic (Toxicity Category III) by the oral and dermal route and relatively non-toxic (Toxicity category IV) by the inhalation route.  It causes slight eye irritation (Toxicity Category III) and is non-irritating dermally (Toxicity Category IV); the active ingredient was found to be positive in a dermal sensitization test but this effect is mitigated in end-use product formulations.

	2. Genotoxicty. The data base for S-metolachlor has been deemed to be adequate by EPA.  Gene mutation studies (Guideline 870.5100), micronucleus (Guideline 870.5395), and unscheduled DNA synthesis (Guideline 870.5550) studies have recently been reviewed and approved by EPA.  There is no evidence of a mutagenic or cytogentic effect in vivo or in vitro with S-metolachlor.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The data base for developmental and reproductive toxicity for S-metolachlor are considered complete according to EPA reviews.  The prenatal developmental studies in the rat and rabbit with S-metolachlor revealed no evidence of a qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in fetal animals.  No significant developmental toxicity was observed in most studies even at the highest does tested.   In a two-generation reproduction study, there was no evidence of parental or reproductive toxicity at the highest dose tested (80 mg/kg/day).  The results indicate that S-metolachlor is not embryotoxic or teratogenic in either species at maternally toxic doses.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 90-day dietary study in rats with S-metolachlor, no effects were observed in male or females at 208 and 236 mg/kg/day, respectively.  In another 90-day dietary study in rats, decreased body weight, reduced food consumption and food efficiency in both sexes and increased kidney weight in males at 150 mg/kg/day; the NOAEL was 15 mg/kg/day.  A 90-day dog study with S-metolachlor in dogs has been accepted by EPA; no effects were observed in males and females at 62 mg/kg/day and 74 mg/kg/day, respectively, the highest doses tested.

	5. Chronic toxicity. The data base that supports S-metolachlor is considered adequate by EPA.  A combined chronic toxicity / carcinogenic study in the rat satisfies the requirements for both the chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies.  No significant chronic toxicity was found in either rats or dogs.  In the rat, a decrease in body weight was observed at the highest dose tested.  In the chronic dog study that supports S-metolachlor, the only adverse effect was decreased body weight gain in females at 33 mg/kg/day; the NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day.

	6. Animal metabolism. The data base for S-metolachlor is considered to be complete.  In animals, S-metolachlor is extensively absorbed, rapidly metabolized and almost totally eliminated in the excreta of rats, goats, and poultry.  Metabolism in animals proceeds through common Phase 1 intermediates and glutathione conjugation.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. The metabolism of S-metolachlor has been well characterized in standard FIFRA metabolism studies.   S-metolachlor does not readily undergo dealkylation to form an aniline or quinone imine as has been reported for other members of the chloroacetanilide class of chemicals.  Therefore, as EPA has agreed, it is not appropriate to include S-metolachlor with the group of chloroacetanilides that readily undergo dealkylation, producing a common toxic metabolite (quinone imine).  EPA has recently reviewed new toxicology data submitted by Syngenta demonstrating that the S-metolachlor metabolites ethane sulfonic acid (CGA 354743) and oxanilic acid (CGA 51202) are not absorbed by mammalian systems and / or have a significantly lower level of mammalian toxicity when compared to parent.

	8. Endocrine disruption. S-Metolachlor does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine system.  There is no evidence that S-metolachlor has any effect on endocrine function in developmental or reproduction studies.  Furthermore, histological investigation of endocrine organs in the chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate that the endocrine system is targeted by S-metolachlor, even at maximally tolerated doses administered for a lifetime.  There is no evidence that S-metolachlor bioaccumulates in the environment.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Acute (Tier I) and chronic (Tier III/IV) dietary exposure evaluations were made for S-metolachlor using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID(TM), version 7.87) from Exponent.  All consumption data for these assessments was taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-96 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey (1998) consumption database.  The acute exposure assessment was based on all established and proposed tolerances for S-metolachlor and the percent of crop treated was assumed to be 100% for all commodities.  Proposed S-metolachlor tolerances include carrot, cucumber, okra, sesame seed, sweet sorghum, leafy brassica greens subgroup 5B, melon crop subgroup 9A, caneberry crop subgroup 13A, bushberry crop subgroup 13B, and Onion bulb subgroup 3-07A and 3-07B.  The chronic exposure assessment was based on field trial residues, UDSA-PDP residues and Syngenta's 1999-2000 Market Basket Survey  (SMBS) residues.  For the chronic assessment, field trial residues were averaged and entered into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software with an adjustment for percent of crop treated if such information was available.  The percent of crop treated was assumed to be 100% for the market basket data and for all commodities for which no percent of crop treated information was available.

	i. Food. Acute Risk.  The acute dietary risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with an acute reference dose of 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day based on an acute no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 300 mg/kg/day prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats and an uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  The acute assessment was run using DEEM-FCID(TM) software using established and proposed tolerances for S-metolachlor and 100% crop treated value.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure value was expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  Acute food (alone) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 71,317 (0.14 % of the acute RfD of 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  Acute food (alone) exposure to the most sensitive subpopulation (children 1 to 2 years old) resulted in a MOE of 35,110 (0.28% of the acute RfD of 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for S-metolachlor.

