EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITION

EPA Registration Division contact:  Sidney Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4

PP# 1E7863

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP) 1E7863 from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers,
The State

University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part
180.603 by establishing a tolerance for residues of dinotefuran,
(RS)-1-methyl-2-nitro-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine and its
major metabolites DN, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine,
and UF, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)urea in or on the raw
agricultural commodities berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup
13-07H at 0.2 parts per million (ppm); watercress at 5.0 ppm; onion,
green, subgroup 3-07B at 6.0 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.07
ppm; peach at 0.9 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corn, subgroup 1C at 0.05
ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup
13-07F at 0.9 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data
or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of
 FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.

The primary metabolic pathways of dinotefuran in plants (rice, apple,
potato, oilseed rape and lettuce) were similar to those described for
animals, with certain extensions of the pathway in plants.  Parent
compound, dinotefuran, and two metabolites;
1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furymethyl) guanidine (DN) and
1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furymethyl)-urea (UF) were major metabolites in
all crops.  The metabolism of dinotefuran in plants and animals is
understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances.  Parent
dinotefuran and the metabolites,
1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furymethyl)guanidine (DN) and
1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furymethyl)-urea (UF) are the residues of
concern for tolerance setting purposes.

	2. Analytical method.

Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc., has submitted practical analytical
methodology for detecting and measuring levels of dinotefuran and its
metabolites, UF and DN, in or on raw agricultural commodities.  The
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was validated for
determination of dinotefuran, DN and UF in or on tomatoes and peppers,
cucurbits, brassica, grapes, potatoes, and lettuce for raw agricultural
commodity

matrices and in or on tomato paste and puree, grape juice and raisins
and potato chips, granules, and wet peel for processed commodity
matrices.  After extraction with a water/acetonitrile mixture and clean
up with hexane and extraction columns, concentrations of dinotefuran and
its metabolites were quantified after HPLC separation by tandem mass
spectrometry (MS/MS) detection.  The limit of quantitation was 0.01 ppm
for all matrices.

	3. Magnitude of residues.

Crops in residue trials were treated at maximum label rates and
harvested at the specified minimum treatment to harvest intervals.  The
residue method for dinotefuran, DN and UF in all components utilized
HPLC separation with MS/MS detection.  Tolerances have been previously
proposed for combined residues of Dinotefuran, DN and UF in or on Leafy
Vegetables (Crop Group 4), Cotton Seed Undelinted and Cotton Gin
Byproducts, Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop Group 9), Grapes, Potatoes,
Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8), Vegetables, brassica head and stem
crop subgroup (Crop Subgroup 5-A), and Meat, Milk and Byproducts and
Leafy Brassica Greens.

For Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07H, except strawberry, residue
trials were conducted for the representative crop, cranberry. The
proposed tolerance in or on Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07H, except
strawberry for combined residues of Dinotefuran, DN, and UF is 0.2 ppm.
The maximum combined residue found for the representative crop,
cranberry, ranged from 0.02-0.09 ppm. For Watercress, residues trials
were conducted. The proposed tolerance in or on Watercress for combined
residues of Dinotefuran, DN, and UF is 5.0 ppm. The maximum residues
found for Watercress with adjuvant were as follows: Dinotefuran: 2.13
ppm, DN: 0.534 ppm, UF: 0.133 ppm. The maximum residues found for
Watercress without adjuvants were as follows: Dinotefuran: 3.47 ppm, DN:
0.309 ppm, UF: 0.0931 ppm. For Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B, residue
trials were conducted for the representative crop, onion (green). The
proposed tolerance in or on Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B for combined
residues of Dinotefuran, DN, and UF is 6.0 ppm. The maximum combined
residue found for the representative crop, onion (green), ranged from
0.111-2.54 ppm. For Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A, residue trials were
conducted for the representative crop, onion (dry bulb). The proposed
tolerance in or on Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A for combined residues of
Dinotefuran, DN and UF is 0.07 ppm. The maximum combined residue found
for the representative crop, onion (dry bulb) at an application rate of
0.263lb ai/A in either a single soil drench or a single furrow
application was <0.03 ppm. The maximum residue found for representative
crop, onion (dry bulb) of two foliar (broadcast or directed)
applications was <0.08 ppm. For Peach, residue trials were conducted.
The proposed tolerance in or on Peach for combined residues of
Dinotefuran, DN, and UF is 0.9 ppm. The maximum residues found for Peach
after a total application of approximately 0.358lb ai/A and a
pre-harvest interval of 2-3 days was as follows: Dinotefuran: 0.54 ppm,
DN: 0.04 ppm, UF: 0.06 ppm. For Peach after one soil drench application
of approximately 0.268lb ai/A and a pre-harvest interval of 21 days, the
maximum residues were as follows: Dinotefuran: 0.01 ppm. No DN or UF
residues were observed above the lowest level of method validation of
0.01 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile

Acute toxicity.

Dinotefuran has low acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity.  The
oral lethal dose (LD)50 in rats is 2450 mg/kg, the dermal LD50 is >2000
mg/kg and the inhalation 4-hour lethal concentration (LC)50 is >4.09
mg/L air.  Dinotefuran is not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs but is
slightly irritating to the skin and eyes of rabbits.  End-use
formulations of dinotefuran have similar low acute toxicity profiles.

