[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8410-8416]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02692]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0311; FRL-9374-9]

Thiacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
thiacloprid in or on pepper; cherry subgroup 12-12A; peach subgroup 12-
12B; and plum subgroup 12-12C. Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested the stone fruit tolerance and Bayer CropScience
requested the pepper tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 6, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 8, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0311, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0311 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 8, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0311, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32463) (FRL-8827-5),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions by IR-4, 681
US Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 (PP0E7704) and
Bayer CropScience LLC, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709 (PP0F7706). The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.594 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
thiacloprid ([3-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-2-
thiazolidinylidene]cyanamide), in or on fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.5
parts per million (ppm) (PP0E7704) and pepper (bell and non-bell) at
1.1 ppm (PP0F7706). Bayer, in its petition (PP0F7706) also proposed to
amend 40 CFR 180.594 for residues of thiacloprid by revising the
tolerance expression under paragraph (a) to read: Tolerances are
established for residues of thiacloprid, including its metabolites and
degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be
determined by measuring only thiacloprid ([3-[(6-chloro-3-
pyridinyl)methyl]-2-thiazolidinylidene] cyanamide). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which the tolerances are being established as
well as some of the nomenclature. The reason for these changes is
explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for thiacloprid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with thiacloprid follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    In mammalian systems, the liver appears to be the primary target
organ of thiacloprid with some relatively minor effects in the thyroid.
Liver effects (enzyme changes, hypertrophy, and histopathology) were
noted in the 90-day dog, 2-generation reproduction, 2-year rat, 2-year
mouse, and subchronic dermal and inhalation studies. Thyroid effects
(hormone levels, weights, follicular cell hypertrophy) were noted in
dog, rat, and mouse studies. Increased prostate weight and prostatic
hypertrophy were observed in the 90-day dog study, but not in the 1-
year dog study. Clinical signs were also noted in dermal (reduced
motility, decreased activity, and spastic gait) and 5-day inhalation
studies (respiratory effects, signs of ill health, piloerection,
reduced mobility, tremors, and increased grip strength).
    There was no increase in either qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility of fetal animals or pups in the rabbit developmental or
the 2-generation rat reproduction studies. In the rabbit developmental
study, decreased fetal weights were observed in the presence of
maternal toxicity (body weight changes and decreased food consumption
and fecal output). In the reproduction study in rats, decreased body
weights were seen in pups at the same dose which resulted in thyroid
and liver effects in maternal animals.
    In the rat developmental toxicity study, there was evidence of
increased qualitative susceptibility. Increased resorptions; skeletal
retardations and variations; dysplastic humerus, radius and scapulae;
and decreased fetal weights were seen in fetuses at the same dose
resulting in less severe maternal effects (decreased body weight, body
weight gain and food consumption, increased urination, and changes in
water consumption). In the developmental neurotoxicity study, increased
qualitative susceptibility was also seen: Decreased body weights in
both sexes as well as altered performance in passive avoidance testing
were seen in offspring animals, while deceased body weight gain and
food consumption were seen in maternal animals. However, there is a low
degree of concern and no residual uncertainties for the increase in
qualitative susceptibility since there are well-characterized dose
responses with clear NOAELs and LOAELs in the studies. Additionally,
the endpoints and PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of
potential developmental effects.
    Thiacloprid affects nerve function through inhibition of nicotinic
acetylcholine receptors. In the neurotoxicity studies in rats, there
was a reduction in motor and locomotor activity, slight tremors and
ptosis of the eyelids, decreased hind limb grip strength, altered
performance in passive avoidance testing, and altered brain
morphometrics. Increased grip strength was also noted in a 5-day
inhalation toxicity study. There were no indications of neurotoxicity
in the remainder of the submitted toxicity studies.
    A battery of genetic toxicity tests did not indicate a mutagenicity
or clastogenicity concern. Thiacloprid is classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on increased uterine tumors in rats,
thyroid follicular adenomas in rat and ovarian tumors in mice. A cancer
slope factor of 4.06 x 10-2 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/
day)-1 was calculated based on the incidence of combined
uterine tumors in female rats.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by thiacloprid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov on pages 29-34 of the document titled
``Thiacloprid--Human Health Risk Assessment of New Uses on Stone Fruit
and Peppers'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0311.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for thiacloprid used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

   Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Thiacloprid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of departure and
         Exposure/scenario             uncertainty/safety    RfD, PAD, LOC for risk    Study and toxicological
                                             factors               assessment                  effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All Populations)....  NOAEL = 4.4 mg/kg/day.  Acute RfD = 0.044 mg/   Co-Critical Studies
                                     UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 Developmental
                                     UFH = 10x.............  aPAD = 0.044 mg/kg/day   Neurotoxicity Study--rat
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           LOAEL = 25.6 mg/kg bw
                                                                                based on offspring effects
                                                                                of altered performance in
                                                                                passive avoidance testing.
                                                                                Acute Neurotoxicity Study--
                                                                                rat LOAEL = 22 mg/kg bw
                                                                                based on a reduction of
                                                                                motor and locomotor
                                                                                activity in females (NOAEL
                                                                                = 3.1 mg/kg bw).
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL = 1.2 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.012 mg/ Chronic/Carcinogenicity
                                     UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 Study--rat LOAEL = 2.5/3.3
                                     UFH = 10x.............  cPAD = 0.012 mg/kg/day   (M/F) mg/kg bw based on
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           liver hypertrophy and
                                                                                cytoplasmic changes as
                                                                                well as induction of
                                                                                enzymes, thyroid
                                                                                epithelial hypertrophy in
                                                                                males and retinal
                                                                                degeneration in females.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)..    ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on thyroid tumors in male
                                         rats, uterine tumors in rats and ovarian tumors in mice. Cancer slope
                                                           factor = 4.06x10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. mg/kg/day =
  milligrams/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute,
  c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
  (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to thiacloprid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing thiacloprid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.594. EPA assessed dietary exposures from thiacloprid in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1 day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for thiacloprid. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This
dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. The acute assessment
was based on tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) assumptions.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA. This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. The chronic
assessment was based on tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT
assumptions.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
If quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, cancer risk may
be quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient
information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a
threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated
based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action
data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a
mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach
is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that thiacloprid should be classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' and a linear approach has been used to
quantify cancer risk.
    The cancer analysis is partially refined, using average residue
field trial data, and estimated PCT data for existing and proposed new
uses as appropriate.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition A: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition B: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition C: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    In the cancer risk assessment, the Agency estimated the PCT for
existing uses as follows: Apples, 10%; pears, 5%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National
Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market
surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop
combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for
chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing

use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to
the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is
less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5%
is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary
risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum
value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and
private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5%.
    In the cancer risk assessment, the Agency estimated the PCT for new
uses as follows: Peaches, 43%; peppers, 45%.
    EPA estimates of the PCT for new uses of thiacloprid represent the
upper bound of use expected during the pesticide's initial 5 years of
registration; that is, PCT for new uses for thiacloprid is a threshold
of use that EPA is reasonably certain will not be exceeded for each
registered use site. The PCT for new uses recommended for use in the
chronic dietary assessment is calculated as the average PCT of the
market leader or leaders, (i.e., the one(s) with the greatest PCT) on
that site over the three most recent years of available data. The PCT
for new uses recommended for use in the acute dietary assessment is the
maximum observed PCT over the same period. Comparisons are only made
among pesticides of the same pesticide types (e.g., the market leader
for insecticides on the use site is selected for comparison with a new
insecticide). The market leader included in the estimation may not be
the same for each year since different pesticides may dominate at
different times.
    Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source data because it is
publicly available and directly reports values for PCT. When a specific
use site is not reported by USDA/NASS, EPA uses proprietary data and
calculates the PCT given reported data on acres treated and acres
grown. If no data are available, EPA may extrapolate PCT for new uses
from other crops, if the production area and pest spectrum are
substantially similar.
    A retrospective analysis to validate this approach shows few cases
where the PCT for the market leaders were exceeded. Further review of
these cases identified factors contributing to the exceptionally high
use of a new pesticide. To evaluate whether the PCT for new uses for
thiacloprid could be exceeded, EPA considered whether there may be
unusually high pest pressure, as indicated in emergency exemption
requests for thiacloprid; the pest spectrum of the new pesticide in
comparison with the market leaders and whether the market leaders are
well established for that use; and whether pest resistance issues with
past market leaders provide thiacloprid with significant market
potential. Given currently available information, EPA concludes that it
is unlikely that actual PCT for thiacloprid will exceed the estimated
PCT for new uses during the next 5 years.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition A, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions B and C, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which thiacloprid may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for thiacloprid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of thiacloprid. The drinking water estimates were also
refined to account for both percent cropped area and for the impact of
drinking water treatment processes. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
thiacloprid for acute exposures are estimated to be 18 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.25 ppb for ground water, for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 2.3
ppb for surface water and 0.25 ppb for ground water, and for chronic
exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 1.2 ppb for
surface water and <0.25 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 18 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 2.3 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the cancer dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 1.2 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Thiacloprid is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found thiacloprid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and thiacloprid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
thiacloprid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity

