UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM Date: 21 December 2005 Subject: Terbacil in/ on Watermelon. Summary of Residue Chemistry Data.

DP Barcode: D313911 Registration: 3E6640 PC Code: 012701 Decision #: 354086 MRID No.: 46007101 40 CFR 180.209 From: Tom Bloem, Chemist Registration Action Branch 1, Health Effects Division ( RAB1/ HED; 7509C)

Through: PV Shah, Ph. D., Branch Senior Scientist RAB1/ HED ( 7509C)

To: Daniel Rosenblatt; RM 05 Registration Division ( 7505C)

The Interregional Research Prject Number 4 ( IR 4) proposed the establishment of the following permanent tolerances for combined residues of terbacil ( 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 methyluracil) and its metabolites 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 hydroxymethyluracil, 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 7 hydroxymethyl 3,3 dimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one, and 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 3,3,7 trimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one, calculated as terbacil ( see attachment 1 for structures):

Watermelon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ppm Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 2 of 14 Executive Summary Background: Terbacil provides control of annual grasses and broadleaf weeds via photosynthesis inhibition ( inhibition of photosystem II). Terbacil is readily absorbed by roots and translocated upward; when absorbed by leaves, translocation is minimal. Tolerances are currently established for the combined for residues of terbacil and its metabolites 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 hydroxymethyluracil ( metabolite A), 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 7 hydroxymethyl 3,3 dimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one ( metabolite B), and 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 3,3,7 trimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one ( metabolite C), calculated as terbacil, in/ on alfalfa, apple, asparagus, blueberry, caneberry, peach, peppermint, spearmint, strawberry, and sugarcane ranging from 0.1 2.0 ppm ( 40 CFR180.209; see attachment 1 for structures). A time limited tolerance in/ on watermelon is also established at 0.4 ppm ( expires 30 Jun 2007; Section 18 registration).

Proposed Application Scenarios: The petitioner provided a supplemental Dupont   Sinbar ® Herbicide ( wettable powder ( WP); 80% terbacil by weight; EPA Reg. No. 352 317) label which includes instructions for application to watermelon. Table 1 is a summary of the proposed application scenario. The supplemental label indicates that for seeded watermelon, applications are to be made after planting but before the crop emerges; however, application to emerged crops is also permitted as the supplemental label cautions that the spray solution should not be allowed to contact the crop ( over the top applications are prohibited). No rotational crop restrictions are included on the supplemental label. However, the supplemental label states that all applicable directions, restrictions, and precautions on the main label must be followed. The main label indicates that no crops may be planted within 2 years of application as injury to the subsequent crops may result. The main label also indicates that application through irrigation equipment is prohibited and that unless otherwise directed, the product is to be applied with fixed boom power sprayer. HED concludes that the proposed application instructions are adequate.

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Application Scenario for Terbacil Application Equipment Max. Single Applic. Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Max. No. Applic. per Season PHI1 ( days) Comments Watermelon ground equipment; fixed boom power sprayer 0.10 0.15 1 70 lower rate is for coarse texture soils lower in organic matter; 20 40 gallon/ acre 1 PHI = preharvest interval Nature of the Residue  Plants: The petitioner has previously submitted and HED has reviewed alfalfa, blueberry, and sugarcane metabolism studies. Based on these data, HED concluded that the nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood and the residues of concern, for risk assessment and tolerance enforcement, are terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C ( Terbacil Reregistration Standard, 8 Mar 1989, R. Schmitt; D222891, D. Miller, 5 Dec 1996; HED Reregistration Eligibility Document ( RED), D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996). Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 3 of 14 Nature of the Residue  Livestock: The petitioner has previously submitted and HED has reviewed acceptable ruminant ( D190213, D. Miller, 9 Sep 1993) and poultry ( D192398, D. Miller, 28 Jul 1993) metabolism studies. Based on these data, HED concluded that the nature of the residues in livestock is adequately understood and the residues of concern, for risk assessment and tolerance enforcement, are terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C ( HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996).

Nature/ Magnitude of the Residue in Rotational Crops: A confined rotational crop study is not currently available. The HED RED ( D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996) stated that if the aerobic soil metabolism study ( MRID 42369901), which was being reviewed by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( EFED), revealed no new metabolites other than those regulated in the primary crops, then a confined rotational crop study may not be required. The following information was gathered from the EFED RED ( D229773, J. Hetrick, 26 Jun 1997):

Terbacil is persistent under aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions ( t1/ 2= 235 to 653 days). Minor nonvolatile transformation products (< 10% of applied) are t butylurea and 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil. The major volatile transformation product is CO2. The reported laboratory degradation data indicate terbacil is persistent in terrestrial environments. Marginally acceptable field dissipation studies indicate terbacil, at 5 lbs ai/ acre, is persistent and mobile under actual use conditions. Field dissipation half lives in Delaware, Illinois, and California ranged from 204 to 252 days. The maximum depth of terbacil detection was 45 to 50 cm. Metabolites A ( maximum concentration ( 0.14 ppm) 15 days after application) and B ( maximum concentration ( 0.07 ppm) 60 days after application) were detected in the field dissipation studies.

