[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 19923-19925]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

April 16, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12784-000.
    c. Date filed: March 8, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Mt. Hope Waterpower Project LP.
    e. Name and Location of Project: The Mount Hope Pumped Storage
Project would use water from the Mt. Hope Mine and would be built in
the vicinity of Rockaway Township in Morris County, New Jersey.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    g. Applicant contact: Mr. Sam Ramiz, Mt. Hope Waterpower Project
LP, 627 Mt. Hope Road, Wharton, NJ 07885-2837,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    h. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12784-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list

for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents
with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect
the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also
serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Existing Facilities and Proposed Project: The
proposed pumped storage project would be comprised of four
developments, each with a powerhouse and an upper and lower reservoir.
The proposed project would be constructed in four stages as follows:
    (1) Stage 1 of the project would consist of the following features:
(a) A new upper reservoir on a 60 acre site excavated through quarrying
operation and having a surface area of 45 acres to be constructed on an
upland site, a 60 acre tract west of Mount Hope Lake. The upper
reservoir would provide total storage of 3,400 to 4,100 acre-feet.
During operation, the normal maximum water surface elevation in the
upper reservoir would be 900 feet msl. The upper reservoir would be
filled with water pumped out of the Mount Hope Mine Complex. The Mt.
Hope inactive mine would provide access to the lower reservoir located
at 1,000 feet below the ground surface comprised of underground
caverns; (b) a reinforced concrete intake/outtake structure capable of
discharging 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs); (c) a 10-foot-diameter,
1,300-foot-long reinforced concrete vertical intake shaft; (d) a 300-
foot-long, 8-foot-diameter concrete-lined steel underground penstock;
(e) a powerhouse machine hall approximately 1,300 feet below ground
level containing one reversible pump turbine with a total installed
generating capacity of 250 megawatts (MW); (f) a transformer hall; (g)
a lower reservoir; (h) a ventilation shaft and ventilation building at
the northern end of the lower reservoir; and (i) various ancillary
access shafts and tunnels.
    (2) Stage 2 of the project would consist of the following features:
(a) The lower reservoir utilized in Stage 1, located 1,000 feet below
the ground surface, would serve as the upper reservoir in Stage 2, and
would have a total storage capacity of 4,900 to 5,800 acre-feet. During
operation, the normal maximum water surface elevation in the upper
reservoir would be 900 feet below the ground surface, and the normal
minimum water surface elevation would be 1,000 feet below the ground
surface. The upper reservoir would be partially filled with water
pumped out of the Mount Hope Mine Complex; (b) the Mt. Hope inactive
mine would provide access to the lower reservoir, comprised of
underground caverns, located 1,700 feet below the ground surface; (c) a
reinforced concrete intake/outtake structure capable of discharging
1,500 cfs; (d) a 10-foot-diameter, 1,000-foot-long reinforced concrete
vertical intake structure; (e) a 300-foot-long, 8-foot-diameter
concrete-lined underground penstock; (f) a powerhouse machine hall
approximately 2,000 feet below ground level containing one reversible
pump turbine with a total installed generating capacity of 250 MW; (g)
a transformer hall; (h) a lower reservoir; (i) a ventilation shaft and
ventilation building at the northern end of the lower reservoir; and
(j) various ancillary access shafts and tunnels.
    (3) Stage 3 of the project would consist of the following features:
(a) An upper reservoir which would consist of the lower reservoir used
in Stage 2, located 1,700 feet below the ground surface. The upper
reservoir would be partially filled with water pumped out of the Mount
Hope Mine and would have a total storage capacity of 4,250 to 4,900
acre-feet. The upper reservoir would have a maximum water surface
elevation of 1,600 feet below the ground surface, and the normal
minimum water surface elevation would be 1,700 feet below the ground
surface; (b) the Mr. Hope inactive mine would provide access to the
lower reservoir, comprised of underground caverns, located 2,500 feet
below the ground surface; (c) a reinforced concrete intake/outtake
structure capable of discharging 1,500 cfs; (d) a 10-foot-diameter,
1,100-foot-long reinforced concrete vertical intake shaft; (e) a 300-
foot-long, 8-foot-diameter concrete-lined underground penstock; (f) a
powerhouse machine hall approximately 2,800 feet below ground
containing a reversible pump turbine with a total installed generating
capacity of 250 MW; (g) a transformer hall; (h) a lower reservoir; (i)
a ventilation shaft and ventilation building at the northern end of the
lower reservoir; and (j) various ancillary access shafts and tunnels.
    (4) Stage 4 of the project would consist of the following features:
(a) An upper reservoir which would consist of the lower reservoir of
Stage 2, located 1,700 feet below the ground surface. The upper
reservoir would be filled to its full capacity with water pumped out of
the Mount Hope Mine Complex and would provide total storage capacity of
4,250 to 4,900 acre-feet. During operation, the normal maximum water
surface elevation in the upper reservoir would be 1,600 feet below the
ground surface, and the normal minimum water surface elevation would be
1,700 feet below the ground surface; (b) the Mt. Hope inactive mine
would provide access to the lower reservoir located at 2,500 feet below
the ground surface and comprised of underground caverns; (c) a
reinforced concrete intake/outtake structure capable of discharging
1,500 cfs; (d) a 10-foot-diameter, 1,100 foot-long reinforced concrete
vertical intake shaft; (e) a 300-foot-long, 8-foot-diameter concrete-
lined underground penstock; (f) a powerhouse machine hall approximately
2,800 feet below ground containing a reversible pump turbine with a
total installed generating capacity of 250 MW; (g) a transformer hall;
(h) a lower reservoir; (i) a ventilation shaft and ventilation building
at the northern end of the lower reservoir; and (j) various ancillary
access shafts and tunnels.
    The rated capacity of the turbines and generators is one gigawatt.
Upon completion of the four stages, the proposed project would generate
a maximum of 2,080 gigawatt-hours annually. The proposed project would
also include two parallel 10.60 mile-long, 500-kV transmission lines
interconnecting with the proposed Jefferson Substation, located
approximately 5.3 miles north-northwest of Mr. Hope Lake. The
transmission line right-of-way would parallel an existing transmission
line owned by Public Services Electric and Gas Company for 4.3 miles
and would traverse mostly undeveloped forest lands, two lakes and five
streams. The primary transmission line of the proposed project would be
located in part on federal land. Specifically, the transmission line
would traverse a portion of the northern and eastern edge of the U.S.
Army's Picatinny Arsenal for a total of approximately 2.4 miles.
    k. Location of Applications: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item g
above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a

proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a
notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application (see
18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application
no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the
particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must
conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director,
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any
notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must
also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in
the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Philis J. Posey,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7514 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 40907]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-2-001]

Ohio Valley Hub, LLC; Notice of Motion for Extension of Rate Case
Filing Deadline

    Take notice that on June 30, 2011, Ohio Valley Hub, LLC (OVH) filed
a request for an extension consistent with the Commission's revised
policy of periodic review from a triennial to a five year period. The
Commission in Order No. 735 modified its policy concerning periodic
reviews of rates charges by section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines to extend
the cycle for such reviews from three to five years.\1\ Therefore, OVH
requests that the date for its next rate filing be extended to August
13, 2013, which is five years from the date of OVH's most recent rate
filing with this Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas
Companies, Order No. 735, 131 FERC ] 61,150 (May 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion 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 and 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not 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 7 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 12, 2011.

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17476 Filed 7-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 54442-54443]
[DOCID:fr25se07-43]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0069; FRL-8472-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; The SunWise Program; EPA ICR No.
1904.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0439

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 25,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0069, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, The SunWise
Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristinn Vazquez, Office of Air and
Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Mail Code: 6205J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
343-2338; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On February 12, 2007 (72 FR 6564), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received 1 comment during the
comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments
on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0069, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: The SunWise Program.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1904.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0439.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on 9/30/2007. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The goal of the SunWise School Program is to teach
children and their caregivers how to protect themselves from
overexposure to the sun. The SunWise Program recognizes the challenge
of measuring the progress and evaluating the effectiveness of an
environmental and public health education program where the ultimate
goal is to reduce risk and improve public health. Therefore, the
continual and careful evaluation of program effectiveness through a
variety of means, including data from pre- and post-intervention
surveys, tracking and monitoring of classroom activities and school
policies, and advisory board meetings, is necessary to monitor progress
and refine the program. Surveys to be developed and administered
include: (1) Student survey to identify current sun safety knowledge
and behaviors among students; and (2) teacher questionnaire for
measuring their receptivity to the educational component of the
Program. The data will be analyzed and results will indicate the
Program's effect on participants' sun-protection attitudes and
behaviors. Additionally, information is collected when educators sign
up to receive a Tool Kit either on the Web or in person, and when
individuals participate in an on-line sun safety tutorial/certification
program. Responses to the collection of information are voluntary. All
responses to the collection of information remain anonymous and
confidential.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .33
hours per response for the survey, .17 hours per response for the
registration, and .04 hours per response for the tutorial/
certification. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Individuals.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,600.
    Frequency of Response: Occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1965.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $74,898 in labor costs, and no
annualized capital and O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an annual increase of 132 hours
in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to additional questions
that were added to the tutorial/certification program, and revised
estimates based on inflation, contractor costs, and increased numbers
of registrations.

