[Federal Register: October 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 64765-64767]
[DOCID:fr20oc10-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63102; File No. 4-613]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.

October 14, 2010.
    On September 3, 2010, BATS-Y Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (together
with BYX, the ``Parties'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 17(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 17d-2
thereunder,\2\ a plan for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities, dated September 3, 2010 (``17d-2 Plan'' or the
``Plan''). The Plan was published for comment on September 23, 2010.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the Plan. This order approves
and declares effective the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62935 (September 17,
2010), 75 FR 57998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\4\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or national securities association to examine for,
and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its
members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.\5\ Without
this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO could
result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that
maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common members''). Such
regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common
members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \6\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\7\ With
respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive
regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with
applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other
specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \7\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\9\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission

adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\10\ Rule 17d-2 permits SROs to
propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities
with respect to their common members. Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-
2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing
for appropriate notice and comment, it determines that the plan is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection
of investors; to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs; to
remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market
system and a national clearance and settlement system; and is in
conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act.
Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 relieves an
SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to
another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Plan

    The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory
duplication for firms that are common members of both BYX and
FINRA.\11\ Pursuant to the proposed 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume
certain examination and enforcement responsibilities for common members
with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan refers to these common members as
``Dual Members.'' See Paragraph 1(c) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory
responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed
Plan is an exhibit (the ``BATS-Y Exchange Rules Certification for 17d-2
Agreement with FINRA,'' referred to herein as the ``Certification'')
that lists every BYX rule, and select federal securities laws, rules,
and regulations, for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the
Plan for overseeing and enforcing with respect to BYX members that are
also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith (``Dual
Members'').
    Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination
and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members
with the rules of BYX that are substantially similar to the applicable
rules of FINRA,\12\ as well as any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder delineated in the
Certification (``Common Rules''). Common Rules would not include the
application of any BYX rule or FINRA rule, or any rule or regulation
under the Act, to the extent that it pertains to violations of insider
trading activities, because such matters are covered by a separate
multiparty agreement under Rule 17d-2.\13\ In the event that a Dual
Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on
BYX, the plan acknowledges that BYX may, in its discretion, exercise
concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility for such matter.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See paragraph 1(b) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan (defining
Common Rules). See also paragraph 1(f) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan
(defining Regulatory Responsibilities). Paragraph 2 of the Plan
provides that annually, or more frequently as required by changes in
either BYX rules or FINRA rules, the parties shall review and
update, if necessary, the list of Common Rules. Further, paragraph 3
of the Plan provides that BYX shall furnish FINRA with a list of
Dual Members, and shall update the list no less frequently than once
each calendar quarter.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58350 (August 13,
2008), 73 FR 48247 (August 18, 2008) (File No. 4-566) (notice of
filing of proposed plan). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 58536 (September 12, 2008), 73 FR 54646 (September 22, 2008)
(File No. 4-566) (order approving and declaring effective the plan).
The Certification identifies several Common Rules that may also be
addressed in the context of regulating insider trading activities
pursuant to the proposed separate multiparty agreement.
    \14\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, BYX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving BYX's own marketplace, including, without
limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated
persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); its
duties as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act; and any BYX rules
that are not Common Rules, except for BYX rules for any broker-dealer
subsidiary of BYX's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc.\15\
Apparent violations of any BYX rules by any broker-dealer subsidiary of
BATS Global Markets will be processed by, and enforcement proceedings
in respect thereto will be conducted by, FINRA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \16\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \17\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \18\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for Dual Members that
would otherwise be performed by both BYX and FINRA. Accordingly, the
proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to Dual Members.
Furthermore, because BYX and FINRA will coordinate their regulatory
functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that when it granted the application of BYX
for registration as a national securities exchange, the Commission
conditioned the operation of the BYX exchange on the satisfaction of
several requirements.\19\ One of those requirements was the
effectiveness of an agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 between FINRA and
BYX that allocates to FINRA regulatory responsibility for certain
specified matters.\20\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan represents BYX's effort
to satisfy that prerequisite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62716 (August 13,
2010), 75 FR 51295 (August 19, 2010) (File No. 10-198).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62716 (August 13,
2010), 75 FR 51295, 51300 (August 19, 2010) (File No. 10-198).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, BYX and FINRA have
allocated regulatory responsibility for those BYX rules, set forth on
the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable
FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and
rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination
standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the
application of the rule, or a Dual Member's activity, conduct, or
output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA
would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the
Federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the
Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by
the Parties from time to time.
    Under the Plan, BYX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving BYX's own marketplace, including, without
limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated
persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); its
duties as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act; and any BYX rules
that are not Common Rules, except for BYX rules for any broker-dealer
subsidiary of BATS Global

