[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64179-64180]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25601]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68045; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-115]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NASDAQ's Schedule of Execution Fees for Order Routing Under Rule
7018

October 12, 2012.
    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 October 1, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 amend NASDAQ's fee schedule governing order
routing under Rule 7018. NASDAQ will implement the proposed change on
October 1, 2012. 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, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts 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 its fee schedule governing order routing to
modify fees for routing orders to the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') and NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') to reflect announced price
changes by those venues.\3\ All of the changes pertain to securities
priced at $1 or more per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-NYSE-2012-50 (September 26, 2012); SR-Phlx-2012-119
(October 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to orders that route to PSX using the TFTY, SOLV, or
SAVE routing strategies, the fee will be fixed at $0.0028 per share
executed. The change reflects the fact that PSX has replaced provisions
under which the fee charged to access liquidity vary [sic] considerably
based on the listing venue of the security being traded, with a simpler
fee schedule under which NASDAQ would be charged either $0.0028 or
$0.0030 per share executed with respect to the orders it routes to PSX.
Accordingly, NASDAQ is opting to replace the current pass-through fee
for orders routed to PSX using the TFTY, SOLV, or SAVE routing
strategies with a flat rate of $0.0028 that will either recoup the
applicable routing charge or provide routing at a slight discount.
    Second, with respect to orders routed to NYSE, NASDAQ is making the
following changes:
     The fee for DOTI, STGY, SCAN, SKNY or SKIP orders that
execute at NYSE will increase from $0.0023 per share executed to
$0.0025 per share executed.
     The fee for directed intermarket sweep orders that execute
at NYSE will increase from $0.0025 per share executed to $0.0027 per
share executed.
     The fee for other directed orders that execute at NYSE
will increase from $0.0024 per share executed to $0.0026 per share
executed for members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq
Market Center in all securities during the month of more than 35
million shares of liquidity provided through one or more MPIDs; and
will increase from $0.0025 per share executed to $0.0027 per share
executed for other members.
     The fee for MOPP orders that execute at NYSE will increase
from $0.0025 per share executed to $0.0027 per share executed.
     The fee for TFTY orders that execute at NYSE will increase
from $0.0023 per share executed to $0.0024 per share executed.
     The fee for SAVE and SOLV orders that execute at NYSE will
increase from $0.0023 per share executed to $0.0025 per share executed.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ 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, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The changes to routing fees are reasonable because the proposed
fees for routing orders to NYSE and PSX reflect changes in the fees
that will be charged by NYSE or PSX to NASDAQ with respect to such
orders. The changes are consistent with an equitable allocation of fees
because they will bring the economic attributes of routing orders to
NYSE and PSX in line with the cost of executing orders there. Finally,
the changes are not unfairly discriminatory because they solely apply
to members that opt to route orders to NYSE or PSX.
    Finally, NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such
an environment, NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment because it is designed to ensure
that the charges for use of the NASDAQ routing facility to route to
NYSE or PSX reflect changes in the cost of such routing.

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. Because the market
for order routing is extremely competitive, members may readily opt to
disfavor NASDAQ's routing services if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. For

this reason and the reasons discussed in connection with the statutory
basis for the proposed rule change, NASDAQ does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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.\6\ 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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec. gov. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-115 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-2012-115. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-2012-115, and should be submitted on or before
November 8, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25601 Filed 10-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61609-61610]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP20-9-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Abbreviated Application for Abandonment of Service for
City of Danville, Virginia of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/31/19.
    Accession Number: 20191031-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-204-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Abandon Rate Schedule X-45
Compliance Filing CP19-510 to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/5/19.
    Accession Number: 20191105-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-205-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of the X-9 Rate
Schedule to be effective 12/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/5/19.
    Accession Number: 20191105-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-206-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Firm Transportation Service
Options to be effective 12/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/5/19.
    Accession Number: 20191105-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 6, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24628 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 53533]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19208]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 31 and Form R31, SEC File No. 270-537, OMB Control No.
3235-0597.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 31
(17 CFR 240.31) and Form R31 (17 CFR 249.11) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ee.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Section 31 of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect
fees and assessments from national securities exchanges and national
securities associations (collectively, ``self-regulatory
organizations'' or ``SROs'') based on the volume of their securities
transactions. To collect the proper amounts, the Commission adopted
Rule 31 and Form R31 under the Exchange Act whereby the SROs must
report to the Commission the volume of their securities transactions
and the Commission, based on those data, calculates the amount of fees
and assessments that the SROs owe pursuant to Section 31. Rule 31 and
Form R31 require the SROs to provide this data on a monthly basis.
    Currently, there are 23 respondents under Rule 31: 19 national
securities exchanges, one security futures exchange, and one national
securities association subject to the collection of information
requirements of Rule 31; there are additionally two registered clearing
agencies that are required to provide certain data in their possession
needed by the SROs to complete Form R31, although these two entities
are not themselves required to complete and submit Form R31. The
Commission estimates that the total burden for all 23 respondents is
390 hours per year. The Commission notes that, based on previous and
current experience, it estimates an additional three new national
securities exchanges will become registered and subject to the
reporting requirements of Rule 31 over the course of the authorization
period and incur a burden of 18 hours per year. Thus, the Commission
estimates the total burden for the existing and expected new
respondents to be 408 hours per year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 9, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19208 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


July, 9 2009

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  		Inert Ingredient Decision Document for Pesticide Petition
4E6841:  1,2-ethanediamine, N,N,N’,N’-tetramethyl-, polymer with
1,1’-oxybis[2-chloroethane] (CAS Reg. No. 31075-24-8), PC Code 900835

FROM:	Keri Grinstead

		Inert Ingredient Assessment Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

TO:		P. V. Shah, Chief

		Inert Ingredient Assessment Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

OVERVIEW

	This decision document is the assessment for
1,2-ethanediamine,N,N,N’,N’-tetramethyl-, polymer with
1,1’-oxybis[2-chloroethane] (CAS Reg. No. 31075-24-8) when used as an
inert ingredient (adjuvant or water conditioner) in pesticide
formulations applied to cotton or wheat only under 40 CFR 180.920.  For
ease of reading throughout this document,
1,2-ethanediamine,N,N,N’,N’-tetramethyl-, polymer with
1,1’-oxybis[2-chloroethane] is referred to as BCETMD copolymer.