ChemSAC was consulted concerning the need for additional confined/ field rotational crop studies. Based on the demonstrated persistence of terbacil in the aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism studies ( half life = 235 653 days; EFED RED, D229773, J. Hetrick, 26 Jun 1997), the ChemSAC concluded that a confined rotational crop study is not necessary ( see ChemSAC minutes for 1 Feb 2006). Therefore, HED concludes that the residues of concern in rotational crops are terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, metabolite C, and 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil. Metabolites A, B, and C were included as these are residues of concern in the primary crops and may form in rotational crops via uptake and metabolism of parent. 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil was included as it was identified in the aerobic soil metabolism study. HED notes that 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil was identified at < 10% TRR; however, the aerobic soil metabolism study was conducted for only 1 year and the proposed registered plant back intervals ( PBIs) are 2 years ( i. e. concentration of 3 tbutyl 6 methyluracil may be significant after 2 years; t butylurea was not included based on concentration and toxicological considerations). Based on the watermelon application rate and the results of the currently available field trial studies ( 6.7 33x the watermelon application rate; terbacil and metabolite A residues of # 0.19 ppm), the ChemSAC concluded that an additional field rotational crop study was not necessary and tolerances in/ on crops resulting from rotation into watermelon fields which have been treated with terbacil were unnecessary. However, the ChemSAC did state that a field rotational crop study may be required for future registrations ( see ChemSAC minutes for 1 Feb 2006). Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 4 of 14 Magnitude of the Residue  Plants: The petitioner submitted a watermelon field trial study which presented the magnitude of terbacil ( limit of quantitation ( LOQ) = 0.50 ppm), metabolite A ( LOQ = 0.30 ppm), metabolite B ( LOQ = 0.10 ppm), and metabolite C ( LOQ = 0.10 ppm) residues in/ on watermelon following a single application at 0.248 0.297 lb ai/ acre ( 1.6 2.0x; PHI = 69 94 days). Combined residues of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C in/ on the treated samples were < LOQ (< 1.0 ppm). Terbacil residues which were < LOQ were found in/ on many of the treated samples and ranged from < 0.001 0.091 ( n= 11) with one sample at 0.230 ppm ( no residues of metabolites A, B, or C were found in/ on any sample).

The high terbacil LOQ was due to residues at 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm in/ on two of the control samples collected from the field trials. The study indicated that these may be treated samples mislabeled as untreated samples; however, no evidence supporting this claim was provided. Terbacil residues were found in/ on many of the remaining control samples at < 0.001 0.074 ppm (< 0.001 ppm ( n= 2) and 0.047 0.078 ppm ( n= 8)). If the 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm control samples are excluded and based on the residues in/ on the remaining control samples, a terbacil LOQ of at least 0.20 ppm would be established ( assumes LOQ = 3x the background). Assuming a terbacil LOQ of 0.20 ppm, terbacil residues in/ on the treated samples would be < LOQ for all excluding one, 0.230 ppm.

Based on the discussion from the previous paragraph, HED concludes that the data submitted in the watermelon field trial study are acceptable despite the exaggerated rate due to residues less than or slightly greater than the LOQ. HED generally allows for a 25% reduction in the suggested number of field trials when residues are < LOQ ( Table 5, OPPTS 860.1500). However, since the terbacil and metabolite A LOQs are high and since the label indicates that application after crop emergence is permitted ( all the currently available field trials were conducted post planting and prior to crop emergence), HED concludes this reduction is not appropriate and requests additional watermelon field trials, conducted with application after crop emergence, in Regions 3 ( n= 1), 5 ( n= 1), and 6 ( n= 1). Provided the petitioner agrees to submit these data and based on the currently available data, HED concludes that a tolerance of 1.0 ppm for the combined residues of terbacil and metaoblites A, B, and C in/ on watermelon is appropriate. A revised Section F is requested.

Magnitude of the Residue  Livestock: As there are no feed commodities associated with watermelon, the magnitude of the residue in livestock is not relevant to the current petition.

Enforcement Method  Watermelon: There are currently two terbacil enforcement methods in the Pesticide Analytical Manual ( PAM; Vol. II). The HED RED ( D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996) concluded that Method I is unacceptable as it does not include instructions for the quantitation of metabolites A, B, and C and Method II is unacceptable as it uses a microcoulometric detector. The HED RED went on to say that an adequate gas chromatograph/ nitrogen phosphorus detector ( GC/ NPD) method, which is a modification of Method II in PAM ( Vol. II), may be an appropriate enforcement method and requested that the petitioner submit this procedure to HED for a petition method validation ( PMV; since the procedure is similar to Method II, an independent laboratory validation ( ILV) was deemed unnecessary). The petitioner did not submit a separate study with the analytical procedure for this method. However, the watermelon field trial study employed the Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 5 of 14 method in question and this study included a copy of the analytical procedure as an attachment. This information was forwarded to the Analytical Chemistry Laboratory ( ACL) of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) for a PMV ( D324601, T. Bloem, 21 Dec 2005).

Recommendations: Provided the petitioner submits a revised Section F and the ACL is able to validate the proposed plant enforcement method, HED concludes that the residue chemistry database supports a conditional registration and establishment of a 1.0 ppm tolerance for the residues fo terbacil and its metabolites A, B, and C in/ on watermelon. The residue chemistry database may support unconditional registration upon submission of Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) multiresidue testing of terbacil and its metabolites A, B, and C through protocol D and additional watermelon field trial data.