    Dated: September 14, 2007.
Robert Gunter,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-18848 Filed 9-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19100-19101]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0339]

Proposed Risk-Based Regulatory Framework and Strategy for Health
Information Technology Report; Notice to Public of Availability of the
Report and Web Site Location; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
announcing the availability of the report and Web site location where
the Agency has posted the report entitled ``Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) Health IT Report:
Proposed Risk Based Regulatory Framework.'' In addition, FDA has
established a docket where stakeholders may provide comments.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by July 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on this document to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bakul Patel, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5456, Silver Spring, MD,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA)
(Pub. L. 112-144) became law on July 9, 2012. Section 618 of FDASIA
requires that FDA, in consultation with the Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC), develop and post on their respective
Web sites ``a report that contains a proposed strategy and
recommendations on an appropriate, risk-based regulatory framework
pertaining to health information technology (IT), including mobile
medical applications, that promotes innovation, protects patient
safety, and avoids regulatory duplication.'' This ``FDASIA Health IT
Report: Proposed Risk Based Regulatory Framework'' report fulfills that
requirement.
    This notice announces the availability and Web site location of
``FDASIA Health IT Report: Proposed Risk Based Regulatory Framework.''
FDA, ONC, and FCC invite interested persons to submit comments on this
report. We have established a docket where comments may be submitted
(see ADDRESSES). We believe this docket is an important tool for
receiving feedback on this report from interested parties and for
sharing this information with the public. To access ``FDASIA Health IT
Report: Proposed Risk Based Regulatory Framework,'' visit FDA's Web
site http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/ucm390588.htm or

ONC's Web site, www.healthit.gov/FDASIA.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: April 1, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-07658 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76457-76460]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30630]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0588; FRL-8854-5]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to
consider and review the Chlorpyrifos Physiologically-Based
Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) Modeling linked to the
Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System (CARES).

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 15-18, 2011, from 9 a.m. to
approximately 5:30 p.m.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted
by January 31, 2011 and requests for oral comments be submitted by
February 8, 2011. However, written comments and requests to make oral
comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone
submitting written comments after January 31, 2011 should contact the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before December
22, 2010.
    Webcast. This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the FIFRA
SAP's Web site, http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP for information on how
to access the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary
public process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise
resulting in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0588, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA.
Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours
of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-
5805.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0588. If your comments contain any information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, to obtain special instructions before
submitting your comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the docket without change and may be made available
on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although, listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for
special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharlene R. Matten, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 I. General Information

 A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

 C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0588 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES, no later than January
31, 2011, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and
review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the
date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after
January 31, 2011, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting
should bring 30 copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages that each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their
request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than February 8, 2011, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the
date of the meeting, and to the extent that time permits, the Chair of
FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting
by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The
request should identify the name of the individual making the
presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent,
and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead
projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP
at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.

    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP
for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of
candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the
stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for
service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or
organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as
prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated
for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following
areas: Risk assessment, organophosphate pesticides, cholinesterase
inhibition, data-derived uncertainty factors (also referred to as
chemical-specific adjustment factors), pharmacodynamic modeling,
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling, biomonitoring data,
statistical modeling, probabilistic techniques, and dietary exposure to
pesticides. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient
professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be
capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this
meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position,
address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the
DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on, or, before
December 22, 2010. The Agency will consider all nominations of
prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before
this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting
is a discretionary function of the Agency.
    The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the
function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's
charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to
serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to
a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal
department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during
the selection process include availability of the potential panel
member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any
conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality,
independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of
bias. Although, financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack
of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in
disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a
candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified
candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection
decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the
candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and
achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on
the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed
to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates
selecting approximately 10-15 ad hoc scientists.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634,
Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by EPA in 5 CFR
part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates
for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential
financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial
interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where
applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the
candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are
financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality
or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under
consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the
candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are
selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to
attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key
issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be
asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of
FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the
FIFRA SAP Web site at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap, or may be obtained
from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

 II. Background

 A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is
structured to provide scientific advice, information and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in
1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent
panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA
Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), established a Science
Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to
the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the SAP.
As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations
and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of
analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP are scientists
who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and
experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.

 B. Public Meeting

    Chlorpyrifos (0,0-diethyl-0-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl
phosphorothioate) is a broad-spectrum, chlorinated organophosphate (OP)
insecticide. In 2000, nearly all residential uses were voluntarily
cancelled by Dow AgroSciences, but agricultural uses remain. The 2000
human health risk assessment was largely based on adult laboratory
animal data (rat or dog) for cholinesterase inhibition and the
application of default uncertainty factors to address inter- and intra-
species differences including susceptible populations. Currently, the
Agency is developing a new human health risk assessment expected to be
released in 2011. In 2008, the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)
reviewed a draft science issue paper on the human health effects of
chlorpyrifos. Since that time, Dow AgroSciences has undergone a
research effort to improve the existing physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model (PBPK/PD) developed by Dr.
Charles Timchalk and co-workers at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. Dow AgroSciences has also developed a proposed approach for
merging this PBPK/PD model with CARES Cumulative and Aggregate Risk
Evaluation System, see http://www.ilsi.org/ResearchFoundation/Pages/CARES.aspx, a publically-available probabilistic exposure model. The
purpose of the February 2011 SAP meeting will be to review the PBPK/PD
model and to evaluate the proposed approach for linking this PBPK model
to the probabilistic exposure model.
    The linking of the chlorpyrifos PBPK/PD model with a probabilistic
exposure model may provide opportunities to calculate distributions of
exposure to chlorpyrifos and its metabolites with cholinesterase
inhibition levels across the U.S. population. In addition, this