EPA received a petition from Buckman Laboratories International, Inc.
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR
180.920 for residues of BCETMD copolymer when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide products applied to growing crops.  The Notice
of Filing for this petition was published in the Federal Register on
September 17, 2004 (69 FR 56062).  No substantive comments were received
in response to this notice.  The petitioner subsequently amended their
petition specifying that the inert ingredient use of BCETMD copolymer
will be as an adjuvant or water conditioner in pesticide products
applied only to cotton and to wheat prior to boot stage.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This assessment summarizes available information on the use,
physical/chemical properties, toxicological effects, exposure profile,
and environmental fate of BCETMD copolymer when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest to cotton and
wheat under 40 CFR 180.920 (growing crops only).  BCETMD copolymer has
the same chemical composition as Busan 77, a registered pesticide active
ingredient.  As a result of the Busan 77 registration, sufficient data
have been submitted to support this action.  The petitioner has
submitted the Agency’s reviews of the Busan 77 studies in support of
this tolerance exemption petition for BCETMD copolymer.  The Agency has
determined that these reviews are adequate and appropriate to
characterize the toxicity of BCETMD copolymer.  Excerpts and summaries
of these reviews are presented in this document.  The purpose of this
document is to assess, as required under the Federal Food Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the risk to human health and the environment from
the use of BCETMD copolymer as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied to cotton and wheat under 40 CFR 180.920.

Based on the results of animal studies, BCETMD copolymer exhibits low to
moderate oral toxicity, slight irritation to the rabbit eye and skin,
and is not a skin sensitizer in Guinea pigs.  Reproductive/developmental
toxicity was only seen at dosage levels at or above those which also
caused maternal effects and it was determined not to be mutagenic or
carcinogenic.  In metabolism studies, most (≥86%) of the chemical was
excreted in the feces.

The primary route of exposure to BCETMD copolymer from its use as an
inert ingredient in pesticide products applied pre-harvest to cotton and
wheat would most likely be through consumption of food to which
pesticide products containing it as an inert ingredient have been
applied, and possibly through drinking water (from runoff).  The use of
this chemical is limited to pesticide formulations pre-harvest to cotton
or wheat crops only, therefore, there are no residential uses of this
chemical, and thus no residential (dermal and inhalation) exposures are
expected.

Residues of concern are not anticipated for dietary exposure (food and
drinking water) from the use of BCETMD copolymer as an inert ingredient
in pesticide products applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat.  No
adverse effects attributable to a single exposure of BCETMD copolymer
were seen in the toxicity database.  Therefore, an acute dietary risk
assessment is not required.  EPA determines whether pesticide chemical
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the dose
at which no adverse effects were seen in the most sensitive animal
species.  In the case of BCETMD copolymer, the estimated exposures are
compared to a dose level equal to the chronic RfD of 0.45 mg/kg/day
(based on the developmental toxicity study in rabbits).  Utilizing a
highly conservative aggregate exposure assessment, the resulting chronic
exposure estimates do not exceed the Agency’s level of concern; the
chronic dietary estimate for the U.S. Population was 6.7% (non-nursing
infants were the most highly exposed population with a chronic exposure
estimate occupying 20.0% of the cPAD).

	Taking into consideration all available information on BCETMD
copolymer, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure
to BCETMD copolymer when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat when considering
dietary exposure and all other nonoccupational sources of pesticide
exposure for which there is reliable information.  Therefore, the
establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for
residues of BCETMD copolymer when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied to cotton or wheat only, can be
considered safe under section 408 of the FFDCA.

Background

	Buckman Laboratories International, Inc. submitted a petition (4E6841)
requesting a tolerance exemption for BCETMD copolymer, CAS number
31075-24-8.  The company requested an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of this chemical when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only under
40 CFR 180.920.  The petitioner subsequently amended their petition
specifying that the inert ingredient use of BCETMD copolymer will be as
an adjuvant or water conditioner in pesticide products applied only to
cotton and to wheat prior to boot stage.  Agency data reviews were
submitted by the petitioner to support their request for a tolerance
exemption and these reviews are summarized in this document.

Table 1.  Tolerance Exemption

Inert Ingredient	Limits	Uses

1,2-ethanediamine, N,N,N’,N’-tetramethyl-, polymer with
1,1’-oxybis[2-chloroethane] (CAS Reg. No. 31075-24-8)	For use in
pesticide formulations applied to cotton or wheat only 	Adjuvant or
water conditioner

BCETMD has the same chemical composition as Busan 77.  Busan 77 is
registered as an active ingredient biocide in a variety of non-food
antimicrobial pesticide products with use sites such as swimming pools,
whirlpools, spas, ornamental ponds and fountains, commercial and
industrial cooling water systems, metalworking cutting fluids,
industrial airwashing systems, paper mills, and recirculating cooling
water and industrial systems.

Physical and Chemical Properties

BCETMD copolymer is a water-soluble, cationic ionene polymer with an
average molecular weight of 3,386 g/mol.

 Table 2.  Physical and Chemical Properties

Parameter	Value

Chemical

1,2-Ethanediamine,N,N,N’,N’-tetramethyl-, polymer with
1,1’-oxybis[2-chloroethane] (9CI)

CAS Reg. No. 31075-24-8

Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Online

Molecular formula	(C6H16N2.C4H8Cl2O)x

Color	Light amber/pale yellow

(MRID 468320601/42372401)

Physical State	Clear Liquid

(MRID 46832601)

Molecular weight	3,368 g/mol (Average )

(Buckman letter 7/10/91)

Flammability	>99.5(

(MRID 46832601)

Viscosity	1.521 (20(C)/1.005 (40(C)

(MRID 46832601)

Boiling Point	111(C

(MRID 42372401)

Density	1.013-1.1417 g/mL

(MRID 46832601/42372401)

III.  	Human Health Assessment

Toxicological Data

	Sufficient data were submitted to the Agency in support of this action.
 The Agency has determined that these data are appropriate and adequate
to characterize the toxicity of BCETMD copolymer.  Excerpts and
summaries of these reviews are presented in this document.

Acute Toxicity

Table 3.  Acute Toxicity

Parameter	Toxicity Value	Toxicity Category	MRID

Oral LD50 - rats	1951 mg/kg males

2587 mg/kg females	III	413734-01

Dermal LD50 - rabbit	>2000 mg/kg	III	413271-01

Inhalation LC50 - rat	2.9 mg/L	III	418775-01

Eye irritation - rabbit	Slightly irritating	III	413617-01

Dermal irritation - rabbit	Slightly irritating	IV	412986-01

Dermal sensitization – guinea pig	Non-sensitizer	--	407503-01

Subchronic Toxicity

		In a 90-day study (MRID 400250-01) of male and female rats given the
test material in the diet at dose levels of 0; 3,000; 10,000; 30,000; or
40,000 ppm (equivalent to 0; 221; 752; 2,604; or 3,685 mg/kg/day), the
NOAEL was 221 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 752 mg/kg/day due to
mineralization of the renal tubules.  The following were observed at the
two highest dosages:  decreases in body weights and possibly absolute
organ weights (heart, liver, kidney and gonads); an equivocal decrease
in red blood cell counts; elevated leukocyte counts; non-suppurative
inflammation of the choroid plexus of the brain; and death.