A human health risk assessment will be prepared as a separate document.

Summary of Residue Chemistry Deficiencies:

CRevised Section F CPMV of the plant and livestock enforcement methods CFDA multiresidue testing of terbacil and its metabolites A, B, and C through protocol D Cadditional watermelon field trials, conducted with application after crop emergence, in Regions 3 ( n= 1), 5 ( n= 1), and 6 ( n= 1) Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 6 of 14 N HN O C( CH3) 3 O Cl H3C Detailed Considerations Background Terbacil provides control of annual grasses and broadleaf weeds via photosynthesis inhibition ( inhibition of photosystem II). Terbacil is readily absorbed by roots and translocated upward; when absorbed by leaves, translocation is minimal.

Table 2. Test Compound Nomenclature.

Chemical structure Common name terbacil Company experimental name DPX D0732 IUPAC name 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 methyluracil CAS name 5 chloro 3( 1,1 dimethylethyl) 6 methyl 2,4( 1H, 3H) pyrimidinedione CAS registry number 5902 51 2 End use product ( EP) Sinbar 80WP ( wettable powder 80% terbacil Table 3. Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Test Compound.

Parameter Value Reference Melting point/ range 175 177 ° C Terbacil Reregistration Standard ( 8 Mar 1989, R. Schmitt) pH not available Density) 1.34 g/ cm3 ( 25 /

C)

Water solubility ( mg/ L ( 25 ° C)) 710 Solvent solubility ( mg/ mL ( 25 ° C)) dimethylformamide 33.7 cyclohexane 22 methyl isobutyl ketone 13.8 butyl acetate 9.7 Xylene 6.5 Vapor pressure 4.7 x 10 7 mm Hg ( 29.5 /

C)

Dissociation constant, pKa not available Octanol/ water partition coefficient ( KOW) 81.9 UV/ visible absorption spectrum not available Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 7 of 14 860.1200 Directions for Use The petitioner provided a supplemental Dupont   Sinbar ® Herbicide ( 80% WP) label which includes instructions for application to watermelon. Table 1 is a summary of the proposed application scenario. The supplemental label indicates that seeded watermelon, applications are to be made after planting but before the crop emerges; however, application to emerged crops is also permitted as the supplemental label cautions that the spray solution should not be allowed to contact the crop ( over the top applications are prohibited). No rotational crop restrictions are included on the supplemental label; however, the supplemental label states that all applicable directions, restrictions, and precautions on the main label must be followed. The main label indicates that no crops may be planted within 2 years of application as injury to the subsequent crops may result. The main label also indicates that application through irrigation equipment is prohibited and that unless otherwise directed, the product is to be applied with fixed boom power sprayer. HED concludes that the proposed application instructions are adequate.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue  Plants/ Livestock Plants: The petitioner has previously submitted and HED has reviewed alfalfa, blueberry, and sugarcane metabolism studies. Based on these data, HED concluded that the nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood and the residues of concern, for risk assessment and tolerance enforcement, are terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C ( Terbacil Reregistration Standard, 8 Mar 1989, R. Schmitt; D222891, D. Miller, 5 Dec 1996; HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996).

Livestock: The petitioner has previously submitted and HED has reviewed acceptable ruminant ( D190213, D. Miller, 9 Sep 1993) and poultry ( D192398, D. Miller, 28 Jul 1993) metabolism studies. Based on these data, HED concluded that the nature of the residues in livestock is adequately understood and the residues of concern, for risk assessment and tolerance enforcement, are terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C ( HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996).

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods  Plants/ Livestock Livestock: As there are not feed commodities associated with watermelon, a discussion concerning an enforcement method for livestock is unnecessary.

Plants: There are currently two terbacil enforcement methods in PAM ( Vol. II). The HED RED ( D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996) concluded that method I was unacceptable as it does not include instructions for the quantitation of metabolites A, B, and C and method II is unacceptable as it uses a microcoulometric detector. The HED RED went on to say that an adequate GC/ NPD method, which is a modification of Method II in PAM ( Vol. II), may be an appropriate enforcement method and requested that the petitioner submit this procedure to HED for PMV ( since the procedure is similar to enforcement method II, an ILV was deemed unnecessary). The petitioner did not submit a separate study with the analytical procedure for this method. However, the watermelon field trial study employed the method in question and this study included a copy of the analytical procedure as an attachment. This information was forwarded to the ACL of BEAD for a PMV ( D324601, T. Bloem, 21 Dec 2005). Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 8 of 14 860.1360 Multiresidue Methods Data have been submitted pertaining to the analytical behavior of terbacil and its regulated metabolites through FDA Multiresidue Protocols and these data have been forwarded to FDA for inclusion in PAM ( Vol. I, Appendix I). The registrant has submitted the results of FDA Multiresidue Protocol C to the Agency ( Protocols A, B, and E are not applicable) which demonstrates that terbacil and its metabolites yield acceptable results when tested under the specified GLC conditions. Results from Protocol D, however, were not submitted, and the registrant is required to use this method to test an appropriate commodity and submit the results for terbacil and its regulated metabolites for inclusion in PAM ( HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996). These data have not been submitted.