	2. Genotoxicty.

Dinotefuran and its metabolites do not induce gene mutations in
bacterial and mammalian cells, chromosome aberrations in mammalian cells
or DNA damage in bacterial cells in in vitro test systems.  Similarly,
it does not exhibit a clastogenic effect in vivo in the mouse
micronucleus test.  Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest a
genotoxic hazard at any of the 3 main levels of genetic organization.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

In rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies with dinotefuran, there
was no evidence of teratogenicity or other embryotoxic effects at the
highest dose levels, although maternal toxicity was evident. There were
no treatment-related effects on litter parameters at any dose level in
either species.  In rats, 1000 mg/kg produced decreased food consumption
and body weight gain, and increased water intake. In rabbits, 300 mg/kg
produced hypoactivity, prone position, panting, flushing of the nose and
ears, tremors, and reduced weight gain, food consumption and water
intake.  Necropsy revealed pale brown discoloration of liver and
gray/white plaques in the stomach at 125 and 300 mg/kg.  The
no-observable effect level (NOAEL) values in maternal rats and rabbits
were 300 and 52 mg/kg/day, respectively. The NOAEL values in rats and
rabbits for embryonic development and teratogenicity were the highest
dose levels administered, 1000 and 300 mg/kg/day, respectively.  In a
2-generation study, parental animals of both sexes and both generations
showed reduced body weight gain and food consumption at the highest dose
level evaluated (10000 ppm), but there was no effect of treatment at any
dose level in either generation on reproductive performance indicators.
There were no treatment-related effects at any dose level on the
histopathological appearance of the reproductive organs of either sex.
Similarly, there were no effects at any dose level in either generation
on quantitative ovarian histopathology or on sperm counts, motility and
morphology.  Reduced spleen weight in P generation animals and reduced
thyroid weight in F1 generation parental females were apparent at 10000
ppm. F1 pup behavioral and sexual development was unaffected by
treatment at all dose levels but pup weight gain during lactation was
reduced at 10000 ppm in both generations. Furthermore, the spleen weight
of F1 generation progeny was reduced at 10000 ppm. Based on reduced
weight gain and food consumption in parental animals at 10000 ppm and
reduced pre-weaning weight gain in the offspring, the NOAEL value for
parental animals and offspring is 241mg/kg.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.

Dinotefuran was evaluated in 13-week oral (diet) toxicity studies in
rats, mice, and dogs.  No specific target organs were identified in any
species. In the rat study, a NOAEL of 500 ppm (34/38 mg/kg/day) for
males and females) was established, based on minimal growth retardation
in females and adrenal cortical vacuolation in males.  A NOAEL was
established at 5,000 ppm (336 / 384 mg/kg/day for males/females) based
on marked growth retardation at 25,000 ppm (adrenal cortical vacuolation
not adverse).  In the mouse study, a NOAEL of 25,000 ppm (4,442/5414
mg/kg/day for males/females) was established based on growth retardation
at 50,000 ppm.  In the dog study, a NOAEL of 8,000 ppm (307/323
mg/kg/day in males/females) was established based on growth retardation.
 Dinotefuran was also evaluated for dermal and inhalation toxicity for 4
weeks in rats.  Daily inhalation exposure of rats for 6 hours/day for 4
weeks did not elicit toxicologically significant effects at any exposure
concentration up to and including the highest technically achievable
concentration (2.08 mg/L) with a low MMAD±GSM of 2.03 µ m ± 3.60.
Dinotefuran was well tolerated and there were no treatment related
effects on clinical condition, hematology, and clinical chemistry
profiles, organ weights, macroscopic and microscopic pathology.  Dermal
application for 4 weeks at dose levels up to 1000 mg/kg/day did not
elicit any local or systemic effects on any of the parameters examined.
Therefore, no target organs were identified in the rat either by dermal
or inhalation exposure.

5.   Neurotoxicity

Dinotefuran did not produce any functional or histomorphological
evidence of neurotoxicity in acute (gavage) and 13-week (dietary)
neurotoxicity studies in rats. The NOAEL for neurotoxicity in the acute
study was 1,500 mg/kg, the highest dose level administered. The NOAEL
for neurotoxicity in the 13-week dietary study was 50,000 ppm (3413/3806
mg/kg/day for males and females). The NOAEL for all effects in this
study was 5,000 ppm (327/400 mg/kg/day for males and females) based on
reduced body weight gain and food consumption.

Chronic toxicity.

Chronic toxicity studies with dinotefuran have been conducted in rats,
mice, and dogs. In common with the subchronic studies in these species,
no specific target organs could be identified. In the 52-week dog study
a NOAEL of 559/512 mg/kg/day for males/females was established based on
decreased weight gain in both sexes and decreased food consumption in
females.  In the 78-week mouse study a NOAEL of 345/441 mg/kg/day for
males/females was established, based on decreased weight gain and a
decrease in circulating platelet counts.  In the 104-week rat study a
NOAEL of 991/127 mg/kg/day for males/females was established.  This was
based on a decrease in weight gain in females.

	7.    Animal metabolism.

In the rat, dinotefuran is rapidly and almost completely absorbed from
the gastrointestinal tract into the general circulation, and is widely
distributed throughout the tissues and fluids of the body. Elimination
is rapid, predominantly by urinary excretion and almost complete within
7 days of administration. There is no evidence for tissue accumulation.
Dinotefuran is rapidly transferred to maternal milk and widely
distributed into fetal tissues but rapidly eliminated from them.  More
than 90% of orally and intravenously administered dinotefuran is
eliminated as unchanged parent molecule, which is also the major
radioactive component in plasma, milk, bile and most tissues. The major
route of metabolism is an initial enzymatic hydroxylation of the
tetrahydrofuran ring to form isomers of
6-hydroxy-5-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-methyl-1,3-diazinane-2-ylidine-N-nitroami
ne (PHP), followed by further oxidation, reduction and acetylation of
PHP to produce possible isomers of dinotefuran-CO, dinotefuran-DO,
PHP-Ac and dinotefuran-OH+COOH.  Several minor pathways of metabolism of
dinotefuran were identified in animals. The absorption, distribution,
metabolism and elimination of dinotefuran is unaffected by sex and
treatment regimen.  In hens and goats, the metabolite profile was
similar as in plant metabolism.