		In a 90-day dermal toxicity study (MRID 401706-01), male and female
rabbits received dermal application of the test material at dose levels
of 0, 10, 100, or 1000 mg/kg/day.  No systemic toxicity was observed at
any doses.  The systemic NOAEL was determined to be >1000 mg/kg/day
(limit dose).  The dermal irritation NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day and the
LOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day.  Treatment related dermatological changes
consistent with chronic irritation/inflammation were seen in males and
females receiving 100 and 1,000 mg/kg/day.  The skin lesions consisted
of one or more combinations of ulceration of the epidermis, chronic
inflammation of the dermis, acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis,
folliculitis and epidermatitis.

Chronic Toxicity

In a 52-week study, male and female beagle dogs were dosed in the diet
at 0, 10,000, 20,000 or 40,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 250, 500, or 1000
mg/kg/day).  In males, the NOEL was 250 mg/kg/day and the LOEL was 500
mg/kg/day based on testicular hypoplasia, atrophy/degeneration,
aspermia, dysplasia and cellular debris of testicular origin in
epididymis.  In females, the NOEL was 500 mg/kg/day and the LOEL was
1,000 mg/kg/day based on gastrointestinal disturbances, emaciation and
neurological signs, bloody stools, weight loss and ataxia (MRID
93062016; 41234501).

 Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity:

		The Agency reviewed a developmental toxicity study (MRID 414230-01;
93062018) of rats administered the test material by oral-gavage on
gestation days 6-15 at dosages of 0, 70, 350, or 700(later reduced to
500 mg/kg/day).  At 700 mg/kg/day mortality was observed, as was
morbidity, including lungs (mottled, red and/or firm), brain (dilated
meningeal vessels and/or hemorrhages), stomach (black contents, corroded
areas) and intestines (distended, filled with reddish contents).  For
maternal effects, the NOEL was 70 mg/kg/day based on the decreased food
consumption and body weight gain (not statistically significant) seen at
the LOEL of 350 mg/kg/day.  For developmental effects, the NOEL was 500
mg/kg/day and the LOEL was >500 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).

		In a developmental toxicity study (MRID 412480-01; 93062019), pregnant
rabbits were administered 0, 15, 45, or 125 mg/kg/day of the test
material via gavage on gestation days 6 through 18.  Maternal NOEL was
45 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of abortions (late Day 28 and
Day 29), clinical signs (reduced defecation and emaciation),
significantly reduced feed consumption and body weight gain during the
treatment.  Developmental NOEL was 45 mg/kg/day based on increased
incidence of 13th rudimentary ribs and unossified sternebrae #5 and #6
seen at the LOEL of 125 mg/kg/day.  No evidence of teratogenic effect
was observed in this study.

		The endpoints of a rat reproduction study (MRID 40578201) were
reevaluated by the HED RfD/Peer Review Committee.  The following are the
conclusions from that reevaluation.  In a two-generation reproduction
study, the test material was administered in the diet to male and female
Crl:CD(SD)BR rats at dose levels of 0, 6,000, 12,000, or 18,000 ppm
(approximately 0, 300, 600, or 900 mg/kg/day) for two generations.
Maternal toxicity was observed at 6000 ppm and above consisting of
reduced body weight, reduced absolute and relative liver weight,
inflammation of the choroid plexus in the brain, and tubular
mineralization of the kidney.  The systemic LOEL is 6000 ppm or less
based on the above changes.  The NOEL is less than 6000 ppm.
Reproductive toxicity was observed at 12000 ppm as a decrease in number
of live pups observed on days 0 and 4 after birth in both generations.
The reproductive LOEL is 12000 ppm based on decreased live pups.  The
NOEL is 6000 ppm.  The RfD/Peer Review Committee concluded that there
was no evidence to suggest that the test material was associated with
any significant reproductive or developmental toxicity under the testing
conditions.

Genotoxicity

		Five mutagenicity studies were conducted and none demonstrated any
genotoxic potential associated with the test material.  In an Ames
Reverse Mutation Assay (MRID 415737-01) using S. typhimurium strains TA
1535, 1537, 1538, 98, and 100, the test material (up to 3300 ug/plate)
was not mutagenic both with and without activation.  Unscheduled DNA
synthesis in primary rat hepatocytes was negative at dose levels up to
2,000 mg/kg.  The sex-linked recessive lethal assay was negative at all
dose levels (0.08, 0.3 or 0.8 mg/L; MRID 93062023, previously MRID
151205).  It was negative for clastogenicity in the in vivo mouse
micronucleus assay (MRID 93062021, previously MRID 151206).  In an In
Vivo/In Vitro Rat Primary Hepatocyte Unscheduled DNA Synthesis Assay
(MRID 409787-01), the test material was not mutagenic to primary rat
hepatocytes in cultures established from rats treated by oral gavage at
doses up to 1500 mg/kg.

Carcinogenicity

In a 2-year combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study in rats
(Crl:CD®(SD)BR)(MRID 415613-01, 418091-01), the test material was
administered as a dietary admix at dose levels of 0, 2000, 6000 or 18000
ppm (equivalent to 0, 100, 300, or 900 mg/kg/day in male and female
rats).  Fifty male and female rats were exposed via diet for 105 weeks
and ten male and female rats were exposed via diet for 55 weeks.  At
6000 ppm, reduced body weight gain in females, reduced albumin (males),
reduced total protein (males), increased urine pH (females) and a dose
related increase in bloody crusts(males) were observed.  In addition, at
18000 ppm, hyperesthesia, bloody crusts, decreased body weight gain,
decreased prothrombin time, globulin and total protein and increased
brain-to-body weight ratio associated with mineralization of the brain
in the thalamic region, in males and females; decreased albumin, glucose
and cholesterol in males and increased urine pH in females, were
observed.  Histological exams showed mineralization in the brains of
high dose animals.  There were no significant compound-related tumors in
male rats.  Female rats had no significant increasing trends, but did
have significant differences in the pair-wise comparisons of the 6000
ppm dose group with the controls for thyroid C-cell adenomas, and
adenomas and/or carcinomas combined, both at p < 0.05.  The NOEL for
systemic toxicity in rats was determined to be 2,000 ppm (100
mg/kg/day).  The LOEL was 6000 PPM (300 mg/kg/day).

