[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 27138-27139]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-237-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Delta Lateral
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

May 29, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Delta Lateral Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Company LLC (Transco) in York County, Pennsylvania. This
EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on June 30, 2009.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; Federal, State,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and
newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to
notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them
to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://
www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Transco proposes to construct its Delta Lateral Project in York
County, Pennsylvania, in order to provide 208,800 dekatherms per day of
firm transportation service to the Delta Power Plant, a natural gas and
oil fired electric power generation plant that is currently under
construction in York County.
    Transco is proposing to construct:
     3.42 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline lateral from
Compressor Station 195 located at milepost (MP) 1674.6 of Transco's
Mainlines A and C to the interconnection with the Delta Power Plant;
     Two 12-inch taps at MP 1674.6, one each on Mainlines A and
C discharge headers;
     Minor aboveground facilities and modifications including a
new pig launcher and receiver;
     A delivery point meter station at the Delta Power Plant
site, including two 8-inch ultrasonic meters, 12-inch yard piping,
electronic flow measurement equipment and a radio with a tower;
     An odorization system within the Delta Power Plant site;
     A chromatograph with accessories, and a radio and building
within the Delta Power Plant site; and
     A 630-foot-long cathodic protection ground bed at MP 1.9,
adjacent to Delta Road.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 54.1
acres of land. Following construction, about 14.8 acres would be
maintained as new aboveground facility sites and permanent pipeline
right-of-way. The remaining 39.3 acres of land would be restored and
allowed to revert to their former use.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission staff requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All
comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA, we \2\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Land use;
     Geology and soils;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA
may be published and mailed to the entities on our mailing list (see
how to remain on our mailing list under Environmental Mailing List,
below). A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is
published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are
considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public
participation section below.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Delta Lateral Project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send
in your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or
before June 30, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please
reference the

project docket number CP09-237-000 with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling
expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves
preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard drive. You will
attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users must first
create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a
particular project is considered a ``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ-11.3.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own property within distances defined in
the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number (CP09-237) excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13229 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47630-47632]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0607; FRL-10024-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Management Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim
final determination that the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) has submitted a rule and other materials on behalf of
the Maricopa County Air Quality Department

(MCAQD or ``County'') that correct deficiencies in its Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act'') state implementation plan (SIP) provisions concerning
ozone nonattainment requirements. This determination is based on a
proposed approval, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, of MCAQD's reasonably available control technology (RACT)
demonstration for the aerospace coating category (``aerospace
operations RACT certification'') and negative declarations for the 2008
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') in the portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment
areas regulated by the MCAQD, as well as a rule covering emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from surface coatings and industrial
adhesives. The effect of this interim final determination is that the
imposition of sanctions that were triggered by a previous partial
disapproval by the EPA in 2021 is now deferred. If the EPA finalizes
its approval of MCAQD's submission, relief from these sanctions will
become permanent.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on August 4, 2022.
However, comments will be accepted on or before September 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0607 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On January 7, 2021 (86 FR 971), the EPA issued a final rule
promulgating the partial approval, partial disapproval, and partial
conditional approval for revisions to portions of the MCAQD portion of
the Arizona SIP that had been submitted by ADEQ to the EPA for approval
(``the 2017 RACT Submittal''). The 2017 RACT Submittal action addressed
the MCAQD's RACT SIP requirements under the Act. In our 2017 RACT
Submittal action, we determined that while MCAQD's SIP revision
submittal strengthened the SIP, the submittal did not fully meet the
requirements for RACT SIPs under the CAA. Our 2017 RACT Submittal
action included a final partial disapproval action under title I, part
D of the Act, relating to requirements for nonattainment areas.
Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31,
this partial disapproval action under title I, part D started a
sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after the
action's effective date of February 8, 2021, and highway sanctions 6
months later.
    On June 23, 2021, MCAQD adopted a RACT certification for VOCs
emissions from aerospace operations (``aerospace operations RACT
certification'') and on September 1, 2021, adopted negative
declarations and revised Rule 336, ``Surface Coating Operations and
Industrial Adhesive Application Process.'' On June 30, 2021, ADEQ
submitted the aerospace operations RACT certification and on September
17, 2021, ADEQ submitted the revised Rule 336 and negative declarations
to the EPA for approval into the Arizona SIP (``2021 RACT Submittal'').
The revised rule, negative declarations, and RACT certification are
intended to address the disapproval issues under title I, part D that
we identified in our 2017 RACT Submittal action. In the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register, we have proposed approval of MCAQD
Rule 336, the negative declarations, and the County's aerospace
operations RACT certification. Based on this proposed approval action,
we are also making this interim final determination, effective on
publication, to defer imposition of the offset sanctions and highway
sanctions that were triggered by our partial disapproval of the 2017
RACT Submittal because we believe that the 2021 RACT Submittal corrects
the deficiencies that triggered such sanctions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on
this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our
assessment described in this interim final determination and the
proposed full approval of MCAQD Rule 336, the negative declarations,
and the aerospace operations RACT certification in the 2021 RACT
Submittal with respect to the title I, part D deficiencies identified
in our 2017 RACT Submittal action, we would take final action to lift
this deferral of sanctions under 40 CFR 52.31. If no comments are
submitted that change our assessment, then sanctions and sanction
clocks triggered by our 2017 RACT Submittal action would be permanently
terminated on the effective date of our final approval of MCAQD Rule
336, the negative declarations, and the aerospace operations RACT
certification.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer CAA section
179 sanctions associated with our partial disapproval action on January
7, 2021, of MCAQD's RACT SIP and Rule 336 with respect to the
requirements of part D of title I of the CAA. This determination is
based on our concurrent proposal to fully approve MCADQ Rule 336, the
negative declarations, and the aerospace operations RACT certification,
which resolve the deficiencies that triggered sanctions under section
179 of the CAA.
    Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that MCAQD's 2021 RACT
Submittal addresses the deficiencies under part D of title I of the CAA
identified in our 2017 RACT Submittal action and are fully approvable,
relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible.
Therefore, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for
comment before this action takes

effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action, the EPA is
providing the public with a chance to comment on the EPA's
determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and,
through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than
not that the State has submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects
deficiencies under part D of the Act that were the basis for the action
that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public
interest to impose sanctions. The EPA believes that it is necessary to
use the interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while the
EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the
State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this
action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day
notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to
relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers sanctions and imposes no additional
requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
     Is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
     Is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C.
808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as
discussed in section II of this preamble, including the basis for that
finding.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 3, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 27, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-16740 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(7/1/2006)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.]>

TEMPLATE:

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([XXXXX]) from [Bayer
CropScience], [2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a tolerance for residues of clothianidin in or on the raw
agricultural commodities [beet, sugar, roots] at [0.02] parts per
million (ppm), [beet, sugar, tops] at [0.04] ppm, and [beet, sugar,
molasses] at [0.06] ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains
data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

.  In plants, the metabolism of clothianidin is adequately understood
for the purposes of establishing these proposed tolerances.  Unchanged
parent clothianidin was the predominant residue in all crop matrices
(14.4% to 64.5% in corn, 66.1% to 96.6% in tomatoes, 4.3% to 24.4% in
sugar beets, and 24.3% to 63.3% in apples), with the exception of sugar
beet leaves.  In sugar beet leaves, the main components were the
methylguanidine and thiazolylmethylguanidine metabolites, accounting for
28.6% and 27.7%, respectively.  In the EPA assessment of the
clothianidin data for the corn and canola registration the Agency
concluded that clothianidin was the residue of concern for corn and
canola commodities, but that for root crops and leafy vegetables
residues of the metabolite
(N-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]-N’-methylguanidine would need to be
quantified.

All metabolites found in plants were also found in the animal metabolism
studies.  In animals, parent clothianidin was the major component in
liver, muscle and fat.  Based on the available metabolism data, the
Agency concluded that parent clothianidin was the residues of concern
for the tolerance expression for animal commodities, but that the
metabolites N-(2-Chlorothiazol-5-

ylmethyl)-N’-nitroguanidine (TZNG), thiazolyl-guanidine (TZG),
thiazolyl-urea (TZU), and  aminothiazolyl methylguanidine-pyridine
(ATMG-Pyr) need to be included as residues of concern in livestock
matrices for risk assessment.

.  In plants and plant products, the residue of concern, parent
clothianidin, can be determined using High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC) with Electrospray MS/MS detection.  In an
extraction efficiency testing, the plant residues method has also
demonstrated the ability to extract aged clothianidin residue.

Although the plant residues LC-MS/MS method is highly suitable for
enforcement method, an LC-UV method has also been developed which is
suitable for enforcement (monitoring) purposes in all relevant matrices.

– A total of 12 field trials were conducted to measure the magnitude
of clothianidin residues in sugar beet following the planting of sugar
beet seeds treated with CLOTHIANIDIN + CYFLUTHRIN 600 SE at a target
rate of 60 g clothianidin /100,000 seeds and 16 g cyfluthrin/100,000
seeds. CLOTHIANIDIN + CYFLUTHRIN 600 SE is an emulsifiable concentrate
containing clothianidin and cyfluthrin. Following treatment, the seeds
were planted at seeding rates ranging from 52,870 to 71,320 seeds/A.
The resulting soil application rates for clothianidin were 0.070 to
0.094 lb ai/A (0.078 to 0.105 kg ai/ha).  In all trials, duplicate
composite samples of sugar beet roots and tops were collected at crop
maturity.

Residues of clothianidin and the metabolite TMG
(N-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]-N’-methyl-guanidine were quantified
in sugar beet roots and tops by liquid chromatography-mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (lc-ms/ms) using the stable isotopically
labeled analytes as internal standards and the method of external
standard quantitation.  The individual analyte residues, reported in
clothianidin equivalents, were summed to obtain a total clothianidin
residue. The limit of quantification (LOQ) for each analyte was 0.01 ppm
in sugar beet roots and tops.

The highest average total clothianidin residues (clothianidin + TMG)
were 0.018 ppm in sugar beet roots and 0.030 ppm in sugar beet tops at
maturity.  No TMG was found in the sugar beet roots.  Based on the
magnitude of the TMG residues in the sugar beet roots and tops it is
proposed that the residues of concern for the tolerance expression
continue to be parent clothianidin, but that the residues of the
metabolite TMG in sugar beets be included for risk assessment.  A
processing study showed concentration of clothianidin residues in
molasses with only slight concentration of residues in dried pulp.  No
concentration of residues was seen in refined sugar.

B. Toxicological Profile

. The acute oral LD50 was >5,000 milligrams/ kilograms/ body weight
(mg/kg bw) for both male and female rats.  The acute dermal LD50 was
greater than 2,000 mg/kg bw in rats.  The 4-hour inhalation LC50 was
5.538 mg/L for male and female rats.  Clothianidin was not irritating to
rabbit skin and only slightly irritating to the eyes and did not cause
skin sensitization in guinea pigs.

  Extensive mutagenicity studies were conducted with clothianidin.
Based on the weight of evidence clothianidin was considered negative for
genotoxicity.

