[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 244 (Thursday, December 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72846-72851]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27602]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0542; FRL-9199-01-OCSPP]

Bicyclopyrone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
bicyclopyrone in or on the fresh and dried forms of lemongrass,
rosemary, and wormwood. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 23, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2022
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0542, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0542 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 22, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0542, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting

comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to
be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 22, 2021 (86 FR 21317) (FRL-10022-
59), and of June 1, 2021 (86 FR 29229) (FRL-10023-95), EPA issued a
document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9F8777) by Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide bicyclopyrone, 4-hydroxy-3-
{time} 2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl{-6-(trifluoromethyl)
3pyridylcarbonyl{bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, in or on rosemary, fresh
at 0.03 parts per million (ppm); rosemary, dried at 0.3 ppm;
lemongrass, fresh at 0.3 ppm; lemongrass, dried at 0.5 ppm; wormwood,
fresh at 0.05 ppm and wormwood, dried at 0.09 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC., the registrant, which is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for bicyclopyrone including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with bicyclopyrone
follows.[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT][/
PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED]

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The bicyclopyrone database is considered complete for risk
assessment purposes.
    Bicyclopyrone is a 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-
inhibiting chemical. HPPD is an enzyme involved in the catabolism of
tyrosine, an essential amino acid for mammals. Recently OPP evaluated
(HPPD Inhibiting Herbicides: State of the Science. 9/18/2020. Authors:
K. Yozzo and M. Perron) a proposed mode-of-action (MOA)/adverse-outcome
pathway (AOP) for HPPD inhibitors in mammals and determined there was
sufficient evidence to establish the MOA/AOP. The initiating event in
the MOA/AOP for HPPD-inhibiting chemicals, including bicyclopyrone,
involves binding of the chemical to the HPPD enzyme causing complete or
virtually complete enzyme inhibition, which leads to a build-up of
systemic tyrosine levels (tyrosinemia) and a spectrum of tyrosine-
mediated effects. In laboratory animals, these have been identified as
ocular and skeletal developmental effects.
    Bicyclopyrone is classified as ``Suggestive Evidence of
Carcinogenic Potential'' based on the presence of rare ocular tumors in
male rats. The EPA has determined that using a non-linear approach
(i.e., chronic reference dose (cRfD)) will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from
exposure to bicyclopyrone.
    A complete discussion of the toxicological profile for
bicyclopyrone as well as specific information on the studies received
and the nature of the adverse effects caused by bicyclopyrone as well
as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found in the document titled ``Bicyclopyrone: Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances for Residues
in/on Lemongrass, Rosemary, and Wormwood'' (hereinafter ``Bicyclopyrone
Human Health Risk Assessment'') in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-
0542 in regulations.gov.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    The ability of a species to clear excess tyrosine can impact its
sensitivity to HPPD-inhibiting chemicals and its relevance for human
health risk assessment. Therefore, during the evaluation of the MOA/AOP
for HPPD inhibitors in mammals, endpoints for human health risk
assessment of HPPD inhibitors, including bicyclopyrone, were selected
from studies available in mice and dogs. The developmental and
reproduction toxicity studies in mice

are not available for bicyclopyrone; however, mouse developmental and
reproduction toxicity studies for other HPPD inhibitors are available
for bridging across the chemical class. The reproduction toxicity study
for mesotrione (a HPPD inhibitor) provides the lowest point of
departure (no-observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL) = 71 mg/kg/day) for
these studies and was considered in conjunction with the bicyclopyrone
database for endpoint selection.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for bicyclopyrone used for
human risk assessment can be found in the Bicyclopyrone Human Health
Risk Assessment in the docket.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to bicyclopyrone, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing bicyclopyrone
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.682. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
bicyclopyrone in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
bicyclopyrone; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted a partially refined analysis that
assumed average field trial residues for registered crops, tolerance
levels for the proposed crops, average empirical processing factors for
registered crops, anticipated residues for livestock commodities, and
percent crop treated (PCT) for registered crop commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has
determined that a separate cancer exposure assessment does not need to
be conducted and that using a non-linear approach (i.e., reference dose
(RfD)) will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to bicyclopyrone.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The chronic dietary assessment incorporated the following average
PCT estimates: Barley, 1%; field corn, 10%; sweet corn, 5%; pop corn,
10% (used the higher of the corn PCTs); and wheat, 5% (used spring
wheat PCT which was higher than winter wheat PCT). The PCT for
livestock commodities is based on the PCT value for the livestock feed
item used in the dietary burden with the highest percent crop treated
(field corn, 10%).[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT][/
PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED]
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from the United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for
acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to
the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is
less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market
survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple
of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which bicyclopyrone may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for bicyclopyrone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of bicyclopyrone. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) computer model
was used to generate surface water Estimated

Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs), while the Pesticide Root Zone
Model for Groundwater (PRZM-GW) and the Screening Concentration in
Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models were used to generate groundwater EDWCs.
The maximum acute and chronic surface water EDWCs associated with
bicyclopyrone use were 3.43 and 1.02 parts per billion (ppb),
respectively. For groundwater sources of drinking water, the maximum
acute and chronic and cancer EDWCs of bicyclopyrone in shallow
groundwater from PRZM-GW were 4.82 and 4.2 ppb, respectively.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Bicyclopyrone is not
registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/
NO][DATE]*[/DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/
SUBJECT][/PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED]
    The Agency is required to consider the cumulative risks of
chemicals sharing a common mechanism of toxicity per OPP's Guidance For
Identifying Pesticide Chemicals and Other Substances that have a Common
Mechanism of Toxicity, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/guidance-identifying-pesticide-chemicals-and-other. As a result, the Agency has determined
that the (p-hydroxyphenyl-pyruvate dioxygenase) HPPD inhibitors,
including bicyclopyrone, share a common mechanism of toxicity as
discussed in the HPPD Inhibiting Herbicides: State of the Science paper
(HPPD Inhibiting Herbicides: State of the Science. 9/18/2020. Authors:
K. Yozzo and M. Perron). As explained in that document, the members of
this group share the ability to bind to and inhibit the HPPD enzyme
resulting in elevated systemic tyrosine levels and common apical
outcomes that are mediated by tyrosine, including ocular and
developmental effects. In 2021, after establishing a common mechanism
grouping for the HPPD inhibitors, the Agency conducted a cumulative
risk assessment (CRA) (J. Godshall; 30-June-2021; D462487) and
concluded that cumulative exposures to HPPD inhibitors (based on
proposed and registered pesticidal uses at the time the assessment was
conducted) did not present risks of concern.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Although there is potential
evidence of neurotoxicity and increased quantitative susceptibility,
concern is low because neurotoxicity was only observed in the rat,
which is not considered a relevant model for evaluating HPPD
inhibitors, and selected endpoints are protective of the potential
sensitivity/susceptibility for animal models appropriate for evaluating
HPPD inhibitors.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for all exposure scenarios, except for the
chronic dietary endpoint where the FQPA SF is being retained as a
database UF because of the use of a LOAEL as the point of departure
(UFL). That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for bicyclopyrone is complete.
    ii. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the bicyclopyrone
database, including in the rat acute or subchronic neurotoxicity
studies; however, histopathological findings were observed in the
chronic dog study (swelling of the dorsal root ganglion and nerve fiber
degeneration). Concern is low since the chronic dietary endpoint is
based upon these effects, and these are the most sensitive effects in
the bicyclopyrone hazard database in one of them most appropriate
species for risk assessment.
    iii. There was evidence of increased susceptibility in rat and
rabbit developmental studies for bicyclopyrone. Since developmental and
reproduction toxicity studies in mice are not available for
bicyclopyrone, mouse developmental and reproduction toxicity studies
for other HPPD inhibitors are available for bridging. In some
instances, increased quantitative susceptibility was also observed in
these mouse studies, including the 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study for mesotrione. Although there was evidence of increased
susceptibility, concern is low because: (1) Rat and rabbits were not
considered appropriate animal models for assessing human health risk
for HPPD inhibitors, (2) there are clear NOAEL/LOAEL values for the
observed developmental and offspring effects, (3) developmental/
offspring effects in mice for other HPPD inhibitors were seen at doses
>=600 mg/kg/day, except the mesotrione 2-generation reproduction
toxicity study, (4) the offspring LOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day in the
mesotrione reproduction toxicity study was set conservatively based on
a low incidence of opaque/cloudy eyes, and (5) selected endpoints are
protective of any potential sensitivity observed in mice.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary assessment does not underestimate exposure. In
addition, there are no currently proposed residential uses.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
bicyclopyrone is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
bicyclopyrone from food and water will utilize 9.5% of the cPAD for all
infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short-term risk. A short-term adverse effect was identified;
however, bicyclopyrone is not registered for any use patterns that
would result in short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is
assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary
exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and
chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the
POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-
term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk
assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
bicyclopyrone.[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT][/
PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED]
    4. Intermediate-term risk. An intermediate-term adverse effect was
identified; however, bicyclopyrone is not registered for any use
patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure.
Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no
intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term
risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary,
and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for bicyclopyrone.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Because the Agency
has determined that the chronic RfD will be protective of any potential
cancer risk and there are no chronic risks that exceeds the Agency's
level of concern, EPA concludes that there is not a concern for cancer
risk from exposure to bicyclopyrone.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to bicyclopyrone residues.
    More detailed information about the Agency's analysis can be found
in the Bicyclopyrone Human Health Risk Assessment in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0542 in regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography-mass
spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LCMS/MS) methods for tolerance
enforcement have been developed and independently validated. For all
matrices and analytes, the level of quantification (LOQ), defined as
the lowest spiking level where acceptable precision and accuracy data
were obtained, was determined to be 0.01 ppm for each of the common
moieties, SYN503780 and CSCD686480, for a combined LOQ of 0.02 ppm is
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4).
    The Codex has not established a MRL for residues of bicyclopyrone
in/on lemongrass, rosemary, or wormwood.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
bicyclopyrone, 4-hydroxy-3-{2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridylcarbonyl{time} bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one,
including its metabolites and degradates in or on lemongrass, dried at
0.5 ppm; lemongrass, fresh at 0.3 ppm; rosemary, dried at 0.3 ppm;
rosemary, fresh at 0.03 ppm; wormwood, dried at 0.09 ppm; and wormwood,
fresh at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 9, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT][/
    PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED]Therefore, for the reasons stated in
the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.682, amend paragraph (a)(1) by:
0
a. In the introductory text, removing ``table below'' and ``specified
below'' and adding ``following table'' and ``specified in this
paragraph (a)(1)'' in their places, respectively; and
0
b. In the table, adding a table heading and entries in alphabetical
order for ``Lemongrass, dried''; ``Lemongrass, fresh''; ``Rosemary,
dried''; ``Rosemary, fresh''; ``Wormwood, dried''; and ``Wormwood,
fresh''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.682  Bicyclopyrone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Lemongrass, dried..........................................          0.5
Lemongrass, fresh..........................................          0.3
Rosemary, dried............................................          0.3
Rosemary, fresh............................................         0.03