Chronic Risk.  The chronic assessment was run using DEEM-FCID(TM) software using average field trial residue values, USDA-PDP residues and SMBS data for all current and proposed crop registrations.  The chronic dietary risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic reference dose of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day based on a one-year feeding study in dogs with a NOAEL of 9.7 mg/kg/day and an uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the reference dose (%RfD).  Chronic food (alone) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 34,761 (0.3% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic food (alone) exposure to the most exposed sub-population (children, 1-2 years old) resulted in a MOE of 14,616 (0.7% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for S-metolachlor.

Cancer.  S-metolachlor has been classified as a Group C, possible human carcinogen based on the occurrence of liver tumors in rats.  The NOAEL that was established based on tumors in rats (15 mg/kg/day) is comparable to the NOAEL of 9.7 mg/kg/day selected for the chronic reference dose.  Therefore the chronic dietary end point is protective for cancer dietary (food and water) exposure.

	ii. Drinking water. [The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface water and groundwater were taken from monitoring data from two National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs.  The maximum concentration of parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor detected in a nationwide NAWQA surface water monitoring program (that did not analyze for the degradates) was used as the peak surface water EDWC for the acute assessment; the maximum time-weighted mean from the same database was used as the chronic surface water EDWC.  For the metolachlor ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) and metolachlor oxanilic acid (OA) metabolites, maximum surface water concentrations from a NAWQA monitoring program (that collected both surface and groundwater data on parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor and the ESA and OA degradates) in the midwest cornbelt states of Iowa and Illinois were used as peak surface water EDWCs for the acute assessment; maximum time weighted means were used as the chronic surface water EDWCs.  All groundwater EDWCs were taken from the NAWQA Iowa / Illinois monitoring program.  Maximum (upper bound) detections of parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor and the ESA and OA metabolites from the groundwater monitoring were used for both acute and chronic groundwater EDWCs since weighted means were not available.

For surface water, the EDWCs of parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor and its degradates for acute exposures were estimated to be 96.75 ppb for surface water (parent: 77.6 ppb, ESA: 12.4 ppb, and OA: 6.75 ppb) and 109.9 ppb for ground water (parent: 32.8 ppb, ESA: 63.7 ppb, and OA: 13.4 ppb).  The EDWCs for chronic exposures were estimated to be 13.87 ppb for surface water (parent: 4.3 ppb, ESA: 7.3 ppb, and OA: 2.27 ppb) and 109.9 ppb for ground water (parent: 32.8 ppb, ESA: 63.7 ppb, and OA: 13.4 ppb).

Acute Exposure from Drinking Water.  The acute EDWC of 109.9 ppb for ground water was used directly in the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the acute drinking water exposures.  The acute drinking water exposure contributions at the 95%-ile of exposures were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate (food + drinking water) exposures and the food (alone) exposures for each population subgroups.  Acute drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 63,884 (0.16% of the acute RfD of 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  Acute drinking water exposure to the most exposed sub-population (infants, <1 year old) resulted in a MOE of 17,133 (0.58% of the acute RfD of 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the acute RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute drinking water exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for S-metolachlor.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water.  The predicted chronic ground water value of 109.9 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as water, direct and indirect, all sources to model the chronic drinking water exposure.  Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 4,187 (2.30% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic drinking water exposure to the most exposed sub-population (infants, <1 year old) resulted in a MOE of 1,277 (7.6% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the chronic RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for S-metolachlor.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. There is a potential for post-application exposure to adults and children resulting from the use of S-metolachlor on residential lawns.  Post-application exposure is considered to be short-term based on label directions limiting application to one time per season.  Since toxicity was not observed in a dermal toxicity study, up to a dose level of 1,000 mg/kg/day, the only parameter of short-term residential risk that needs to be addressed is the possible oral exposure of toddlers and children from treated turf or soil.  For aggregate risk assessments, the EPA recommended using the three scenarios (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, soil ingestion) combined.  Using these exposure assumptions for short-term exposures, the EPA has concluded that aggregated food and residential exposures from metolachlor/S-metolachlor result in an aggregate MOE of 991 for children, 1-6 years.  Note that there are no non-dietary contributions to the aggregate MOE for adults or infants (<1 year) from turf uses since none of the oral exposure scenarios (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, soil ingestion) would be applicable to these population subgroups.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Cumulative Exposure to Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity".  EPA has examined the common mechanism potential for S-metolachlor and has concluded that S-metolachlor should not be included with the chloroacetanilide pesticides designated as a "Common Mechanism Group."  The Agency's position is that only some chloroacetanilides, namely acetochlor, alachlor and butachlor should be considered as a "Common Mechanism Group" due to their ability to cause nasal turbinate tumors.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate exposure calculation for current and proposed uses of S-metolachlor provided a MOE of 33,698 (0.3% of the acute RfD of 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day) for the U.S. population.  The chronic aggregate exposure calculation for current and proposed uses of S-metolachlor provided a MOE of 3,738 (2.6% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day) for the U.S. population.  Since the aggregate MOEs exceed the benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. Population from acute or chronic aggregate exposures arising from the current and proposed uses for S-metolachlor.