 Carcinogenicity

The carcinogenic potential of dinotefuran has been evaluated in rats and
mice.  Survival incidences in the oncogenicity studies were unaffected
by treatment at all dose levels. There were no treatment-related effects
on the nature and incidence of neoplastic and adverse non-neoplastic
histomorphological findings in either species at any dose level.
Therefore, the NOAEL values for all effects, 991/127 mg/kg/day
(male/female rats) and 345/441 mg/kg/day (male/ female mice) are based
on reduced weight gain, and also on reduced numbers of platelets in
mice.

Metabolite toxicology.

The metabolism profile for dinotefuran supports the use of an analytical
enforcement method that accounts for parent dinotefuran and
1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furymethyl)guanidine (DN) and
1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furymethyl)-urea (UF).  Other metabolites are
considered of equal or lesser toxicity than parent compound.

Endocrine disruption.

Dinotefuran does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected
of having adverse effects on the endocrine system.  There is no evidence
that dinotefuran has any effect on endocrine function in developmental
or reproduction studies.  Furthermore, histological investigation of
endocrine organs in chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate
that the endocrine system is targeted by dinotefuran.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure.

	i. Food.

Chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using a Tier I
approach.  This Tier I assessment incorporated tolerance level residues
and 100% crop-treated in the DEEMTM (Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model;
Exponent, Inc., 2003) software system (Version 2.16).  DEEMTM utilized
the food consumption data derived from the 1994-1998 USDA Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII).   The resulting exposures
were compared to a RfD of 1.27 mg/kg/day, which was based on the female
NOAEL of 127 mg/kg/day from the 104-week rat study and a 100-fold
uncertainty factor.  Chronic dietary exposure estimates for the overall
US population and 25 population subgroups are well below the chronic
RfD.  Results of these analyses are summarized below.

Table C-1.     Chronic Dietary Risk (DEEM TM) Analysis of Dinotefuran

Population Subgroup

mg/kg BW/day

%RfD	Margin of Exposure

US population	0.005123

0.40%	24,791

All infants ( < 1 year old)	0.006062

0.50%	20,951

Non-Nursing infants	0.007155

0.60%	39,920

Children (1-6)	0.009884

0.80%	12,849

Children (7-12)	0.005746

0.50%	22,104

Females (13-50)	0.004554

0.40%	27,887

Males 20+ years	0.004468

0.40%	28,049

There are no acute toxicity concerns with dinotefuran as there is no
toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure in the
dinotefuran toxicology database, including the rat and rabbit
developmental studies.  Therefore, only chronic dietary exposures have
been assessed.

	ii. Drinking water.

EPA uses the Drinking Water Level of Comparison (DWLOC) as a theoretical
upper limit on a pesticide’s concentration in drinking water when
considering total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, drinking
water, and residential uses.  DWLOCs are not regulatory standards for
drinking water; however, EPA uses DWLOCs in the risk assessment process
as a surrogate measure of potential exposure from drinking water.  In
the absence of monitoring data for pesticides, it is used as a point of
comparison against conservative model estimates of a pesticides
concentration in water.

An estimate of the drinking water environmental concentration (DWEC) in
ground and surface water for dinotefuran has been made for this Notice
of Filing.  The DWEC of dinotefuran in groundwater was estimated to be
0.94 ppb using SCI-GROW (the screening model for ground water), and the
DWEC for surface water was estimated to be 6.24 ppb (for chronic and
intermediate-term aggregate assessments) using FIRST (FQPA Index
Reservoir Screening Tool).

To calculate the DWLOC for chronic aggregate exposure relative to a
chronic toxicity endpoint, the chronic dietary food exposure from
DEEMTM, as addressed above, was subtracted from the RfD to obtain the
acceptable chronic exposure to dinotefuran in drinking water.
DWLOC’s, as presented below, were then calculated using default body
weights and drinking water consumption figures.

Table C-2.     Chronic Aggregate Drinking Water Assessment

Population Subgroup	Dietary

mg/kg

BW/day	Maximum water exposure mg/kg BW/day	Kg BW	SCI-GROW (ppb)	FIRST
(ppb)	DWLOC (ppb)

US Population	0.005123

1.264877

70

0.94

6.24	44,271

All Infants

(< 1 year old)	0.006062

1.263938

10

0.94

6.24

12,639

Non-nursing Infants	0.007155

1.262845

10

0.94

6.24

12,628

Children (1-6)	0.009884

1.260116

20

0.94

6.24

25,202

Children (7-12)	0.005746

1.264254

40

0.94

6.24

50,570

Females (13-50)	0.004554

1.265446

60

0.94

6.24

37,963

Males (20+ years)	0.004468

1.265532

70

0.94

6.24

44,294

Chronic RfD used in assessments - 1.27 mg/kg BW/day

DWLOC = (Maximum water exposure*BW)/water consumption

Water consumption for adults = 2L, water consumption for children = 1L

The estimated average concentration of dinotefuran in surface water is
6.24 ppb.  This value is less than the lowest DWLOC for dinotefuran as a
contribution to chronic aggregate exposure (12,628 ppb for non-nursing
infants, the most highly exposed population group for the chronic
scenario).  Therefore, taking into account the proposed uses, it can be
concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of dinotefuran in food
and drinking water will not result in unacceptable levels of human
health risk.