Markets, Inc.\21\ Apparent violations of any BYX rules by any broker-
dealer subsidiary of BATS Global Markets, Inc. will be processed by,
and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto will be conducted by,
FINRA.\22\ The effect of these provisions is that regulatory oversight
and enforcement responsibilities for any broker-dealer subsidiary of
BATS Global Markets, Inc., which is the parent company of BYX, will be
vested with FINRA. These provisions should help avoid any potential
conflicts of interest that could arise if BYX was primarily responsible
for regulating any affiliated broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \22\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, BYX will review the Certification at least
annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules
of BYX or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of
Common Rules to add BYX rules not included on the then-current list of
Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete BYX
rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no
longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the
remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be BYX rules
that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.\23\ FINRA will then
confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are
Common Rules as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, BYX will also
provide FINRA with a current list of Dual Members and shall update the
list no less frequently than once each quarter.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \24\ See paragraph 3 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby declaring effective a plan that, among
other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the
oversight and enforcement of all BYX rules that are substantially
similar to the rules of FINRA for Dual Members of BYX and FINRA.
Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with
the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties
are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to BYX rules
in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules
provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a BYX
rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA
rule; delete a BYX rule from the Certification that is substantially
similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a BYX rule that
is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change
would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public
comment.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Commission also notes that the addition to or deletion
from the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan
for examining, and enforcing compliance by, Dual Members, also would
constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also permits BYX and FINRA to terminate the Plan, subject
to notice.\26\ The Commission notes, however, that while the Plan
permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties cannot by
themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the
Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any allocation or
re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the
Commission.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See paragraph 12 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \27\ The Commission notes that paragraph 12 of the Plan reflects
the fact that FINRA's responsibilities under the Plan will continue
in effect until the Commission approves any termination of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-613. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, that
the Plan in File No. 4-613, between FINRA and BYX, filed pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
    It is therefore ordered that BYX is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4-613.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26337 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Interim Guidance - Expedited Review for Products Adding Residual Efficacy Claims
EPA is announcing the expedited review of certain applications for registration and amended registration for products intended for use against the SARS-CoV-2, the novel human coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Pursuant to Title VII of the CARES Act passed on March 27, 2020, EPA is providing notice of its intention to expedite reviews for addition of residual (i.e., extended or long-lasting) efficacy claims for currently registered or new product registrations that are on EPA's Disinfectant List N, that would qualify for List N, or products that can be used as a residual supplement to disinfectants on List N.
Under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), typical decision review timeframes for these types of registration actions range from four months for amendments and new registrations for products similar to existing products, to 24 months for new active ingredient submissions (AD PRIA Action Code Tables). For antimicrobial products that may be of use against SARS-CoV-2, EPA is currently making every effort to expedite the review and make regulatory decisions for the submissions discussed in this document by at least one to two months faster than the normal PRIA timeframe, depending on the submission, provided the procedures described in this interim guidance are followed. This is consistent with EPA's previous guidance for expedited review. As EPA gains more experience with expedited procedures, we may revise the expected completion timeframes for these actions.
Recently, there has been increased interest in obtaining residual efficacy claims (i.e., claims that a product provides an ongoing antimicrobial effect beyond the initial time of application, ranging from days to weeks to months). Traditional liquid-based antimicrobials (e.g., List N disinfectants) treat the surface at the time of application but do not provide efficacy beyond the time of application. There is significant desire from stakeholders and the public for products that are continuously active and can provide efficacy in between regular cleaning and disinfection. These products may reduce the level of re-contamination on high touch surfaces.
Accordingly, EPA will expedite review of the applications for amended registrations and new registrations that do not include a new active ingredient for the residual effect claims listed in the table immediately below. Applicants need to be aware, however, that in order to expedite these submissions, it is necessary for EPA to receive all of the information specified in this document. To the extent that EPA does not receive the identified information, EPA may not be able to process these submissions in an expedited fashion. In any such cases, EPA may default to the PRIA timeframe otherwise associated with the submission after consultation with the registrant.
Products with residual effect claims that qualify for this expedited review fall into two major categories; (1) disinfectants that also provide residual efficacy, and (2) supplemental residual antimicrobial products (e.g., coatings, paints, solid surfaces) that do not meet EPA's standards for disinfectants but are intended to be used as a supplement to standard List N disinfectants.
Note that depending on their intended use, some antimicrobial products may be subject to both EPA and FDA jurisdiction (e.g., liquid chemical disinfectants and devices used to disinfect health care facilities and non-critical medical devices), and therefore may require FDA review. Other products may be subject to FDA's exclusive jurisdiction (e.g., liquid chemical disinfectants and devices used against microorganisms in or on humans or other animals, liquid chemical sterilants for use on a critical or semi-critical medical devices) and are outside the scope of this guidance.
Below is a summary table and key attributes for these two different types of residual claims.

                                     Claim

                            Residual Disinfectants
                 Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Products

                             Coatings & Films
                                    Fixed
                             (Solid & Paints)
               Meets EPA's standard for disinfection efficacy
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                      No
                          Duration of residual claim
                                 <= 24 hours
                 Weeks (product efficacy determines duration)

                                     Years
                             Durability assessment
                                   Abrasion
                           Abrasion & Chemical

                           Abrasion & Chemical

             Performance standard for bacteria for residual claim
                                5-log reduction
                                3-log reduction
                                3-log reduction
             Performance standard for viruses* for residual claim
                                3-log reduction
                                3-log reduction

                                3-log reduction

                       Time to meet performance standard
                                <= 10 minutes
                                  <= 2-hours

                                  <= 2-hours

* Claims for viruses can only be added if the product has also met the performance standard for bacteria. This is described in further detail below.
A full description of these two types of claims and the efficacy testing to support these claims is included below. While EPA does not have an approved standard method to support virus claims for these types of products, the following is intended to provide interim guidance on the study design elements necessary to support these types of claims. Note that EPA may consider other methods or studies to support residual efficacy claims, provided they are scientifically sound. Applicants are highly encouraged to consult with EPA prior to submitting. Note that products may make both types of residual claims provided that they are supported by the appropriate data.
Due to lab capacity concerns, non-GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) data will be considered to support residual claims, provided that the study submission accurately represents how the study differs from the GLP standards in the 40 CFR 160.12 statement of non-compliance.
                         Residual Disinfectant Claims
Qualifying products must satisfy all requirements for standard disinfectant claims (non-residual) in order to be eligible for residual disinfectant claims and have undergone testing to support standard disinfectant claims.
To support a claim as a residual bactericidal disinfectant utilize EPA's Residual Self-Sanitization Protocol with the following modifications to support residual disinfectant claims:
 Base Bacteria -- Consistent with EPA Guideline 810.2200, Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC No. 6538) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC No. 15442) should be used to support the case residual disinfectant claim.
 Conduct testing on 3 product lots at the lower certified limit (LCL) for each bacterium. In accordance with the OCSPP 810.2000 Test Guideline, certificates of analysis should be submitted to substantiate the tested concentration;
 Residual testing to support additional vegetative bacteria is not needed. Claims can be bridged from the standard disinfectant (non-residual data) for additional bacteria. For example, if a product has data to support a base disinfectant claim (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and data to support disinfectant claims for additional vegetative bacteria (e.g., E. coli or MRSA), residual data are only needed for the base bacteria and not additional bacteria in order to support residual claims for those vegetative bacteria for which base disinfectant claims are supported.
 Per the Residual Self-Sanitization Method, durability testing should include 12 wear cycles consisting of abrasions (alternating wet and dry) and re-inoculations to support a 24-hour residual disinfectant claim. Each wear cycle consists of 4 passes (2 back and forth) of the abrasion material over the surface followed by re-inoculation. Additional details can be found in the method.
 Products should achieve a >= 5-log reduction in <= 10 minutes +- 5 seconds for qualifying bacteria when compared to the parallel abrasion and re-inoculation controls to support residual disinfectant claims.
 Per the OCSPP 810.2200 Test Guideline, the performance standard and time to meet the performance standard are consistent with the standards for non-residual disinfectants.
 At this time, expedited review is limited to residual disinfection claims of 24 hours or less based on data generated in accordance with the re-inoculation and abrasion cycles specified in the referenced protocol.
 Residual Virucidal Claims
Utilize EPA's Residual Self-Sanitization Protocol with the modifications below to support residual virucidal claims. Virucidal efficacy should be assessed consistent with the principles of ASTM E1053 (e.g., recovery, cytotoxicity, neutralization, calculations); the standard virucidal method detailed in OCSPP 810.2200 Product Performance Test Guideline
          To support residual virucidal claims, acceptable non-residual virucidal efficacy (3-log reduction) should be demonstrated for the product at <=10-minute contact time consistent with the OCSPP 810.2200 Product Performance Test Guideline.
          Residual virucidal data should be generated for the most difficult to kill virus that you are claiming to kill. Claims for residual effect against the other viruses can be bridged from the non-residual virucidal data supporting your product. For additional information on selecting the most difficult to kill virus, see EPA's Emerging Viral Pathogens Guidance.
                Note that to be considered for List N, virus testing should include a non-enveloped virus or a human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 or human coronavirus 229E).
          Conduct testing on 2 product lots at the LCL.
 Per the Residual Self-Sanitization Method, durability testing should include 12 wear cycles consisting of abrasions (alternating wet and dry) and re-inoculations to support a 24-hour residual disinfectant claim. Each wear cycle consists of 4 passes of the abrasion material over the surface followed by re-inoculation. Additional details can be found in the method.
          Products should achieve >= 3-log reduction in <= 10 minutes +- 5 seconds for the hardest to kill virus when compared to the parallel abrasion and re-inoculation controls to support residual virucidal claims.
                The performance standard and contact times are consistent with the standard non-residual disinfectants.
          At this time, expedited review is limited to residual disinfection claims of 24 hours or less based on data generated in accordance with the re-inoculation and abrasion cycles specified in the referenced protocol.