	2. Infants and children. Using the conservative assumptions described in the exposure section above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate exposure calculation for current and proposed uses of S-metolachlor provided a MOE of 12,065 (0.83% of the acute RfD of 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day) for the infants < 1 year old (the most sensitive population subgroup for the acute assessment).  The chronic aggregate exposure calculation for current and proposed uses of S-metolachlor provided a MOE of 1,215 (8.0% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day) for the infants < 1 year old (the most sensitive population subgroup for the chronic assessment).  Since the aggregate MOEs exceed the benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from acute or chronic aggregate exposures arising from the current and proposed uses for S-metolachlor.

F. International Tolerances

	There are currently no Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) set for S-metolachlor for crops by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  International MRLs for the herbicide S-metolachlor have been established for various agricultural commodities in a number of countries including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea (South), Luxembourg, Malaysia, Moldova, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Ukraine.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30678]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12942]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0742; FRL-9928-48-OEI]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Aircraft Engines--Supplemental Information Related to Exhaust Emissions
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Aircraft Engines--Supplemental
Information Related to Exhaust Emissions'' (EPA ICR No. 2427.03, OMB
Control No. 2060-0680) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID Number
above, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by
mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stout, Office of Air and
Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number: 734-
214-4805; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Clean Air Act section 231 (42 U.S.C. 7571) authorizes EPA
to adopt emission standards for aircraft engines. The Clean Air Act
additionally provides broad authority for EPA to collect information
related to the regulations we adopt for aircraft and other emission
sources (42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(1)). EPA is accordingly adopting a new set
of emission standards for aircraft gas turbine engines and adding a
requirement for manufacturers to submit information related to
compliance with the emission standards.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 10 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Currently approved estimated burden: 60 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Currently approved estimated cost: No annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: The final ICR submitted to OMB will contain
revised burden estimates that reflect any changes to the collection
over the past three years and any public comments received.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-12942 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48135-48140]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22262]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81841; File No. SR-MSRB-2017-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change to MSRB Rule A-11, on Assessments for Municipal Advisor
Professionals, To Amend the Annual Municipal Advisor Professional Fee

October 10, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on September 29, 2017 the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend
MSRB Rule A-11, on assessments for municipal advisor professionals, to
increase the annual municipal advisor professional fee from $300 to
$500 and make other technical changes (the ``proposed rule change'').
The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The MSRB will send the first invoice at the new fee
level to firms in April 2018 for payment by April 30, 2018.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2017-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified

in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the existing
annual municipal advisor professional fee assessment to help defray the
costs and expenses of operating and administering the MSRB,
particularly the MSRB's regulatory and related activities in connection
with municipal advisors. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''),\3\ Congress
charged the Commission and the MSRB with the regulation of municipal
advisors and specifically granted the MSRB authority to charge
municipal advisors reasonable fees to defray the costs of the operation
of the MSRB.\4\ In its exercise of authority granted by Congress, the
MSRB has since developed a comprehensive regulatory framework for
municipal advisors.\5\ To help defray the costs of this and related
activities, in 2014, the MSRB adopted Rule A-11, on assessments for
municipal advisor professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Public Law No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \4\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
    \5\ In furtherance of this framework, the MSRB developed a
professional qualification exam, adopted new rules for municipal
advisors and extended existing rules to municipal advisors that
previously applied only to brokers, dealers and municipal securities
dealers (collectively, ``dealers.'') These include, but are not
limited to: Rule G-44 regarding the supervisory and compliance
obligations of municipal advisors, see Release No. 34-73415 (October
23, 2014), 79 FR 64423 (October 29, 2014) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-06)
(SEC order approving Rule G-44); Rule G-42 regarding the duties of
non-solicitor municipal advisors, see Release No. 34-76753 (December
23, 2015), 80 FR 81614 (December 30, 2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2015-
03) (SEC order approving Rule G-42); amendments to Rule G-20, on
gifts, gratuities and non-cash compensation, to extend provisions of
the rule to municipal advisors, see Release No. 34-76381 (November
6, 2015), 80 FR 70271 (November 13, 2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2015-09)
(SEC order approving amendments to Rule G-20); amendments to Rule G-
37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal
securities business, to extend its provisions to municipal advisors,
see Release No. 34-76763 (December 23, 2015), 80 FR 81710 (December
30, 2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2015-14) (Notice of filing of proposed
amendments to Rule G-37); and amendments to Rule G-3 to establish
registration and professional qualification requirements for
municipal advisors, see Release No. 34-74384 (February 26, 2015), 80
FR 11706 (March 4, 2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08) (SEC order
approving registration and professional qualification requirements
for municipal advisor representatives and municipal advisor
principals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule A-11, each municipal advisor firm that is
registered with the Commission is required to pay to the Board a
recurring annual fee equal to $300 for each Form MA-I filed with the
Commission by such municipal advisor as of January 31 of each year.
Rule A-11 also provides for late fees on assessments that are not paid
in full, and includes a transitional provision that, at the time of
Rule A-11's adoption, was necessary to take into account the timing of
the phased-in compliance period for the SEC's permanent municipal
advisor registration process.
    The proposed rule change would amend Rule A-11(a) to provide that
each municipal advisor that is registered with the Commission shall pay
to the Board a recurring annual fee, equal to $500 for each person
associated with the municipal advisor who is qualified as a municipal
advisor representative in accordance with Rule G-3 and for whom the
municipal advisor has on file with the Commission a Form MA-I as of
January 31 of each year (``covered persons'').\6\ Amended Rule A-11(a)
would increase the amount of the current assessment from $300 to $500
and delete a now-outdated reference to the fiscal year for which the
annual municipal advisor professional fee first became due. In
addition, a minor amendment to section (a) would help streamline the
rule by deleting the unnecessary clause ``and shall be payable'' from
the final sentence in that section. Lastly, amendments to Rule A-11(a)
would provide that the assessment payable would be determined based on
the number of Form MA-Is on file with the Commission (as it is
currently determined) and based on the number of associated persons
qualified as a municipal advisor representative in accordance with Rule
G-3. A person is qualified as a municipal advisor representative in
accordance with Rule G-3(d) when such person has taken and passed the
Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification Examination (the
``Series 50 exam'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ While the MSRB has designated the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness, by its terms, the assessment at the $500
per covered person rate would be based on covered persons as of
January 31 of each year. As noted above, the MSRB will send the
first invoice at the new fee level (measured as of January 31, 2018)
to firms in April 2018 for payment by April 30, 2018.
    \7\ As of September 12, 2017, only an associated person of a
municipal advisor firm who has passed the Series 50 exam may engage
in municipal advisory activities on behalf of the municipal advisor
firm. Additionally, municipal advisor principals must likewise
qualify as a municipal advisor representative by passing the Series
50 exam. See MSRB Notice 2017-09, MSRB Reminds Municipal Advisors
that the Series 50 Exam Deadline is September 12, 2017 (May 8,
2017). Because all municipal advisor principals must also qualify as
a municipal advisor representative, the $500 assessment would
equally apply to municipal advisor principals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment to Rule A-11(b) would provide that a municipal advisor
that fails to timely pay in full ``the total'' annual municipal advisor
professional fee due under section (a) shall pay a monthly late fee
equal to $25 for such failure, while another amendment would delete the
reference to the monthly fee being payable ``for each $300 assessment
not paid in full.'' Together, these amendments to section (b) are
intended to make clear that a separate $25 monthly late fee would not
be due for each covered person for which the $300 fee was not timely
paid. Rather, a municipal advisor firm would be required to pay only
one $25 monthly late fee (regardless of the number of its covered
persons for which the per professional fee was not timely paid) if it
fails timely to pay in full the total fee due under section (a).\8\
Finally, the proposed rule change would delete Rule A-11(c) because
that provision pertains to a transitional municipal advisor
professional fee that no longer has application. A related minor
technical amendment to Rule A-11(b) would delete a reference to Rule A-
11(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This late fee would be in addition to a late fee on the
total overdue balance based on the Prime Rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that the proposed fee increase reflected in the
proposed amendments to Rule A-11(a) is reasonable as well as necessary
and appropriate to help defray the costs of operating and administering
the MSRB. It is also a step towards achieving the MSRB's strategic goal
of promoting long-term financial stability by assessing fair and
equitable fees, and diversifying funding sources. The MSRB believes the
proposed rule change will help the organization provide for assessments
that are increasingly more fairly and equitably apportioned among all
registrants. The MSRB notes that, consistent with the Board's long-
standing prohibition on charging or otherwise passing through to
issuers the fees required under Rule A-13,\9\ municipal advisors
similarly would be prohibited from charging or otherwise passing
through the fees required under Rule A-11 to issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Release No. 34-81264 (July 31, 2017), 82 FR 36472, n. 18
(August 4, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-05) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Assess an
Underwriting Fee on Dealers That Are Underwriters of Primary
Offerings of Plans).