To calculate the DWLOC for the intermediate-term aggregate exposure
relative to a sub-chronic toxicity endpoint, the chronic dietary food
exposure from DEEMTM plus the intermediate-term non-dietary exposures
(see below) were subtracted from the NOAEL, divided by the target MOE
(100), to obtain the acceptable intermediate-term exposure to
dinotefuran in drinking water.  DWLOC’s, as presented below, were then
calculated using default body weights and drinking water consumption
figures.

Table C-3.     Intermediate-term Aggregate Drinking Water Assessment

Population Subgroup	NOAEL/MOE mg/kg/day	Aggregate Exposure mg/kg/day
Max. Water Exposure mg/kg/day	SCI-GROW (ppb)	FIRST (ppb)	DWLOC (ppb)

Toddlers (1-6)1	0.307	0.143	3.068	0.94	6.24	61,360

1 Assume 20kg bodyweight

The estimated average concentration of dinotefuran in surface water is
6.24 ppb.  This value is less than the DWLOC for dinotefuran as a
contribution to intermediate-term aggregate exposure (61,360 ppb).
Therefore, taking into account the proposed uses, it can be concluded
with reasonable certainty that residues of dinotefuran in residential
environments and in food and drinking water will not result in
unacceptable levels of human health risk.

	2. Non-dietary exposure.

Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc. has considered potential non-dietary and
aggregate (non-dietary + dietary) exposures to adults, adult females,
and children (1-6 years of age) for these uses.

Applicator and post-application exposures can result from dermal and
inhalation routes for both adults and children.  Additionally, children
can be exposed through the post-application incidental ingestion route
via hand-to-mouth behavior.  Based on the label instructions and typical
use patterns of these product types, only short- and intermediate-term
exposure scenarios should be considered for dinotefuran products.
However, since there are no toxicological endpoints attributable to a
single or possible multiple exposures in a very short duration, as in a
short-term scenario, only the intermediate-term exposure scenario has
been evaluated for this document.

Dermal exposures for applicator and post-application activities were not
assessed because the very high dermal NOAEL (>1,000 mg/kg/day) for
dinotefuran indicates that dermal exposures are not of concern.
Short-term oral (e.g., incidental ingestion) exposures for children, as
mentioned above, were not assessed because there are no toxicological
endpoints attributable to a single exposure or multiple exposures during
a very short-term time frame in the dinotefuran toxicology database.
Since the oral endpoint is used to calculate inhalation risks,
short-term inhalation exposures for children and adults were also not
evaluated since there is no toxicological endpoint attributable to a
short-term endpoint. Intermediate-term inhalation exposures for
applicator and post-application activities also were not assessed
because the very high inhalation NOAEL (>7,000 mg/kg/day) for
dinotefuran indicates that inhalation exposures are not of concern.
Therefore, only intermediate-term oral (incidental ingestion) exposures
for children were assessed.  These exposures were assessed for each
individual dinotefuran product, as well as for the aggregation of all
products.  In the aggregate assessment, it was assumed that the children
would be exposed to residues resulting from the agricultural uses
(chronic dietary), all within one day.  These non-dietary assessments
were conducted using equations and default parameters from EPA’s
Residential Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) (US EPA, 1997 and 2001)
and maximum application rates. Although these exposures are based on the
intermediate-term time frame, the residue on the day of application was
used in the SOP equations in order to maintain an extra level of
conservatism.  This assumption implies that children are exposed to
residue levels, which are equivalent to levels resulting on the day of
application, every day over an intermediate-term time frame.   The
resulting oral and aggregate exposures were compared to the NOAEL of 307
mg/kg/day observed in the 13-week dog study. These risk estimates
(Margin of Exposures) for children (1-6 years of age) are summarized
below. From the results below, Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc. concludes
there is reasonable certainty of no harm associated with the aggregate
(dietary + non-dietary) exposure to dinotefuran.

Table C-4.     Intermediate-Term Aggregate MOEs

Exposure Routes

Children (1-6 years old)	Margin of Exposure	mg/kg BW/day

Dietary	 25,202	 0.009884

Aggregate	 931	0.143716

D. Cumulative Effects

The potential for cumulative effects of dinotefuran and other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity has also been considered.
Dinotefuran belongs to a pesticide chemical class known as the
neonicotinoids and subclass nitroguanadines.  There is no reliable
information to indicate that toxic effects produced by dinotefuran would
be cumulative with those of any other chemical including another
pesticide. Therefore, Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc. believes it is
appropriate to consider only the potential risks of dinotefuran in an
aggregate risk assessment.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population.

Using the chronic exposure assumptions and the proposed RfD described
above, the dietary exposure to dinotefuran for the U.S. population (48
states, all seasons) was calculated to be 0.40% of the reference dose of
1.27 mg/kg/day. The resulting DWLOC, 44,271 ppb, is much greater than
the estimated average concentration of dinotefuran in surface water,
6.24 ppb. Therefore, taking into account the proposed uses on berry, low
growing, subgroup 13-07H, except strawberry; watercress; onion, green,
subgroup 3-07B; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A; peach; vegetable, tuberous
and corm, subgroup IC; and fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, it can be concluded with reasonable certainty
that residues of dinotefuran in residential environments and in food and
drinking water will not result in unacceptable levels of human health
risk.

Infants and children.