.  In a 2-generation reproduction study, rats were administered dietary
levels of 0, 150, 500 and 2500 ppm.  The No Observed Effect Level
(NOAEL) for reproductive parameters was 500 ppm (31.2/36.8 mg.kg/day;
M/F) while the NOAEL for developmental effects was 150 ppm (9.8/11.5
mg/kg/day; M/F). The parental systemic NOAEL was 500 ppm (31.2/36.8
mg/kg/day; M/F).

A developmental toxicity study was conducted in rats with clothianidin
using dose levels of 0, 10, 50 and 125 mg/kg bw by gavage.  The NOAEL
for maternal toxicity was established at 10 mg/kg bw and for
developmental effects it was >125 mg/kg bw.  Additionally, a
developmental toxicity study was conducted with rabbits treated orally
by gavage at 0, 10, 25, 75 and 100 mg/kg bw.  The NOAEL for maternal
toxicity was 25 mg/kg bw and for developmental toxicity it was 75 mg/kg
bw.

Developmental toxicity studies showed no primary developmental toxicity
and no teratogenic potential was evident.

Ninety-day feeding studies were conducted in rats and dogs.  The rat
study was conducted at dietary levels of 0, 150, 500 and 3,000 ppm and
the dog study was conducted at 0, 325, 650 and 1,500 ppm.  The NOAELs
were established at 500 ppm (27.9/34.0 mg/kg/day; M/F) for rat and 650
ppm (19.3 mg/kg/day) for the female dog and 1,500 ppm (42.1 mg/kg/day)
for the female dog.

.  A 2- year combined rat chronic/oncogenicity conducted at dietary
levels of 0, 150, 500, 1,500 and 3,000 ppm demonstrated a NOAEL of 500
ppm (27.9/34.0 mg/kg/day) based on reduced weight gains and
non-neoplastic histomorphological changes.  A 78-week mouse oncogenicity
study conducted at dose levels of 0, 100, 350, 1,250 and 2,000, and
1,800 ppm for males and females, respectively, revealed a NOAEL of 350
ppm (47.2/65.1 mg/kg/day; M/F) based on reduced body weight gains and
increased incidence of hypercellular hypertrophy.  No evidence of
oncogenicity was seen in the rat or the mice.  A 52-week chronic
toxicity study in dogs conducted at dietary levels of  0, 325, 650,
1,500 and 2,000 ppm revealed a NOAEL of 2,000 ppm (46.4 mg/kg/day) for
the male dog and 1,500  ppm (40.1 mg/kg/day) for the female dog.

.  The nature of the clothianidin residue in livestock is adequately
understood.  In animals, parent clothianidin was the major component in
liver, muscle and fat.  Based on the available metabolism data, parent
clothianidin, TZG, TZU, and ATMG-Pyr are proposed to be considered as
the residues of concern in livestock matrices.

.  Eight in vivo metabolites of clothianidin identified in the rat were
investigated for acute oral endpoint mutagenic activity.  None of the
metabolites were mutagenic either with or without activation and the
LD50 values range from <500 to >2,000 mg/kg, showing low to moderate
toxicity.

.  All guideline studies conducted to characterize toxicological profile
showed no endocrine related toxicity or tumorgenicity.  No effects on
triiodothyronine (T3), throxine (T4) or thyroid stimulating hormone
(TSH) were observed in the subchronic rat study.  In a 2-generation
reproduction study in rat; and rat and rabbit teratology studies,
clothianidin did not show reproductive or teratogenic effects.  The
extensive database shows that clothianidin has no endocrine properties.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary Exposure.  Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential
risks due to chronic and acute dietary exposure of the U.S. population
and selected population subgroups to residues of clothianidin.  These
analyses included all registered and pending uses for clothianidin
including the above sugar beet commodities. The acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) of 0.025 mg/kg bw/day based on an acute NOAEL of 25
with an uncertainty factor of 1000 was used to assess acute dietary
exposure.  The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.0098 mg/kg
bw/day based on a chronic NOAEL of 9.8 with an uncertainty factor of
1000 was used to assess chronic exposure.

	       i.Food. In the February 16, 2005 Federal Register notice
clothianidin tolerance were established for use on pome fruit.  To
support that tolerance the EPA conducted Tier 1 acute and chronic
dietary assessments for clothianidin.  These assessments included
residues of clothianidin that arise from the uses of thiamethoxam which
has clothianidin as a common metabolite. Additional tolerance petitions
are pending with the Agency for registration of clothianidin as a seed
treatment on sorghum and cotton. Bayer CropScience has submitted a
revised dietary assessment which includes all of the current and
proposed uses of clothianidin as well as clothianidin residues from
thiamethoxam. The US Population utilized 17.4% of the aPAD and 10.8% of
the cPAD.  The most highly exposed sub-population utilized 81.5% of
acute PAD (Infants) and 47.9% of the cPAD (Children 1-2).

US EPA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Drinking Water
Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the drinking water
assessment.  This SOP uses a variety of tools to conduct drinking water
assessment.   These tools include water models such as SCI-GROW, FIRST,
PRZMS/EXAMS, and monitoring data.  If monitoring data are not available
then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface and
ground water and the highest is assumed to be the drinking water
residue.  In the case of clothianidin monitoring data do not exist
therefore SCI-GROW and FIRST were used to estimate a water residue.  The
calculated drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOC) for acute chronic
exposure for all adults and children exceed the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWC) from the models.  The chronic DWLOC for adults is
306 ppb and the acute DWLOC is 723 ppb.  The chronic DWLOC for children
1-2 is 51 ppb and the acute DWLOC for infants is 46 ppb.  The EDWC for
the worst case chronic scenario is 5.84 ppb (FIRST) and the acute EDWC
(FIRST) is 7.29 ppb.  The drinking water levels of comparison are based
on conservative dietary (food) exposures and are expected to be much
higher in real world situations.