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

The Board's Holistic Review of MSRB Fees
    The MSRB assesses dealers and municipal advisors (collectively,
``regulated entities'') various fees designed to defray the costs of
its operations and administration, including rulemaking, market
transparency, and educational and market outreach initiatives that
fulfill its Congressional mandate to, among other things, protect
investors, state and local governments and other municipal entities,
obligated persons and the public interest and promote a fair and
efficient municipal securities market.\10\ Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the
Act \11\ provides, in pertinent part, that each regulated entity shall
pay to the Board such reasonable fees and charges as may be necessary
or appropriate to defray the costs of operating and administering the
Board, and that the MSRB shall have rules specifying the amount of such
fees. The current fees so specified by MSRB rules are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2))
(in relevant part, requiring the Board to propose and adopt rules
for municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial products,
the issuance of municipal securities and solicitations of municipal
entities or obligated persons undertaken by brokers, dealers,
municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Municipal Advisor Professional Fee (Rule A-11)
    $300 annually per Form MA-I on file with the SEC by the municipal
advisor;
2. Late Fee (Rules A-11 and A-12)
    $25 monthly late fee and a late fee on the overdue balance
(computed according to the prime rate) until paid on balances not paid
within 30 days of the invoice date by the dealer or municipal advisor;
3. Initial Registration Fee (Rule A-12)
    $1,000 one-time registration fee to be paid by each dealer to
register with the MSRB before engaging in municipal securities
activities and by each municipal advisor to register with the MSRB
before engaging in municipal advisory activities;
4. Annual Registration Fee (Rule A-12)
    $1,000 annual fee to be paid by each dealer and municipal advisor
registered with the MSRB;
5. Underwriting Fee (Rule A-13)
    $.0275 per $1,000 of the par value paid by a dealer, on all
municipal securities purchased from an issuer by or through such
dealer, whether acting as principal or agent as part of a primary
offering, except in limited circumstances; and in the case of an
underwriter (as defined in Rule G-45) of a primary offering of certain
municipal fund securities, $.005 per $1,000 of the total aggregate
assets for the reporting period; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Beginning in May 2018, the Board will invoice underwriters
of a primary offering of certain municipal fund securities for the
assessments due. See Release No. 34-81264 (July 31, 2017), 82 FR
36472 (August 4, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-05) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Assess an
Underwriting Fee on Dealers That Are Underwriters of Primary
Offerings of Plans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Transaction Fee (Rule A-13)
    .001% ($.01 per $1,000) of the total par value to be paid by a
dealer, except in limited circumstances, for inter-dealer sales and
customer sales reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-14(b), on
transaction reporting requirements;
7. Technology Fee (Rule A-13)
    $1.00 paid by a dealer per transaction for each inter-dealer sale
and for each sale to customers reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-
14(b); and
8. Professional Qualification Examination Fee (Rule A-16)
    $150 test development fee assessed per candidate for each MSRB
professional qualification examination.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In addition, the MSRB charges data subscription and service
fees for subscribers, including regulated entities, seeking direct
electronic delivery of municipal trade data and disclosure documents
associated with municipal bond issues. However, this information is
available without direct electronic delivery on the EMMA Web site
without charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initiated in 2015, the Board's holistic review of fees that the
Board assesses on regulated entities continues. The Board evaluates
those fees with the goal of better aligning revenue sources with
operating expenses and all capital needs. The Board strives to
diversify funding sources among regulated entities and other entities
that fund MSRB activities in a manner that ensures long-term
sustainability, while continuing to strike an equitable balance among
regulated entities and a fair allocation of the expenses of the
regulatory activities, systems development and operational activities
undertaken by the MSRB. In determining the fair allocation of the cost
of MSRB regulation to regulated entities, the Board considers, among
other things: Registration to engage in municipal securities or
municipal advisory activities; the level of dealer market activity; and
the number of associated persons engaged in municipal advisory
activities on behalf of a municipal advisor. Recognizing that in any
given year there could be more or less activity by a particular class
of regulated entities, the Board, as it has historically, seeks to
maintain a fee structure that results in a balanced and reasonable
contribution over time from all regulated entities to defray costs and
expenses of operating and administering the MSRB.
    As part of the Board's ongoing review and examination of fees, the
Board reviewed the amount of the $300 per professional fee charged
under Rule A-11. This fee was originally established in 2014 as a
reasonable initial starting amount to help defray the costs and
expenses of operating and administering the MSRB, particularly the
MSRB's regulatory and related activities in connection with municipal
advisors.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Release No. 34-72019 (April 25, 2014), 79 FR 24798,
24798 (May 1, 2014) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-03) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of New
Rule A-11, on Assessments for Municipal Advisor Professionals); see
also MSRB Notice 2014-09, MSRB to Implement New MSRB Rule A-11
Establishing Fees for Municipal Advisor Professionals (April 17,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These regulatory activities include the development and
implementation of a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal
advisors, including: The extension to municipal advisors of rules that
previously only applied to dealers on the subject of fair dealing and
specified forms of conflicts of interest; \15\ the adoption of new
rules for municipal advisors that establish the core standards of
conduct for non-solicitor municipal advisors and that establish
supervisory and compliance obligations for municipal advisor firms;
\16\ the creation of new municipal advisor recordkeeping requirements
and municipal advisory client education and protection provisions; \17\
and the development and implementation of professional standards for
municipal advisors to help ensure that all