 Residual Disinfectant Claims - Labeling and Additional Information
 Products are eligible for inclusion on List N following adherence to the Emerging Viral Pathogens guidance or appropriate testing for a qualifying virus (e.g., SARS-CoV-2 or Human Coronavirus 229E).
 These products can be used as stand-alone disinfectants and do not need a label disclaimer that they are a "supplement to standard disinfection" since they meet the general criteria for disinfectants (effective in <= 10 minutes with appropriate log reductions for bacteria and virus).
                 Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Products
Qualifying antimicrobial surface coatings, films, fixed/solid and paint products should demonstrate efficacy against vegetative bacteria first before virus claims can be supported. These products are not required to meet the efficacy standards for disinfectants and can only be approved for use as supplements to standard disinfection. The duration of residual effectiveness claims that EPA will consider for expedited review depends on the type of product as detailed below.
 Antimicrobial Surface Coatings and Films
Utilize EPA's draft Performance of Antimicrobial Surface Coatings on Hard Non-porous Surfaces   for qualifying bacteria. Additional information is provided below for addition of virus claims.
       Test Organisms
 Bacteria -- Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC No. 6538) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC No. 15442) are the qualifying bacteria required to support supplemental residual antimicrobial surface claims for the proposed claim duration (e.g., 1 week, 2 weeks, etc.)
 Testing should be conducted on 3 product lots per bacterium at the LCL.
 To support claims for additional bacteria, testing should be conducted according to the method but with a reduced number of product lots.
 2 lots of product for each bacterium at the nominal concentration.
 Viruses -- All viruses for which claims are desired should be tested. The most difficult to kill virus should be subjected to the durability assessment using coating carriers followed by the efficacy assessment to support the proposed duration (e.g., 1 week, 2 weeks, etc.). All other viruses should be tested using coated carriers that were not subjected to the durability procedure.
                Assessment of virucidal efficacy on the coated carriers should be conducted consistent with ASTM E1053, the standard method specified in EPA's 810.2200 Efficacy Test Guideline.
                Two lots of product at the LCL should be tested for the most difficult to kill virus. Two lots of product at the nominal concentration should be tested for additional viruses.
 Note that to be considered as a supplement to List N, virus testing should include a non-enveloped virus or a human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 or human coronavirus 229E).
 Stainless steel carriers will be used to support claims for coatings on hard, nonporous surface. Use sites should be limited to hard, non-porous surfaces. Additional material types (e.g., porous materials or textiles) may be proposed by the registrant upon consultation with EPA prior to submission.
 The recommended number of abrasions (touches) and cycles of exposure to cleaning or disinfecting chemicals are provided in the method in order to substantiate durability claims. The method also specifies the chemical disinfecting solutions to simulate cycles of in-service disinfection and cleaning. Additional details can be found in the method.
 10 cycles of abrasion/chemical exposure = 1 week of durability. The number of cycles can be increased in 1 week increments to support claims up to 4-weeks.
 If a product is incompatible with one or more of the test chemistries, this should be discussed with EPA in advance and may limit use sites and surfaces depending on the nature of the incompatibility. EPA does not have a standard method for determining incompatibility. This may be based on research and development data or known incompatibilities with the coating material for example.
 This protocol can be modified for films upon consultation with EPA in advance of submission.
 If you intend to claim supplemental residual effects longer than 4-weeks, consult with EPA in advance of submission. Because the on-going antimicrobial integrity of coatings and films will not be readily visible, it is important that end users have a reasonable expectation of durability.
 Products should achieve a 99.9% reduction (3-log) for both bacteria and virus/es in comparison to untreated controls within a maximum of 2-hours but not less than 1-hour, as EPA is concerned that observations taken before the inoculum has dried (e.g., less than 1 hour) on the surface may not provide an accurate assessment of the product.
 The time to achieve performance begins at the time of inoculation.

 Antimicrobial Surface Coatings and Films - Labeling and Additional Information
This new category of antimicrobial products should be labeled as supplemental residual antimicrobial surfaces.

 As these products do not meet the criteria for a disinfectant due to the longer contact time and lower performance standard, claims for residual disinfectant are not acceptable. As above, contact times for disinfectants are <= 10 minutes and with a higher performance standard for bacteria.
 Products should carry the following prominent label qualifier that they are a supplement to standard disinfection and cleaning:
 "Although this product DOES NOT meet EPA's standards for disinfectants, EPA has determined that, when used with an EPA-registered disinfectant, this product can provide some additional protection against [microorganism(s)] for up to X days. This product DOES NOT achieve the same level of efficacy as an EPA-registered disinfectant; it is only intended to provide supplemental protection between routine applications of EPA-registered disinfectants."
 For products eligible only for supplemental residual antimicrobial claims, EPA intends to require as a term of registration that the label and labelling state "This product does not meet EPA's efficacy standards to qualify as a stand-alone disinfectant".
 Although these products will not be eligible for List N, they will be eligible as a supplement to List N (N.1) to reflect that they are supplemental treatments (i.e., not stand-alone disinfectants) and intended for use in combination with List N disinfectants.
 The following are example acceptable product label claims:
  "Kills 99.9% of [insert microorganism/s] within 2 hours of exposure when used as part of a comprehensive infection control program/protocol for up to X days."
 "Continuously reduces [insert microorganism/s] within 2 hours of exposure when used as part of a comprehensive infection control program for up to X days."