and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no increase in
either qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of fetal animals or
pups in the rabbit developmental or the 2-generation rat reproduction
studies. In the rabbit developmental study, decreased fetal weights
were observed in the presence of maternal toxicity (body weight changes
and decreased food consumption and fecal output). In the reproduction
study in rats, decreased body weights were seen in pups at the same
dose which resulted in thyroid and liver effects in maternal animals.
    In the rat developmental study, there was an increase in
qualitative susceptibility based on an increase in resorptions,
skeletal retardations and variations, dysplastic humerus, radius and
scapulae, as well as decreased fetal weights at the same dose (50 mg/
kg/day) at which less severe maternal effects were noted (decreased
body weight, body weight gain and food consumption, in addition to
increased urination and changes in water consumption). In the
developmental neurotoxicity study, increased qualitative susceptibility
was also seen. Decreased body weights in both sexes as well as altered
performance in passive avoidance testing were seen in offspring
animals, while decreased body weight gain and food consumption were
seen in maternal animals. However, there is a low degree of concern and
no residual uncertainties for the increase in qualitative
susceptibility since there is a well-characterized dose response with
clear NOAELs and LOAELs in the studies. Additionally, the endpoints and
PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of potential
developmental effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicology database concerning infants and children is
considered to be complete with the exception of an immunotoxicity
study. Submitted studies included: Developmental rat and rabbit, 2-
generation reproduction in rats as well as acute, subchronic and
developmental neurotoxicity in rats. Although an immunotoxicity study
has not been received by the Agency, there is relatively little concern
as it does not appear that thiacloprid directly targets the immune
system based on available studies. Although there were increases in the
incidence and severity of mesenteric and mandibular lymph node
vacuolization in a cancer study in mice, the effects were seen at very
high doses following long-term treatment. Additionally, thiacloprid
does not belong to a class of chemicals (e.g., the organotins, heavy
metals, halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be
immunotoxic. Furthermore, there were no indications of immunotoxicity
in other studies in the toxicology database. The Agency does not
believe that conducting the study will result in a lower POD than that
currently used for overall risk assessment; therefore, a database
uncertainty factor (UFDB) is not needed to account for the
lack of the study.
    ii. Acute, subchronic and developmental neurotoxicity studies in
rats are available for thiacloprid. In the acute study, there were
reductions in motor and locomotor activities in females and slight
tremors and ptosis of the eyelids in males. In the subchronic
neurotoxicity study, decreased hind limb grip strength was seen in
males. Increased grip strength was noted in a 5-day inhalation toxicity
study. In the developmental neurotoxicity study, altered performance in
passive avoidance testing and a 4% decrease in the size of the corpus
striatum region of the brain were seen in offspring animals at the
highest dose tested (HDT). No data were received by the Agency
regarding the mid- and low-dose brain measurements. However, the lack
of a NOAEL for brain morphometric measurements in this study does not
warrant an additional uncertainty factor since the decrease in weight
at the high dose is considered marginal and variable, and a lower dose
would most likely result in less of an effect (the HDT was 10x greater
than the lowest dose tested), and the endpoints and PODs selected for
risk assessment are protective of the slight morphometric changes
observed at the high dose. Even if a 10x factor is applied to the dose
where the slight morphometric changes were seen in the developmental
neurotoxicity study, the result would be a POD comparable to those
currently selected for risk assessment. Therefore, the PODs currently
selected are protective of any potential effects. There were no
indications of neurotoxicity in the remainder of the submitted toxicity
studies.
    iii. As noted in Unit III.D.2., although there was an increase in
qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study and
developmental neurotoxicity study, there is a low degree of concern and
no residual uncertainties for the increase in qualitative
susceptibility since there is a well-characterized dose response with
clear NOAELs and LOAELs.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute and chronic dietary food exposure assessments were
performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The cancer
assessment used PCT and anticipated residues for new and registered
uses. This is based on reliable data and will not underestimate the
exposure and risk. The drinking water residues used in this assessment
were partially refined to account for PCT area and drinking water
treatment processes. However, these drinking water estimates are still
considered to be conservative and upper-bound. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiacloprid.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to thiacloprid will occupy 19% of the aPAD for infants less than 1 year
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
thiacloprid from food and water will utilize 26% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for thiacloprid.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water