		In a 78-week oncogenicity study (MRID 414943-01), Crl: CD-1 (ICR) BR
mice were administered the test material in the diet at dose levels of
0, 4000, 8000, or 16,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 600, 1200, or 2400
mg/kg/day).  At 4000 ppm, large kidney pelvis and diffuse rough kidney
in females; and histologically in kidneys, a dose related increase in
the proteinaceous casts in males and pelvic and tubular dilatation in
males and females, was observed.  At 8000 ppm and above, convulsions
(dose related), and urine stains were observed in male and female rats.
There was no evidence of any oncogenic (cancer) activity that would be
considered treatment related.  The systemic NOEL could not be
established but the LOEL was determined to be less than 600 mg/kg/day.
The test material was found not to be carcinogenic in mice at doses up
to 2,400 mg/kg/day (16,000 ppm) in the diet.

Carcinogenicity Classification

	The RfD Committee (1994) classified Busan 77 as group D (not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) carcinogen based on lack
carcinogenicity in mice, lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in male
rats and increased incidence of thyroid C cell adenomas/carcinomas in
female rats (pair wise comparison) and lack of mutagenicity concerns.

Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics

In a rat metabolism study (MRID 402686-01; 93062024) ), test animals
were dosed with 14C-labeled test material at oral doses of 10 mg/kg or
1000 mg/kg, or at repeated oral doses (14 daily doses) of unlabeled test
material at 10 mg/kg followed by a single oral dose of labeled test
material at 10 mg/kg.  In the single oral and repeated oral dose groups,
most (88%-106%) of the test compound administered was excreted in the
urine (3% of the dose) and feces (85-103% of the dose).  The highest
amount of residual radioactivity was found in the kidneys, liver, and
spleen.  The residues in the tissues including the carcass were not more
than 0.14% thus indicating that the potential for bioaccumulation of the
test material is minimal after low single or repeated oral dose
exposures.  In the high (1,000 mg/kg/day) oral dose group, most (85%) of
the dose was excreted in urine (14-17% of the dose) and feces (68-71%).
Seven days after dosing, residues were low in all tissues except for the
kidneys, liver, and spleen.

Dermal absorption of the test material was negligible (0.2% of the dose)
in rats (MRID 40139201).

Special Consideration for Infants and Children

The Agency concluded that the FQPA Safety Factor for increased
susceptibility to infants and children be reduced to 1X.  This decision
was based on the following:

The database is considered adequate for FQPA assessment.  The studies
included in the toxicological database are:  90-day toxicity study in
rats via oral route, 90-day dermal toxicity study in rabbits, chronic
toxicity study in dogs, carcinogenicity study in mice, combined
chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats, several mutagenicity studies (in
vivo and in vitro), metabolism study in rats and dermal penetration
study in rats.  There are no acute and/or subchronic neurotoxicity
studies available in the database.  There was no evidence of clinical
signs of neurotoxicity in the database except ataxia in the chronic
toxicity study in dogs (1000 mg/kg/day) and convulsions in a
carcinogenicity study in mice (1200 mg/kg/day).  These effects are
considered due to excessive toxicity and not of a neurologic origin.
Therefore, there is no need for acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies for this chemical.  EPA also concluded that there is no need for
a developmental neurotoxicity study for this chemical because there is
no evidence in the database of neurotoxicity or increased susceptibility
to infants and children.

There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility in the developmental toxicity study in rats and rabbits
and in the two-generation reproduction study in rats.  No developmental
effects were observed in the rat developmental toxicity study at doses
up to 500 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested) in the presence of maternal
toxicity. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, the maternal and
developmental NOAELs were 45 mg/kg/day.  In this study, skeletal
variations (developmental effects) were observed in the presence of
equally severe maternal toxicity (abortions).  In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, pup weights were decreased at a dose level
higher than the dose that produced maternal toxicity.

The highly conservative dietary exposure assessment using default
assumptions would not underestimate the risk to infants and children.

IV.	Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicity Considerations

BCETMD copolymer “is a water-soluble, cationic ionene polymer with an
average molecular weight of 3,386 g/mol.  Based on its miscibility in
water and high molecular weight, volatility from water is unlikely.  It
is also stable to both abiotic degradation (hydrolysis and photolysis)
and to metabolism in soil and sediment:water systems.  In the presence
of soil or sediment, tight sorption of nearly all residues was observed
almost immediately.”  It “was almost exclusively (96%) found in the
top two inches of 12 inch columns leached with water.  Less than 1% was
found in the leachate collected at the bottom of the columns.”  The
mobility conclusions are consistent with the fact that the chemical is
positively charged and soil/sediment is negatively charged (USEPA
Breithaupt).  Based on this information, the use of BCETMD copolymer as
an inert ingredient in pesticide products applied pre-harvest to cotton
and wheat is not expected to result in contributions of concern to
drinking water (from surface and ground waters).

BCETMD copolymer is toxic to aquatic organisms, particularly to aquatic
invertebrates and it exhibited low to moderate oral toxicity in animal
studies.  Its limited use as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat allows for binding
of the chemical to soil and sediment thus limiting its availability to
non-target aquatic and terrestrial species.  Based on this information,
the inert ingredient use of BCETMD copolymer is not expected to result
in exposures of concern to non-target aquatic and terrestrial species.

V.	Exposure Assessment

In examining aggregate exposure, the FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to
consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other
indoor uses).  The primary route of exposure to BCETMD copolymer from
its use as an inert ingredient in pesticide products applied pre-harvest
to cotton and wheat would most likely be through consumption of food to
which pesticide products containing it as an inert ingredient have been
applied, and possibly through drinking water (from runoff).  The use of
this chemical as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations is
limited to pre-harvest applications to cotton and wheat only, therefore,
there are no residential uses of this chemical and thus no residential
(dermal and inhalation) exposures are expected.

	No adverse effects attributable to a single exposure of BCETMD
copolymer were seen in the toxicity database.  Therefore, an acute
dietary risk assessment is not required.

There are no data provided regarding BCETMD copolymer residues in food
or any other nonoccupational exposures to BCETMD copolymer.  In the
absence of actual residue data for BCETMD copolymer, the Agency
performed a chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure
assessment for BCETMD copolymer when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat. A
chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.45 mg/kg/day was based on the NOAEL
of 45 mg/kg/day in the developmental toxicity study in rabbits and a
safety factor of 100 (10x for interspecies and 10x for intraspecies
variations).  Since the FQPA safety factor is reduced from 10x to 1x,
the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is equal to the cRfD.  The
dietary exposure was calculated as a percentage of the cRfD.  The
chronic dietary estimate for the U.S. Population was 6.7% (non-nursing
infants were the most highly exposed population with a chronic exposure
estimate occupying 20.0% of the cPAD).  The complete dietary exposure
assessment is included in Appendix A.  In addition, this exposure
assessment was calculated based on the following assumptions:  a) BCETMD
copolymer would be used as an inert ingredient in all food use pesticide
formulations applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat only, b) one
hundred percent of all cotton and wheat crops would be treated with
pesticide products containing BCETMD copolymer, c) BCETMD copolymer
residues would be present in all cotton and wheat crops at levels equal
to or exceeding the highest established tolerance levels for any
pesticide active ingredient, and d) a conservative default value of 100
ppb for the concentration of an inert ingredient in all sources of
drinking water was used.  This approach is highly conservative as it is
extremely unlikely that BCETMD copolymer would have such use as a
pesticide product inert ingredient and be present in cotton and wheat
food commodities and drinking water at such high levels.