 Fixed/Solid Surfaces Including Solid Copper and Other Metals and Solid Impregnated Materials and Paints- Method Recommendation
Utilize EPA's Finalized Copper Surface Protocol for qualifying bacteria. Additional information is provided below for addition of virus claims.
       Test Organisms
 Bacteria -- Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC No. 6538) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC No. 15442) are the qualifying bacteria used to support supplemental residual surface claims.
 Testing should be conducted on 3 product lots per bacterium at the LCL.
             To support claims for additional bacteria, testing should be conducted according to the method but with a reduced number of product lots.
 2 lots of product for each bacterium at the nominal concentration.
             Viruses -- All viruses for which claims are desired should be tested. The most difficult to kill virus should be subjected to the durability assessment in the copper method followed by the efficacy assessment. All other viruses should be tested using test carriers that were not subjected to the durability procedure.
 Assessment of virucidal efficacy on the coated carriers should be conducted consistent with ASTM E1053, the standard method specified in EPA's 810.2200 Efficacy Test Guideline
 Two lots of product at the LCL should be tested for the most difficult to kill virus. Two lots of product at the nominal concentration should be tested for additional viruses.
 The recommended number of abrasions (touches) and cycles of exposure to cleaning or disinfecting chemicals are provided in the method in order to substantiate durability claims. The method also specifies the chemical solutions to simulate cycles of disinfection and cleaning.
             As the durability of these types of product can be readily observed, duration claims are not necessary. This is consistent with currently registered copper-containing surface products and paints.
             If a product is incompatible with one or more of the test chemistries, this should be discussed with EPA in advance and may limit use sites and surfaces depending on the nature of the incompatibility. EPA does not have a standard method for determining incompatibility. This may be based on research and development data or known incompatibilities with the coating material for example.
 This protocol can be modified for other metals or solid impregnated surfaces or paints upon consultation with EPA.
 Products should achieve a 99.9% reduction (3-log) for both bacteria and virus/es in comparison to untreated controls within 2-hours.
             The time to achieve performance begins at the time of inoculation.

 Fixed/Solid Surfaces Including Solid Copper and Other Metals and Solid Impregnated Materials and Paints - Labeling and Additional Information
These products should be labeled as supplemental residual antimicrobial surfaces.

 As these products do not meet the criteria for a disinfectant due to the longer contact time and lower performance standard, claims for residual disinfectant are not acceptable.
 Products should carry the following prominent label qualifier that they are a supplement to standard disinfection and cleaning:
 "Although this product DOES NOT meet EPA's standards for disinfectants, EPA has determined that, when used with an EPA-registered disinfectant, this product can provide some additional protection against [microorganism(s)] for up to X days. This product DOES NOT achieve the same level of efficacy as an EPA-registered disinfectant; it is only intended to provide supplemental protection between routine applications of EPA-registered disinfectants."
 For products eligible only for supplemental residual antimicrobial claims, EPA intends to require as a term of registration that the label and labelling should state "This product does not meet EPA's efficacy standards to qualify as a stand-alone disinfectant".
 Although these products will not be eligible for List N, they will be eligible as a supplement to List N (N.1) to reflect that they are supplemental treatments (i.e., not stand-alone disinfectants) and intended for use in combination with List N disinfectants. The following are example acceptable product label claims:
 "Kills 99.9% of [insert microorganism/s] within 2 hours of exposure when used as part of a comprehensive infection control program/protocol"
 "Continuously reduces [insert microorganism/s] within 2 hours of exposure when used as part of a comprehensive infection control program"

 Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Products - Stewardship Program
      EPA intends to require, as a term of registration, that registrants of all supplemental residual antimicrobial products prepare and implement a written stewardship plan designed to support the responsible use of supplemental residual coatings and antimicrobial surface products. Unlike the conventional antimicrobial products, these products represent unique challenges that require timely feedback to ensure proper use and compatibility in combination with current infection control practices. EPA expects that plans would be submitted for EPA review and approval during the registration process, or shortly thereafter (e.g., within two months after the registration date). An approvable plan would address the proper sale (including advertising and promotional materials), distribution, and responsible use of the supplemental residual coatings and antimicrobial surface products. Plans should include, at a minimum, the following elements:
 Advertising and promotional materials that clearly and consistently include a disclaimer that the product does not meet EPA's standards for disinfectants and is intended to supplement the use of EPA-registered disinfectants.
 Outreach to the infection control community;
 Customer feedback consisting of product issues/concerns, adverse events, compliance challenges/observations, and contraindications/adverse events gathered through quarterly registrant-initiated surveys, customer complaints, and suggestion boards; and
 Development of a stewardship website
      If EPA determines at any time following registration that the Plan is not being adequately or timely implemented or does not effectively ensure the product's safe and effective use, the registration may be cancelled by the Agency.