FFDCA Section 407 provides that EPA shall apply an additional safety
factor for infants and children to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database.  Only when there is no
indication of increased sensitivity of infants and children and when the
database is complete, may the extra safety factor be removed.  In the
case of dinotefuran, the toxicology database is complete.  There is no
indication of increased sensitivity in the database overall, and
specifically, there is no indication of increased sensitivity in the
developmental and multi-generation reproductive toxicity studies.
Therefore, Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc. concludes that there is no need
for an additional safety factor; the RfD of 1.27 mg/kg/day and
sub-chronic NOAEL of 307 mg/kg/day are protective of infants and
children.

Using the chronic exposure assumptions and the proposed RfD described
above, the dietary exposure to dinotefuran for infants and children
(1-6) was calculated to be 0.50 % of the reference dose of 1.27 mg/kg
body-wt/day.  The resulting DWLOC for non-nursing infants, 12,628 ppb,
is much greater than the estimated average concentration of dinotefuran
in surface water, 6.24 ppb.

Using the intermediate-term exposure assumptions and the proposed NOAEL
described above, the intermediate-term aggregate exposure to dinotefuran
for the children (1-6) resulted in an MOE of 931.  The resulting DWLOC,
61,360 ppb, is much greater than the estimated average concentration of
dinotefuran in surface water, 6.24 ppb.  Therefore, taking into account
the proposed uses on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07H, except
strawberry; watercress; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B; onion, bulb,
subgroup 3-07A; peach; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup IC; and
fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit it
can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of dinotefuran
in residential environments and in food and drinking water will not
result in unacceptable levels.

F. International Tolerances

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

 PAGE

 PAGE   10


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 44884]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2445-000]

Prineville Solar Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Prineville Solar Energy LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 10, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 20, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16079 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43507-43508]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17890]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75475; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a
Change in the Size of a Creation Unit Applicable to Shares of the PIMCO
Total Return Active Exchange-Traded Fund

July 16, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 10, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to reflect a change in the size of a Creation
Unit applicable to shares of the PIMCO Total Return Active Exchange-
Traded Fund from 100,000 Shares to at least 50,000 Shares. The Fund is
currently listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.600. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Commission has approved a proposed rule change relating to
listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (``Shares'') of the PIMCO
Total Return Active Exchange-Traded Fund (``Fund'') under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600,\4\ which governs the listing and trading of
Managed Fund Shares.\5\ The Shares are offered by PIMCO ETF Trust (the
``Trust''), a statutory trust organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware and registered with the Commission as an open-end management
investment company.\6\ The investment manager to the Fund is Pacific
Investment Management Company LLC (``PIMCO'' or the ``Adviser''). The
Fund's Shares are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65988 (December 16,
2011), 76 FR 79741 (December 22, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-95) (notice
of filing of proposed rule change relating to listing and trading of
Shares of the Fund on the Exchange) (``Prior Notice''); 66321
(February 3, 2012), 77 FR 6850 (February 9, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-
95) (order approving listing and trading of Shares of the Fund on
the Exchange) (``Prior Order'' and, together with the Prior Notice,
the ``Prior Release''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
72666 (July 24, 2014), 79 FR 44224 (July 30, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-
2013-122) (order approving proposed rule change relating to use of
derivatives by the Fund).
    \5\ A Managed Fund Share is a security that represents an
interest in an investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (``1940 Act'') organized as an
open-end investment company or similar entity that invests in a
portfolio of securities selected by its investment adviser
consistent with its investment objectives and policies. In contrast,
an open-end investment company that issues Investment Company Units,
listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3), seeks to provide investment results that correspond
generally to the price and yield performance of a specific foreign
or domestic stock index, fixed income securities index or
combination thereof.
    \6\ The Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (``1940 Act''). On October 27, 2014, the Trust filed with the
Commission the most recent post-effective amendment to its
registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77a) (``1933 Act'') and under the 1940 Act relating to the Fund
(File Nos. 333-155395 and 811-22250) (the ``Registration
Statement''). The description of the operation of the Trust and the
Fund herein is based, in part, on the Registration Statement. A
change to the name of the Fund from PIMCO Total Return Exchange-
Traded Fund to PIMCO Total Return Active Exchange-Traded Fund was
reflected in such amendment to the Registration Statement. In
addition, the Commission has issued an order granting certain
exemptive relief to the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment
Company Act Release No. 28993 (November 10, 2009) (File No. 812-
13571) (``Exemptive Order'').
    \7\ The Trust implemented a change in the name of the Fund from
PIMCO Total Return Exchange-Traded Fund to PIMCO Total Return Active
Exchange-Traded Fund on October 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Registration Statement and the Prior Release,
Shares of the Fund that trade in the secondary market are created at
net asset value (``NAV'') by Authorized Participants only in block-size
Creation Units of 100,000 Shares or multiples thereof.
    The Exchange proposes to reflect a change in the size of a Creation
Unit from 100,000 Shares to at least 50,000 Shares.\8\ The size of a
Creation Unit will be subject to change. The Exchange believes that the
change to the size of a Creation Unit will not adversely impact
investors or Exchange trading. A reduction in the size of a Creation
Unit may provide potential benefits to investors by facilitating
additional creation and redemption activity in the Shares, thereby
potentially resulting in increased secondary market trading activity,
tighter bid/ask spreads and narrower premiums or discounts to NAV.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The change to size of a Creation Unit will be effective upon
filing with the Commission of an amendment to the Trust's
Registration Statement on Form N-1A, and shareholders will be
notified of such change by means of such amendment.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the Commission has approved the
listing and trading of other issues of Managed Fund Shares that have
applied a minimum Creation Unit size of 50,000 shares or greater.
See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65458 (September 30,
2011), 76 FR 62112 (October 6, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-54) (order
approving listing and trading of WisdomTree Dreyfus Australia and
New Zealand Debt Fund); 66112 (January 5, 2012), 77 FR 1761 (January
11, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-80) (order approving listing and trading
of Rockledge SectorSAM ETF).