VI.	Cumulative Exposure

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
"available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity."

	Unlike other pesticide ingredients for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA
has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to BCETMD
copolymer and any other substances and BCETMD copolymer does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
BCETMD copolymer has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances.  For information regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released
by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism
determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances
found to have a common mechanism on EPA’s website at     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/."
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

VII. 	Human Health Risk Characterization

(≥86%) of the chemical was excreted in the feces.

The primary route of exposure to BCETMD copolymer from its use as an
inert ingredient in pesticide products applied pre-harvest to cotton and
wheat would most likely be through consumption of food to which
pesticide products containing it as an inert ingredient have been
applied, and possibly through drinking water (from runoff).  The use of
this chemical is limited to pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest
to cotton and wheat only, therefore, there are no residential uses of
this chemical, and thus no residential (dermal and inhalation) exposures
are expected.

Residues of concern are not anticipated for dietary exposure (food and
drinking water) from the use of BCETMD copolymer as an inert ingredient
in pesticide products applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat.
Residential exposures are not expected from this use.  EPA determines
whether pesticide chemical exposures are safe by comparing aggregate
exposure estimates to the dose at which no adverse effects were seen in
the most sensitive animal species.  In the case of BCETMD copolymer, the
estimated exposures are compared to a dose level equal to the chronic
RfD of 0.45 mg/kg/day (based on the developmental toxicity study in
rabbits).  Utilizing a highly conservative aggregate exposure
assessment, the resulting chronic exposure estimates do not exceed the
Agency’s level of concern; the chronic dietary estimate for the U.S.
Population was 6.7% (non-nursing infants were the most highly exposed
population with a chronic exposure estimate occupying 20.0% of the
cPAD).

     	Taking into consideration all available information on BCETMD
copolymer, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure
to BCETMD copolymer when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat when considering
dietary exposure and all other nonoccupational sources of pesticide
exposure for which there is reliable information.  Therefore, the
establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for
residues of BCETMD copolymer when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied to cotton or wheat only, can be
considered safe under section 408 of the FFDCA.

VIII. 	Endocrine Disruption

EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether
certain substances (including all pesticide active and other
ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an
effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such
endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.”  Following
recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory
Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis for
including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone
systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system.  EPA also adopted
EDSTAC’s recommendation that the Program include evaluations of
potential effects in wildlife.  For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use
FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine
whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to
require the wildlife evaluations.  As the science develops and resources
allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

When additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being
considered under the Agency’s EDSP have been developed, BCETMD
copolymer may be subjected to further screening and/or testing to better
characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

REFERENCES

USEPA 011338, Memorandum, Rfd/Peer Review Report of Busan 77 [Poly
(oxyethylene(dimethylimino)ethylene(dimethylimino)ethylene dichloride,
11/16/1994.

USEPA 011090, Memorandum, Busan 77 – Reevaluation of the Rat
Reproduction Study Endpoints as a Result of the Rfd/Peer Review Meeting
held on 6/23/1994, July 6, 1994.

USEPA DER MRID 414943-01, Data Evaluation Report, 18-Month Study with
Busan 77 in Mice, 9/14/93.

USEPA DER MRID 413734-01, Data Evaluation Report, Acute Oral Toxicity
Study in Rats with Busan 77, 8/25/93)

USEPA DER MRID 413271-01, Data Evaluation Report, Acute Dermal Toxicity
Study in Rabbits with Busan 77, 5/13/93.

USEPA DER MRID 418775-01, Data Evaluation Report, An Acute Inhalation
Toxicity Study of Busan 77 in the Rat, 5/13/93.

USEPA  DER MRID 413617-01, Data Evaluation Report, Primary Eye
Irritation Study  in Rabbits with Busan 77, 5/13/93.

USEPA DER MRID 412986-01, Data Evaluation Report, Primary Dermal
Irritation Study in Rabbits with Busan 77, 5/13/93.

USEPA DER MRID 407503-01, Data Evaluation Report, Dermal Sensitization
Study in Guinea Pigs with WSCP, 5/13/93.

USEPA DER MRID 401706-01, Data Evaluation Report, 13-Week Dermal
Toxicity Study with Busan 77 in Rabbits, 5/13/93.

USEPA DER MRID 412480-01, Data Evaluation Report, Teratology Study in
Rabbits with Busan 77, 9/14/93.

USEPA DER MRID 409787-01, Data Evaluation Report, Busan 77 – In
Vivo/In Vitro Rat Primary Hepatocyte Unscheduled DNA Synthesis Assay,
8/26/93.

USEPA DER MRID 415737-01, Data Evaluation Report, Mutagenicity Test on
Busan 77 in the Salmonella/Mammalian-Microsome Reverse Mutation Assay
with Confirmatory Assay, 8/26/93.

USEPA DER MRID 402686-01, Data Evaluation Report, Metabolism Study With
Busan 77 (WSCP) in Rats, 8/5/93.

USEPA D189108 8/9/1993, EEB Review of Busan 77, Anthony Maciorowski,
August 9, 1993.

USEPA 010597, EPA Record Number S425253, Memorandum, Busan 77.  Phase V
Review of Studies, September 23, 1993.

USEPA 9/12/88, Data Evaluation Record of MRID #’s 00159311, 00159312,
00157906, 00157907, Allan Reiter, August 12, 1988.

USEPA Shamim, Dietary Risk Assessment (Indirect Food Contact) Uses in
Paper Manufacturing Process of
Poly[(oxyethylene)(dimethylimino)ethylene(dimethylimino)ethylene
dichloride] [Busan 77], A. Najm Shamim, 9/30/2007.

USEPA Breithaupt, Revised Environmental Fate Science Chapter for the
Busan 77 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document, James
Breithaupt, 9/30/2007.