860.1380 Storage Stability 46007101. der. wpd The maximum storage interval from harvest to analysis, for the watermelon samples collected as part of the field trial study, was 268 days. As part of the watermelon field trial study, the petitioner submitted watermelon storage stability data which resulted in acceptable recoveries of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C following 279 days of storage. However, the data did not include a 0 day analysis to confirm the fortification level. Adequate storage stability data have been previously submitted and reviewed for terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C in/ on alfalfa ( 24 months), apples ( 6 months), blueberry ( 6 months), mint ( 18 months), milk ( 1 month), and sugarcane ( 6 months; HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996). HED concludes that the combination of the watermelon storage stability data submitted with this petition and the previously reviewed storage stability data are sufficient to validate the watermelon field trial study.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs As there are no feed commodities associated with watermelon, the magnitude of the residue in livestock is not relevant to the current petition.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials 46007101. der. wpd The petitioner submitted a watermelon field trial study which presented the magnitude of terbacil ( LOQ = 0.50 ppm), metabolite A ( LOQ = 0.30 ppm), metabolite B ( LOQ = 0.10 ppm), and metabolite C ( LOQ = 0.10 ppm) residues in/ on watermelon following a single application at 0.248 0.297 lb ai/ acre ( 1.6 2.0x; PHI = 69 94 days). Combined residues of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C in/ on the treated samples were < LOQ (< 1.0 ppm). Terbacil residues which were < LOQ were found in/ on many of the treated samples and ranged from < 0.001 0.091 ( n= 11) with one sample at 0.230 ppm ( no residues of metabolites A, B, or C were found in/ on any sample).

The high terbacil LOQ was due to residues at 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm in/ on two of the control samples collected from the field trials. The study indicated that these may be treated samples mislabeled as untreated samples; however, no evidence supporting this claim was provided. Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 9 of 14 Terbacil residues were found in/ on many of the remaining control samples at < 0.001 0.074 ppm (< 0.001 ppm ( n= 2) and 0.047 0.078 ppm ( n= 8)). If the 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm control samples are excluded and based on the residues in/ on the remaining control samples, a terbacil LOQ of at least 0.20 ppm would be established ( assumes LOQ = 3x the background). Assuming a terbacil LOQ of 0.20 ppm, terbacil residues in/ on the treated samples would be < LOQ for all excluding one, 0.230 ppm.

Based on the discussion from the previous paragraph, HED concludes that the data submitted in the watermelon field trial study are acceptable despite the exaggerated rate due to residues less than or slightly greater than the LOQ. HED generally allows for a 25% reduction in the suggested number of field trials when residues are < LOQ ( Table 5, OPPTS 860.1500). However, since the terbacil and metabolite A LOQs are high and since the label indicates that application after crop emergence is permitted ( all the currently available field trials were conducted post planting and prior to crop emergence), HED concludes this reduction is not appropriate and requests additional watermelon field trials, conducted with application after crop emergence, in Regions 3 ( n= 1), 5 ( n= 1), and 6 ( n= 1). Provided the petitioner agrees to submit these data and based on the currently available data, HED concludes that a tolerance of 1.0 ppm for the combined residues of terbacil and metaoblites A, B, and C in/ on watermelon is appropriate. A revised Section F is requested. The following paragraphs are a detailed summary of the watermelon field trial study.

Watermelon Field Trail Study ( 46007101. der. wpd): Five watermelon trials were conducted in Regions 2 ( n= 2), 3 ( n= 1), 6 ( n= 1), and 10 ( n= 1). At each field trial, the plants were treated with a single broadcast spray application of a 80% WP terbacil formulation at 0.248 0.297 lb ai/ acre ( 23 40 gallons/ acre ( GPA)). Applications were made after planting but prior to crop emergence. Duplicate control and treated samples were collected at maturity, 69 94 days after application.

The harvested samples were analyzed for residues of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C using the Dupont method AMR 1719 90. Acceptable method validation and concurrent recovery data were provided. Based on the lowest method validation level which resulted in acceptable recoveries, the LOQ for terbacil, metabolite B, and metabolite C is 0.10 ppm and the LOQ for metabolite A is 0.30 ppm ( unacceptable recoveries at 0.10 ppm). Since terbacil residues in/ on control samples from the field trials ranged from < 0.001 0.182 ppm (< 0.001 ppm ( n= 2), 0.047 0.078 ppm ( n= 8), 0.134 ppm, and 0.182 ppm), the study indicated a LOQ of 0.50 ppm for terbacil. The study indicated that it is possible that the controls samples which resulted in terbacil residues of 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm may have been treated samples but were mislabeled as untreated; no evidence to confirm this suspicion is available. HED notes that if the 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm control samples are excluded and based on the residues in/ on the remaining control samples, a terbacil LOQ of at least 0.20 ppm would be established ( assumes LOQ = 3x the background). The maximum storage interval from harvest to analysis was 268 days. The petitioner has submitted adequate storage stability data to validate this interval ( see storage stability section OPPTS 860.1380).

Residues of terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, and metabolite C were < LOQ in/ on all samples (< 0.50 ppm, < 0.30 ppm, < 0.10 ppm, and < 0.10 ppm, respectively). Since the terbacil LOQ is Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 10 of 14 based on the detection of terbacil residues in/ on field trial control samples at 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm and since the study indicated that these samples may have been treated samples mislabeled as untreated samples, terbacil residues which were < LOQ are reported (< 0.001 0.230 ppm). Table 4 is a summary of the water melon field trial data.