                How to Prepare an Application for Registration
 Requests to Amend Currently Registered Products That Require the Review of Data Under PRIA:
 Residual Disinfectants
         Submission of new efficacy data to add residual disinfectant claims to an already EPA-registered product can be submitted as a PRIA A570 action for expected expedited review. EPA will make every effort to complete the review and make a regulatory decision one to two months faster than the standard four-month timeframe under PRIA. EPA will consider expedited review of applications for amended registration to add residual disinfection claims for use under the following situations:
 If the currently registered product labeling is approved only for sanitizer claims or the labeling is approved with no public health claims, the following data should be submitted for EPA to consider approving residual virucidal claims:
               As described above in section I and II, efficacy data to support a base (non-residual) disinfection claim (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, see OCSPP 810.2200 for details) and non-residual virus data for all viruses for which residual claims for viruses are being requested. In order to qualify for expedited review, at least one of the viruses should be a non-enveloped virus to support an emerging viral pathogen claim (see the Emerging Viral Pathogens Guidance for examples of qualifying viruses) or a human coronavirus (e.g. SARS-CoV-2, ATCC 229E); AND
               Residual disinfection (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and residual virucidal efficacy data for the hardest to kill virus as described above.
 If the currently registered product labeling is approved for broad spectrum or hospital non-residual disinfection and virucidal claims, the following data should be submitted for EPA to consider approving residual virucidal claims:
               Residual disinfection (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and residual virucidal efficacy data for the hardest to kill virus as described above; AND
               Note that as described above section II.A, in order to qualify for expedited review, at least one of the approved non-residual virucidal claims should be for a non-enveloped virus to support an emerging viral pathogen claim (see the Emerging Viral Pathogens Guidance for examples of qualifying viruses) or a human coronavirus (e.g. SARS-CoV-2, ATCC 229E).
 If the currently registered product labeling is approved for broad spectrum or hospital non-residual disinfection claims with no virucidal claims, the following data should be submitted for EPA to consider approving residual virucidal claims:
               Non-residual virus data for all viruses for which residual claims for viruses are being requested. In order to qualify for expedited review, at least one of the viruses should be a non-enveloped virus to support an emerging viral pathogen claim (see the Emerging Viral Pathogens Guidance for examples of qualifying viruses) or a human coronavirus (e.g. SARS-CoV-2, ATCC 229E); AND
               Residual disinfection (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and residual virucidal efficacy data for the hardest to kill virus as described above.
         If your application for amended registration includes any additional changes other than those identified above, EPA may not consider it for expedited review.
         To ensure the efficient processing of your PRIA submission, please include the following in a cover letter to EPA:
                A subject line that clearly indicates "Existing Product Submission of Efficacy Data for Residual Disinfectant;"
                A list of the submitted efficacy data;
                The identification of the virus(es) used in the submitted data that support the emerging viral pathogen claim(s), SARS-CoV-2 claim(s) or other human coronavirus claim(s); and
                The identification of all the organism(s) and respective study ID number(s) (MRID/s) for which expedited review is being requested.
   The following should also be included with your PRIA submission:
                An up-to-date Certification with Respect to Data Citation Form (Form 8570-34) and Data Matrix (Form 8570-35);
                CSF(s) (Form 8570-4);
                An 8570-1 application form;
                A revised master label, both a highlighted version and a clean version, with the updated directions for use for residual disinfection, contact time, and emergent pathogen claims if applicable; and
                If a request to add an emerging viral pathogen claim is being made, please refer to the instructions for adding these claims.
                A PRIA fee payment, in the amount of $4,023, or small business fee waiver request with the appropriate fee for a PRIA A570 action.
         Submit your application via the CDX portal. Once you submit or if you have already submitted your application, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your CDX tracking number (CDX_2020_XXXXXXX) with the subject line "Existing Product Submission of Efficacy Data for Residual Disinfectant" so that your submission can be eligible to be expedited.
         For questions about what is needed as part of your submission, please contact the Product Manager for your product.

 Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Products (e.g. coatings, paints, solid/fixed surfaces)
         Submission of new efficacy data to add supplemental residual antimicrobial claims to an already EPA-registered product can be submitted as a PRIA A570 action for expected expedited review. EPA will make every effort to complete the review and make a regulatory decision one to two months faster than the standard four-month timeframe under PRIA. EPA will consider expedited review of applications for amended registration to add supplemental residual antimicrobial claims for use under either of the following circumstances:
 For a currently registered product with no approved public health claims, please submit supplemental residual efficacy data relevant to the type of product (e.g., coating vs solid surface) as described in section III.A or III.C above against base bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and viruses. In order to qualify for expedited review, at least one of the viruses should be a non-enveloped virus (see the Emerging Viral Pathogens Guidance for examples of qualifying viruses) or a human coronavirus (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, ATCC 229E);
 For a currently registered product with bacterial public health claims, please submit supplemental residual efficacy data relevant to the type of product (e.g. coating vs solid surface) as described in section III.A or III.C above against viruses. In order to qualify for expedited review, at least one of the viruses should be a non-enveloped virus (see the Emerging Viral Pathogens Guidance for examples of qualifying viruses) or a human coronavirus (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, ATCC 229E).
         To ensure the efficient processing of your PRIA submission, please include the following in a cover letter to EPA:
                A subject line that clearly indicates "Existing Product Submission of Efficacy Data for Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Product;"
                A list of the submitted efficacy data;
                The identification of the virus claims claim(s) from the submitted data which may include non-enveloped virus(es), SARS-CoV-2 (s) or other human coronavirus(es); and
                The identification of the organism(s) and study ID number(s) (MRID/s) for which expedited review is being requested.
         The following should also be included with your PRIA submission:
                An up-to-date Certification w/ Respect to Data Citation Form (Form 8570-34) and Data Matrix (Form 8570-35);
                CSF(s) (Form 8570-4);
                An 8570-1 application form;
                A revised master label, both a highlighted version and a clean version, with the updated directions for use; and
                A PRIA fee payment, in the amount of $4,023, or small business fee waiver request with the appropriate fee for a PRIA A570 action.
         Submit your application via the CDX portal. Once you submit or if you have already submitted your application, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your CDX tracking number (CDX_2020_XXXXXXX) with the subject line "Existing Product Submission of Efficacy Data for Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Coating/Surface Product" so that your submission can be eligible to be expedited.
         For questions about what is needed as part of your submission, please contact the Product Manager for your product.
2. Requests for A New Product That Requires the Review of Data Under PRIA:
 New Product Formulated with A Registered Source of Active Ingredient(s)
For an application for registration of a new pesticide product for residual disinfectant or supplemental residual antimicrobial product intended to be formulated from a registered technical or manufacturing use product, follow the instructions in EPA's previously announced expedited review of certain PRIA submissions for products intended for use against the SARS-CoV-2, the novel human coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Specifically, follow the directions for "Submission of an application for a new pesticide product that requires EPA to review newly submitted efficacy data to support virucidal claims where the product is formulated with a registered source of active ingredient(s)" and include the additional information specified above in Section II (residual disinfectants) or Section III (supplemental residual antimicrobial product) as appropriate. As specified in the expedited PRIA guidance, this is a PRIA A540 action, and the submission should include a PRIA fee payment in the amount of $5,363, or small business fee waiver request with appropriate fee for a PRIA A540 action.
Submit your application via the CDX portal. Once you submit or if you have already submitted your application, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your CDX tracking number (CDX_2020_XXXXXXX) with the either the subject line "New Residual Disinfectant Product- Registered Source" or "New Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Coating/Surface Product- Registered Source" as appropriate so that your submission can be eligible to be expedited.

 New Product Formulated with An Unregistered Source of Active Ingredient(s)
For an application for registration of a new pesticide product for residual disinfectant or supplemental residual antimicrobial product intended to be formulated from an unregistered technical or manufacturing use product, follow the instructions in EPA's previously announced expedited review of certain PRIA submissions for products intended for use against the SARS-CoV-2, the novel human coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Specifically, follow the directions for "Submission of an application for a new pesticide product that requires EPA to review newly submitted efficacy data to support virucidal claims where the product is formulated with an unregistered source of active ingredient(s)" and include the additional information specified above in Section II (residual disinfectants) or Section III (supplemental residual antimicrobial) as appropriate. As specified in the expedited PRIA guidance, this may be either a PRIA A540 action or a PRIA A572 action. The submission should include a PRIA fee payment in the amount of $5,363, or small business fee waiver request with appropriate fee for a PRIA A540 action or $13,888 for an A572 action, or small business fee waiver request with the appropriate fee for a PRIA A572 action.
Submit your application via the CDX portal. Once you submit or if you have already submitted your application, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your CDX tracking number (CDX_2020_XXXXXXX) with the subject line "New Residual Disinfectant Product- Unregistered Source" or "New Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Coating/Surface Product Unregistered Source" so that your submission can be eligible to be expedited.