                                * * * * *
Wormwood, dried............................................         0.09
Wormwood, fresh............................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-27602 Filed 12-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][RULES]


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1206-1208]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31753]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0468; FRL-9957-52-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia: Procedures for Testing and Monitoring
Sources of Air Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division (GA
EPD), on April 11, 2003, November 29, 2010, July 25, 2014, November 23,
2015, and November 29, 2016. The SIP submittals include changes to GA
EPD's air quality rules that modify definitions. The portions of the
SIP revisions that EPA is approving are consistent with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective March 6, 2017 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 6,
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0468 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 11, 2003, November 29, 2010, July 25, 2014, November 23,
2015, and November 29, 2016, GA EPD submitted SIP revisions to EPA for
review and approval into the Georgia SIP that contain changes to a
number of Georgia's air quality rules. The only change that EPA is
approving into the SIP today modifies portions of Rule 391-3-1-.01--
``Definitions'' with respect to procedures for testing and monitoring
sources of air pollutants. The change requested by Georgia is discussed
below. EPA is not taking action on any other changes in Georgia's
submittals provided on April 11, 2003, November 29, 2010, July 25,
2014, November 23, 2015, and November 29, 2016, because these changes
either do not address rule sections that are incorporated into the SIP
or are being or have already been considered in a separate action.

II. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submission Regarding Rule 391-3-
1-.01(nnnn)--``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air
Pollutants''

    In the November 29, 2016, submittal, Georgia is amending the
definition of ``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air
Pollutants'' at Rule 391-3-1-.01(nnnn) to reference the February 29,
2016, version of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources document
entitled ``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air
Pollutants.'' The purpose of that document is to identify the
procedures used for testing and monitoring the air pollutant sources.
The November 23, 2015, submittal revised the date of the document to
reflect the then-current version of the document, dated January 5,
2015; the July 25, 2014, submittal revised the date of the document to
reflect the then-current version of the document, dated February 8,
2013; the November 29, 2010, submittal revised the date to the then-
current version, dated March 1, 2010; and the April 11, 2003, submittal
revised the date to the then-current version, January 29, 2003.
However, the more current November 29, 2016, SIP submittal revised the
date to reflect the February 29, 2016, version of the document, and
this revision supersedes the revisions submitted on April 11, 2003,
November 29, 2010, July 25, 2014, and November 23, 2015. This change to
the SIP is approvable because it merely updates the date of the
``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants''
document referenced in the SIP-approved version of Rule 391-3-
1-.01(nnnn). The revision to this rule in the November 23, 2015, SIP
submittal became state-effective on August 14, 2016.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.01(nnnn) ``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of
Air Pollutants,'' effective on August 3, 2015. Therefore, this material
has been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, has been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, is fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the changes to the
Georgia SIP specifically identified in Section II, above, because these
changes are consistent with the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be
filed. This rule will be effective March 6, 2017 without further notice
unless the Agency receives adverse comments by February 6, 2017.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on March 6, 2017 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9,

2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    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 March 6, 2017. Filing a petition for
econsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: December 15, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. In Sec.  52.570, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``391-3-1-.01'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective
         State citation              Title/subject            date         EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1-.01.....................  Definitions........          8/14/2016  1/5/2017, [insert
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-31753 Filed 1-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34978-34979]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15344]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-389, OMB Control No. 3235-0444]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 10b-10

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 10b-10 (17 CFR
240.10b-10) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 10b-10 requires broker-dealers to convey specified information
to customers regarding their securities transactions. This information
includes the date and time of the transaction, the identity and number
of shares bought or sold, and whether the broker-dealer acts as agent
for the customer or as principal for its own account. Depending on
whether the broker-dealer acts as agent or principal, Rule 10b-10
requires the disclosure of commissions, as well as mark-up and mark-
down information. For transactions in debt securities, Rule 10b-10
requires the disclosure of redemption and yield information. Rule 10b-
10 potentially applies to all of the approximately 3,750 firms
registered with the Commission that effect transactions for or with
customers.
    Based on information provided by registered broker-dealers to the
Commission in FOCUS Reports, the Commission staff estimates that on
average, registered broker-dealers process approximately 18,843,624,843
order tickets per year for transactions for or with customers. Each
order ticket representing a transaction effected for or with a customer
generally results in one confirmation. Therefore, the Commission staff
estimates that approximately 18,843,624,843 confirmations are sent to
customers annually. The confirmations required by Rule 10b-10 are
generally processed through automated systems. It takes approximately
30 seconds to generate and send a confirmation. Accordingly, the
Commission staff estimates that broker-dealers spend approximately
157,030,207 hours per year complying with Rule 10b-10 (18,843,624,843 x
.5 / 60).
    The amount of confirmations sent and the cost of sending each
confirmation varies from firm to firm. Smaller firms generally send
fewer confirmations than larger firms because they effect fewer
transactions. The Commission staff estimates the costs of producing and
sending a paper confirmation, including postage, to be approximately 63
cents. The Commission staff also estimates

that the cost of producing and sending a wholly electronic confirmation
is approximately 39 cents. Based on informal discussions with industry
participants, as well as representations made in requests for exemptive
and no-action letters relating to Rule 10b-10, the staff estimates that
broker-dealers used electronic confirmations for approximately 35
percent of transactions. Based on these calculations, Commission staff
estimates that 12,248,356,148 paper confirmations are mailed each year
at a cost of $7,716,464,373. Commission staff also estimates that
6,595,268,695 wholly electronic confirmations are sent each year at a
cost of $2,572,154,791. Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that
the total annual cost associated with generating and delivering to
investors the information required under Rule 10b-10 would be
$10,288,619,164.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information subject to the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 15, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15344 Filed 7-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 45513-45514]
[DOCID:fr05au08-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0108]

National Task Force To Develop Model Contingency Plans To Deal
With Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Task Force to
Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board
Ground Delays.