APPENDIX A

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for BCETMD COPOLYMER Cotton and  wheat
(1994-98 data)

Analysis Date 03-04-2009/08:01:25     Residue file dated:
03-04-2009/07:59:09/8

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .45 mg/kg bw/day

NOEL (Chronic) = 45 mg/kg bw/day

COMMENT 1: Cotton and wheat + drinking water (1000 ppb)

========================================================================
=======

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

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

                                                    Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg       Margin of
Percent

           Subgroup                       body wt/day   Exposure 1/  of
RfD

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.029947        1,503
6.7%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.029860        1,507
6.6%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.031199        1,442
6.9%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.029286        1,537
6.5%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.029434        1,529
6.5%

Northeast region                            0.028617        1,573
6.4%

Midwest region                              0.030772        1,462
6.8%

Southern region                             0.028343        1,588
6.3%

Western region                              0.032813        1,371
7.3%

Hispanics                                   0.031969        1,408
7.1%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.029669        1,517
6.6%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.028372        1,586
6.3%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.034266        1,313
7.6%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.072886          617
16.2%

Nursing infants                             0.027624        1,629
6.1%

Non-nursing infants                         0.090061          500
20.0%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.050356          894
11.2%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.033526        1,342
7.5%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.022839        1,970
5.1%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.027212        1,654
6.0%

Females 13-50 yrs                           0.027484        1,637
6.1%

Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.027988        1,608
6.2%

Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.037861        1,189
8.4%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.025515        1,764
5.7%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.026014        1,730
5.8%

Seniors 55+                                 0.026474        1,700
5.9%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.052202          862
11.6%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.050763          886
11.3%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.035333        1,274
7.9%

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.024279        1,853
5.4%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.026805        1,679
6.0%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.026530        1,696
5.9%

Females 13-49 yrs                           0.026458        1,701
5.9%

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

Ž

Ž

«

Ô

á

â

K

~

‰

Ž

’

£

Ã

ç

h‰

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

Ԁ

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

”ÿÍ

B*

摧㲽¾<਀&䘋

$

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

h²

h¼'

h

਀&䘋

h&=

h*

hˆE

耉

耉

 h~

h~

(

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  15  of   NUMPAGES  15

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION,

PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20378]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2628-001; ER11-3959-002; ER11-4363-001.
    Applicants: Lost Creek Wind, LLC, Post Rock Wind Power Project,
LLC, Osage Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of change in status of Lost Creek Wind, LLC et
al.
    Filed Date: 3/26/12.
    Accession Number: 20120326-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3614-006; ER11-3551-003; ER11-3822-002; ER11-
3553-003; ER11-3554-003; ER11-3824-002.
    Applicants: Glacial Energy Holdings, Glacial Energy of New York,
Glacial Energy of New England, Inc., Glacial Energy of New Jersey,
Inc., Glacial Energy of California, Inc., Glacial Energy of Illinois,
Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Glacial
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 3/26/12.
    Accession Number: 20120326-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1352-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Ministerial Changes to Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Formula Rate Templates to be effective 7/26/2010.
    Filed Date: 3/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120327-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1353-000.
    Applicants: Keystone Energy Partners, LP.
    Description: Base Line Filing Cancellation to be effective 3/31/
2012.
    Filed Date: 3/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120327-5010.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1354-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation of
Meter Agent Agreement.
    Filed Date: 3/26/12.
    Accession Number: 20120326-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1355-000.
    Applicants: Iron Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline New to be effective 3/27/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120327-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1356-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Agreement No. 1872 between Niagara Mohawk and
Wheelabrator Hudson Falls to be effective 10/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 3/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120327-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1357-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: 03--27--12 Att P Rev NSI to be effective 6/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120327-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8025 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36055-36056]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14833]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879; FRL-9912-11]

Exposure Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An Exposure Modeling Public Meeting will be held on October
28, 2014. This Notice announces the location and time for the meeting
and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 28, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00

p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or
before July 7, 2014.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South
Building), First Floor Conference Center (S-1200), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Biscoe or Christopher Koper,
Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> and (703)
347-8065; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required
to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action. The following list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting NAICS code 11
 Utilities NAICS code 22
 Professional, Scientific and Technical NAICS code 54

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    On a biannual interval, an Exposure Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM)
is held for presentation and discussion of current issues related to
modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for risk assessment in
a regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced
through the ``empmlist'' forum on the LYRIS list server at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any
information in your request that is considered CBI. Requests to
participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0879, must be received on or before July 7, 2014.

IV. Tentative Topics for the Meeting

Spatial Aquatic Modeling (SAM)
Terrestrial Plant Exposure Modeling (Audrey III Model)
Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) Evaluation
Pesticide Root Zone Model--Ground Water (PRZM-GW) Updates
Unextracted Residues Guidance
EPA Suggestions for Ecotox Presentations
Endangered Species Exposure Modeling
Population Modeling
Pesticide Flooded Application Model (PFAM)
Bias Factors for Water Monitoring Data
Formation/Decline Kinetics for Degradates Formed in Parallel or in
Sequence
Future Structure of the EMPM Meeting--The EMPM has focused
predominantly on water models. Is there interest in discussing other
models?

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Exposure modeling, Public meeting.

    Dated: June 11, 2014.
Donald J. Brady,
Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-14833 Filed 6-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25789-25792]
[FR Doc No: E9-12442]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59966; File No. SR-MSRB-2009-02]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Establishment of a Primary Market Disclosure Service and Trade Price
Transparency Service of the Electronic Municipal Market Access System
(EMMA[supreg]) and Amendments to MSRB Rules G-32 and G-36