municipal advisors are competent and qualified.\18\ As part of the
implementation of this latter category of rules, the MSRB also
established the Series 50 exam, a baseline test of a municipal
advisor's competency and knowledge of applicable rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule G-17, Conduct of Municipal Securities and
Municipal Advisory Activities; Rule G-20, Gifts Gratuities, Non-Cash
Compensation and Expenses of Issuance; and Rule G-37, Political
Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and
Municipal Advisory Business available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx.
    \16\ See Rule G-42, Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors;
Rule G-44, Supervisory and Compliance Obligations of Municipal
Advisors available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx.
    \17\ See Rule G-8, Books and Records to be Made by Brokers,
Dealers, and Municipal Securities Dealers and Municipal Advisors;
and Rule G-10, Investor and Municipal Advisory Client Education and
Protection available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx. Effective October 13, 2017, current Rule G-10,
Delivery of Investor Brochure, will be replaced in its entirety by
new Rule G-10.
    \18\ See Rule G-2, Standards of Professional Qualification; and
Rule G-3, Professional Qualification Requirements available at
http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist municipal advisors in understanding and complying with
this new regulatory framework, the MSRB has undertaken considerable
education, outreach and compliance activities. These include, but are
not limited to: The creation of educational documents, resources and
compliance-oriented notices and communications; \19\ the development of
educational webinars and the organization of, and participation in,
outreach events; \20\ and the launch of an expanded on-demand education
program, MuniEdPro[supreg], which was designed, in part, to serve the
education needs of regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, the MSRB supports regulatory compliance by
municipal advisors by providing resources about MSRB requirements,
as well as more general educational material. Municipal advisors may
access these resources and others, including the Municipal Advisor
Review, the MSRB's quarterly newsletter for municipal advisors at
http://www.msrb.org/Regulated-Entities/Resources.aspx. In addition,
the MSRB has published several regulatory notices for municipal
advisors to help keep market participants informed of regulatory
changes and to provide guidance on the application of existing
rules. See e.g., MSRB Notice 2017-08, Application of MSRB Rules to
Solicitor Municipal Advisors (May 4, 2017); MSRB Notice 2017-13,
MSRB Provides Guidance on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors
in Conduit Financing Scenarios (July 13, 2017).
    \20\ For example, the MSRB provides free education and training
webinars on municipal market topics, regulatory and compliance
issues, and the use of MSRB market transparency systems. Municipal
advisors may register for new webinars and access on-demand
webinars, including some webinars that provide CPE credit at http://www.msrb.org/Regulated-Entities/Webinars.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Looking forward to Fiscal Year 2018, the MSRB expects to continue
its many activities relating to municipal advisors, including its
significant education, outreach and compliance initiatives. The MSRB
will also be developing a new municipal advisor principal-level
professional qualification examination--the Series 54--for anticipated
availability as a pilot in 2019.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Once the Series 54 exam is permanently available, municipal
advisor principals will be required to take the Series 54 exam in
addition to the Series 50 exam. See FAQs on Municipal Advisor
Professional Qualification and Examination Requirements, at n. 1
available at http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/pdfs/FAQ-MSRB-Series-50-Exam.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an August 2015 fee filing associated with the Board's holistic
review of fees,\22\ the MSRB explained that, at that time, it was not
modifying the $300 municipal advisor per professional fee to provide
municipal advisors with additional time for the municipal advisor
regulations and business models to more fully develop. However, the
MSRB explained that the targeted revenue to be generated from the
municipal advisor professional fee of approximately $2 million at that
time, or approximately 5% of total MSRB revenues, was not yet being met
and the per professional fee would need to be increased in the future.
The proposed rule change is the next step towards moving closer to that
revenue target.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Release No. 34-75751 (August 24, 2015), 80 FR 52352,
52355 (August 28, 2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2015-08) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Amendments to MSRB Rule A-12, on Registration, and MSRB Rule A-13,
on Underwriting and Transaction Assessments for Brokers, Dealers and
Municipal Securities Dealers).
    \23\ The MSRB expects that the municipal advisor professional
fee, at the dollar amount set forth in the proposed rule change,
would generate approximately 4% of the MSRB's Fiscal Year 2018
revenue. The MSRB will release and make publicly available its
budget for Fiscal Year 2018 in October 2017. See MSRB Monthly Update
(September 2017) available at https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/VAORGMSRB/bulletins/1b497b6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act \24\ which states that the MSRB's rules
shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal securities
dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such reasonable
fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the
costs and expenses of operating and administering the Board. Such
rules shall specify the amount of such fees and charges, which may
include charges for failure to submit to the Board, or to any
information system operated by the Board, within the prescribed
timeframes, any items of information or documents required to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
submitted under any rule issued by the Board.