approach may allow estimation of data-derived uncertainty factors that
consider use of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data to inform
quantitative extrapolations for interspecies differences and human
variability in dose response assessment. The topics to be covered in
the February 2011 SAP are consistent with EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs continuing efforts to improve the scientific basis for risk
assessment by broadening the application of probabilistic exposure
techniques and PBPK models. The Agency has a conceptually similar
effort on-going to link PBPK models for pyrethroids with Stochastic
Human Exposure and Dose Simulator (SHEDS) exposure software, a
probabilistic exposure model developed by the EPA's Office of Research
and Development, which was reviewed by the SAP in July 2010. The
current effort by Dow AgroSciences is a research effort which may, if
sufficiently robust, inform future risk assessments; the February
meeting is a key milestone in this research. The Agency will solicit
feedback from the Panel on technical issues related to PBPK/PD model,
the proposed approach for merging the PBPK/PD model with CARES, and the
use of such merged models in risk assessment.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc
members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by
late January 2011. In addition, the Agency may provide additional
background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain
electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related
documents that might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
scipoly/sap.
    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting.
The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be
obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30630 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31518-31523]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57866; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change as Modified
by Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Adopt a FINRA Policy To Expand
Disseminated Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') Data

May 23, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 5, 2007, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) \3\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by FINRA. On May 20, 2008, FINRA filed Amendment No.1 to the
proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Effective July 30, 2007, FINRA was formed through the
consolidation of NASD and the member regulatory functions of NYSE
Regulation, Inc. Generally, pre-consolidation actions by NASD are
referred to as FINRA actions, except for NASD Rules, when referenced
singularly, and NASD Notices to Members. When FINRA files proposed
rule changes to create a consolidated FINRA rule manual, such NASD
rules and interpretations, as incorporated in the consolidated FINRA
Manual, will no longer be referred to as ``NASD'' rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt a FINRA policy to expand disseminated
Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') data to show, for
each disseminated transaction, that the transaction is an inter-dealer
transaction (``Dealer Transaction'') or a transaction with a customer
(``Customer'') (``Customer Transaction'') and the member referenced is
a buyer (``Buyer'') or a (``Seller'') (or acts as agent on the buy or
the sell side). The proposed rule change does not include proposed rule
text.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Currently, FINRA members that are parties to a transaction in a
TRACE-eligible security report several types of information to the
TRACE System. Among the elements of data that are reported, for each
transaction the member reports that it is a Buyer from a broker-dealer
(``Dealer'') or a Customer or a Seller to a Dealer or a Customer (or
acts as agent on the buy or the sell side).\4\ In addition, the member
reports that the transaction is a Dealer Transaction or a Customer
Transaction. Currently, these data elements are not included in the
TRACE transaction data disseminated immediately upon FINRA's receipt of
a transaction report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Hereinafter, ``Buy'' means either or both (i) a Dealer's
purchase of a security from a Customer, and/or (ii) a Dealer, as
agent of a Customer, facilitating a purchase of a security from the
Customer; similarly, ``Sell'' means either or both (i) a Dealer's
sale of a security to a Customer, and/or (ii) a Dealer, as agent of
a Customer, facilitating a sale of a security to the Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data elements that are disseminated include: the bond
identifier (i.e., the TRACE symbol); the price inclusive of any mark-
up, mark-down, or commission; the quantity (expressed as the total par
value); the yield; the time of execution; and, if the transaction were
executed on a day other than when TRACE data is being disseminated, the
actual day of execution of the transaction.
    For a Dealer Transaction, FINRA receives a TRACE report from each
Dealer, but disseminates data reflecting only the information received
in the Sell transaction report. For a Customer Transaction, only one
side of the trade has to be reported--the Dealer (or Dealers) side--and
FINRA disseminates the data from the TRACE report(s), which may be
either a Dealer's Buy or a Dealer's Sell.
    FINRA is proposing that additional data elements showing the side
on which a Dealer acts in a transaction (``Buy/Sell data element'') and
the information identifying the transaction as a Dealer Transaction or
a Customer Transaction (``Dealer/Customer data element'') (but not the
MPID or identity of any Dealer) be disseminated publicly for each
transaction, because Dealers need access to these additional data
elements and investors would benefit from this enhanced level of
transparency. Dealers need the additional data elements to compare
prices, and in order to comply with their best execution obligations
under NASD Rule 2320, the fair and reasonable mark-up/mark-down
requirements under NASD Rule 2440, NASD IM-2440-1, NASD IM-2440-2, and
other provisions of the federal securities laws.\5\ Investors would
benefit from the dissemination of these additional data elements by
being able to compare prices and request better, lower prices. Given
the limited occurrence of transactions in certain sectors of the debt
markets, including the corporate debt sector, FINRA believes that the
Dealer/Customer data element and Buy/Sell data element should be added
to the disseminated TRACE data to provide TRACE users additional
clarity about what each disseminated TRACE price actually represents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ When a member charges a Customer an excessive or
unreasonable mark-up/mark-down, the member violates NASD Rule 2110,
NASD Rule 2440, NASD IM-2440-1, and, if charged in a debt securities
transaction, NASD IM-2440-2. In addition, in some cases, when a
member charges an excessive or unreasonable mark-up/mark-down and
does not fully disclose it to the customer, the member may be in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, 17 CFR 240.10b-5, or Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a). NASD Rule 2320, NASD Rule
2110, NASD Rule 2440, NASD IM-2440-1, and NASD IM-2440-2 do not
apply to transactions in municipal securities. Instead, when a
Dealer or a municipal securities dealer engages in a municipal
securities transaction, the rules of the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') apply. See, e.g., MSRB Rule G-30, Prices
and Commissions; MSRB Rule G-18, Execution of Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The disseminated TRACE data enhanced by the addition of the Dealer/
Customer data element and the Buy/Sell data element will inform Dealers
and Customers of actual executed prices for Customer Transactions and
Dealer Transactions across a broad universe of corporate debt
securities. Even prior to the adoption of NASD IM-2440-2, ``Additional
Mark-Up Policy For Transactions in Debt Securities, Except Municipal
Securities'' (``the Debt Mark-Up Interpretation''), the availability of
these data elements would have aided Dealers in complying with their
obligations regarding best execution and fair mark-ups set forth in
FINRA rules and other provisions of the federal securities laws, and
described in various litigated or settled proceedings.\6\ With the
implementation of the Debt Mark-Up Interpretation on July 5, 2007,
FINRA believes that the data elements identifying a transaction as
either a Dealer Transaction or a Customer