DATES: The Task Force meeting is scheduled for August 25, 2008, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The Task Force meeting will be held at the U.S. Department
of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West
Building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Livaughn Chapman, Jr., or Kathleen
Blank-Riether, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W-96-429, Washington, DC
20590-0001; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services
Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory
committees, 41 CFR Parts 102-3, this notice announces a meeting of the
National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with
Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The meeting will be held on
August 25, 2008, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of
Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West
Building.
    DOT's Office of Inspector General recommended, in its audit report,
entitled ``Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,''
issued on September 25, 2007, that the Secretary of Transportation
establish a national task force of airlines, airports, and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to coordinate and develop contingency
plans to deal with lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and
airports to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency.
To effectuate this recommendation, on January 3, 2008, the Department,
consistent with the requirements of the FACA, established the National
Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy
Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The first meeting of the Task Force
took place on February 26, 2008. This will be the fifth meeting of the
task force.
    The agenda topics for the August 25, 2008, meeting will include the
following: (1) A final review and discussion of a draft model
contingency plan for dealing with lengthy tarmac delays, developed by
the Contingency Plan Working Group, the working group that is tasked
with reviewing existing airline and airport contingency plans for
extended tarmac delays for best practices and developing a model
contingency plan; and (2) one or more presentations on recent tarmac
delay events and efforts to avoid them.
    Attendance is open to the public, and time will be provided for
comments by members of the public. Since access to the U.S. DOT
headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, any member
of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the
Department contact noted above no later than ten (10) calendar days
prior to the meeting. Attendance will be necessarily limited by the
size of the meeting room.
    Members of the public may present written comments at any time and,
at the discretion of the Chairman and time permitting, oral comments at
the meeting. Any oral comments permitted must be limited to agenda
items and will be limited to five (5) minutes per person. Members of
the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the Department
contact noted above via e-mail that they wish to attend and present
oral comments at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the meeting. For
the August 25, 2008, meeting, no more than one hour will be set aside
for oral comments. Although written material may be filed in the docket
at any time, comments regarding upcoming meeting topics should be sent
to the Task Force docket, (10) calendar days prior to the meeting.
Members of the public may also contact the Department contact noted
above to be placed on the Task Force mailing list.
    Persons with a disability requiring special accommodations, such as
an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should get in touch with the
Department contact noted above at least seven (7) calendar days prior
to the meeting.
    Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the FACA and
the General Services Administration regulations covering management of
Federal advisory committees.

    Issued on: July 30, 2008.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E8-17904 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11161-11162]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 1, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-226-002.
    Applicants: Clean Currents, LLC.
    Description: Change in Status of Clean Currents, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100226-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-783-001.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits Substitute
Original Sheet 78 et al. to its FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised
Volume 3--Service Agreement 315 to be effective 3/1/10.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-795-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc request for waiver of tariff
provisions and expedited treatment.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100225-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-796-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement among SES Solar One, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100225-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-797-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement with the United States Department of Interior Bureau of
Reclamation designated as Service Agreement 591, Seventh Revised Volume
11 etc.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100226-0305.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-798-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool submits Original Sheet 974AU et
al. to its FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective February 1, 2010.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100226-0303.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-799-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool.
    Description: New England Power Pool submits a counterpart signature
page of their Agreement, etc.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100226-0304.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-800-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
proposed revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area
Services Tariff to revise the stream turbine testing procedures etc.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100226-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-801-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits Original Sheet 1 et al. to its
FERC