[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 70609-70610]
[DOCID:fr22no05-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 15, 2005.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters.
    b. Project Number: P-1267-073.
    c. Date Filed: August 22, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Greenwood County, South Carolina.
    e. Name of Project: Buzzard's Roost Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Saluda River in
Greenwood, Laurens, and Newberry Counties, South Carolina. The project
does not occupy any federal or tribal lands. The proposed non-project
use would be located on Lake Greenwood in Greenwood County at Stoney
Point subdivision.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec.  791(a)-
825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Larry Smith, 600 Monument Street, P.O. Box
P-103, Suite 102, Greenwood, SC 29646; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: December 16, 2005.
    k. Description of the Application: Greenwood County requests
Commission approval to grant an encroachment permit and use agreement
to Stoney Point Property Owners Association (SPPOA) for the expansion
of an existing community marina. The marina currently consists of one
dock with 18 boat slips, a boat launch ramp with an adjacent courtesy
dock, and two jet-ski ramps. The proposed marina expansion includes
additional dock works to accommodate 68 new boat slips, and four
additional jet-ski ramps. The overall boat-dock footprint would extend
up to 250 feet into the normal lake pool over a width of 275 feet. The
marina's six personal-watercraft ramps would occupy a 60-foot-long by
30-foot-wide area of the shoreline. The expanded marina facilities
would be leased to SPPOA members.
    l. Location of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (P-1267-073). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.

    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6428 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51923-51924]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0640]

Eighth Coast Guard District; Interim Outer Continental Shelf
Risk-Based Resource Allocation Methodology

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of an interim risk
based resource allocation methodology for inspections of certain Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) units in the Eighth Coast Guard District (D8)
area of responsibility (AOR). This interim methodology will be
implemented for a five-month trial period beginning August 1, 2016.
After the trial period, the methodology will be finalized within D8 and
submitted to Coast Guard Headquarters (CG-CVC) for consideration at the
national level.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0640 or view documents mentioned in this notice as being available
in the docket using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Steve Sutton, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    This interim risk based resource allocation methodology is intended
to improve implementation of the requirements contained in 33 CFR
140.101(c), 143.120(c), and 143.210(a) by employing interagency
consultation and by establishing increased focus on the industrial
mission and regulatory compliance and casualty data. It builds upon the
risk based matrix created for foreign Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
(MODU), which was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 39885) by
the Coast Guard in 2011 by applying similar principles to other OCS
units and adding consultation with the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). This methodology will reallocate
Coast Guard inspection resources from lower risk, fixed interval
activities to higher risk activities prior to commencing an industrial
mission. The Coast Guard will periodically evaluate MODUs and OCS
facilities that either perform drilling or well-workover or are due for
a Coast Guard regulatory inspection to assign an inspection priority
and scope using risk matrices. For example, under this methodology
Coast Guard inspection resources previously used to conduct an annual
Certificate of Compliance inspection of a lower risk stacked MODU may
be reallocated to conduct a higher risk inspection of any MODU or OCS
facility with a drilling rig prior to commencement of drilling.

Outreach to the Offshore Operator's Committee

    On June 8, 2016, the Coast Guard conducted outreach to the offshore
Operators' Committee at its annual general meeting in Houston, TX. The
presentation, presentation script, and transcript of questions and
answers from this outreach are available on the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the
interim risk based resource allocation methodology for inspection of
OCS units in the D8 AOR. We will consider all submissions and may
adjust our action based on your comments, although we do not anticipate
a written response to comments. If you submit a comment, please include
the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice of availability, and
all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted to the
docket.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted

without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
D.R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-18590 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


								Brian R. Flood, Ph.D. 										 Integrated Pest Management –
Vegetables

             						 		 600 North 15th Street

 Rochelle, Illinois 60168 - 1002

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Laura L. Parsons

Team Leader, Special Review and Reregistration Division (Mail Code
7508C)

USEPA Headquarters

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Dear Ms. Laura L. Parsons:

RE: Retention of Penncap-M, encapsulated methyl parathion for machine
harvested sweet corn

The Mid West Food Processors are acutely aware and fully support EPA’s
goals in the utilization of less toxic and more environmentally friendly
pest management materials.  We have participated as partners in
obtaining, developing, registering and utilizing these effective tools.
The efforts have reduced our cost, increased our effectiveness and
removed organophosphate insecticides from our pea, green bean and sweet
corn program.  Without your timely and focused registrations of these
new materials, we would have been able to accomplish this goal.  In the
Second Edition of Vegetable Insect Management by R. Foster & B. R. Flood
we highlight your efforts as one of the reasons a second edition was
required.

Regretfully, vegetable crop pest are impacted by events taking place in
field crop production.  Our vegetable crops receive pests from these
crops as we often become trap crops.  The significant shift in pests has
elevated the root worm beetle complex from a minor pest into major pest
status.  Rootworm pest population levels are increasing as a result of
GMO field crops. The increased utilization of Roundup Ready field corn
and soybeans has created a green bridge that allows rootworm eggs laid
in field corn to develop on volunteer field corn plants in soybeans the
following year.  The Roundup Ready volunteer field corn also serves as
an oviposition site. In addition, the northern and western corn rootworm
adults will now lay eggs in soybeans.  First year corn is now at risk
due to the egg laying.  The net result is the loss of soybean as a
rotational crop and root worm beetle numbers are increasing.  The adult
beetle feeding on the succulent sweet corn foliage and silks could
reduce yield, quality and recovery, if not managed.  The current
pyrethroid materials are at best weak on this pest complex; Penncap M is
used successfully in field crops to manage the adults.

The second issue is the developing pyrethroid resistance of the corn ear
worm enhanced by the wide area use of cheap pyrethroid insecticides in
new southern crop systems. The pyrethroid materials are used in GMO
cotton and new field crop systems but not directed specifically toward
corn earworm control.  The more pyrethroid tolerant corn ear worm
disperses to our production area in mid to late summer. We are
initialing and evaluating new control options and will seek EPA help in
gaining registrations when we determine our best alternative.  The new
insecticides, if available, will be registered in 3 to 5 years after we
find a suitable replacement.  In addition, we are evaluating new sweet
corn varieties and processing equipment (PROCESS OUT) to help us manage
these pests with non chemical means. GMO sweet corn is not an option.
In the near short term, we have a potential problem that could result is
loses / cost in excess of $100 per acre on portions of our production
schedule.  The same set of acres is also at risk to adult rootworm
beetles.