2.  Non-dietary Exposure.  Clothianidin is currently registered for use
on turfgrasses. Exposures and risk resulting from the clothianidin
residues on turfgrasses were included in the EPA risk assessment for
thiamethoxam published in the Federal Register, January 5, 2005 and the
clothianidin risk assessment published in the Federal Register, February
16, 2005.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Clothianidin is a metabolite of thiamethoxam. Therefore, residues of
clothianidin resulting from use of thiamethoxam were included in the
above risk assessment. Currently, EPA has not determined that toxic
effects produced by clothianidin are cumulative with those of any other
compound.

E.  Safety Determination

	1. US Population.  Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it
can be concluded that aggregate exposure to residues of clothianidin
present a reasonable certainty of no harm.  Exposure from residues in
crops utilizes 17.4% of the aPAD and 10.8% of the cPAD.  EPA generally
has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the Population Adjusted
Doses.  Drinking water levels of concern are well above the estimated
drinking water concentrations as calculated by conservative models.
Clothianidin is registered for use on turf.  The aggregate exposure to
the U.S. Population and population subgroups was assessed by EPA and
published in the Federal Register February 16, 2005. The sorghum, cotton
and sugar beet uses do not change the water exposure. The conservative
Tier 1 assessments demonstrate a reasonable certainty of no harm will
result from uses of clothianidin for the US Population.

.  In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and
children to residues of clothianidin, the data from developmental
toxicity studies in both the rat and rabbit, a 2-generation reproduction
study in rats and a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats have been
considered.

The developmental toxicity studies evaluate potential adverse effects on
the developing animal resulting from pesticide exposure of the mother
during prenatal development.  The reproduction study evaluates effects
from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating
animals through two generations, as well as any observed systemic
toxicity.

The developmental neurotoxicity studies evaluate the neurobehavioral and
neurotoxic effects on the developing animal resulting from the exposure
of the mother. FFDCA Section 408 provides that EPA may apply an
additional uncertainty factor for infants and children based on the
threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal effects and the
completeness of the toxicity database.  Based on the current
toxicological data requirements the toxicology database for clothianidin
relative to prenatal and postnatal development is complete, including
the developmental neurotoxicity study.  None of the studies indicated
the offspring to be more sensitive.  All effects were secondary to
severe maternal toxicity.  Therefore, no additional safety or
uncertainty factor is justified.

F. International Tolerances

	No CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRL’s) have been established for
residues of clothianidin on any crops at this time.

  PAGE   5

  PAGE   5

  PAGE   6

  PAGE

{<HD1>}

{</HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

COMMENT@@I11

COMMENT@@T1

	{<P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16764-16765]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13583-001]

Crane & Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With
the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption From Licensing
    b. Project No.: 13583-001
    c. Date filed: March 9, 2011
    d. Applicant: Crane & Company
    e. Name of Project: Byron Weston Hydroelectric Project
    f. Location: On the East Branch of the Housatonic River, in the
Town of Dalton, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. The project would not
occupy lands of the United States.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Chad Cox, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., One
Edgewater Drive, Norwood, MA 02062,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: May 9, 2011.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp). Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Byron Weston Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) The
existing 90-foot-long, 30-foot-high Byron Weston Dam No. 2; (2) an
existing 0.94-acre impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of
1,116.7 feet NAVD (1988); (3) an existing intake structure, trashrack,
and headgate; (4) an existing 6.5-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter penstock
that conveys flow to an existing 50-foot-long, 9.5-foot-wide headrace
canal connected to a new 5-foot-long, 4.4-foot-diameter penstock; (5)
an existing powerhouse containing one new 250-kilowatt turbine
generating unit; (6) a new steel draft tube placed within the existing
tailrace; and (7) a new 100-foot-long, 600-volt transmission line
connected to the Crane & Company mill complex. The proposed project is
estimated to generate an average of 938,000 kilowatt-hours annually.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at  http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required
by 106, National

Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR, at 800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate (e.g., if scoping is waived, the schedule
would be shortened).

Issue Deficiency Letter--May 2011
Issue Notice of Acceptance--July 2011
Issue Scoping Document--August 2011
Issue Notice ready for environmental analysis--October 2011
Issue Notice of the availability of the EA--March 2012

    Dated: March 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7042 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7647-7650]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02745]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31447; File No. 812-14351]

The Saratoga Advantage Trust and James Alpha Management, LLC;
Notice of Application

February 5, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements with
Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers (as defined below) and non-affiliated sub-
advisers without shareholder approval and would grant relief from
certain disclosure requirements.

Applicants: The Saratoga Advantage Trust (``Trust''), and James Alpha
Management, LLC (``Adviser'').