    The MSRB believes that its rules, as amended by the proposed rule
change, provide for reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
regulated entities. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is
necessary and appropriate to fund the operation and administration of
the Board and satisfies the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J).\25\
The MSRB believes the proposed rule change is necessary because it will
help defray the costs of the Board's significant rulemaking, market
transparency, educational and market outreach initiatives, market
leadership, professional qualifications examination development and
other activities relating to municipal advisors. As discussed above,
the MSRB has engaged in significant rulemaking to put into place a
regulatory framework for municipal advisors and has engaged in
considerable activities to assist municipal advisors in understanding
their obligations and comply with the applicable rules. In addition,
because the MSRB does not have any examination or enforcement
authority, the MSRB has enhanced its coordination with the regulatory
authorities charged with the authority to examine for compliance with
and enforce MSRB rules. The MSRB frequently provides rule
interpretations, training related to the market and MSRB rules, and
access to municipal market information in support of the municipal
advisor examination and enforcement activities of these regulatory
authorities. The MSRB expects to continue its many activities relating
to municipal advisors, with a focus on education, outreach and
compliance. In addition, as noted above, the MSRB will be working to
develop the Series 54 professional qualification exam. The proposed
rule change will assist in defraying some of the costs associated with
these activities and will help ensure the MSRB is funding these
regulatory activities in a financially responsible way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB believes the proposed rule change is appropriate because
it moves towards a more equitable balance of fees among regulated
entities and hence a fairer allocation of the expenses of the
regulatory activities, systems development, and operational activities
undertaken by the MSRB. However, even with the fee increase in the
proposed rule change, the proposed fees would only defray a small
portion of the MSRB's overall costs of operating and administering the
MSRB--generating approximately 4% of Fiscal Year 2018 revenue.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See n. 23 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB operations are funded primarily by assessments and fees on
regulated entities. In fact, 80% of the Fiscal Year 2018 budgeted
revenue is based on market activity (that is, municipal securities
trading and underwriting volume). Due to the accumulated historical
variances between actual and budgeted revenue, the MSRB has excess
reserves. This is largely due to the MSRB's appropriately conservative
approach to budgeting revenues that are primarily market-based and
inherently volatile. While the MSRB's current reserve levels exceed
targets, the MSRB budget for Fiscal Year 2018 has a deficit, as do the
pro forma

budgets for Fiscal Years 2019 through 2020. The MSRB anticipates that
in the future, based on assumptions reviewed and agreed upon by the
MSRB, excess reserves will be eroded by Fiscal Year 2020 (even with the
increased municipal advisor professional fee and new underwriting fee
on underwriters of 529 college savings plans). Further, the MSRB's
budget for Fiscal Year 2018 anticipates that the MSRB will
strategically spend some of its reserves. Finally, the MSRB believes,
as a matter of principle, that it is inherently unfair to allow certain
regulated entities to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of
operating the MSRB. The MSRB therefore regularly evaluates fees and
adjusts them, as needed, to ensure that all regulated entities that
benefit from functioning in a fair, efficient and transparent market
pay their fair share.