Transaction and as either a Buy or a Sell now must be made available to
Dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NASD IM-2440-2 was approved by the SEC on April 16, 2007,
and became effective on July 5, 2007. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 55638 (April 16, 2007), 72 FR 20150 (April 23, 2007)
(order approving SR-NASD-2003-141); NASD Notice to Members 07-28
(June 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Debt Mark-Up Interpretation, when a Dealer is pricing or
determining mark-ups (or mark-downs) by referring to recent transaction
prices other than the Dealer's own price, a Dealer must be able to
determine if a trade is an inter-dealer transaction (as used in the
Debt Mark-Up Interpretation) or a Customer Transaction.\7\ In addition,
the Dealer must be able to determine which side of the market a Dealer
traded from, whether looking to a Customer Transaction or an inter-
dealer transaction (as used in the Debt Mark-Up Interpretation).\8\
Disseminating the Dealer/Customer and the Buy/Sell data elements would
allow Dealers to more accurately identify the type of pricing
information disseminated by TRACE, and would permit them to use the
information to comply with FINRA rules and the federal securities laws
regarding fair prices and best execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In IM-2440-2, the Debt Mark-Up Interpretation, references to
``inter-dealer trades'' or ``inter-dealer transactions'' (that, in
certain circumstances, must or may be used to determine the
prevailing market price of a security--whether in the same or
similar securities as the security for which a mark-up is being
calculated) do not include any inter-dealer transaction in which the
Dealer that is determining prevailing market price is a party. In
contrast, in this proposed rule filing, the term ``inter-dealer
transaction'' (defined as ``Dealer Transaction'') includes all
inter-dealer transactions (e.g., if Dealer A is a party to an inter-
dealer transaction, from Dealer A's perspective, inter-dealer
transactions means all inter-dealer transactions, including those to
which Dealer A is a party). In this note 7 and note 8, infra, when
describing various provisions of the Debt Mark-Up Interpretation,
FINRA uses the term ``inter-dealer transaction'' to make clear that
FINRA means inter-dealer transactions as used in the Debt Mark-Up
Interpretation. See IM-2440-2, paragraph (b)(5)(A) (requiring that a
Dealer must consider--after considering the Dealer's own
contemporaneous cost (or proceeds)--the prices of any
contemporaneous inter-dealer transaction in the same security to
determine prevailing market price). See also NASD IM-2440-2,
paragraph (b)(5)(B) (requiring that a Dealer must consider--after
considering the Dealer's own contemporaneous cost (or proceeds) and
the prices of any contemporaneous inter-dealer transactions in the
same security--the prices of contemporaneous Dealer purchases
(sales) in the security in question from (to) institutional accounts
with which any Dealer regularly effects transactions in the same
security (``certain institutional accounts'') to determine
prevailing market price); NASD IM-2440-2, paragraph (b)(6)
(referring to a Dealer's review, in certain circumstances, of the
pricing information from (i) contemporaneous inter-dealer
transactions in a similar security, and (ii) contemporaneous Dealer
purchase (sale) transactions in a similar security with certain
institutional accounts, as part of the Dealer's analysis to
determine the prevailing market price of a particular security).
    \8\ For example, under NASD IM-2440-2, paragraph (b)(6), when a
Dealer refers to transactions in similar securities, a Dealer must
know the side of the market (i.e., Buy or Sell information) to
determine the relative comparability of a transaction in a similar
security to the transaction that is being marked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the fact that Customer Transaction prices disseminated
are ``all-in prices,'' and the prices of Customer Transactions and
Dealer Transactions are intermingled, the dissemination of data
elements that identify transactions as Customer Transactions or Dealer
Transactions will allow all who view the TRACE data to distinguish
those transactions that do not include a mark-up/mark-down or a
commission--Dealer Transactions--from transactions displayed as ``all-
in prices'' that include Dealer mark-ups/mark-downs or commissions--
Customer Transactions.
    By adding the Buy/Sell data element to any transaction identified
as a Customer Transaction, anyone viewing the TRACE data will be able
to determine that, in the case of a Buy, the disseminated price
includes a mark-down or a commission, or, in the case of a Sell, the
disseminated price includes a mark-up or a commission. Thus, with the
two additional elements viewable in disseminated TRACE data, Customers
that are TRACE data users will be able to knowledgeably assess and
compare the disseminated ``all-in price'' of their purchases and sales
with other Customer Transactions. In addition, Dealers will be able to
determine approximate levels of Dealer Transaction pricing by ``backing
out'' of a disseminated ``all-in price'' clearly labeled as a Customer
Transaction, a mark-up (or mark-down) or commission amount if Dealer
Transaction pricing is not available in TRACE for the Dealer's analyses
of its mark-up (or mark-down) and its compliance with best execution
obligations.
    Such transparency exists in other markets. The Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') determined that disseminating buy/sell and
dealer/customer information was an important element of transparency in
the municipal securities market, and currently disseminates both of
these data elements real-time together with other price, quantity, and
yield information per transaction.\9\ FINRA believes it is appropriate
to provide comparable data to TRACE data users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Disseminated municipal securities transaction prices, like
TRACE-disseminated prices, are ``all-in prices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, debt pricing, particularly debt mark-ups, remains an area
of regulatory concern and focus.\10\ For more than two years, FINRA has
considered incorporating the Dealer/Customer data element and Buy/Sell
data element in disseminated TRACE transaction data to aid Dealers in
improving their pricing of TRACE-eligible securities and similar debt
securities; and to provide them with information to evidence their
adherence to the requirements of the federal securities laws and
regulations regarding fair pricing and best execution. In 2005, FINRA
staff began receiving requests that these reported data elements be
included in the disseminated TRACE data from members attending FINRA
seminars discussing debt mark-ups. Also, in April 2005, when NASD IM-
2440-2 was pending as a proposed rule change, a commenter highlighted
the deficiencies in disseminated TRACE data, noting that TRACE data did
not differentiate between Customer Transactions and Dealer
Transactions, thus making Dealer compliance with the various
requirements of NASD IM-2440-2 difficult (e.g., the identification and
required use, in certain cases, of certain Dealer Transaction prices to
establish prevailing market price).\11\ In October 2005, in FINRA's
response to comments, FINRA indicated that FINRA was ``evaluating
enhancing the quality of disseminated TRACE information to show, for
each trade, whether the trade is inter-dealer or customer, as is now
indicated in real-time disseminated municipal securities transaction