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 19, 2014, and
amended on December 12, 2014 and on January 23, 2015.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on March 2, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Michael W. Mundt,
Stradley, Ronon Stevens & Young, 2600 One Commerce Square,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6868, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number or an applicant
using the ``Company'' name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
The Trust currently consists of fifteen series (``Series''), each with
its own distinct investment objective, policies and restrictions. The
Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company and is registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Advisers Act'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the relief apply to applicants, as
well as to any future Series and any other existing or future
registered open-end management investment company or series thereof
that is advised by the Adviser, uses the multi-manager structure
described in the application, and complies with the terms and
conditions of the application (``Subadvised Series''). All
registered open-end investment companies that currently intend to
rely on the requested order are named as applicants. Any entity that
relies on the requested order will do so only in accordance with the
terms and conditions contained in the application. If the name of
any Subadvised Series contains the name of a sub-adviser, then the
name of the Adviser that serves as the primary adviser to the
Subadvised Series, or a trademark or trade name that is owned by or
publicly used to identify that Adviser, will precede the name of the
sub-adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Each Series has or will have, as its investment adviser, the
Adviser, or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common
control with the Adviser or its successors (included in the term, the
``Adviser'').\2\ The Adviser serves or will serve as the investment
adviser to each Subadvised Series (as defined below) pursuant to an
investment advisory agreement with the Trust (``Investment Management
Agreement''). Each Investment Management Agreement has been or will be
approved by the board of trustees of the Trust (``Board''),\3\
including a majority of the members of the Board who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
the Subadvised Series or the Adviser (``Independent Board Members'')
and by the shareholders of the relevant Subadvised Series as required
by sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2 thereunder. The
terms of the Investment Management Agreements comply or will comply
with section 15(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each Adviser is, or will be, registered with the Commission
as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. For purposes of the
requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \3\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of a future Subadvised Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Under the terms of each Investment Management Agreement, the
Adviser, subject to the supervision of the Board, will provide
continuous investment management of the assets of each Series. The
Adviser will periodically review a Series' investment policies and
strategies, and based on the need of a particular Series may recommend
changes to the investment policies and strategies of the Series for
consideration by the Board. For its services to each Series under the
applicable Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser will receive an
investment management fee from that Series. Each Investment Management
Agreement provides or will provide that the Adviser may, subject to the
approval of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board
Members, and the shareholders of the applicable Subadvised Series (if
required), delegate portfolio management responsibilities of all or a
portion of the assets of a Subadvised Series to one or more Sub-
Advisers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Sub-Adviser'' for a Subadvised Series is (a) an indirect
or direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary'' (as such term is defined in
the Act) of the Adviser for that Series; (b) a sister company of the
Adviser for that Series that is an indirect or direct ``wholly-owned
subsidiary'' (as such term is defined in the Act) of the same
company that, indirectly or directly, wholly owns the Adviser (each
of (a) and (b), a ``Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the
``Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers''), or (c) an investment sub-adviser for
that Series that is not an ``affiliated person'' (as such term is
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the Series or the Adviser,
except to the extent that an affiliation arises solely because the
sub-adviser serves as a sub-adviser to one or more Series (each, a
``Non-Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').

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

    4. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
the approval of the Board of the relevant Subadvised Series, including
a majority of the Independent Board Members, to, without obtaining
shareholder approval: (i) select Sub-Advisers to manage all or a
portion of the assets of a Series and enter into Sub-Advisory
Agreements (as defined below) with the Sub-Advisers, and (ii)
materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements with the Sub-Advisers.\5\ The
requested relief will not extend to any sub-adviser, other than a
Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser, who is an affiliated person, as defined in
section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Subadvised Series, the Trust, or of
the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a sub-adviser to one or
more of the Subadvised Series (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Shareholder approval will continue to be required for any
other sub-adviser changes and material amendments to an existing
sub-advisory agreement with any sub-adviser other than a Non-
Affiliated Sub-Adviser or a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser (all such
changes referred to as ``Ineligible Sub-Adviser Changes''), except
as otherwise permitted by applicable law or by rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Pursuant to each Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser
has overall responsibility for the management and investment of the
assets of each Subadvised Series. These responsibilities include
recommending the removal or replacement of Sub-Advisers, determining
the portion of that Subadvised Series' assets to be managed by any
given Sub-Adviser and reallocating those assets as necessary from time
to time.
    6. The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with various
Sub-Advisers (``Sub-Advisory Agreements'') to provide investment
management services to the Subadvised Series. The terms of each Sub-
Advisory Agreement comply or will comply fully with the requirements of
section 15(a) of the Act and have been or will be approved by the
Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members and the
initial shareholder of the applicable Subadvised Series, in accordance
with sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2 thereunder. The
Sub-Advisers, subject to the supervision of the Adviser and oversight
of the Board, will determine the securities and other investments to be
purchased, sold or entered into by a Subadvised Series and place orders
with brokers or dealers that they select, or direct the Adviser to
place such orders. The Adviser will compensate each Sub-Adviser out of
the fee from the relevant Subadvised Series to the Adviser under the
applicable Investment Management Agreement. A Subadvised Series also
may pay advisory fees directly to a Sub-Adviser.
    7. Subadvised Series will inform shareholders of the hiring of a
new Sub-Adviser pursuant to the following procedures (``Modified Notice
and Access Procedures''): (a) within 90 days after a new Sub-Adviser is
hired for any Subadvised Series, that Subadvised Series will send its
shareholders either a Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice
and Multi-manager Information Statement;\6\ and (b) the Subadvised
Series will make the Multi-manager Information Statement available on
the Web site identified in the Multi-manager Notice no later than when
the Multi-manager Notice (or Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager
Information Statement) is first sent to shareholders, and will maintain
it on that Web site for at least 90 days. In the circumstances
described in the application, a proxy solicitation to approve the
appointment of new Sub-Advisers provides no more meaningful information
to shareholders than the proposed Multi-manager Information Statement.
Applicants state that each Board would comply with the requirements of
sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act before entering into or amending
Sub-Advisory Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Multi-manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and specifically will,
among other things: (a) summarize the relevant information regarding
the new Sub-Adviser (except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee
Disclosure (as defined below); (b) inform shareholders that the
Multi-manager Information Statement is available on a Web site; (c)
provide the Web site address; (d) state the time period during which
the Multi-manager Information Statement will remain available on
that Web site; (e) provide instructions for accessing and printing
the Multi-manager Information Statement; and (f) instruct the
shareholder that a paper or email copy of the Multi-manager
Information Statement may be obtained, without charge, by contacting
the Subadvised Series. A ``Multi-manager Information Statement''
will meet the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item
22 of Schedule 14A under the Exchange Act for an information
statement, except as modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee
Disclosure. Multi-manager Information Statements will be filed with
the Commission via the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Applicants also request an order exempting the Subadvised Series
from certain disclosure obligations that may require each Subadvised
Series to disclose fees paid by the Adviser to each Sub-Adviser.
Applicants seek relief to permit each Subadvised Series to disclose (as
a dollar amount and a percentage of the Subadvised Series' net assets):
(a) the aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Wholly-Owned Sub-
Advisers; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers;
and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Sub-Adviser (collectively, the
``Aggregate Fee Disclosure'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act states, in part, that it is unlawful
for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company ``except pursuant to a written contract, which
contract, whether with such registered company or with an investment
adviser of such registered company, has been approved by the vote of a
majority of the outstanding voting securities of such registered
company.'' Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires a registered
investment company to disclose in its statement of additional
information the method of computing the ``advisory fee payable'' by the
investment company, including the total dollar amounts that the
investment company ``paid to the adviser (aggregated with amounts paid
to affiliated advisers, if any), and any advisers who are not
affiliated persons of the adviser, under the investment advisory
contract for the last three fiscal years.''
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under
the Exchange Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and
22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for
a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon
to include the ``rate of compensation of the investment adviser,'' the
``aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fee,'' a description of
the ``terms of the contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the
advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the
difference between the two fees.
    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of a registered investment
company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require
a registered investment company to include in its financial statement
information about the investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any