Electic Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1 to be effective 3/1/10.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100226-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-803-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits revised
rate sheet reflecting cancellation of a letter agreement with Blythe
Energy LLC, Rate Schedule FERC 440.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-804-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Grand
Crossing Development Wholesale Distribution Load Interconnection
Facilities Agreement.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-805-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Standard
Large Generator Interconnection Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-806-000.
    Applicants: North American Energy Credit and Clearing--Contract
Merchant, LLC.
    Description: North American Energy Credit and Clearing--Contract
Merchant, LLC submits Notice of Cancellation of its market based-rate
tariff.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-807-000.
    Applicants: North American Energy Credit and Clearing-Delivery LLC.
    Description: North American Energy Credit and Clearing-Delivery LLC
submits Notice of Cancellation of its market based-rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-808-000.
    Applicants: North American Energy Credit and Clearing--Finance LLC.
    Description: North American Energy Credit and Clearing--Finance LLC
submits Notice of Cancellation of their market based-rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-809-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits the End Use
Customer Refund Adjustment compliance filing and a proposed rate change
to its FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 5.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-810-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits proposed amendments to Section 38.2.5 of their Open Access
Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-811-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff and Market
Administration and Control Area Services Tariff.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH10-9-000.
    Applicants: International Power America, Inc.
    Description: International Power America, Inc.'s Notice of Change
in Facts.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 19, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5059 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55885-55887]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23288]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31819; 812-14416]

Pomona Investment Fund, et al.; Notice of Application

September 11, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections 18(c)
and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the
Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

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

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares (``Shares'') and to impose asset-based distribution
and service fees and contingent deferred sales loads (``CDSCs'').

Applicants:  Pomona Investment Fund (the ``Fund''), Pomona Management
LLC (the ``Adviser'') and Voya Investments Distributor, LLC (the
``Distributor'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on January 13, 2015, and
amended on May 28, 2015 and August 10, 2015.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief 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 October 6, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the 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, c/o Michael Granoff,
Pomona Management LLC, 780 3rd Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

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 Fund is a non-diversified closed-end management investment
company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware statutory
trust. The Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered
as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and
serves as investment adviser to the Fund. The Distributor, a broker-
dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``1934
Act''), acts as principal underwriter of the Fund. The Distributor is
under common control with the Adviser and is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Adviser.
    2. The Fund is engaged in a continuous public offering of Shares
pursuant to its currently effective registration statement under the
Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act'').\1\ The Fund's Shares are
not listed on any securities exchange and are not traded on an over-
the-counter system such as Nasdaq. Applicants do not expect that any
secondary market will develop for the Fund's Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Shares of the Fund will only be sold to ``accredited
investors,'' as defined in Regulation D under the Securities Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Fund currently issues a single class of Shares (the ``Class
A'') at net asset value per share (``NAV''), subject to a front-end
sales load and an asset-based distribution and services fee. The Fund
proposes to offer multiple classes of Shares (each a ``New Class'') at
NAV and may also charge a front-end sales load and an annual asset-
based distribution and/or service fee. Each class of Shares would
comply with the provisions of rule 12b-1 under the Act, as if the rule
applied to closed-end management investment companies.
    4. In order to provide a limited degree of liquidity to
shareholders, the Fund may from time to time offer to repurchase Shares
at their then-current NAV in accordance with rule 13e-4 under the 1934
Act. Repurchases of the Fund's Shares will be made at such times, in
such amounts and on such terms as may be determined by the Fund's board
of trustees (the ``Board'') in its sole discretion.\2\ The Adviser
expects that it will generally recommend to the Board that the Fund
offer to repurchase Shares from shareholders quarterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For Class A, a 2% early repurchase fee will be charged by
the Fund with respect to any repurchase of Shares from a shareholder
at any time prior to the one-year anniversary of the shareholder's
purchase of the respective Shares. Any early repurchase fee, and the
Fund's waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of, such
early repurchase fee, will equally apply to all shareholders of the
Fund, regardless of class, consistent with section 18 of the Act and
rule 18f-3 thereunder. To the extent the Fund determines to waive,
impose scheduled variations of, or eliminate the early repurchase
fee, it will do so consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the order also apply to any
continuously-offered registered closed-end management investment
company existing now or in the future for which the Adviser or the
Distributor, or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the Adviser or the Distributor, acts as investment adviser
or principal underwriter, and which provides periodic liquidity with
respect to its Shares through tender offers conducted pursuant to rule
13e-4 under the 1934 Act (collectively with the Fund, the
``Funds'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Any Fund relying on this relief will do so in a manner
consistent with the terms and conditions of the application.
Applicants represent that each investment company presently
intending to rely on the requested order is listed as an applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Applicants represent that any asset-based distribution and/or
service fees will comply with the provisions of rule 2830(d) of the
Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD Conduct Rule 2830'').\4\ Applicants also represent that the
Fund will disclose in its prospectus, the fees, expenses and other
characteristics of each class of Shares offered for sale by the
prospectus, as is required for open-end, multiple class funds under
Form N-1A. As if it were an open-end management investment company, the
Fund will disclose fund expenses in shareholder reports, and disclose
in its prospectus any arrangements that result in breakpoints in, or
elimination of, sales loads.\5\ Each Fund and the Distributor will also
comply with any requirements that may be adopted by the Commission or
FINRA regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction
confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of
the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding
prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements
as if those requirements applied to the Fund and the Distributor.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Any references to NASD Conduct Rule 2830 include any
successor or replacement Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') rule to NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
    \5\ See Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure
of Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company
Act Release No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release); and
Disclosure of Breakpoint Discounts by Mutual Funds, Investment
Company Act Release No. 26464 (June 7, 2004) (adopting release).
    \6\ See Confirmation Requirements and Point of Sale Disclosure
Requirements for Transactions in Certain Mutual Funds and Other
Securities, and Other Confirmation Requirement Amendments, and
Amendments to the Registration Form for Mutual Funds, Investment
Company Act Release No. 26341 (Jan. 29, 2004) (proposing release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the
various classes of Shares based on net assets of the Fund attributable
to each such class, except that the NAV and expenses of each class will
reflect the expenses associated with the distribution fees paid
pursuant to a plan adopted in compliance with rule 12b-1 of that class
(if any), shareholder servicing fees attributable to a particular class
(as well as transfer agency fees, if any) and any other incremental
expenses particular to that class. Expenses of the Fund allocated to a
particular class of the