We have a need for an effective rootworm material that will not promote
corn earworm resistance.  Penncap M is not an effective corn earworm
material, but does offer outstanding adult corn root worm beetle
control.  The treatment period for rootworms and corn earworms can
overlap, but the rootworm beetles can be treated prior to the corn
earworm.

The purpose of this letter is to make you aware of our situation and
provide insight for the retention of Penncap M use as a sweet corn
resistance management tool.  The retained material will reduce the
exposure of corn earworms to sub acute levels of pyrethroid materials
directed towards a surface feeding beetle while providing better adult
rootworm beetle control.

Thank you for your efforts in managing the tools for effective
integrated pest management.

Yours truly,

Brian R. Flood, Ph.D.

815-562-1311


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2742-2744]
[FR Doc No: 2011-672]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63678; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-166]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Pricing for NASDAQ Members Using the NASDAQ Market Center

January 7, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 30, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ proposes to modify pricing for NASDAQ members using the
NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ will implement the proposed change on
January 3, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ'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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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
    NASDAQ is amending Rule 7018 to encourage members to provide
liquidity directly to NASDAQ that previously had been provided via a
sponsored access relationship. Direct liquidity provision is beneficial
to NASDAQ and to the marketplace generally. Direct liquidity provision
improves NASDAQ's market surveillance by providing a clear view of a
member's market activity, rather than a view of that activity under the
aegis of the sponsored access provider. Direct liquidity provision also
enables NASDAQ to offer rebates more equitably, based upon each
member's unique liquidity provision rather than compensating the effort
required to aggregate order flow.
    To encourage the direct provision of liquidity, NASDAQ is adding
subsection Rule 7018(k). This subsection applies in the first month in
which a member begins providing liquidity to NASDAQ directly that
previously had been

provided to NASDAQ via a sponsored access relationship. In that month,
the rebates for that member under Rule 7018 shall be based upon the
average daily volume of liquidity provided by the sponsored access
provider. Under this calculation, the member will receive the same
rebate for sending orders directly to NASDAQ that that member would
have paid had it remained in a sponsored access relationship. Because
NASDAQ's liquidity provider rebates vary based upon volume of liquidity
provided, absent this formulation, members might receive lower rebates
by virtue of switching mid-month from sponsored access to direct
provision of liquidity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018(a). NASDAQ's fees for accessing
liquidity are fixed; they do not vary with volume and thus are not
impacted by this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume that Member ABCD provides liquidity to NASDAQ
via a sponsored access relationship with Member 1234. Member 1234
provides average daily liquidity of 60 million shares of which 20
million shares is provided by Member ABCD. Member ABCD switches on the
20th trading day of January--a month with 25 trading days--from
providing liquidity via Member 1234 to providing liquidity directly to
NASDAQ. Member ABCD continues to provide 20 million shares of liquidity
directly to NASDAQ for the final five trading days of January. Member
1234 continues to provide 40 million shares of liquidity to NASDAQ for
the final five trading days of January, having lost 20 million shares
per day due to Member ABCD's changed behavior.
    Under current Rule 7018, if Member ABCD continues to provide
liquidity via Member 1234 for the entire month of January, it receives
rebates of $0.0029 per share of liquidity provided based on Member 1234
providing 60 million shares of liquidity per day. If Member ABCD
switches on the 20th trading day of the month to providing liquidity
directly to NASDAQ, it will receive rebates for the final five trading
days at a rate of $0.0020 per share based on 4 million shares per day
(20 million x 5 actual trading days / 25 trading days in the month).
Member 1234 has the ability to calculate the rebates for Member ABCD at
less favorable rates as well because Member ABCD has lowered the
average daily liquidity provided by Member 1234. This has the effect of
de-valuing the liquidity provided by Member ABCD for the periods of
time both before and after it switches from sponsored access to direct
liquidity provision. This discourages Member ABCD from providing
liquidity directly to NASDAQ for any partial month period.
    Under new Rule 7018(k), NASDAQ will calculate the rebate for Member
ABCD as follows. For the first 20 trading days, Member ABCD will be
credited with all of the liquidity that Member 1234 provides to
NASDAQ--60 million shares. For the final five trading days of the
month, Member ABCD will continue to be credited with the liquidity
provided by member 1234--40 million shares--rather than the liquidity
provided directly by member ABCD--20 million shares. Thus, both Member
ABCD and Member 1234 will receive rebates of $0.0029 based upon average
daily liquidity provided of 56 million shares per day (60 million
shares per day x 20 days + 40 million shares per day x five days / 25
days).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This is one example of how new Rule 7018(k) will operate.
The actual rebates provided to members will vary depending upon the
liquidity provided by their sponsored access provider and by the
member itself. In all cases, the rebates for all members will be
calculated using the rebates duly filed with the Commission and set
forth in NASDAQ's online manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that this provides an appropriate incentive for
members to switch from sponsored access relationships to direct
liquidity provision, while also fairly valuing the liquidity provided
by all members. It is appropriate for NASDAQ to share with members the
substantial benefit that NASDAQ enjoys when it receives liquidity
directly from members. As stated above, this benefit is both monetary
and regulatory. At the same time, there is no cost to sponsored access
providers that, under new subsection 7018(k), continue to enjoy the
benefit of their successful efforts to aggregate liquidity.
    This option will be available to members only once and only for the
final five trading days of a month. The five-day period is designed to
allow members an operating transition from sponsored access to direct
liquidity provision. To make that transition, members must re-program
systems and test their interaction with NASDAQ systems. Members are
reluctant to make this transition on the first day of a trading month
because errors could reduce monthly liquidity provision and lead to
lower rebates. NASDAQ considered offering this benefit for a longer
period of time but concluded, after assessing multiple factors, that a
five-day transition period is adequate for operational continuity.
NASDAQ believes members should make this transition only once and that
it is appropriate to compensate them for making this transition only
once.
    It shall be the obligation of the member to notify NASDAQ prior to
invoking Rule 7018(k) in a form specified by NASDAQ. This will enable
NASDAQ to monitor and measure the liquidity provision that is
transferred from a sponsored access relationship directly to NASDAQ.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the impact of the price changes upon the rebates
received by a particular market participant will depend upon a number
of variables, including the specifics of the market participant's
sponsored access relationship, its propensity to add or remove
liquidity, the duration of the transition period, and other factors.
    Additionally, the proposed allocation of fees is fair and
reasonable in that it furthers NASDAQ's legitimate goal of encouraging
members to provide liquidity directly to NASDAQ. There is a meaningful
regulatory and economic benefit to NASDAQ when a firm provides
liquidity directly as opposed to providing it via sponsored access. It
is equitable and fair for NASDAQ to share that benefit with the member
and to encourage that behavior. NASDAQ's proposal is narrowly tailored
to the goal of encouraging direct liquidity provision, and it imposes
no penalty on any firm for not opting to invoke new Rule 7018(k).
    NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem rebate levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. Additionally, members can choose to remain in sponsored
access relationships rather than voluntarily choose to send order flow
directly to NASDAQ. Accordingly, if particular market participants
object to the proposed fee changes, they can avoid receiving the
rebates implicated by this filing. NASDAQ believes that its fees
continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to members on the
basis of whether they opt to direct orders to NASDAQ.