data.'' \12\ By adding the Dealer/Customer data element and Buy/Sell
data element to TRACE disseminated information now, Customers and
Dealers would be able to more accurately and carefully assess the
quality of the pricing of their corporate bond transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In remarks to the securities industry, senior SEC staff has
indicated that debt mark-ups are an area of regulatory concern and
focus. See, e.g., Remarks before the TBMA Legal and Compliance
Conference, Commissioner Annette L. Nazareth, SEC, New York, NY,
February 7, 2006 (``[The industry] should consider improving
transparency concerning dealer mark-up policies * * * Investors
should understand what they are paying, whether the broker is acting
as agent or principal, and whether the price paid includes
compensation to the broker-dealer, and if so, how much.'') at http:/
/www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch020706aln.htm; Remarks to The SIFMA
Legal and Compliance Division, ``The Regulatory Focus on Broker-
Dealer Legal and Compliance Issues,'' Mary Ann Gadziala, Associate
Director, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, SEC,
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 2007 (listing mark-ups on fixed income
securities as an examination priority), at http://www.sec.gov/news/
speech/2007/spch060707mag.htm. FINRA acknowledges that the
Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any
private publications or statements by any of its employees, and that
the views expressed in the remarks referenced above are those of the
speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission,
another Commissioner, or the Commission staff.
    \11\ See File No. SR-NASD-2003-141. Letter from The Bond Market
Association (regarding File No. SR-NASD-2003-141), to Jonathan G.
Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated April 5, 2005 at 13 (``[T]he NASD's
TRACE system does not differentiate between inter-dealer trades and
customer trades in its disseminated reports, making the
identification of an inter-dealer trade difficult.''). FINRA also
published the proposed change of policy regarding TRACE disseminated
data in NASD Notice to Members 06-22 (May 2006). The comments
received in connection with the proposal at that time are summarized
below in Item 5.
    \12\ See File No. SR-NASD-2003-141. Response to Comments on
Additional Mark-Up Policy for Transactions in Debt Securities
(regarding File No. SR-NASD-2003-141), to Katherine A. England,
Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated
October 4, 2005 at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA would announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days following
Commission approval, if the Commission approves the proposal. The
effective date would be no later than 120 days following publication of
the Regulatory Notice announcing a Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\13\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed policy, by improving
the quality of information available to institutional investors, retail
investors, and Dealers: (i) Will allow them to compare prices in TRACE-
eligible securities transactions more meaningfully; (ii) will allow
them to negotiate transaction prices with more information; (iii) will
allow Dealers to comply more easily with FINRA rules and various
provisions of the federal securities laws requiring Dealers to buy or
sell debt securities at prices related to the prevailing market prices,
adjusted by a fair and reasonable mark-up (mark-down) or commission,
which provisions are designed to prevent unfair or unjust practices, or
fraudulent, deceptive, and manipulative acts or practices in the
pricing of securities transactions; and (iv) may stimulate price
competition among Dealers, for the protection of investors and in
furtherance of the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in NASD Notice
to Members 06-22 (May 2006). Five comments were received in response to
the NASD Notice to Members. Of the five comment letters received, two
commenters were in favor of the proposed rule change \14\ and three
commenters were opposed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See letters from Kenneth M. Cherrier, Chief Compliance
Officer, Fintegra, to Barbara Z. Sweeney, Office of Corporate
Secretary, NASD, dated June 1, 2006; and Bari Havlik, Senior Vice
President, Global Compliance, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. to Sharon