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

    The Adviser represents that the proposed change to reduce the size
of a Creation Unit, as described above, is consistent with the Fund's
investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve
such investment objective. Except for the change noted above, all other
representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged.\10\ The
Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing
requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Adviser
represents that the investment objective of the Fund is not changing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 4, supra. All terms referenced but not defined
herein are defined in the Prior Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \11\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes that the change to the size of a
Creation Unit to at least 50,000 Shares will not adversely impact
investors or Exchange trading. In addition, a reduction in the size of
a Creation Unit may provide potential benefits to investors by
facilitating additional creation and redemption activity in the Shares,
thereby potentially resulting in increased secondary market trading
activity, tighter bid/ask spreads and narrower premiums or discounts to
NAV.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change, because of the potential increase in secondary
market trading activity that may result from a decrease in the Creation
Unit size for Shares of the Fund, will enhance competition among issues
of exchange-traded funds that invest in fixed income securities.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-Arca-2015-63 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-63. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
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-NYSEArca-2015-
63, and should be submitted on or before August 12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17890 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 149 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46744-46746]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16712]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-5552/File No. 803-00250]

Blackstone Alternative Investment Funds; Blackstone Alternative
Investment Advisors LLC

July 28, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'').

Applicants:  Blackstone Alternative Investment Funds (the ``Trust'')
and Blackstone Alternative Investment Advisors LLC (``BAIA'' or the
``Adviser'') (together, the ``Applicants'').

Relevant Advisers Act Sections:  Exemption requested under Section 206A
of the Advisers Act for an exemption from Section 205 of the Advisers
Act and rule 205-1 thereunder.

Summary of Application:  Applicants request that the Commission issue
an order permitting the Adviser to enter into or amend an investment
sub-advisory agreement (each, a ``Sub-Advisory Agreement'' and
collectively, the ``Sub-Advisory Agreements'') with a sub-adviser
(each, a ``Sub-Adviser'') under which the Sub-Adviser would receive an
investment sub-advisory fee from the Adviser where such fee would (i)
be calculated based on the performance of the portion of a Fund's (as
defined below) assets allocated to the Sub-Adviser (an ``Allocated
Portion'') measured by the change in the Allocated Portion's gross
asset value, rather than the change in net asset value of the Allocated
Portion and (ii) apply only to the Allocated Portion and not to a Fund
as a whole.

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on June 24, 2019, and amended
and restated on April 28, 2020 and July 21, 2020.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving Applicants with copies of the
request by email. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission
by 5:30 p.m. on August 24, 2020, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Advisers Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request
notification of a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants:
Blackstone Alternative Investment Advisors LLC,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and 234846554a4d0d4e4a404b464f63414f42404850574c4d460d404c4e; Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Loomis Moore, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6721, or Parisa Haghshenas, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is
registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment
company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act''). The
Trust currently consists of one Fund, Blackstone Alternative Multi-
Strategy Fund, which operates under a multi-manager structure and is
offered and sold pursuant to a registration statement on Form N-1A.
Applicants request that the relief apply to Applicants, as well as to
any existing or future series of the Trust, and any other existing or
future registered management investment company or series thereof that
intends to rely on the requested order in the future and that is
managed by the