Table 4. Residue Data from the Watermelon Crop Field Trials.

Trial Identification ( City, State; Year; EPA Region) Crop; Variety Commodity Total Rate ( lb ai/ acre) PHI ( days) Residues ( ppm)

Terbacil1 Metabolite A Metabolite B Metabolite C Holtville, CA; 1997; Region 10 watermelon; Calsweet mature fruit 1 x 0.297 94 < 0.502, < 0.502 ( 0.091, 0.046) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Gainesville, FL; 1997; Region 3 watermelon; Mickylee mature fruit 1 x 0.245 70 < 0.503, < 0.503 ( 0.028, 0.041) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Tifton, GA; 1997; Region 2 watermelon; Crimson Sweet mature fruit 1 x 0.254 90 < 0.504, < 0.504 ( 0.039, 0.045) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Salisbury, MD; 1997; Region 2 watermelon; Jade Star mature fruit 1 x 0.253 69 < 0.505, < 0.505 ( 0.048, < 0.001) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Weslaco, TX; 1997; Region 68 watermelon; Sugar Baby mature fruit 1 x 0.248 0.251 71 < 0.506, < 0.506 ( 0.230, 0.056) < 0.507, < 0.507 ( 0.054, 0.050) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 1 quantified residues < LOQ are presented in parenthesis 2 terbacil residues of 0.047 ppm and < 0.001 ppm were found in/ on controls 3 terbacil residues of 0.050 ppm and < 0.001 ppm were found in/ on controls 4 terbacil residues of 0.056 ppm and 0.057 ppm were found in/ on controls 5 terbacil residues of 0.134 ppm and 0.074 ppm were found in/ on controls; the study stated that it is possible that the treated samples were labeled as untreated and the untreated samples were labeled as treated ( there is no evidence to confirm this suspicion) 6 terbacil residues of 0.078 ppm and 0.074 ppm were found in/ on controls 7 terbacil residues of 0.182 ppm and 0.062 ppm were found in/ on controls; the study stated that it is possible that the treated samples were labeled as untreated and the untreated samples were labeled as treated ( there is no evidence to confirm this suspicion) 8 study indicate two field trials conducted in Weslaco, TX; HED considers this as a single field trial as they were conducted on the same farm using the same application date, equipment, and watermelon variety 860.1520 Processed Food and Feed Table 1 of OPPTS 860.1000 indicates that there are no watermelon processed commodities; therefore, a watermelon processing study is unnecessary.

860.1850/ 860.1900 Confined and Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops A confined rotational crop study is not currently available. The HED RED ( D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996) stated that if the aerobic soil metabolism study ( MRID 42369901), which was being reviewed by the EFED, revealed no new metabolites other than those regulated in the primary crops, then a confined rotational crop study may not be required. The following information was gathered from the EFED RED ( D229773, J. Hetrick, 26 Jun 1997):

Terbacil is persistent under aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions ( t1/ 2= 235 to 653 days). Minor nonvolatile transformation products (< 10% of applied) are t butylurea and 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil. Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 11 of 14 The major volatile transformation product is CO2. The reported laboratory degradation data indicate terbacil is persistent in terrestrial environments. Marginally acceptable field dissipation studies indicate terbacil, at 5 lbs ai/ acre, is persistent and mobile under actual use conditions. Field dissipation half lives in Delaware, Illinois, and California ranged from 204 to 252 days. The maximum depth of terbacil detection was 45 to 50 cm. Metabolites A ( maximum concentration ( 0.14 ppm) 15 days after application) and B ( maximum concentration ( 0.07 ppm) 60 days after application) were detected in the field dissipation studies.

Two field rotational crop studies and have been submitted and reviewed ( MRID 00011948  see EFED review, 23 July 1981; MRID 43221501  D206093, D. Miller, 31 Aug 1994). MRID 43221501 presented data concerning the magnitude of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C in/ on beet ( root and tops), wheat, and lettuce following a bare soil application at 5.0 lb ai/ acre ( 33x the watermelon rate) and a 2 year plant back interval ( PBI). Due to phytotoxicity, neither immature nor mature wheat and lettuce plants could be harvested for residue analysis. Phytotoxicity was also observed for beets with severe reduction in harvest yield noted and only small samples of immature and mature beets harvested. Terbacil residues were 0.19 ppm in/ on immature beet ( whole plant), 0.07 ppm in/ on mature beet top, and < 0.05 ppm in/ on mature beet root. Metabolites A, B, and C were < 0.05 ppm in/ on all mature and immature beet samples. MRID 00011948 presented data concerning the magnitude of terbacil and metabolite A in/ on beet ( root and tops), sunflower ( seed), and cabbage following ten annual applications of terbacil at 1.0 lb ai/ acre ( 10 month PBI; silt loam soil; 6.7x the watermelon rate) and three annual applications of terbacil at 1.0 2.0 lb ai/ acre ( 2 year PBI; muck soil; 13.3x the watermelon rate; 2.0 lb ai/ acre the 1st year and 1.0 lb ai/ acre for the 2nd and 3rd years). Residues of terbacil and metabolite A were < LOQ in/ on all samples excluding cabbage grown in muck ( 2 year PBI) where terbacil residues of 0.18 ppm were found.