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

    Nasdaq 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, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-166 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-166. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. 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-NASDAQ-2010-166, and should be submitted on or before
February 4, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-672 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6958-6959]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02572]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9922-83-OA]

Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National
Environmental Education Foundation

AGENCY: Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education,
Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation
(doing business as The National Environmental Education Foundation or
NEEF) was created by Section 10 of Public Law 101-619, the National
Environmental Education Act of 1990. It is a private 501(c)(3) non-
profit organization established to promote and support education and
training as necessary tools to further environmental protection and
sustainable, environmentally sound development. It provides the common
ground upon which leaders from business and industry, all levels of
government, public interest groups, and others can work cooperatively
to expand the reach of environmental education and training programs
beyond the traditional classroom. The Foundation promotes innovative
environmental education and training programs such as environmental
education for medical healthcare providers and broadcast
meteorologists; it also develops partnerships with government and other
organizations to administer projects that promote the development of an
environmentally literal public. The Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, as required by the terms of the Act,
announces the following appointment to the National Environmental
Education Foundation Board of Directors. The appointee is George
Basile, Ph.D., a Professor in the School of Sustainability at Arizona
State University (ASU), a Senior Sustainability Scientist in ASU's
Global Institute of Sustainability and Affiliate Professor in the
School on Public Affairs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this Notice
of Appointment, please contact Mr. Brian Bond, Senior Advisor to the
Administrator for Public Engagement, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460. General information concerning NEEF can be
found on their Web site at: http://www.neefusa.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Additional Considerations: Great care has been taken to assure that
this new appointee not only has the highest degree of expertise and
commitment, but also brings to the Board diverse points of view
relating to environmental education. This appointment is a four-year
term which may be renewed once for an additional four years pending
successful re-election by the NEEF nominating committee.
    This appointee will join the current Board members which include:

     Decker Anstrom (NEEF Chairman) Former U.S. Ambassador,
Retired Chairman, The Weather Channel Companies
     Trish Silber (NEEF Vice Chair) President, Aliniad
Consulting Partners, Inc.
     Diane Wood (NEEF Secretary) President, National
Environmental Education Foundation
     Carlos Alcazar, Founder and Chairman, Culture ONE World
     Megan Reilly Cayten, Co-Founder and Chief Executive
Officer, Catrinka, LLC
     Philippe Cousteau, Co-Founder and CEO, EarthEcho
International
     David M. Kiser, Vice President, Environment, Health,
Safety and Sustainability, International Paper
     Wonya Lucas, President, Lucas Strategic Consulting
     Shannon Schuyler, Principal, Corporate Responsibility
Leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
     Jacqueline M. Thomas, Vice President of Corporate
Responsibility, Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.
    Background: Section 10(a) of the National Environmental Education
Act of 1990 mandates a National Environmental Education Foundation. The
Foundation is established in order to extend the contribution of
environmental education and training to meeting critical environmental
protection needs, both in this country and internationally; to
facilitate the cooperation, coordination, and contribution of public
and private resources to create an environmentally advanced educational
system; and to foster an open and effective partnership among Federal,
State, and local government, business, industry, academic institutions,
community-based environmental groups, and international organizations.
    The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose
income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to
the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section
501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an
agency or establishment of the United States. The purposes of the
Foundation are--
    (A) subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of
subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and administer
private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with, the
environmental education and training activities and services of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency;
    (B) to conduct such other environmental education activities as
will further the development of an environmentally conscious and
responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate
workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system;
    (C) to participate with foreign entities and individuals in the
conduct and coordination of activities that will further opportunities
for environmental education and training to address environmental
issues and problems involving the United States and Canada or Mexico.
    The Foundation develops, supports, and/or operates programs and
projects to educate and train educational and environmental
professionals, and to assist them in the development and delivery of
environmental education and training programs and studies.
    The Foundation has a governing Board of Directors (hereafter
referred to in this section as `the Board'), which consists of 13
directors, each of whom shall be knowledgeable or experienced in the
environment, education and/or training. The Board oversees the
activities of the Foundation and assures that the activities of the
Foundation are consistent with the environmental and education goals
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and with the
intents and purposes of the Act. The membership of the Board, to the
extent practicable, represents diverse points of view relating to
environmental education and training. Members of the Board are
appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the National
Environmental Education Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the
Administrator will publish in the Federal Register an announcement of
appointments of Directors of the Board. Such appointments become final
and effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. The
directors are appointed for terms of 4 years. The Administrator shall
appoint an individual to serve as a director in the event of a vacancy
on the Board within 60 days of said vacancy in the manner in which the
original appointment was made. No individual may serve more than 2
consecutive terms as a director.

    Dated: February 3, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

George Basile, Ph.D.

    Dr. Basile is currently a Professor in the School of Sustainability
at Arizona State University (ASU), a Senior Sustainability Scientist in
ASU's Global Institute of Sustainability and Affiliate Professor in the
School of Public Affairs. He is also the Swedish Knowledge Foundation's
Distinguished International Guest Professor of Sustainability-Driven
Innovation. Dr. Basile's work has reframed sustainability as a
``decision space'' and focuses on how to plan, lead and act
strategically for emerging sustainability opportunities and challenges.
Dr. Basile has been the Executive Director of the ASU Decision Theater,
a unique systems exploration and application center. He has also served
as a faculty affiliate and advisor to the Sustainability Consortium, a
group of over 80 global businesses, universities and NGOs developing
science-based standards for sustainable products. At ASU, Dr. Basile's
activities include developing novel insights, strategic methods and
tools that create solutions for sustainability including novel
educational programs in sustainability and leadership in both the
United States and the European Union and at both the undergraduate and
graduate levels.
    Dr. Basile holds a B.S. in Physics from University of California,
Irvine and a Ph.D. in Biophysics from University of California,
Berkeley. His publications include a three[hyphen]volume edited set The
Business of Sustainability (Praeger Press, 2011).

[FR Doc. 2015-02572 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P