(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified;
however, thiacloprid is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure.
Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the
POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for thiacloprid.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for cancer, EPA has concluded that
the cancer risk estimate from exposure to thiacloprid through food and
water for the U.S. population is 2x10 -6, which is below the
Agency's level of concern.
    EPA generally considers cancer risks in the range of 10
-6 or less to be negligible. The precision which can be
assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding to the
nearest integral order of magnitude on the log scale; for example,
risks falling between 3 x 10-7 and 3 x 10 -6 are
expressed as risks in the range of 10 -6. Considering the
precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated, the
conservativeness of low-dose linear extrapolation, and the rounding
procedure described above, cancer risk should generally not be assumed
to exceed the benchmark level of concern of the range of 10
-6 until the calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 x 10
-6. This is particularly the case where some conservatism is
maintained in the exposure assessment. Here, substantial conservatism
is incorporated by the use of food residue values from field trial
studies using maximum application procedures and upper-bound modeled
drinking water residues in the exposure assessment. Accordingly, EPA
has concluded the cancer risk for all existing thiacloprid uses and the
uses associated with the tolerances established in this action fall
within the range of 1 x 10 -6 and are thus negligible.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to thiacloprid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometer/mass spectrometer (HPLC-MS/MS)) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for thiacloprid in or on sweet
peppers (including pimento or pimiento) at 1 ppm and stone fruit, crop
group 12 at 0.5 ppm. These MRLs are the same as the tolerances being
established for thiacloprid in the United States on these crops.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The Agency has modified the level at which the tolerance is being
established for pepper from the proposed level of 1.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm in
order to harmonize with the Codex MRL.
    EPA has also revised the request for a tolerance for thiacloprid on
the stone fruit group 12. Subsequent to the filing of the petition
requesting a stone fruit group 12 tolerance, EPA issued a final rule
that revised the crop grouping regulations (77 FR 50617, August 22,
2012) (FRL-9354-3). As part of this action, EPA expanded and revised
the existing stone fruit group 12. Changes to crop group 12 included
adding the following commodities: Japanese apricot, capulin, black
cherry, nanking cherry, Chinese jujube, American plum, beach plum,
Canada plum, cherry plum, Klamath plum, and sloe; creating new
subgroups (the cherry subgroup 12-12A, the peach subgroup 12-12B, and
the plum subgroup 12-12C); and naming the new crop group ``Crop Group
12-12: Stone Fruit Group.'' EPA indicated in the August 22, 2012 final
rule as well as the earlier November 9, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR
69693) (FRL-8887-8) that, for existing petitions for which a notice of
filing had been published, the Agency would attempt to conform these
petitions to the rule. Therefore, consistent with this rule, and upon
review of the petition, the Agency concluded that it was appropriate to
establish tolerances for the cherry subgroup 12-12A and the peach
subgroup 12-12B at 0.5 ppm, and the plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.05 ppm. A
single tolerance for the entire stone fruit group 12-12 could not be
established due to the significantly different residue levels in the
trials with plums as compared to the other representative commodities
in the stone fruit crop group and thus tolerances were established for
each of the three separate subgroups.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide thiacloprid, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on pepper at 1.0 ppm; cherry subgroup 12-12A at 0.5 ppm; peach
subgroup 12-12B at 0.5 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.05 ppm.
Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring
only thiacloprid, (Z)-[3-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-2-
thiazolidinylidene]cyanamide.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections

subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 29, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.594, in paragraph (a) revise the introductory text and
add alphabetically the following commodities to the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.594  Thiacloprid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide thiacloprid, including its metabolites and degradates in or
on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only thiacloprid ([3-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-2-
thiazolidinylidene] cyanamide) in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Cherry subgroup 12-12A..................................            0.5

                                * * * * *
Peach subgroup 12-12B...................................            0.5
Pepper..................................................            1.0
Plum subgroup 12-12C....................................            0.05

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-02692 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 44339-44344]
[DOCID:fr04au06-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54231; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Trading of the Index-Linked
Securities of Barclays Bank PLC Linked to the Performance of the
GSCI[supreg] Total Return Index Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges

July 27, 2006.
    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 May 16, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange''),

through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities'' or ``Corporation''), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. On July 20, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice
and order to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons and is approving the proposal, as amended, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified certain aspects
of its proposal regarding trading rules and surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Through NYSE Arca Equities, the Exchange proposes to amend its
rules governing NYSE Arca, L.L.C. (also referred to as the ``NYSE Arca
Marketplace''), the equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities.
Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), the Exchange proposes to
trade pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') the Index-
Linked Securities (``Securities'') of Barclays Bank PLC (``Barclays''),
which are linked to the performance of the GSCI[supreg] Total Return
Index (``Index'').