May 21, 2009.
    On March 23, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to implement an electronic system
for free public access to primary market disclosure documents and
transaction price information for the municipal securities market
through the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access system
(``EMMA''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 2, 2009.\3\ The Commission received three
comment letters on the proposed rule change.\4\ On May 12, 2009 and May
18, 2009, the MSRB filed responses to the comment letters.\5\ This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59636 (March 27,
2009), 74 FR 15190 (``Commission's Notice'').
    \4\ See letters from Douglas Adamson, Executive Vice President,
Technical Services Division, American Bankers Association (``ABA''),
dated April 24, 2009; Robert Schifellite, President, Broadridge
Financial Solutions, Inc. (``BFS''), dated May 5, 2009; and Leslie
M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
dated May 10, 2009.
    Furthermore, on May 15, 2009, representatives of BFS met with
Martha M. Haines, Chief and Mary N. Simpkins, Senior Special
Counsel, Office of Municipal Securities, Division of Trading and
Markets to discuss the proposed rule change and to provide
additional materials related to their comments on the proposal. The
materials may be found at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2009-02/msrb200902-2.pdf.
    \5\ See letters from Ernesto A. Lanza, General Counsel, MSRB, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated May 12, 2009 (``Response
Letter I'') and May 18, 2009 (``Response Letter II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would: (i) Establish EMMA's permanent
primary market disclosure service for electronic submission and public
availability on EMMA's Internet portal of official statements, advance
refunding documents and related primary market documents and
information; (ii) establish EMMA's permanent transparency service
making municipal securities transaction price data publicly available
on the EMMA portal; (iii) establish a real-time subscription to the
primary market document collection; (iv) terminate the existing pilot
EMMA facility of the Municipal Securities Information Library (MSIL)
system and suspend submissions of official statements, advance
refunding documents and Forms G-36(OS) and G-36(ARD) to the MSIL system
and (v) amend and consolidate current Rules G-32 and G-36 into new Rule
G-32 on disclosures in connection with primary offerings, replace
current Forms G-36(OS) and G-36(ARD) with new Form G-32, provide
transitional submission requirements, and amend certain related
recordkeeping requirements, to establish an ``access equals delivery''
standard for electronic official statement dissemination in the
municipal securities market.
    The MSRB requested approval of this proposed rule change, along
with MSRB-2009-03 and MSRB-2009-04, by no later than May 22, 2009, so
that the MSRB may commence operation of the EMMA services described
therein, including but not limited to the permanent primary market
disclosure service and pilot continuing disclosure service, on June 1,
2009.\6\ A full description of the proposal is contained in the
Commission's Notice.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Response Letter II, supra note 5.
    \7\ See Commission Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, the Commission received three comment letters
relating to the proposed rule change.\8\ One commenter, the ABA,
expressed concerns regarding certain legal issues relating to the
protection of its intellectual property and contractual rights in the
CUSIP database (the ``Database'') that it states have not yet been
resolved. The ABA noted that it was the owner of the Database, which is
administered by the CUSIP Service Bureau (``CSB''), as its exclusive
licensee, and believed it was critical that these legal issues be
resolved before the MSRB be allowed to move forward with the proposed
expansion and full implementation of EMMA. It further requested that
the operation of the EMMA Web site incorporate a variety of protections
with respect to its intellectual property rights, including compliance
with CSB's current licensing practices, permissible use guidelines,
appropriate copyright notices and adequate security.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 4.
    \9\ See letter from the ABA, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the ABA's concerns, the MSRB and the CSB, as the
ABA's exclusive licensee, have entered into a memorandum of
understanding dated May 15, 2009 (``MOU'') in which CSB expressly
permits use of the CUSIP database for purposes, among other things, of
displaying information on the MSRB's EMMA public Web portal and for
inclusion in data disseminated by the MSRB to subscribers of the EMMA
data feed.\10\ The MSRB has agreed in the MOU to provide certain
safeguards with respect to the ABA's intellectual property and
contractual rights of the ABA in the Database. The Commission believes
that the MSRB has taken sufficient action to ensure that all necessary
arrangements will be in place in order to operate the permanent primary
market disclosure service and pilot continuing disclosure service, as
anticipated by the implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Response Letter II, supra note 5. The MSRB stated that
this agreement would expand and reposition existing language on the
EMMA Web site to ensure that users of the EMMA Web site have a
fuller understanding of the sources of information displayed on the
EMMA Web site and of the proprietary rights of third parties
(including but not limited to the proprietary rights of the ABA in
the Database) in certain displayed data elements. Such language
would advise users of the limitations on their use or re-use of any
proprietary information accessed on the EMMA Web site, and users
would be required to acknowledge such limitations before being
provided access to any portion of the Database. Additional systemic
and reporting mechanisms would be implemented to further protect
against inappropriate use of the Database. See Response Letter I,
supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter, BFS, believed that the adoption of an ``access
equals delivery'' standard for official statements would
unintentionally result in less viewing of information by individual
investors and suggested alternatives to obtaining industry efficiencies
without reducing the number of investors that view information
contained in official statements.\11\ BFS cited to internal statistics
generated in connection with the Commission's adoption of rules on
Internet availability of proxy materials in support of its view.\12\
BFS also cited to the Commission's recently adopted rules on delivery
of summary mutual fund prospectuses and posting of the statutory
prospectuses on the Internet as an alternative method of providing
disclosure to investors while realizing cost savings.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See letter from the BFS, supra note 4.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55146 (January 22,
2007), 72 FR 4148 (January 29, 2007).
    \13\ See Securities Act Release No. 8998 (January 13, 2009), 74
FR 4546 (January 26, 2009).