Adviser \1\ (each, a ``Fund,'' and collectively, the ``Funds'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``Adviser'' includes (i) the Adviser or its
successors and (ii) any entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with, the Adviser or its successors. For the purposes
of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity
resulting from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a
change in the type of business organization.
    \2\ All registered investment companies that currently intend to
rely on the requested order are named as applicants. All Funds that
currently intend to rely on the requested order are identified in
the application. Any entity that relies on the requested order will
do so only in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in
the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. BAIA is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware and is registered with the Commission as an
investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Adviser is an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Blackstone Group Inc. BAIA serves, and
each other Adviser will serve, as the investment adviser to each Fund
pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust
(``Investment Management Agreement''). Pursuant to the terms of the
Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser, subject to the
supervision of the board of trustees of the Trust (``Board''), provides
investment management services to the Fund. The Investment Management
Agreement provides that the Adviser may, subject to the approval of the
Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members,\3\ and
the shareholders of the applicable Fund (if required), delegate
portfolio management responsibilities of all or a portion of the assets
of a Fund to one or more Sub-Advisers.\4\ Any future Adviser will be
registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the
Advisers Act. Future Advisers will comply with the terms of any order
issued by the Commission in connection with the application or
subsequent relief or rules, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Independent Board Members'' means those board
members who are not ``interested persons'' of the Fund or the
Adviser, as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act. A Fund
would not seek shareholder approval of the Sub-Advisory Agreement
because the Applicants currently rely on a multi-manager exemptive
order to enter into and materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements
without obtaining shareholder approval. See Blackstone Alternative
Investment Funds, et al., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 32481
(Feb. 16, 2017) (notice) and 32530 (Mar. 13, 2017) (order). In the
future, the Adviser, a Sub-Adviser and a Fund may rely on an amended
version of this multi-manager exemptive order or substantially
similar relief.
    \4\ The term ``Sub-Adviser'' also applies to any Sub-Adviser to
any wholly-owned subsidiary, as defined in the 1940 Act, of a Fund
(each, a ``Subsidiary'' and collectively, the ``Subsidiaries''). The
Adviser will serve as investment adviser to each Subsidiary and may
retain one or more Sub-Advisers to manage or provide investment
recommendation(s) with respect to the assets of a Subsidiary.
Applicants also request relief with respect to any Sub-Advisers who
serve as Sub-Advisers to a Subsidiary. Where appropriate,
Subsidiaries are also included in the term ``Fund.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Pursuant to the authority under an Investment Management
Agreement, the Adviser may enter into Sub-Advisory Agreements with
various Sub-Advisers on behalf of a Fund. The Adviser will negotiate
and renegotiate the terms of the Sub-Advisory Agreements with the Sub-
Advisers, including the fees paid to the Sub-Advisers, and will make
recommendations to the Board as needed.
    4. Each Sub-Adviser is or will be responsible for the discretionary
management of, or for providing non-discretionary advice with respect
to, its Allocated Portion of a Fund's assets on a day-to-day basis. In
doing so, the Sub-Advisers act for all practical purposes as though
each were advising a separate investment company. For example, each
Sub-Adviser receives position-level portfolio information for its
Allocated Portion, not for the Fund as a whole, on a daily basis and is
responsible for compliance monitoring only with respect to the
guidelines of its Allocated Portion. In addition, each Sub-Adviser is
responsible for preparing information for the Adviser and the Board
only with respect to its Allocated Portion. Each Sub-Adviser will be an
``investment adviser'' to the Fund within the meaning of Section
2(a)(20) of the 1940 Act and will provide investment management
services to its Allocated Portion of a Fund.\5\ Each Sub-Adviser
receives separate compensation for its portfolio management services
directly from the Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Each Sub-Adviser and any future Sub-Adviser would be
registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the
Advisers Act or not subject to such registration. Each Sub-Adviser
and any future Sub-Adviser will comply with the terms and conditions
contained in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants represent that (i) neither the Sub-Adviser nor any of
its affiliates will have sponsored or organized the Trust or will serve
as a distributor or principal underwriter of the Trust; (ii) neither
the Sub-Adviser nor any of its affiliates will own any shares issued by
the Trust; (iii) no officer, director or employee of the Sub-Adviser,
nor of its affiliates, will serve as an executive officer or trustee of
the Trust; and (iv) neither the Sub-Adviser nor any of its affiliates
will be an affiliated person of the Adviser or any other person who
provides investment advice with respect to the Trust's advisory
relationships (except to the extent that such affiliation may exist by
reason of the Sub-Adviser or any of its affiliates serving as
investment adviser to the Fund). Services provided by the Sub-Advisers
are limited to investment selection, placement of transactions for
execution and certain compliance functions directly related to such
services.
    6. The terms of each Sub-Advisory Agreement or amendment thereto
(the ``Performance Fee Terms'') will be approved by the Board,
including a majority of the Independent Board Members. The Performance
Fee Terms contemplate a fee arrangement, commonly referred to as a
``fulcrum fee'' (the ``Proposed Fulcrum Fee'') designed to reward a
Sub-Adviser for performance of the Allocated Portion that exceeds the
total return of an index plus an additional hurdle rate and to reduce
the Sub-Adviser's compensation with respect to periods during which
lesser performance is achieved.\6\ Since the Proposed Fulcrum Fee would
be paid by the Adviser to a Sub-Adviser, there would be no increase in
advisory fee rates charged to a Fund and its shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Each Sub-Adviser manages a sub-strategy of a Fund. As a
result, different Sub-Advisers will manage their Allocated Portion
to seek to exceed the performance of different indices, which can
and will differ from a Fund's benchmark index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Proposed Fulcrum Fee has two separate components: a base fee
calculated as a percentage of the average daily net assets of the
Allocated Portion (``Base Fee'') and a performance component adjustment
to the Base Fee (``Performance Component''). The Performance Component
would be based on a percentage of the difference between (i) the total
return of the Allocated Portion during the preceding specified period
calculated without regard to the expenses incurred in the operation of
the Allocated Portion, including the management fees, distribution and/
or service fees and certain other operating expenses, even if
attributable to the Allocated Portion (``Gross Total Return''), and
(ii) the total return of an index during the same specified period plus
a performance hurdle. Both the percentage on which the Performance
Component is based and the specified period may vary among Sub-
Advisers.
    8. None of the costs and expenses of the Fund that apply generally
across the Fund's portfolio would be deducted from the Gross Total
Return of the Allocated Portion. Gross Total Return would, however,
reflect the effect (i.e., reducing performance) of all applicable
brokerage and transaction costs directly attributable to the Allocated
Portion.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act generally prohibits an
investment