Conclusions: The ChemSAC was consulted concerning the need for additional confined/ field rotational crop studies. Based on the demonstrated persistence of terbacil in the aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism studies ( half life = 235 653 days; EFED RED, D229773, J. Hetrick, 26 Jun 1997), the ChemSAC concluded that a confined rotational crop study is not necessary ( see ChemSAC minutes for 1 Feb 2006). Therefore, HED concludes that the residues of concern in rotational crops are terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, metabolite C, and 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil. Metabolites A, B, and C were included as these are residues of concern in the primary crops and may form in rotational crops via uptake and metabolism of parent. 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil was included as it was identified in the aerobic soil metabolism study. HED notes that 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil was identified at < 10% TRR; however, the aerobic soil metabolism study was conducted for only 1 year and the proposed registered PBIs are 2 years ( i. e. concentration of 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil may be significant after 2 years; t butylurea was not included based on concentration and toxicological considerations).

Based on the watermelon application rate and the results of the currently available field trial studies ( 6.7 33x the watermelon application rate; terbacil and metabolite A residues of # 0.19 ppm), the ChemSAC concluded that an additional field rotational crop study was not necessary and tolerances in/ on crops resulting from rotation into watermelon fields which have been treated with terbacil were unnecessary. However, the ChemSAC did state that a field rotational crop study may be required for future registrations ( see ChemSAC minutes for 1 Feb 2006). Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 12 of 14 Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 13 of 14 860.1550 Proposed/ Recommended Tolerances Table 5 is a summary of the proposed and recommended tolerances for residues of terbacil and its metabolites A ( 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 hydroxymethyluracil), B ( 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 7 hydroxymethyl 3,3 dimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one), and C ( 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 3,3,7 trimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one), calculated as terbacil. A revised Section F should be submitted. There are no Codex or Mexican maximum residue limits ( MRLs) in/ on the requested crops. A revised Section F is requested.

Table 5. Tolerance Summary Proposed Recommended Commodity Definition Tolerance ( ppm) Commodity Definition Tolerance ( ppm)

Watermelon 1 watermelon 1.0 RDI: RAB1 Chemists ( 21 Dec 2005) T. Bloem: 806R: CM# 2:( 703) 605 0217: 7590C Template Version September 2003 Attachment 1: Chemical Structures Terbacil Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data D313911 Page 14 of 14 N HN O C( CH3) 3 O Cl H3C N HN O C( CH3) 3 O Cl HOH2C N N O Cl HOH2C O H3C CH3 N N O Cl H3C O H3C CH3 N HN O C( CH3) 3 O H H3C ( H3C) C N NH2 H O Attachment 1: Chemical Structures Name Structure terbacil 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 methyluracil 5 chloro 3( 1,1 dimethylethyl) 6 methyl 2,4( 1H, 3H) pyrimidinedi one metabolite A 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 hydroxymethyluracil metabolite B 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 7 hydroxymethyl 3,3 dimethyl 5Hoxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one metabolite C 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 3,3,7 trimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one 3 t butyl 6 methyluracil t butylurea


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60889-60890]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-132-000.
    Applicants: CED Alamo 5, LLC.
    Description: Self-certification as an exempt wholesale generator of
CED Alamo 5, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150929-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1817-010; ER10-1820-014; ER10-1819-011; ER10-
1818-009.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2015 Triennial Market Power
Analysis of Southwestern Public Service Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20150925-5301.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1473-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: 2015-09-29_SA 2771 Refund Report of
ATC-Cloverland CFA to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150929-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1861-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150929-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1862-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150929-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2720-001; ER15-2689-001; ER15-2688-001.
    Applicants: WestRock CP, LLC, MeadWestvaco Coated Board, LLC,
MeadWestvaco Virginia Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the
WestRock MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 9/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150928-5344.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2736-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Commonwealth Edison
Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ComEd submits Amended
Facilities, Interconnection, and Easement Agreement 4266 to be
effective 9/28/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150928-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2737-000.
    Applicants: Beethoven Wind, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of cancellation to be
effective 9/29/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150928-5308.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2738-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Rate Schedule No. 68--SPPC
Concurrence with PG&E Service Agreement 84 to be effective 10/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150928-5310.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2739-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Trans-Allegheny Interstate
Line Company, West Penn Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company,
Pennsylvania Electric Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, Monongahela
Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Trans-Allegheny, et al.
submits service agreement nos. 2149, 3743, and 3818 to be effective 10/
1/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150929-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2740-000.
    Applicants: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revision to FERC Rate
Schedule 206 to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150929-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES15-66-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Supplement to September 9, 2015 Application of El Paso
Electric Company for FPA Section 204 authorization.
    Filed Date: 9/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150916-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

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

    Dated: September 29, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25651 Filed 10-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1672-1674]
[DOCID:fr12ja10-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61302; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-095]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 3240 (Borrowing From or Lending to Customers) in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