class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any
provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that their requested
relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser,
subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Sub-
Advisers who are in the best position to achieve the Subadvised Series'
investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of
the shareholder, the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially
equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by
an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants
believe that permitting the Adviser to perform the duties for which the
shareholders of the Subadvised Series are paying the Adviser the
selection, supervision and evaluation of the Sub-Advisers without
incurring unnecessary delays or expenses is appropriate in the interest
of the Subadvised Series' shareholders and will allow such Subadvised
Series to operate more efficiently. Applicants state that each
Investment Management Agreement will continue to be fully subject to
section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act and approved by
the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, in
the manner required by sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act. Applicants
are not seeking an exemption with respect to the Investment Management
Agreements.
    7. Applicants assert that disclosure of the individual fees that
the Adviser would pay to the Sub-Advisers of Subadvised Series that
operate under the multi-manager structure described in the application
would not serve any meaningful purpose. Applicants contend that the
primary reasons for requiring disclosure of individual fees paid to
Sub-Advisers are to inform shareholders of expenses to be charged by a
particular Subadvised Series and to enable shareholders to compare the
fees to those of other comparable investment companies. Applicants
believe that the requested relief satisfies these objectives because
the advisory fee paid to the Adviser will be fully disclosed and,
therefore, shareholders will know what the Subadvised Series' fees and
expenses are and will be able to compare the advisory fees a Subadvised
Series is charged to those of other investment companies. Applicants
assert that the requested disclosure relief would benefit shareholders
of the Subadvised Series because it would improve the Adviser's ability
to negotiate the fees paid to Sub-Advisers. Applicants state that the
Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that are below a Sub-Adviser's
``posted'' amounts if the Adviser is not required to disclose the Sub-
Advisers' fees to the public. Applicants submit that the relief
requested to use Aggregate Fee Disclosure will encourage Sub-Advisers
to negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees
are not required to be made public.
    8. For the reasons discussed above, applicants submit that the
requested relief meets the standards for relief under section 6(c) of
the Act. Applicants state that the operation of the Subadvised Series
in the manner described in the application must be approved by
shareholders of a Subadvised Series before that Subadvised Series may
rely on the requested relief. In addition, applicants state that the
proposed conditions to the requested relief are designed to address any
potential conflicts of interest, including any posed by the use of
Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers, and provide that shareholders are informed
when new Sub-Advisers are hired. Applicants assert that conditions 6,
10 and 11 are designed to provide the Board with sufficient
independence and the resources and information it needs to monitor and
address any conflicts of interest with affiliated persons of the
Adviser, including Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers. Applicants state that,
accordingly, they believe the requested relief is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Applicants will only comply with conditions 7, 8, 9 and 12
if they rely on the relief that would allow them to provide
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Before a Subadvised Series may rely on the order requested in
the application, the operation of the Subadvised Series in the manner
described in the application, including the hiring of Wholly-Owned Sub-
Advisers, will be, or has been, approved by a majority of the
Subadvised Series' outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act,
or, in the case of a new Subadvised Series whose public shareholders
purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure
contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial shareholder
before offering the Subadvised Series' shares to the public.
    2. The prospectus for each Subadvised Series will disclose the
existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the
application. Each Subadvised Series will hold itself out to the public
as employing the multi-manager structure described in the application.
Each prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the
ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee
the Sub-Advisers and recommend their hiring, termination and
replacement.
    3. The Adviser will provide general management services to a
Subadvised Series, including overall supervisory responsibility for the
general management and investment of the Subadvised Series' assets.
Subject to review and approval of the Board, the Adviser will (a) set a
Subadvised Series' overall investment strategies, (b) evaluate, select,
and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage all or a portion of a Subadvised
Series' assets, and (c) implement procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that Sub-Advisers comply with a Subadvised Series' investment
objective, policies and restrictions. Subject to review by the Board,
the Adviser will (a) when appropriate, allocate and reallocate a
Subadvised Series' assets among multiple Sub-Advisers; and (b) monitor
and evaluate the performance of Sub-Advisers.
    4. A Subadvised Series will not make any Ineligible Sub-Adviser
Changes without the approval of the shareholders of the applicable
Subadvised Series.
    5. Subadvised Series will inform shareholders of the hiring of a
new Sub-Adviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Sub-Adviser
pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
    6. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Board Members, and the selection and nomination of new or
additional Independent Board Members will be placed within the
discretion of the then-existing Independent Board Members.
    7. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Board Members.
The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the
then-existing Independent Board Members.
    8. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability

of the Adviser on a per Subadvised Series basis. The information will
reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any
sub-adviser during the applicable quarter.
    9. Whenever a sub-adviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Adviser.
    10. Whenever a sub-adviser change is proposed for a Subadvised
Series with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser or a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser,
the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, will
make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that such
change is in the best interests of the Subadvised Series and its
shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which
the Adviser or the Affiliated Sub-Adviser or Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser
derives an inappropriate advantage.
    11. No director, trustee or officer of a Subadvised Series, or
partner, director, manager or officer of the Adviser, will own directly
or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is
not controlled by such person), any interest in a Sub-Adviser, except
for (a) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity, other than
a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser, that controls, is controlled by, or is
under common control with the Adviser, or (b) ownership of less than 1%
of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a
publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity that
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Sub-
Adviser.
    12. Each Subadvised Series will disclose the Aggregate Fee
Disclosure in its registration statement.
    13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that requested in the
application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of
that rule.
    14. Any new Sub-Advisory Agreement or any amendment to a Subadvised
Series' existing Investment Management Agreement or Sub-Advisory
Agreement that directly or indirectly results in an increase in the
aggregate advisory rate payable by the Subadvised Series will be
submitted to the Subadvised Series' shareholders for approval.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02745 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40816-40819]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16289]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69914; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending 303A.00 of the
Exchange's Listed Company Manual To Provide a One-Year Transition
Period To Comply With the Internal Audit Requirement of Section
303A.07(c) for Companies Listing in Connection With An Initial Public
Offering, as New Registrants or by Means of a Carve-Out or Spin-Off
Transaction

July 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 18, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend 303A.00 of the Exchange's Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual'') to provide a one-year transition period
to comply with the internal audit requirement of Section 303A.07(c) for
companies listing in connection with an initial public offering
(``IPO''), as new registrants or by means of a carve-out or spin-off
transaction. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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
    Section 303A.07(c) of the Listed Company Manual requires that any
listed company which is subject to Section 303A.07 must have an
internal audit function to provide management and the audit committee
with ongoing assessments of the listed company's risk management
processes and system of internal control. A listed company may choose
to outsource this function to a third party service provider other than
its independent auditor.
    Consistent with the transition provisions of Section 303A.00, any
company listing upon transfer from another national securities exchange
that does not have an internal audit requirement has one year from the
date of listing to comply with the internal audit function requirement
of Section 303A.07(c). Neither the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
nor NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') has an internal audit requirement.
Consequently, any company transferring from Nasdaq or NYSE MKT to the
NYSE has one year from the date of listing to comply with the
requirement specifically set forth in its rules. By contrast, Section
303A.00 does not provide any transition period for compliance with the
internal audit requirement to a company which is listing in connection
with: (i) Its IPO \4\ or whose common stock has not previously been
registered under the Exchange Act or (ii) by means of a carve-out or
spin-off transaction.\5\ The Exchange believes that the lack of a
transition period in relation to the internal audit requirement for
these categories of newly-listed companies is anomalous in light of the
treatment of companies transferring from other markets. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to amend Section 303A.00 to extend the
application of the one-year transition period to comply with the
internal audit function requirement to such companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of Section 303A other than Sections 303A.06
(which incorporates Exchange Act Rule 10A-3 by reference) and
303A.12(b), Section 303A.00 currently provides that a company is
considered to be listing in conjunction with an IPO if, immediately
prior to listing, it does not have a class of common stock
registered under the Exchange Act. Conseqently [sic], a company
whose common stock has not previously been registered under the
Exchange Act is eligible to avail itself of the IPO transition
periods in Section 303A.00 regardless of whether that company is
conducting a public offering at the time of its initial listing. The
Exchange's proposed amendment would provide a one-year transition
period for compliance with the internal audit function requirement
to all companies currently eligible for the IPO transition periods
in Section 303A.00.
    \5\ Section 102.01B of the Manual defines a carve-out as the
initial offering of an equity security to the public by a publicly
traded company for an underlying interest in its existing business
(which may be subsidiary, division, or business unit). For all
practical purposes, a carve-out is the same as an IPO, as it
involves the listing of a newly-public company in connection with
the initial public offering of its common stock. A spin-off involves
the distribution by a listed company of all of the outstanding
common stock of a subsidiary to the listed company's shareholders
and the listing of the new company, generally without any concurrent
offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing a transition period to comply
with the internal audit function requirement to companies listing in
connection with their IPO, as new registrants or by mean of a carve-out
or spin-off transaction does not give rise to any novel regulatory
issues that do not arise in connection with the existing transition
provision for companies transferring from another national securities
exchange. The Exchange believes that providing a transitional period
after listing for a newly public company to establish its internal
audit function would benefit investors by making the company's
implementation of the internal audit function more effective and
efficient and reducing the costs that a company faces in its first year
as a public company. The proposed transition period would also limit
any interference by the Exchange's internal audit requirement with a
company's business decision regarding the timing and use of resources
relating to its initial listing. In that regard, the Exchange notes
that newly-public companies are typically in the process of upgrading
their accounting systems and internal controls and hiring additional
staff to meet the greater demands placed on public companies. In
addition, many such companies appoint a number of new directors at the
time of listing to comply with NYSE independence requirements.
Frequently, a newly-listed company will appoint a completely new audit
committee on the date of listing. As the audit committee has an
oversight role with respect to internal audit and risk management, it
is appropriate for that newly-constituted committee to have a
significant role in the design and implementation of the company's
internal audit function. A one-year transition period would give a
newly-appointed audit committee an opportunity to become familiar with
the internal controls and risk management of the company and determine
what kind of internal audit function is suitable for the company given
its specific circumstances.
    Given the limited scope of the proposed transition provision and
the fact that other national securities exchanges do not have
comparable rules, the Exchange believes that the extension of the
transition provision to IPOs, new registrants, carve-outs and spin-offs
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Moreover, given that any company which would be able to avail itself of
the proposed transition could list on Nasdaq without ever having to
comply with an internal audit requirement, the Exchange believes that
investors would be at least as well protected by having these companies
listed on the Exchange, where they would be subject to such a
requirement after the transition period. After adoption of the proposed
amendment, all companies that are subject to Section 303A.07 would
continue to be required to have an internal audit function no later
than one year after their listing

date. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 303A.07 to include a
sentence explicitly stating this fact.
    The Exchange notes that there are several provisions in Section
303A.07 that set forth duties of the audit committee with respect to
the internal audit function. The Exchange proposes to amend those
provisions to clarify the duties of the audit committee with respect to
the internal audit function during any transition period applicable to
IPOs, new registrants, transfers from another national securities
exchange, carve-outs and spin-offs. The proposed amendments are as
follows:
     Section 303A.07(b)(i)(A) provides that the audit
committee's charter must provide that the committee will assist board
oversight of (1) the integrity of the listed company's financial
statements, (2) the listed company's compliance with legal and
regulatory requirements, (3) the independent auditor's qualifications
and independence, and (4) the performance of the listed company's
internal audit function and independent auditors. The proposed
amendment would provide that if the listed company does not yet have an
internal audit function because it is availing itself of a transition
period pursuant to Section 303A.00, the charter must provide that the
committee will assist board oversight of the design and implementation
of the internal audit function) [sic].
     Section 303A.07(b)(i)(E) provides that the audit
committee's charter must provide that the committee will meet
separately, periodically, with management, with internal auditors (or
other personnel responsible for the internal audit function) and with
independent auditors. The proposed amendment would provide that if the
listed company does not yet have an internal audit function because it
is availing itself of a transition period pursuant to Section 303A.00,
the committee must meet periodically with the company personnel
primarily responsible for the design and implementation of the internal
audit function.
     Section 303A.07(b)(i)(F) provides that the audit
committee's charter must provide that the committee will review with
the independent auditor any audit problems or difficulties and
management's response. This review is required to include discussion of
the responsibilities, budget and staffing of the listed company's
internal audit function. The proposed amendment would provide that if
the listed company does not yet have an internal audit function because
it is availing itself of a transition period pursuant to Section
303A.00, the review should include discussion of management's plans
with respect to the responsibilities, budget and staffing of the
internal audit function and its plans for the implementation of the
internal audit function.
     Section 303A.07(b)(i)(H) provides that the audit
committee's charter must provide that the committee will report
regularly to the board of directors to review, among other things, the
performance of the company's internal audit function. The proposed
amendment would provide that if the listed company does not yet have an
internal audit function because it is availing itself of a transition
period pursuant to Section 303A.00, the committee should review with
the board management's activities with respect to the design and
implementation of the internal audit function.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \6\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''), in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\7\ in particular in that it is designed 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
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
the proposed amendment is consistent with the investor protection
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that the proposed amendment
would provide an appropriate transition period to comply with the
internal audit requirement to companies listing in connection with an
IPO, as a new registrant, or by means of a carve-out or spin-off
transaction, while retaining its general requirement that all such
companies must have an internal audit function no later than one year
from the company's listing date. The Exchange notes that during any
transition period the audit committee would continue to have a role in
overseeing the listed company's financial systems and internal controls
and would also be involved in overseeing the design and implementation
of the company's internal audit function during that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act, as it simply provides a
transition period for newly-listed companies to comply with the
Exchange's internal audit requirement.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-40 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-NYSE-2013-40. 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 NYSE. 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-NYSE-2013-40, and should be submitted on or before July
29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16289 Filed 7-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


a) The average annual EPA resource requirement estimates have been based on the EPA costs associated with initial performance tests and report/ notification reviews for new or modified presses. It is expected that each plant would have no more than one new or modified press per 3 year period. The 3 new facilities expected would each add 6 presses over the 3 year period. ( 3.3 ( use 4) presses at existing facilities and 6 presses at new facilities = 10)

b) Assume 20 percent of initial performance tests must be repeated due to failure.

c) Assume an hourly wage $ 19.34 plus 110% overhead costs which equals $ 40.61.

Table 1. Average Annual EPA Resource Requirement a ( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D)

EPA hr/ Effected units EPA hr/ EPA Cost Activity Occurrence / yr / yr / yr Initial Performance 24 10 240 9746.40 Tests for New Plants Repeat Performance Tests for New Plants b 24 2 48 1949.28 Report Review for New Plants:

Notified of construction 2 10 20 812.20 Not'd of anticip. strt/ up 0.5 10 5 203.05 Notified of actual strt/ up 0.5 10 5 203.05 Notified of initial test 0.5 10 5 203.05 Review test results 8 10 80 3248.80 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS: 403 Travel Expenses: ( 1 person x 7 plant( 4 existing and 3 new)/ yr x 2 days/ plant x $ 50 per diem) + ($ 500 round trip/ plant x 7 plants/ yr) = $ 4200/ yr Salary ( 1 person x 403 hr/ yr x $ 40.61/ hr c) = $ 16,365.83/ yr TOTAL ANNUAL COST = $ 20,565.83