adviser from entering into any investment advisory agreement that
provides for compensation to the adviser on the basis of a share of
capital gains or capital appreciation of a client's account.
    2. Section 205(b) of the Advisers Act provides a limited exception
to this prohibition, permitting an adviser to charge a registered
investment company and certain other persons a fee that is based on
asset value of the company or fund under management averaged over a
specified period and increases and decreases ``proportionately with the
investment performance of the company or fund over a specified period
in relation to the investment record of an appropriate index of
securities prices or such other measure of investment performance as
the Commission by rule, regulation or order may specify.''
    3. Rule 205-1 under the Advisers Act requires that the investment
performance of an investment company be computed based on the change in
the net (of all expenses and fees) asset value per share of the
investment company.
    4. Applicants request exemptive relief from Section 205 of the
Advisers Act and rule 205-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to
permit the Adviser to enter into and amend Sub-Advisory Agreements to
provide for the payment by the Adviser to a Sub-Adviser of performance-
based compensation under which the Sub-Adviser's fee would (i) be
calculated based on the performance of the Allocated Portion measured
by the change in the Allocated Portion's gross asset value, rather than
the change in net asset value of the Allocated Portion, and (ii) apply
only to the Allocated Portion and not to the Fund as a whole.
    5. Applicants state that Congress, in adopting and amending Section
205 of the Advisers Act, and the SEC, in adopting rule 205-1, put into
place safeguards designed to ensure that investment advisers would not
take advantage of advisory clients.
    6. Applicants assert that the Commission required that performance
fees be calculated based on the net asset value of the investment
company's shares to prevent a situation where an adviser could earn a
performance fee even though investment company shareholders did not
derive any benefit from the adviser's performance after the deduction
of fees and expenses.
    7. Applicants state that the Proposed Fulcrum Fee would be fair to
each Fund and its shareholders because the fee will be paid by the
Adviser and not borne by shareholders as an expense of the Fund out of
the assets of the Fund. In addition, the fee formula will include a
performance hurdle that the Sub-Adviser must meet before earning the
Performance Component of the Proposed Fulcrum Fee. In the event the
Base Fee changes, the performance hurdle also would be changed to the
extent necessary to be at least equal to the Base Fee. Further, the
Sub-Adviser would not earn any performance-based fee until a Fund has
derived the benefit of the Allocated Portion's performance.
    8. Applicants suggest that Congress' concern, in enacting the
safeguards of Section 205, came about because the vast majority of
investment advisers exercised a high level of control over the
structuring of the advisory relationship. Applicants state that the
Proposed Fulcrum Fee will be the result of arm's length negotiations
between a Sub-Adviser and the Adviser and the Board will approval each
Proposed Fulcrum Fee. Applicants state that the Sub-Adviser has no
influence over the overall management of the Trust or the Fund beyond
the investment selection process for its Allocated Portion. Management
functions of the Trust and the Fund reside in the Board and the
Adviser. The Proposed Fulcrum Fee will be paid by the Adviser to the
Sub-Adviser and its imposition will not increase advisory fees payable
by the Fund. The Proposed Fulcrum Fee requires the performance of the
Allocated Portion to both match the index and exceed a performance
hurdle before the Sub-Adviser is entitled to receive any performance-
based component of its fee. Applicants represent that the Trust itself,
acting through its Board and its officers, is directly and fully
responsible for supervising the Trust's service providers (including
the Sub-Advisers) and monitoring the operating expenses of each of the
Funds. In addition, for those Funds, including Blackstone Alternative
Multi-Strategy Fund, which are served by more than one Sub-Adviser, the
Adviser is responsible for allocating the assets of the Fund among such
Sub-Advisers. Finally, the Board, at the Adviser's recommendation, is
responsible for any decision to hire or fire any Sub-Adviser.
    9. Applicants state that the Adviser was and is on equal footing
with the Sub-Adviser with respect to the negotiation of the Proposed
Fulcrum Fee. Moreover, the Sub-Adviser will receive its sub-advisory
fee from the Adviser and not from a Fund, meaning that the requested
relief would not cause the advisory fee rates charged to a Fund to
increase. Applicants argue that as a result, a Fund does not need the
protections afforded by calculating the Proposed Fulcrum Fee based on
net assets. Applicants submit that the Proposed Fulcrum Fee is
therefore consistent with the underlying policies of Section 205 and
rule 205-1 under the Advisers Act and that the exemption would be
consistent with the protection of investors.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Management fees charged to a Fund will not increase as a result
of calculating the investment sub-advisory fee based on Gross Total
Return.
    2. The adoption of the Proposed Fulcrum Fee will not cause the
Adviser or a Sub-Adviser to reduce or modify in any way the nature and
level of its services with respect to a Fund.
    3. The investment sub-advisory fee will be negotiated between the
Sub-Adviser and the Adviser.
    4. The fee structure will contain a hurdle that is no lower than
the Base Fee and, should the Base Fee change, the hurdle will also be
changed to the extent necessary to be at least equal to the Base Fee.
The fee structure will ensure that the investment sub-advisory fee
continues to have the potential to increase and decrease
proportionally.
    5. Applicants will comply with all other provisions of Section 205
and rules 205-1 and 205-2 under the Advisers Act with respect to the
Proposed Fulcrum Fee arrangement between the Adviser and a Sub-Adviser
and to future arrangements.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16712 Filed 7-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 20205]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Proposed Change of
Airport Property Land Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use at
Tulsa International Airport, Tulsa, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the Tulsa Airport
Improvement Trust to change approximately 241.72 acres, located on the
east side of the airport bordered by North Mingo Road, 46th Street and
Mingo Valley Expressway, from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use
and to authorize the conversion of the airport property.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Glenn Boles, Federal
Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports District Office
Manager, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Email:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Alexis Higgins, Chief Executive
Officer of Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, 7777 East Apache, Suite
A217, Tulsa, OK 74115, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mr. Glenn Boles,
Federal Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports District
Office Manager, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone
(817) 222-5639. Email: [email protected].
    Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above
locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal consists of three parcels of
land that were originally acquired under the following Federal grants:
Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) No. 6-40-0099-015 in 1978 and
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) No. 3-40-0099-073-2009 in 2009.
    The land comprising these parcels is outside the forecasted need
for aviation development and is not needed for indirect or direct
aeronautical use. The Airport wishes to develop this land for
compatible non-aeronautical use. The Airport will retain ownership of
this land and ensure the protection of part 77 surfaces and compatible
land use. The income from the conversion of these parcels will benefit
the aviation community by reinvestment in the airport.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the conversion of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The
disposition of proceeds from the conversion of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999. In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United
States Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal
Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires
the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX.
D. Cameron Bryan,
Acting Director, Airports Division, FAA, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-06997 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P