January 6, 2010.
    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 31, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) 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. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2370 (Borrowing From or
Lending to Customers) as FINRA Rule 3240 (Borrowing From or Lending to
Customers) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook \3\ with certain changes
and to delete Incorporated NYSE Rules 352(e) (Limitations on Borrowing
From or Lending to Customers), (f) (Loan Procedures) and (g). The
proposed rule change also would add a Supplementary Material section
regarding record retention requirements to proposed FINRA Rule 3240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See supra note 4 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\4\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 2370 as FINRA Rule 3240 in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with
certain changes as described below. The proposed rule change also would
delete Incorporated NYSE Rules 352(e)

through (g) \5\ from the Transitional Rulebook.\6\ Further, the
proposed rule change would add a Supplementary Material section
regarding record retention requirements to proposed FINRA Rule 3240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
    \5\ For convenience, the Incorporated NYSE Rules are referred to
as the NYSE Rules.
    \6\ NYSE Rules 352(a) through (d) were deleted as part of a
prior rule change. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60701
(September 21, 2009), 74 FR 49425 (September 28, 2009) (Order
Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2009-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The purpose of NASD Rule 2370, which became effective in November
2003, is to give members the opportunity to evaluate the
appropriateness of particular lending arrangements between their
registered persons and customers, to the extent permitted by the
member, and the potential for conflicts of interests between both the
registered person and his or her customer and the registered person and
the member with which he or she is associated.
    To that end, NASD Rule 2370 prohibits registered persons from
borrowing money from or lending money to their customers (collectively
referred to as ``lending arrangements'') unless certain conditions are
met. More specifically, under Rule 2370, no registered person may
borrow money from or lend money to his or her customer unless the firm
has written procedures allowing such lending arrangements and (1) the
customer is a member of the registered person's immediate family;\7\
(2) the customer is in the business of lending money; (3) the customer
and the registered person are both registered persons of the same firm;
(4) the lending arrangement is based on a personal relationship outside
of the broker-customer relationship; or (5) the lending arrangement is
based on a business relationship outside of the broker-customer
relationship. In addition, with the exception of lending arrangements
between immediate family members and lending arrangements between
registered persons and customers in the business of lending money,
FINRA members are required to pre-approve in writing the other lending
arrangements described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NASD Rule 2370 defines the term ``immediate family'' to
include parents, grandparents, mother-in-law or father-in-law,
husband or wife, brother or sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law,
son-in-law or daughter-in-law, children, grandchildren, cousin, aunt
or uncle, or niece or nephew, and any other person whom the
registered person supports, directly or indirectly, to a material
extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to lending arrangements between immediate family
members, a FINRA member's written procedures may indicate that the
member permits such lending arrangements and that registered persons
need not notify the member or receive member approval for such lending
arrangements.
    With respect to lending arrangements between registered persons and
customers in the business of lending money, a member's written
procedures may indicate that registered persons are not required to
notify the member or receive member approval for such lending
arrangements, provided that such lending arrangements have been made on
commercial terms that the customer generally makes available to members
of the general public who are similarly situated as to need, purpose
and creditworthiness.\8\ Further, the member need not investigate such
lending arrangements, but may rely on the registered person's
representation that the terms of the loan meet these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The fact that a registered person can negotiate a better
rate or terms for a loan that is not the product of the broker-
customer relationship would not vitiate the idea that the loan
occurred on terms generally offered to the public. See Notice to
Members 04-14 (March 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that members can choose to permit
registered persons to borrow money from or lend money to their
customers consistent with the requirements of the rule or prohibit the
practice in whole or in part.
    NYSE Rules 352(e) through (g) also govern lending arrangements
between registered persons and their customers. These provisions are
substantially similar to the provisions of NASD Rule 2370, with one
exception. NYSE Rule 352(f) provides an exception from the pre-approval
requirements of the rule for loans totaling $100 or less between
registered persons of the same firm.
Proposal
    FINRA proposes to adopt NASD Rule 2370 as FINRA Rule 3240 in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook, subject to the following changes. FINRA
proposes to amend paragraph (a) (Permissible Lending Arrangements;
Conditions) of the rule to indicate more explicitly that such
arrangements are subject to the procedural requirements set forth in
paragraph (b) (Notification and Approval) of the rule. FINRA also
proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2)(B) of the rule regarding permissible
lending arrangements between registered persons and customers in the
business of lending money to indicate more explicitly that such
customers must be acting in the course of such business.
    Further, FINRA proposes to amend paragraph (b)(1) of the rule to
require expressly that registered persons notify their member firms of
the lending arrangements that require member pre-approval (FINRA is
proposing this change for purposes of consistency with paragraphs
(b)(2) and (3) of the rule, which provide that a registered person is
not required either to notify the member or receive member approval for
certain specified lending arrangements) and to clarify that any
modifications to such lending arrangements (including any extension of
the duration of such arrangements) are also subject to notification and
member pre-approval.
    In addition, FINRA proposes to amend the definition of ``immediate
family'' in paragraph (c) (Definition of Immediate Family) of the rule
to replace the reference that the term ``includes'' the enumerated
persons to reflect that the term ``means'' such persons. Finally, FINRA
proposes to add Supplementary Material .01 (Record Retention) requiring
that members preserve the written pre-approval required by the rule for
at least three years after the date that the lending arrangement has
terminated or for at least three years after the registered person's
association with the member has terminated. FINRA proposes to delete
NYSE Rules 352(e) through (g) as the provisions of the NYSE rules are
substantially similar to NASD Rule 2370.
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval. The implementation date will be no later
than 180 days following 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,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must 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 rule change will
further the purposes of the Act by giving members the opportunity to
evaluate the appropriateness of certain lending arrangements between
their registered persons and others, to the extent permitted by a
member, and the potential that these lending arrangements could create
certain conflicts of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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-2009-095 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-095. 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-2009-095 and should be
submitted on or before February 2, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-359 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7450]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02692]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9013-4]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 01/27/2014 Through 01/31/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html