Fund's Shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding
Share of that class. Applicants state that the Fund will comply with
the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an open-end
investment company.
    8. In the event the Funds impose a CDSC, applicants will comply
with the provisions of rule 6c-10 under the Act, as if that rule
applied to closed-end management investment companies. With respect to
any waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of the CDSC, the
Fund will comply with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as
if the Fund were an open-end investment company.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

Multiple Classes of Shares

    1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a
closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security
if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one
class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of
multiple classes of Shares of the Fund may be prohibited by section
18(c).
    2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock
issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting
stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting
stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of the Fund
may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be
entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely
related to that class.
    3. 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 provision of the Act, or from any
rule under the Act, if and to the extent 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 request an exemption under section
6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Fund to issue multiple
classes of Shares.
    4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and
voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not
discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants
submit that the proposed system would permit the Fund to facilitate the
distribution of Shares through diverse distribution channels and would
provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder options.
Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company
multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section
18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies'
multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the
Act. Applicants state the Fund will comply with the provisions of rule
18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.

CDSCs

    5. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets the standards
of section 6(c) of the Act. Rule 6c-10 under the Act permits open-end
investment companies to impose CDSCs, subject to certain conditions.
Applicants state that any CDSC imposed by the Fund will comply with
rule 6c-10 under the Act as if that rule were applied to closed-end
investment companies. The Fund also will make all required disclosures
in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSCs.
Applicants further state that, in the event the Fund imposes CDSCs, the
Fund will apply the CDSCs (and any waivers, scheduled variations, or
eliminations of the CDSCs) uniformly to all shareholders in a given
class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the
Act.

Asset-Based Service and/or Distribution Fees

    6. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an
affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from
participating in or effecting any transaction in which such registered
company is a joint or a joint and several participant unless the
Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing
applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the
Commission considers whether the participation of the investment
company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with
the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to
which the participation is on a basis different from or less
advantageous than that of other participants.
    7. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section
17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter
into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under
the Act to permit the Fund to pay asset-based distribution and/or
service fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and
17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Applicants will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1,
17d-3, 18f-3 and 22d-1 under the Act, as amended from time to time or
replaced, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment
companies, and will comply with the NASD Conduct Rule 2830, as amended
from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management
investment companies.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23288 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P