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 Exchange 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 III below. The Exchange 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
    Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), the Exchange
proposes to trade pursuant to UTP the Securities of Barclays, which are
linked to the performance of the Index. Barclays intends to issue the
Securities under the name ``iPathSM Exchange-Traded Notes.''
A rule proposal for the original listing and trading of the Securities
was filed with the Commission by the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'') \4\ and approved by the Commission.\5\ In SR-NYSEArca-2006-
17, the Exchange proposed new Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6) to accommodate trading in the Securities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53658 (April 14,
2006), 71 FR 21064 (April 24, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-20) (the ``NYSE
Proposal'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53849 (May 22,
2006), 71 FR 30706 (May 30, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-20) (the ``NYSE
Order'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54189 (July 21,
2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) The Securities and the Index
(i) The Securities
    In August 2005, the Commission approved NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6), which provides general standards for the listing and trading
of ``Index-Linked Securities.'' \7\ Index-Linked Securities are
securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount
based on the performance of an underlying index or indexes. Such
securities may or may not provide for the repayment of the original
principal investment amount. As permitted in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6), the Exchange is submitting this rule proposal to the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to obtain
Commission approval to trade the Securities pursuant to UTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52204 (August 3,
2005), 70 FR 46559 (August 10, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A description of the Securities and the Index is set forth in the
NYSE Proposal.\8\ The Securities are a series of medium-term debt
securities of Barclays that provide for a cash payment at maturity or
upon earlier exchange at the holder's option, based on the performance
of the Index subject to the adjustments described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Securities will not have a minimum principal amount that will
be repaid and, accordingly, payment on the Securities prior to or at
maturity may be less than the original issue price of the Securities.
In fact, the value of the Index must increase for the investor to
receive at least the $50 principal amount per Security at maturity or
upon exchange or redemption. If the value of the Index decreases or
does not increase sufficiently to offset the investor fee,\9\ the
investor will receive less, and possibly significantly less, than the
$50 principal amount per Security. In addition, holders of the
Securities will not receive any interest payments from the Securities.
The Securities will have a term of 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The investor fee is equal to 0.75% per year times the
principal amount of a holder's Securities times the index factor,
calculated on a daily basis in the following manner. The investor
fee on the date of issuance of the Securities will equal zero. On
each subsequent calendar day until maturity or early redemption, the
investor fee will increase by an amount equal to 0.75% times the
principal amount of a holder's Securities times the index factor on
that day (or, if such day is not a trading day, the index factor on
the immediately preceding trading day) divided by 365. The investor
fee is the only fee holders will be charged in connection with their
ownership of the Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Holders who have not previously redeemed their Securities will
receive a cash payment at maturity equal to the principal amount of
their Securities times the index factor \10\ on the Final Valuation
Date \11\ minus the investor fee on the Final Valuation Date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The ``index factor'' on any given day will be equal to the
closing value of the Index on that day divided by the initial index
level. The index factor on the Final Valuation Date will be equal to
the final index level divided by the initial index level. The
``initial index level'' is the closing value of the Index on the
date of issuance of the Securities (the ``Trade Date'') and the
``final index level'' is the closing value of the Index on the Final
Valuation Date. Telephone conference between John Carey, Assistant
General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc., and Florence Harmon, Senior
Special Counsel, Division, Commission, on July 14, 2006.
    \11\ The ``Final Valuation Date'' is the last Thursday before
maturity of the Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to maturity, holders may, subject to certain
restrictions,\12\ redeem their Securities on any Redemption Date \13\
during the term of the Securities provided that they present at least
50,000 Securities for redemption, or they act through a broker or other
financial intermediaries (such as a bank or other financial institution
not required to register as a broker-dealer to engage in securities
transactions) that are willing to bundle their Securities for
redemption with other investors' Securities. If a holder chooses to
redeem such holder's Securities, the holder will receive a cash payment
on the applicable Redemption Date equal to the principal amount of such
holder's Securities times the index factor on the applicable Valuation
Date minus the investor fee on the applicable Valuation Date. To redeem
their Securities, holders must instruct their broker or other person
through whom they hold their Securities to follow certain

procedures as described in the NYSE Proposal.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Telephone conference between John Carey, Assistant General
Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc., and Florence Harmon, Senior Special
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation (``Division''), Commission,
on July 13, 2006.
    \13\ A ``Redemption Date'' is the third business day following a
Valuation Date (other than the Final Valuation Date). A ``Valuation
Date'' is each Thursday from the first Thursday after issuance of
the Securities until the last Thursday before the Final Valuation
Date inclusive (or, if such date is not a trading day, the next
succeeding trading day).
    \14\ If holders elect to redeem their Securities, Barclays may
request that Barclays Capital Inc. (a broker-dealer) purchase the
Securities for the cash amount that would otherwise have been
payable by Barclays upon redemption. In this case, Barclays will
remain obligated to redeem the Securities if Barclays Capital Inc.
fails to purchase the Securities. Any Securities purchased by
Barclays Capital Inc. may remain outstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an event of default occurs and the maturity of the Securities is
accelerated, Barclays will pay the default amount in respect of the
principal of the Securities at maturity. More information regarding
default procedures, including a quotation period and an objection
period, is set forth in the NYSE Proposal.
(ii) The Index
    The Index was established in May 1991 and is designed to be a
diversified benchmark for physical commodities as an asset class. The
Index reflects the excess returns that are potentially available
through an unleveraged investment in the contracts comprising the
GSCI[supreg] plus the Treasury Bill rate of interest that could be
earned on funds committed to the trading of the underlying
contracts.\15\ The value of the Index, on any given day, reflects: (i)
The price levels of the contracts included in the GSCI[supreg] (which
represents the value of the GSCI[supreg]; (ii) the ``contract daily
return,'' which is the percentage change in the total dollar weight of
the GSCI[supreg] from the previous day to the current day; and (iii)
the Treasury Bill rate of interest that could be earned on funds
committed to the trading of the underlying contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Treasury Bill rate of interest used for purposes of
calculating the index on any day is the 91-day auction high rate for
U.S. Treasury Bills, as reported on Telerate page 56, or any
successor page, on the most recent of the weekly auction dates prior
to such day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GSCI,[supreg] upon which the Index is based, is a proprietary
index on a production-weighted basket of futures contracts on physical
commodities traded on trading facilities in major industrialized
countries. The value of the GSCI[supreg] has been normalized such that
its hypothetical level on January 2, 1970 was 100. Futures contracts on
the GSCI[supreg], and options on such futures contracts, are currently
listed for trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. More information
regarding the operation, calculation methodology, weighting, and
historical performance of the Index is set forth in the NYSE Proposal.
(b) Dissemination and Availability of Information
(i) The Intraday Indicative Value
    According to the NYSE Proposal, an ``Intraday Indicative Value''
(or ``IIV'') meant to approximate the intrinsic economic value of the
Securities will be calculated and published via the facilities of the
Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') at least every 15 seconds from
9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET'') on each day on which the
Securities are traded on the NYSE.\16\ Additionally, Barclays or an
affiliate will calculate and publish the closing IIV of the Securities
on each trading day at http://www.ipathetn.com. In connection with the