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

    The MSRB disagreed with BFS's comparison of on-line access to proxy
materials with on-line access to official statements and, in Response
Letter I, pointed out the differences between the two materials.\14\
Specifically, the MSRB argued that: proxy statements are posted in a
highly decentralized manner, whereas official statements are available
on the centralized EMMA Web site specifically crafted for their
presentation; proxy statements often are posted without any additional
meaningful contextual information, whereas official statements are
posted on EMMA along with transaction prices, rate/yield information
and other relevant disclosures for the security being purchased and for
all other securities in the marketplace, together with educational
information to assist the individual investor in understanding the
information in the official statement; proxy statements are unsolicited
communications to a large group of investors triggered by company
action (i.e., the investor is passive), whereas the MSRB's official
statement dissemination requirement is triggered by an investor taking
action to purchase a municipal security; proxy statements typically
relate to matters of a generalized importance relating to a company and
normally do not relate directly to an investment, whereas official
statements have direct relevance to the investor's investment; proxy
statements are intended to provide information prior to an investor
voting his or her proxy, whereas official statements (much like
prospectuses) often serve to disclose the detailed terms of a security
after the investment decision has already been made; and proxy
statements generally have little value once the vote occurs, whereas
official statements retain significant value for the remaining life of
the security and would remain available to all investors throughout
that period in EMMA's permanent library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Response Letter I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the MSRB believed that BFS seemed to place too much
emphasis on cost savings as a reason for approving the proposed rule
change. While acknowledging the sizeable cost saving associated with
adoption of the proposal, the MSRB stated that it submitted the
proposal primarily because of the significant improvements in the
municipal securities disclosure system that would result from it.
Specifically, the MSRB believed that the proposal would place
individual investors on an equal footing with investment professionals
with respect to access to key information and allow such information to
flow into the marketplace more quickly.
    In addition, in response to BFS's suggestion of the summary mutual
fund prospectus as a possible alternative, the MSRB stated that it will
monitor the level of adoption of the summary prospectus in the mutual
fund market, as well as the impact its use may have on the quality and
timeliness of disclosure for mutual funds. Noting that it has no
authority over the nature, content or timing of issuer disclosures in
the municipal securities market and therefore could not adopt a
requirement for the creation and use of summary official statements by
municipal issuers, the MSRB believed that the experience in the mutual
fund market with summary prospectuses could be instructive in crafting
future disclosure initiatives in the municipal securities market. The
Commission believes that the MSRB has provided a rational response to
counter BFS's belief that an ``access equals delivery'' standard for
official statements would reduce viewing by individual investors of the
information, and agrees with the MSRB that the proposal would make
information easily available to all market participants in the
municipal securities market.
    Finally, the third commenter, SIFMA, was very supportive of the
EMMA system, but expressed concern with certain operational and timing
issues.\15\ Specifically, SIFMA requested that the proposed rule change
conform to the rules applicable to the registered securities market by
not requiring broker dealers to accommodate a customer's standing
request for copies of official statements for all of his or her
transactions with the dealer. SIFMA argued that such an accommodation
would require dealers to undertake an enormous amount of expense for
such a limited number of retail investors and that the costs of such
changes would interfere with the ability of issuers and other market
participants to achieve anticipated cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See letter from SIFMA, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the MSRB stated it was important to allow investors to
establish standing instructions with their dealers to receive paper
copies of official statements for all of their new issue purchases and
not to obligate them to make transaction by transaction requests for
paper copies.\16\ Although the potential for costs savings was an
important factor in the MSRB's proposal, the MSRB again indicated that
such a factor does not trump the needs of individual investors to
obtain the disclosures they are due. The MSRB also stated that revised
Rule G-32 would not obligate dealers to rely on access to electronic
official statements on EMMA, and that those dealers who are not yet
prepared to do so upon launch of the new rule provisions could continue
to meet their official statement dissemination obligation through
actual delivery of the official statement to customers as under current
Rule G-32. Therefore, the MSRB did not believe any change was merited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Response Letter I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA also urged the MSRB to permit an underwriter to designate to
the MSRB that information it has submitted to the new issue information
dissemination system (``NIIDS'') under revised Rule G-34 also be used
for purposes of completing new Form G-32. SIFMA requested that the MSRB
make a firm commitment to take the outbound information feed from NIIDS
to pre-fill the G-32 forms beginning no later than 90 days after SEC
approval of the rule change proposal.
    In response, the MSRB stated that, as noted in its proposed rule
change, it will continue working toward permitting dealers to designate
to the MSRB that information they have submitted to NIIDS under Rule G-
34 should also be used for purposes of completing new Form G-32. The
MSRB will publish a notice advising dealers of the availability of such
functionality once it becomes available, but that it was not prepared
at this time to commit to a specific timeframe for making this
functionality available and that approval of the proposed rule change
should not be contingent on such a commitment.
    Finally, SIFMA requested that the MSRB provide dealers at least 30
calendar days' notice prior to implementing the proposed rule change,
citing various factors regarding holiday and vacation schedules and
lack of training and usage materials. In response, the MSRB stated that
it will announce training sessions for use of the EMMA submission
system and publish its user manual in the near future, and will have
staff available to assist users in transitioning to the new submission
process. The MSRB also indicated that, while it could not commit to
providing the length of notice requested, it would provide notification
of the operational date as soon as it becomes available. The Commission
believes that the MSRB has reasonably addressed the operational and
timing concerns raised by SIFMA, and that the changes suggested by
SIFMA are not warranted at this time.
    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,

the comment letters received, and the MSRB's responses to the comment
letters and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the MSRB and, in particular, the requirements of Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \17\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires, among other things, that the
MSRB's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \18\ Id. In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Act because it would serve as an additional
mechanism by which the MSRB works toward removing impediments to and
helping to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market in
municipal securities by providing a centralized venue for free public
access to primary market disclosure documents and transaction price
information for the municipal securities market through EMMA. The
proposed rule change would provide greater access to primary market
disclosure documents and transaction price information about municipal
securities information to all participants in the municipal securities
market on an equal basis, thereby removing potential barriers to
obtaining such information, and will allow the municipal securities
industry to produce more accurate trade reporting and transparency.
Broad access to primary market disclosure documents and price
transparency information through the EMMA portal should also assist in
preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by improving
the opportunity for public investors to access material information
about issuers, their securities and the prices at which such securities
trade. Furthermore, free public access to disclosure and transaction
price information should promote a more fair and efficient municipal
securities market in which transactions are effected on the basis of
material information available to all parties to such transactions, and
thereby allow for fairer pricing of transactions. In addition, the
electronic dissemination of primary market disclosure documents should
enable issuers to reduce their issuance costs by eliminating the need
to print and to distribute in paper official statements in connection
with their primary offerings, thereby resulting in lower costs to
issuers and savings to their citizens, lower expenses for underwriters,
and potentially lower prices for investors. All of these factors serve
to promote the statutory mandate of the MSRB to protect investors and
the public interest.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2009-02), be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-12442 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66479]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4720-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated July 14, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 26, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of July 14, 2023.

    Addison and Orleans Counties for debris removal [Category A] and
permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for emergency
protective measures [Category B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program). Caledonia,
Chittenden, Lamoille, Rutland, Windham, and Windsor Counties for
debris removal [Category A] and permanent work [Categories C-G]
(already designated for Individual Assistance and emergency
protective measures [Category B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-21015 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13349-13350]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 21, 2013, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Minh Doan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm.
2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-
741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On March 21, 2013, the committee will discuss new drug
application (NDA) 204442, PROBUPHINE (buprenorphine hydrochloride and
ethylene vinyl acetate) subdermal implant, submitted by Titan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its safety and efficacy for the proposed
indication of maintenance treatment of opioid dependence.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 14, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1:45 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before March 6, 2013. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by March 7, 2013.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Minh Doan at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 20, 2013.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-04536 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/28/2008 10:45 AM

To

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

next batch for Pb RIA docket

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:44 AM -----

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

01/24/2008 09:48 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

Slides for 10 am meeting today

Heidi -- I apologize for the short timeframe -- we've been making some corrections this morning.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:44 AM -----

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

01/24/2008 04:00 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Pace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

2 missing slides from 10:00 meeting today

Heidi -- when I was revising the briefing hurriedly this morning, I inadvertantly dropped these two slides (and duplicated the nonpoint slides instead).

Here they are.  Feel free to share.

(Thanks to Chuck French and Tom Pace, to whom  I apologize.)

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

01/24/2008 09:48 AM

To

Joe Touma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Cavender/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Schmidt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tim Hanley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Pace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rudolph Kapichak/AA/USEPA/US, Meg Patulski/AA/USEPA/US

cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Wood-Thomas/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas Solomon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth Southerland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeneva Craig/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Wallace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lillian Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Marion Hoyer/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Rizzo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Onyemaechi Nweke/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sharon Phillips/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tamara Saltman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tim Benner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tyler Fox/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, William Silagi/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

slides for 10:00 meeting today

Sorry this is late, all -- we were making some last minute revisions.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>