K. Zackula, Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
NASD, dated June 15, 2006 (``Schwab Letter'').
    \15\ See letters from Brad Ziemba, Chief Compliance Officer,
Duncan-Williams, Inc, to Barbara Z. Sweeney, Office of Corporate
Secretary, NASD, dated June 26, 2006; Mary C.M. Kuan, Vice President
and Assistant General Counsel, The Bond Market Association
(``TBMA''), to Barbara Z. Sweeney, Office of Corporate Secretary,
NASD, dated June 16, 2006 (``TBMA Letter''); and John R. Gidman,
Chairman, Asset Managers Division, TBMA, to Barbara Z. Sweeney,
Office of Corporate Secretary, NASD, dated June 19, 2006 (``TBMA-AMD
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two of the commenters indicated that they fully supported the
proposed public disclosures of the Buy/Sell data element and Dealer/
Customer data element because: (i) Lack of disclosure of pertinent bond
information places the public investor at a disadvantage; (ii) both
public investors and Dealers need such pricing information, which will
permit them to compare prices meaningfully; (iii) Dealers need the
additional data elements to comply with best execution and mark-up
requirements; (iv) the data disseminated for municipal securities
transactions already includes these data elements and the inclusion of
such information plays an important role in providing transparency in
the municipal securities markets; (v) companies claiming that their
bond trading strategies would be exposed have not substantiated such
claims; (vi) corporate debt market participants, including Dealers,
will not be unduly burdened by dissemination of the additional data
elements; and (vii) the benefit to the public investor and the
participating TRACE Dealers will outweigh any negative impact to the
market, Dealers, or Customers, including certain companies' position
that possibly smaller profit margins for Dealers may result if these
additional elements of TRACE data are disseminated. One of the
commenters requested that, if the policy were adopted, members be given
12 months to adopt any necessary systems changes.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Schwab Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters opposed the proposed policy change. The three
commenters stated that Dealers did not need the Dealer/Customer data
element and Buy/Sell data element to comply with best execution and
mark-up/mark-down rules and the federal securities laws, and that the
liquidity of the corporate bond market ``could be'' substantially
reduced because, if the disseminated TRACE data included the additional
information, it would limit a Dealer's ability to execute trades
without having the market move adversely.
    Two commenters submitted nearly identical comments summarized
below.\17\ Generally, both commenters opposed the Proposal stating, in
addition to the comments summarized immediately above, that the
proposed dissemination of the two additional data elements would not
facilitate price transparency, and the information currently
disseminated through TRACE is sufficient for investors to determine if
they receive fair prices from dealers. The commenters posited that the
Dealer/Customer and Buy/Sell data elements, if published, would hamper
the ability of investors trying to accumulate or dispose of positions
without moving the market (as noted above) and would: (i) Permit market
participants to discern the trading intent of others and consequently
trade in a manner that is harmful to the identified investor; (ii)
permit others to intrude upon the trading strategies of an investor;
(iii) increase investor costs; and (iv) as noted above, potentially
reduce liquidity. In addition, the commenters stated that FINRA does
not need to implement the Proposal to further its audit and
surveillance functions and ``the Proposal should be effected only to
the extent that investors and dealers determine there is a need for
it.'' \18\ Further, although the inclusion of Dealer/Customer and Buy/
Sell data elements in disseminated municipal securities transaction
information does not appear to be harmful to the municipal securities
market, the commenters stated that such information would have an
adverse impact in the corporate bond market (particularly to
institutional traders and Dealers) and should not be disseminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See generally TBMA Letter; TBMA-AMD Letter.
    \18\ TBMA Letter at 2; TBMA-AMD Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two commenters focused on the trading patterns of institutional