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \27\ requires that MSRB rules not
be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In addition,
Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act \28\ provides 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board's policy on the use of economic analysis in rulemaking
\29\ limits its application regarding those rules for which the Board
seeks immediate effectiveness. However, an internal analysis is still
conducted to gauge the economic impact, with an emphasis on the burden
on competition involving regulated entities. Guided by these aspects of
the policy, the Board has reviewed the proposed rule change. The Board
believes the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to
ensure that MSRB registrants that are municipal advisors equitably
contribute to defraying the costs and expenses of operating and
administering the MSRB. The MSRB has considered the economic impact of
the proposed rule change. The MSRB does not believe that the proposed
rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
since it will apply equally to all municipal advisors based on the
number of persons qualified as municipal advisor representatives
associated with the municipal advisor and the number of Forms MA-I
filed by each firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The scope of the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis in rulemaking provides that: [t]his Policy addresses
rulemaking activities of the MSRB that culminate, or are expected to
culminate, in a filing of a proposed rule change with the SEC under
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, other than a proposed rule change
that the MSRB reasonably believes would qualify for immediate
effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act if filed
as such or as otherwise provided under the exception process of this
Policy.
    Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking,
available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. For those rule changes for which the MSRB
seeks immediate effectiveness, the MSRB usually focuses its
examination exclusively on the burden on competition of regulated
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes the current fee structure is fair and equitable
among municipal advisors of differing size. The existing per firm
annual fee ($1,000) helps cover the fixed costs of regulating any firm,
regardless of size; while the existing annual professional fee
assessment results in smaller municipal advisors paying less than
larger municipal advisors. The proposed fee increase will further
expand the current spread paid between large versus small firms. The
MSRB notes that other self-regulatory organizations and independent
oversight and rulemaking boards, such as the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (``PCAOB''), National Futures Association (``NFA'') and
the Financial Accounting Standards Board (``FASB''), all have some
annual fee assessment structure that is based on the size of firms
under regulation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For example, FINRA's annual registration fee and new member
application fee assessments for broker-dealers are based on the
number of branch offices and the number of registered persons, the
PCAOB's annual fee assessment is based on the number of issuer audit
clients and the number of personnel within each public accounting
firm, NFA's annual member dues for swap dealers and Forex dealers
are based on the tier size of member firms, and FASB's accounting
support fees are allocated based on the average market
capitalization of each issuer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that the fee increase will not impose an
unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory burden on small municipal
advisors. The total amount of the assessment payable by each municipal
advisor will be dependent on the number qualified associated persons
for whom Forms MA-I are filed by the municipal advisor \31\ and,
therefore, will result in lower relative assessments for smaller firms.
Being based on the number of persons engaging in municipal advisory
activities on behalf of a firm, the total fee will bear a reasonable
relationship to the level of regulated municipal advisory activities
that are undertaken by each firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The MSRB understands that the Form MA-I on file should be
withdrawn for any person who fails to qualify as a municipal advisor
representative in accordance with Rule G-3. See Registration of
Municipal Advisors Frequently Asked Questions at Question 16.1,
available at https://www.sec.gov/info/municipal/mun-advisors-faqs.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Board did not solicit comment on the proposed change.
Therefore, there are no comments on the proposed rule change received
from members, participants or others.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \32\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\33\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2017-07 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-2017-07. 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-2017-07 and should be submitted on
or before November 6, 2017.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22262 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 58730-58731]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Delays in
Processing of Special Permits Applications

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications
that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay
and the expected completion date for action on each applications is
provided in association with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office
of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Key to ``Reason for Delay''
    1. Awaiting additional information from applicant.
    2. Extensive public comment under review.
    3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact
or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis.
    4. Staff review delayed by other prior issues or volume of special
permit applications.
Meaning of Application Number Suffixes
    N--New application.
    M--Modification request.
    PM--Party to application with modification request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 2007.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reason for    Estimated date
    Application No.         Applicant          delay       of completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Modification to Special Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10481-M...............  M-1 Engineering                4      11-30-2007
                         Limited
                         Bradfrod, West
                         Yorkshire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14167-M...............  Trinityrail,             1, 3, 4      11-30-2007
                         Dallas, TX.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     New Special Permit Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14385-N...............  Kansas City                    4      11-30-2007
                         Southern
                         Railway
                         Company, Kansas
                         City, MO.
14442-N...............  Trinityrail,                   4      11-30-2007
                         Dallas, TX.
14483-N...............  WEW                            4      11-30-2007
                         Westerwaelder
                         Eisenwerk,
                         Weitefeld,
                         Germany.
14504-N...............  Medis                          1      11-30-2007
                         Technologies
                         Ltd., New York,
                         NY.
14505-N...............  Arkema, Inc.,                  4      11-30-2007
                         Philadelphia,
                         PA.
14500-N...............  Northwest                      4      11-30-2007
                         Respiratory
                         Services, St.
                         Paul, MN.
14457-N...............  Amtrol Alfa                    4      10-31-2007
                         Metalomecanica
                         SA, Portugal.
14436-N...............  BNSF Railway                   4      11-30-2007
                         Company,
                         Topeka, KS.
14402-N...............  Lincoln                        1      12-31-2007
                         Composites,
                         Lincoln, NE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 07-5081 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-M