Securities, the term ``IIV'' refers to the value at a given time
determined based on the following equation: IIV = Principal Amount per
Unit ($50) multiplied by (Current Index Level divided by Initial Index
Level) \17\ minus Current Investor Fee.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The IIV calculation will be provided for reference purposes
only.
    \17\ The Current Index Level is the most recent published level
of the Index as reported by the Index Sponsor, whereas the Initial
Index Level is the Index level on the initial trade date for the
Securities.
    \18\ The Current Investor Fee is the most recent daily
calculation of the investor fee with respect to the Securities,
determined as described above (which, during any trading day, will
be the investor fee determined on the preceding calendar day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IIV will not reflect price changes to the price of an
underlying commodity between the close of trading of the futures
contract at the relevant futures exchange and 4 p.m. ET. The value of
the Securities may accordingly be influenced by non-concurrent trading
hours between the Exchange and the various futures exchanges on which
the futures contracts based on the Index commodities are traded.
    While the market for futures trading for each of the Index
commodities is open, the IIV can be expected to closely approximate the
redemption value of the Securities. However, during NYSE Arca
Marketplace trading hours when the futures contracts have ceased
trading, spreads and resulting premiums or discounts may widen, and
therefore, increase the difference between the price of the Securities
and their redemption value. The IIV should not be viewed as a real-time
update of the redemption value.
(ii) The Index
    According to the NYSE Proposal, the Index Sponsor makes the
official calculations of the GSCI[supreg]. At present, this calculation
is performed continuously and is reported on Reuters page GSCI[supreg]
(or any successor or replacement page) and is updated on Reuters \19\
at least every 15 seconds \20\ during business hours on each day on
which the offices of the Index Sponsor in New York City are open for
business (a ``GSCI Business Day'').\21\ The settlement price for the
Index is also reported on Reuters page GSCI[supreg] (or any successor
or replacement page) on each GSCI Business Day between 4 p.m. and 6
p.m., New York time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The intraday information with respect to the Index reported
on Reuters is derived solely from trading prices on the principal
trading markets for the various Index components. For example, the
Index currently includes contracts traded on the Intercontinental
Exchange (formerly known as the International Petroleum Exchange,
which now operates its futures business through ICE Futures) and the
London Metal Exchange (``LME''), both of which are located in London
and consequently have trading days that end several hours before
those of the U.S.-based markets on which the rest of the Index
components are traded. During the portion of the New York trading
day when ICE Futures and LME are closed, the last reported prices
for Index Components traded on ICE Futures or LME are used to
calculate the intraday Index information disseminated on Reuters.
    \20\ Telephone conference between John Carey, Assistant General
Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc., and Florence Harmon, Senior Special
Counsel, Division, Commission, on July 27, 2006 (clarifying that the
Index value will be disseminated at least every 15 seconds, not
every 3 minutes, during the time the Securities trade on the
Exchange).
    \21\ NYSE, as the listing exchange, will not permit trading in
the Securities if certain information about the Index value is not
disseminated on, for example, a date that is not a GSCI Business
Day. In such event, NYSE Arca would not permit trading in the
Securities. See supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) UTP Trading Criteria
    The Exchange will cease trading in the Securities if: (1) The
listing market stops trading the Securities because of a regulatory
halt similar to a halt based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 or a halt
because the IIV or the value of the underlying Index is no longer
available on at least a 15-second delayed basis; or (2) the listing
market delists the Securities.\22\ In the event that the Exchange is
open for business on a day that is not a GSCI Business Day, the
Exchange will not permit trading of the Securities on that day.
Additionally, the Exchange may cease trading the Securities if such
other event shall occur or condition exists which, in the opinion of
the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ E-mail between Janet Kissane, Assistant General Counsel,
NYSE Group, Inc., and Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel,
Division, Commission, dated July 31, 2006 (clarifying that the
Securities will cease trading during all trading hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Trading Rules
    The Exchange deems the Securities to be equity securities, thus
rendering trading in the Securities subject to the Exchange's rules
governing the trading