customers, their block trades of bonds, and their reliance on Dealers
to facilitate trading in such blocks--by acting as a riskless
principal, by taking the other side of the Customer's trade (a risk
position), or by the Dealer selling bonds short to facilitate the
institutional Customer's purchase and thereafter going out into the
market to cover the short (a Dealer short position) in which, the
commenters noted, Dealers take on considerable risk.\19\ The commenters
stated that such investors must be able to execute block trades and
Dealers must be able to facilitate such trades without signaling the
market because prices in the securities market are driven by supply and
demand and, if an institutional investor or a Dealer tries to sell, or
facilitate the sale of, a block without having the ability to shroud
its activity, it might cost more. In addition, other market
participants might try to raise prices, by buying some of the desired
bonds, or conversely, might try to lower prices, by selling some of the
desired bonds. The commenters stated that transactions might cost more
and other institutional market participants and the public might be
able to free-ride on the research and strategies of an institution or a
Dealer. Moreover, the higher costs of trades and free-riding costs
might flow downstream to the retail Customers of institutional
investors. In addition, the commenters alleged that the proposal to
disseminate the Dealer/Customer data element and Buy/Sell data element
``would undermine such institutional investors' fiduciary
responsibilities to their customers to maintain policies and procedures
to prevent misuse of their trading strategies.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The terms riskless principal, risk position, and Dealer
short position are the terms and characterizations of the
commenters. See generally TBMA Letter; TBMA-AMD Letter.
    \20\ TBMA Letter at 4; TBMA-AMD Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the two commenters argued that the practice of
disseminating dealer/customer and buy/sell data elements for
transactions in municipal securities should not be adopted in TRACE
because the corporate bond market is ``sufficiently distinct from the
municipal bond market'' and such information would hinder corporate
bond Dealers and their Customers. They asserted that generally
municipal bonds trade less frequently, there is less trading in blocks
by municipal bond dealers and large institutional customers, and
municipal bond dealers do not take short positions to facilitate
municipal securities customer trades, in contrast to corporate bond
Dealers. Thus, with fewer large block trades and fewer short positions
held by municipal bond dealers, the overall risk from one or more
trades (for which information is known in the market) moving the price
against the trading party's economic interests is significantly lower
in the municipal market (i.e., because such large trades are
infrequent).
    The two commenters also requested access to empirical data on TRACE
to study the market.
    FINRA has considered the comments fully and carefully and continues
to believe that the dissemination of the Dealer/Customer data element
and Buy/Sell data element should occur to provide important information
to Customers and Dealers about current pricing, to permit a meaningful
comparison of prices, and to allow Dealers to comply with fair pricing
and best execution obligations. Further, FINRA is not persuaded by
those commenters who are opposed to the Proposal. None of the opposing
comments voice any supportable proposition that the information benefit
to TRACE data users can otherwise be obtained without the disclosure of
the proposed information or that compliance with NASD IM-2440-2 is
possible without the disclosure of the information since there is no
other way to divine the necessary data elements or to use any price
other than contemporaneous price from which the mark-up or mark-down is
to occur. Finally, FINRA does not understand how the dissemination of
the Buy/Sell and Dealer/Customer data elements adds materially to any
quantum of information that exacerbates the potential for the ``reverse
engineering'' of trading interest and strategies in comparison to the
ability to divine such information today with the mix of TRACE
information presently disseminated. Presumably, there are people
reading the disseminated information today who, from such information,
make calculated assumptions about the nature and quantity of debt
securities for sale, trading strategies, and the identity of the
beneficial interests behind such sales or strategies. The question not
answered by the commenters is how the addition of a data element
identifying either Buy/Sell or Dealer/Customer information adds
material content that, in fact, aids in the ability to make such
calculations more accurately. Stated another way, it is unclear how,
even with these data elements added to the TRACE data already
disseminated, a consumer of disseminated information will know who is
behind a trade, the nature and extent of its strategy, and the size of
the total debt position being disposed of or acquired. In any event,
FINRA does not believe that those contentions, even if they could be
established, trump the basis for the Proposal with its legitimate
purposes under the Act and its necessary purposes under NASD IM-2440-2.
    Finally, in response to the two commenters' request for empirical
data on TRACE to study the market, FINRA proposed to provide access to
historic TRACE data in SR-FINRA-2007-006, which was filed with the
Commission on August 9, 2007, and published for notice and comment on
September 10, 2007.\21\ The proposal is currently pending before the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56327 (August 28,
2007), 72 FR 51689 (September 10, 2007) (notice of filing of SR-
FINRA-2007-006 and request for comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2007-026 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-026. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the

Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-026 and should be submitted
on or before June 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12161 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P