EIS No. 20140025, Final EIS, USACE, FL, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach
Harbor Project, Review Period Ends: 03/10/2014, Contact: Angela Dunn
904-232-2108.
EIS No. 20140026, Draft EIS, USAF, NH, Second Main Operating Base KC-
46A Beddown Alternative Air National Guard Installations, Comment
Period Ends: 03/24/2014, Contact: Kevin Marek<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140027, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, Buckhorn Project, Comment Period
Ends: 03/24/2014, Contact: Sarah Canepa<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140028, Draft EIS, DOS, DC, Foreign Missions Center at the
Former Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Comment Period Ends: 03/31/
2014, Contact: Geoffrey Hunt<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140029, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, Modified Blythe Solar Power
Project, Comment Period Ends: 03/24/2014, Contact: Frank McMenimen 760-
833-7150.
EIS No. 20140030, Final EIS, FHWA, CA, Ferguson Slide Permanent
Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 03/10/2014, Contact: Scott
Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140031, Final Supplement, USFS, ID, Salmon-Challis National
Forest Travel Planning and OHV Route Designation Project, Review Period
Ends: 03/31/2014, Contact: Karen Gallogly<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140032, Final Supplement, DOS, 00, Keystone XL Project,
Review Period Ends: 03/10/2014, Contact: Mary D. Hassell<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140033, Second Draft Supplement, USACE, WA, Grays Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project, Comment Period Ends: 03/24/2014,
Contact: Josh Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140034, Final EIS, NRC, SD, Dewey-Burdock Project, Supplement
to the In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Review Period Ends:
03/10/2014, Contact: Haimanot Yilma<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 4, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-02692 Filed 2-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10797-10798]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04040]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14512-000]

KC Pittsfield, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On April 18, 2013, KC Pittsfield, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Old Cow Creek Open-
Channel Hydro Project (Old Cow Creek Project or project) to be located
on Old Cow Creek, near Whitmore, California. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A
diversion intake on Old Cow Creek located just above Pacific Gas &
Electric Company's (PG&E) existing diversion; (2) a new 100-cubic foot
per second canal that would run parallel to PG&E's existing 3-mile-long
canal; (3) a powerhouse located adjacent to the existing PG&E
powerhouse; (4) two 3-megawatt conventional hydroelectric turbines; and
(5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated average generating capacity
of the project would be 31 gigawatt hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Kelly Sackheim, KC Pittsfield, LLC, 5096

Cocoa Palm Way, Fair Oaks, CA 95628, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
    FERC Contact: Joseph Hassell; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14512-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14512) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 19, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04040 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 834-835]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1801-003: ER10-2370-002; ER10-1805-004; ER10-
1808-004.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, NSTAR Electric
Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Western Massachusetts
Electric Company.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Northeast Region of
the Eversource Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20161227-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2010-005; ER10-1714-008.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, LG&E Energy
Marketing Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update of the PPL Northeast
Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20161227-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2607-004; ER10-2626-003.
    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Inc., TEC Trading,
Inc.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analyses in Northeast Region of
the ODEC Entities.
    Filed Date: 12/23/16.
    Accession Number: 20161223-5355.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-47-007; ER10-2981-007; ER11-41-007; ER11-46-
010; ER12-1540-005; ER12-1541-005; ER12-1542-005; ER12-1544-005; ER12-
2343-005; ER13-1896-011; ER14-2475-004; ER14-2476-004; ER14-2477-004;
ER14-594-009; ER16-323-003.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power
Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Wheeling
Power Company, AEP Texas Central Company, AEP Texas North Company,
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power
Company, Ohio Power Company, AEP Energy Partners, Inc., AEP Retail
Energy Partners LLC, AEP Energy, Inc., AEP Generation Resources Inc.,
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis in the PJM balancing
area authority of the AEP MBR Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20161227-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-685-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Queue #Y1-077, First Revised
Service Agreement No. 3645 to be effective 11/28/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20161228-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-686-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-12-28_MISO Transmission
Owners Agreement and Bylaw Revisions to be effective 2/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20161228-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-687-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination for Rate
Schedule FERC No. 5 to be effective 7/12/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20161228-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-688-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination for FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 7 to be effective 3/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20161228-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-689-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination for Rate
Schedule FERC No. 8 to be effective 2/2/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20161228-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-690-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-12-28_SA 2983 Entergy
Louisiana-Entergy Louisiana GIA (J396) to be effective 12/29/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20161228-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-691-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC
Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-12-28_SA 2883 ITC
Midwest-MidAmerican 1st Rev FSA (H009) to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20161228-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/17.

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

    Dated: December 28, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31881 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 68117]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-18-000]

Electric Transmission Texas, LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on November 6, 2012, pursuant to section 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), Electric Transmission
Texas, LLC (ETT) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that
the Commission disclaim Federal Power Act (FPA) jurisdiction over (1)
the transmission lines that ETT, an electric utility in the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region that is not a public
utility, will own and operate within ERCOT, (2) transmission service
over those transmission facilities, and (3) sales of electric energy
over the lines by companies that are not public utility companies under
the FPA.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 27, 2012.

    Dated: November 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27708 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P