[Federal Register: August 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 50978-50979]
[DOCID:fr29au08-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1783-DR]

New Mexico; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1783-DR), dated August 14,
2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 14, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Mexico resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning on
July 26, 2008, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of New Mexico.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation for Lincoln County, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent
with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any
Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation
and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are
eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA
Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777.
If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is
later warranted, Federal funding under that program also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Mexico have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Lincoln and Otero Counties for Public Assistance.
    Lincoln County in the State of New Mexico is eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant 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.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-20072 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 1238-1239]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-59]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57075; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-75]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Market Data Distribution
Network Fees

December 31, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On September 27, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to eliminate: (1) A fee assessed by the
Exchange's wholly owned subsidiary, the Philadelphia Board of Trade
(``PBOT''), for certain equity index values that subscribers receive
over PBOT's Market Data Distribution Network (``MDDN''); \3\ and (2) a
discount applicable to certain market data vendors. Phlx filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on November 7, 2007. The
proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 28, 2007.\4\ On December 14, 2007, Phlx
filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission
received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the
proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The MDDN is an Internet protocol multicast network developed
by PBOT and SAVVIS Communications.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56827 (November 20,
2007), 72 FR 67334.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, Phlx corrected Exhibit 5 to the Form
19b-4 it submitted to accurately reflect the proposed deletions and
additions of the rule text. Phlx also clarified in footnote 1 of
Exhibit 5 that the Administrative Fee deduction applies only to the
per-device fee and to Index Data. Because Amendment No. 2 is
technical in nature, it is not subject to notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Phlx licenses to PBOT the current and closing index values
underlying most of Phlx's proprietary indexes, and Hapoalim Securities
USA, Inc. licenses to PBOT the current and closing Hapoalim American
Israeli Index\TM\ (HAI\SM\) values. PBOT distributes those values over
the MDDN. The Exchange or its third-party designee calculates and makes
available to PBOT a real-time value for each index every 15 seconds
during each trading day and a closing index value at the end of the
day. In exchange for subscriber fees paid to PBOT, market data vendors
may receive and widely disseminate this market data to their
subscribers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ PBOT has contracted with several major vendors to receive
real-time and closing index values over the MDDN and promptly
redistribute such values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, subscriber fees are assessed in one of three ways: \7\
(a) A monthly fee of $1.00 per ``Device'' \8\ that is used by vendors
and their subscribers to receive and re-transmit market data on a real-
time basis (``device fee''); (b) a fee of $0.0025 per request for
snapshot data,\9\ which is essentially market data that is refreshed no
more frequently than once every 60 seconds, or $1,500 per month for
unlimited snapshot data requests (``snapshot fee''); \10\ or (c) an
Enterprise License Fee of $10,000 per year or $850 per month for
unlimited real-time data as an alternative to the device fee.\11\ All
vendors that provide market data to 200,000 or more Devices in any
month qualify for a 15% Administrative Fee credit for that month, to be
deducted from the monthly Subscriber Fees that they collect and are
obligated to pay

PBOT under the Vendor/Subvendor Agreement. This credit is also
currently given to vendors paying the Enterprise License Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53790 (May 11,
2006), 71 FR 28738 (May 17, 2006) (``Original Approval Order''). The
applicable subscriber fees are set out in Vendor/Subvendor
Agreements that PBOT executed with various market data vendors for
the right to receive, store, and retransmit the current and closing
index values transmitted over the MDDN.
    \8\ The agreements provide that ``Device'' shall mean, in case
of each Subscriber and in such Subscriber's discretion, either any
Terminal or any End User. Devices may be exclusively Terminals,
exclusively End Users, or a combination of Terminals or End Users,
and shall be reported in a manner that is consistent with the way
the vendor identifies such Subscriber's access to vendor's data. An
``End User'' is defined as an individual authorized or allowed by a
vendor to access and display real-time market data that is
distributed by PBOT over the MDDN; and a ``Terminal'' is any type of
equipment (fixed or portable) that accesses and displays such market
data.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55111 (January 16,
2007), 72 FR 3188 (January 24, 2007) (increasing the snapshot fee to
$0.0025 per request).
    \10\ The index values may also be made available by vendors on a
delayed basis (i.e., no sooner than 20 minutes following receipt of
the data by vendors) at no charge.
    \11\ A vendor is eligible for the Enterprise License Fee if it
is a firm acting as a retail broker-dealer conducting a material
portion of its business via one or more proprietary Internet Web
sites by which the firm distributes market data to predominately
non-professional market data users with whom the firm has a
brokerage relationship (``Eligible Firm''). An Eligible Firm may
also distribute market data to professional users with whom such
firm has a brokerage relationship, provided such market data
distribution is predominantly to non-professional users. The
Eligible Firm's market data distribution to professional users
cannot exceed 10%. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55424
(March 8, 2007), 72 FR 12242 (March 15, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx proposes to eliminate the ability to access the market data on
a ``snapshot'' basis and consequently proposes to eliminate the
snapshot data fee, effective January 1, 2008. The Exchange states that
only a few vendors currently elect to use snapshot data. Consequently,
PBOT seeks to eliminate the associated operational and accounting
expenses of administering the snapshot data fee. Phlx is also proposing
to eliminate the applicability of the 15% Administrative Fee credit to
market data vendors paying the Enterprise License Fee.

III. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the amended
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\12\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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 Commission
also finds that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\14\ which requires the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among the Exchange's members and issuers and
other persons using its facilities. The Commission also continues to
believe that PBOT's MDDN fee structure is consistent with Rule 603
under the Act \15\ regarding the distribution, consolidation, and
display of information with respect to quotations for and transactions
in NMS stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to eliminate
snapshot requests for index value data and the associated fee is
consistent with the Act. The Exchange makes available the same market
data through other means, and, in the absence of a compelling
regulatory concern, it is a reasonable exercise of the Exchange's
business judgment to choose the means of delivery of this data.
    With respect to Phlx's proposal to eliminate the applicability of
the Administrative Fee credit to vendors electing to pay the Enterprise
License Fee, the Commission believes that the rule change is
reasonable. The Exchange represents that, unlike vendors electing to
receive market data pursuant to the device fee, vendors electing to
receive market data pursuant to the Enterprise License Fee are not
required to bear the same ongoing administrative expenses. In
particular, vendors paying the device fee must prepare and deliver to
PBOT a detailed monthly accounting and report of Devices. By contrast,
a vendor paying the Enterprise License Fee is required only to submit
an initial certification, and must notify PBOT of any changes to its
qualification, but has no requirement to submit any on-going accounting
to PBOT.\16\ Thus, the administrative costs to a firm associated with
monitoring its ongoing eligibility for the Enterprise License Fee
should be substantially less than the administrative costs to a vendor
subject to the device fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that several large vendors are currently
paying the Enterprise License Fee. To be eligible for the Enterprise
License Fee, a vendor must certify to PBOT that it qualifies for the
Enterprise License Fee, including that market distribution is
predominantly to non-professional users, and must immediately notify
PBOT if it can no longer certify its qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-75), as amended,
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13831]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-90-000, et al.]

General Electric Capital Corporation, et al.; Electric Rate and
Corporate Filings

March 10, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. General Electric Capital Corporation

[Docket No. EC06-90-000]

    Take notice that on March 6, 2006, General Electric Capital
Corporation (GECC or Applicant) submitted an application pursuant to
section 203(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act for authorization for the
indirect acquisition of interests in an electric utility holding
company. Applicant has requested authorization to acquire a 99% common
equity interest (Transaction) in East Coast Power, L.L.C. (East Coast
Power) from GS Linden Power Holdings, L.L.C. (GS Linden or Seller).
Applicant states through its GE Energy Financial Services unit and
related subsidiaries, and Seller, through East Coast Power, are
currently joint owners of a 1,034.9 MW (nameplate) generating facility
(Facility) located in Linden, New Jersey. Through the Transaction,
Applicant explains it will acquire all of Seller's indirect interests
in the Facility. The Facility is a qualifying facility (QF) under the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2006.

2. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

[Docket No. ER04-449-012]

    Take notice that on November 30, 2005, the New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. and the New York Transmission Owners submitted a
schedule for the continuation of stakeholder discussions in compliance
with the Commission's August 6, 2004 Order Conditionally Accepting
Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2006.

3. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

[Docket No. IN05-4-001]

    Take notice that on February 27, 2006, Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (Texas Eastern) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to Texas
Eastern Transmission LP, 110 FERC ] 61,188 (2005), issued on February
28, 2005, in Docket Nos. IN05-4-000.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on
parties on the official service list in the above-captioned
proceedings, as well as all affected customers of Texas Eastern and
interested state commissions.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 17, 2006.

4. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

[Docket No. IN05-4-002]

    Take notice that on March 3, 2006, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
(Texas Eastern) submitted a supplemental compliance filing pursuant to
the Commission's order issued on February 28, 2005, 110 FERC ] 61,188
(2005), in Docket Nos. IN05-4-000.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on
parties on the official service list in the above-captioned
proceedings, as well as all affected customers of Texas Eastern and
interested state commissions.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 17, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3890 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 46155]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2376-000]

Horus West Virginia I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Horus West Virginia I, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 2, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: July 13, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15318 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


JUN 19 2003 NOTE TO FILE SUBJECT: Assessment of Ribosomal Inhibition Protein ( RIP) activity in PS149B1 binary insect control proteins Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1, as expressed in maize following transformation with construct PHP17662, a Bacillus thuringiensis based plant incorporated protectant, for an experimental use permit.

TO: Mike Mendelsohn, Product Manager Microbial Pesticides Branch Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division FROM: Chris A. Wozniak, Ph. D., Biologist / s/ Microbial Pesticides Branch Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division THROUGH: John L. Kough, Ph. D., Biologist / s/ Senior Scientist, Microbial Pesticides Branch Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ACTION REQUESTED Summary statements without supporting data in product characterization submissions by the registrants, Mycogen Seeds / Dow Agrosciences and Pioneer Hi Bred International, Inc., indicated that Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis strain PS149B1 were devoid of ribosomal inhibitory protein ( RIP) activity. A reassessment of those studies by the applicant indicated that the studies were equivocal and could not distinguish RIP activity as conducted. The company therefore wanted to remove this claim from the submission. This review evaluates the basis for that assessment by the company and its relevance to the EUP and tolerance decisions.

BACKGROUND Mycogen Seeds / Dow Agrosciences and Pioneer Hi Bred International, Inc., have submitted a request for an experimental use permit ( EUP) for their product as a means of corn rootworm 2 control. This product is based on the insecticidal proteins Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 of B. thuringiensis strain PS149B1, the active ingredient of this plant incorporated protectant. These two proteins work in concert to effect a midgut pathology similar to that of other B. thuringiensis   endotoxins. This EUP is intended to evaluate plants transformed with vector PHP17662, a new construct from this applicant. Events intended for field evaluation under the guidelines of this EUP are designated as: E44<IP_ADDRESS>, E44<IP_ADDRESS>, E44<IP_ADDRESS>, E44<IP_ADDRESS>, E44<IP_ADDRESS>, and E44<IP_ADDRESS>. Maize plants are also intended to express phosphinothricin acetyl transferase for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.

Comment to File: The Agency's assessment of data submitted on RIP activity in PS149B1 proteins, (" Review of product characterization data for PS149B1 binary insect control proteins Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1, as expressed in maize following transformation with construct PHP17662, a Bacillus thuringiensis based plant incorporated protectant, for an experimental use permit", from C. Wozniak to M. Mendelsohn, June 12, 2003), indicated that the registrant must submit a revised study evaluating the RIP activity of these proteins prior to Section 3 registration. The registrants should complete this study since initial summary statements were subsequently found to be based upon equivocal data and the registrants' stated desire to remove the statement from their product characterization submission. However, the requirement for this study is not based upon a need for information related to the approval of the requested EUPs or a pending food tolerance action. As the validity of information was raised, it is appropriate for the Agency to request further clarification simply for the sake of completing the file. Previous reviews of this active ingredient contained statements indicating a lack of RIP activity ( MRID# 457906 01  reviewed in Memorandum from C. Wozniak, to M. Mendelsohn,, May 21, 2003).

The initial RIP activity experiments conducted by Pioneer Hi Bred, Intl., Inc., were performed as an exploratory procedure to elucidate the mode of action for Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1. The Agency does not consider these types of studies as part of the typical characterization assessment for insecticidal plant incorporated protectant proteins. Prior to the final characterization of the PS149B1 proteins, the company explored many aspects and avenues of these proteins' activity until is was clear that they more closely fit the definition and expectations of insecticidal crystal proteins typical of Bacillus thuringiensis. The Agency has no reason to suspect, based on the results of protein characterization and oral toxicity studies, that either of these proteins in any way resemble proteins with RIP activity. However, in order to complete the actions in the file and associated jacket prior to registration, it is in the best interest of the company to repeat the study with appropriate controls so that the question of RIP activity can be answered without equivocal data.