of equity securities. Trading in the Securities on the NYSE Arca
Marketplace will occur from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET in accordance with NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a).\23\ The Exchange has appropriate rules to
facilitate transactions in the Securities during all trading sessions.
The minimum trading increment for Securities on the Exchange will be
$0.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ During all NYSE Arca Equities trading sessions, the
Exchange represents that if the official Index Sponsor calculates an
updated Index value, then such value will be updated and
disseminated at least every 15 seconds during such trading session,
and always will be so during the Exchange's core trading session
(although during this session, the Exchange may rely on the listing
exchange to monitor such calculation and dissemination). The
Exchange represents that the official Index Sponsor calculates and
disseminates the Index value from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. Because this
product is not in continuous distribution, an IIV is not required to
be disseminated at least every 15 seconds in all trading sessions;
however, because of the weekly redemption process for this product,
such dissemination of the IIV is required during the Exchange's core
trading session. The Exchange may rely on the listing market to
monitor such dissemination of the IIV during the Exchange's core
trading session. Telephone conference between John Carey, Assistant
General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc., and Florence Harmon, Senior
Special Counsel, Division, Commission, on July 12, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) sets
forth certain restrictions on ETP Holders acting as registered Market
Makers in the Securities to facilitate surveillance.\24\ Commentary
.01(b)-(c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) will require that the
ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Securities
provide the Exchange with necessary information relating to its trading
in the Index components, the commodities underlying the Index
components, or options, futures or options on futures on the Index, or
any other derivatives (collectively, ``derivative instruments'') based
on the Index or based on any Index component or any physical commodity
underlying an Index component. Commentary .01(d) to NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(6) will prohibit the ETP Holder acting as a registered
Market Maker in the Securities from using any material nonpublic
information received from any person associated with an ETP Holder or
employee of such person regarding trading by such person or employee in
the Index components, the commodities underlying the Index components,
or any derivative instruments based on the Index or based on any Index
component or any physical commodity underlying an Index component
(including the Securities). In addition, Commentary .01(a) to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) will prohibit the ETP Holder acting as a
registered Market Maker in the Securities from being affiliated with a
market maker in the Index components, the commodities underlying the
Index components, or any derivative instruments based on the Index or
based on any Index component or any physical commodity underlying an
Index component unless adequate information barriers are in place, as
provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54189 (July 21,
2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all
relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend
trading in the Securities. Trading in the Securities may be halted
because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the
Exchange, make trading in the Securities inadvisable. These may
include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the Index
components or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances
detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are
present. In addition, trading in Securities will be subject to trading
halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the
Exchange's ``circuit breaker'' rule \25\ or by the halt or suspension
of the trading of the Index components.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12.
    \26\ See ``UTP Trading Criteria'' above for specific instances
when the Exchange will cease trading the Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Securities will be deemed ``Eligible Listed Securities,'' as
defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.55, for purposes of the
Intermarket Trading System (``ITS'') Plan and therefore will be subject
to the trade through provisions of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.56, which
require that ETP Holders avoid initiating trade-throughs for ITS
securities.
(e) Surveillance
    The Exchange's surveillance procedures will incorporate and rely
upon existing Exchange surveillance procedures governing equities. The
Exchange believes that these procedures are adequate to monitor
Exchange trading of the Securities in all trading sessions and to
detect violations of Exchange rules, thereby deterring manipulation.
    The Exchange's current trading surveillance focuses on detecting
securities trading outside their normal patterns. When such situations
are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are
opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant
parties for all relevant trading violations.
    The Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the
Securities and the Index components through ETP Holders in connection
with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades which they affect
on any relevant market. In addition, with regard to the Index
components, the Exchange can obtain market surveillance information,
including customer identity information, with respect to transactions
occurring on the New York Mercantile Exchange (``NYMEX''), the Kansas
City Board of Trade, ICE Futures, and the LME, pursuant to its
comprehensive information sharing agreements with each of those
exchanges. All of the other trading venues on which current Index
components are traded are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''), and the Exchange therefore has access to all relevant
trading information with respect to those contracts without any further
action being required on the part of the Exchange.
(f) Information Bulletin
    Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its
ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics
and risks associated with trading the Securities. Specifically, the
Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for
redemptions of Securities (and that Securities are not individually
redeemable but are redeemable only in aggregations of at least 50,000
Securities); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a),\27\ which imposes a
duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts
relating to every customer prior to trading the Securities; (3) how
information regarding the IIV is disseminated; (4) the requirement that
ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued
Securities prior to or

concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (5) trading
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange recently amended NYSE Arca Equities Rule
9.2(a) (``Diligence as to Accounts'') to provide that ETP Holders,
before recommending a transaction, must have reasonable grounds to
believe that the recommendation is suitable for the customer based
on any facts disclosed by the customer as to his other security
holdings and as to his financial situation and needs. Further, the
proposed rule amendment provides that prior to the execution of a
transaction recommended to a non-institutional customer, the ETP
Holders should make reasonable efforts to obtain information
concerning the customer's financial status, tax status, investment
objectives and any other information that they believe would be
useful to make a recommendation. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 54045 (June 26, 2006), 71 FR 37971 (July 3, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-
115).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Information Bulletin will also reference the fact that there is
no regulated source of last sale information regarding physical
commodities, and that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the
trading of physical commodities such as aluminum, gold, crude oil,
heating oil, corn, and wheat, or the futures contracts on which the
value of the Securities is based.
    The Information Bulletin will also discuss terms of no-action or
exemptive relief by the Commission staff in connection with the
Securities under the Act.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements under Section
6(b)(5) \28\ 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 foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transaction in securities, to
remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent
with Rule 12f-5 under the Act \29\ because it deems the Securities to
be equity securities, thus rendering the Securities subject to the
Exchange's rules governing the trading of equity securities.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
    \30\ Telephone conference between John Carey, Assistant General
Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc., and Florence Harmon, Senior Special
Counsel, Division, Commission, on July 12, 2006 (the Exchange
requested that the Commission delete the word ``existing'' to
clarify that the Securities will be subject to all applicable
Exchange rules governing the trading of equity securities for the
Securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-NYSEArca-2006-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-19. 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. 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-2006-19 and should be submitted on or before
August 25, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\31\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\32\ which
requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 12(f) of the Act,\33\ which permits an exchange to trade,
pursuant to UTP, a security that is listed and registered on another
exchange.\34\ The Commission notes that it previously approved the
listing and trading of the Securities on the NYSE.\35\ The Commission
also finds that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the
Act,\36\ which provides that an exchange shall not extend UTP to a
security unless the exchange has in effect a rule or rules providing
for transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange
extends UTP. NYSE Arca Equities rules deem the Securities to be equity
securities, thus trading in the Securities will be subject to the
Exchange's rules governing the trading of equity securities and the
specific rules set forth herein for this product class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).
    \34\ Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78l(a), generally
prohibits a broker-dealer from trading a security on a national
securities exchange unless the security is registered on that
exchange pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(f) of the Act
excludes from this restriction trading in any security to which an
exchange ``extends UTP.'' When an exchange extends UTP to a
security, it allows its members to trade the security as if it were
listed and registered on the exchange even though it is not so
listed and registered.
    \35\ See NYSE Order, supra note 5.
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\37\ which sets forth
Congress's finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate
for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the portion of the proposed rule change regarding UTP
of the Securities, the Exchange has made the following representations:

    1. NYSE Arca Equities has appropriate rules to facilitate
transactions in this type of security in all trading sessions.
    2. NYSE Arca Equities surveillance procedures are adequate to
properly monitor the trading of the Securities on the Exchange.
    3. NYSE Arca Equities will distribute an Information Bulletin to
its members prior to the commencement of trading of the Securities on
the Exchange that explains the terms, characteristics, and risks of
trading such securities.
    4. NYSE Arca Equities will require a member with a customer who
purchases newly issued Securities on the Exchange to provide that
customer with a product prospectus and will note this prospectus
delivery requirement in the Information Bulletin.
    5. The Exchange will cease trading in the Securities if: (1) The
primary market stops trading the securities because of a regulatory
halt similar to a halt based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 and/or a
halt because the updated IIV or Index value are not disseminated at
least every 15 seconds; or (2) if such other event occurs or condition
exists which, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on
the Exchange inadvisable; or (3) the primary market delists the
Securities.
    This approval order is conditioned on NYSE Arca Equities' adherence
to these representations.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule
change, as amended, before the thirtieth day after the publication of
notice thereof in the Federal Register. As noted previously, the
Commission previously found that the listing and trading of these
Securities on the NYSE is consistent with the Act.\38\ The Commission
presently is not aware of any issue that would cause it to revisit that
earlier finding or preclude the trading of these funds on the Exchange
pursuant to UTP. Therefore, accelerating approval of this proposed rule
change should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay,
additional competition in the market for these Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See NYSE Order, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (NYSEArca-2006-19), as amended, is hereby
approved on an accelerated basis.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-12635 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 26406]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10628]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 6h-1; SEC File No. 270-497, OMB Control No. 3235-0555.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 6h-1 (17 CFR 240.6h-1)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 6(h) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(h)) requires national
securities exchanges and national securities associations that trade
security futures products to establish listing standards that, among
other things, require that: (i) Trading in such products not be readily
susceptible to price manipulation; and (ii) the market on which the
security futures product trades has in place procedures to coordinate
trading halts with the listing market for the security or securities
underlying the security futures product. Rule 6h-1 implements these
statutory requirements and requires that (1) the final settlement price
for each cash-settled security futures product fairly reflects the
opening price of the underlying security or securities, and (2) the
exchanges and associations trading security futures products halt
trading in any security futures product for as long as trading in the
underlying security, or trading in 50% of the underlying securities, is
halted on the listing market.
    It is estimated that approximately 1 respondent per year,
consisting of a designated contract market not already registered as a
national securities exchange under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act
that seeks to list or trade security futures products, will incur an
average burden of 10 hours per year to comply with this rule, for a
total burden of 10 hours. At an average cost per hour of approximately
$379, the resultant total internal cost of compliance for all
respondents is $3,790 per year (1 respondent x 10 hours/respondent x
$379/hour).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 1, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10628 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P