[Federal Register: October 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 58952-58954]
[DOCID:fr08oc08-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0837; FRL-8384-1]

Malathion; Notice of Receipt of Request to Amend to Terminate
Uses of Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of a request by the technical registrant to
voluntarily amend their registrations to terminate uses of certain
products containing the pesticide malathion. The request would
terminate malathion use in or on commercial storages/warehouses
premises (excluding stored grain facilities such as silos), commercial
transportation facilities - feed/food - empty, commercial
transportation facilities - nonfeed/nonfood, commercial/institutional/
industrial premises/equipment (indoor), commercial/institutional/
industrial premises/equipment (outdoor), dairies/cheese processing
plant equipment (food contact), eating establishments, food processing
plants (excluding stored grain facilities such as silos), golf course
turf, greenhouse - empty, indoor hard surfaces, indoor premises,
residential dust formulations, residential lawns (broadcast),
residential pressurized can formulations, and sewage systems. The
request would not terminate the last malathion products registered for
use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this request at the
close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency
receives substantive comments within the comment period that would
merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant
withdraws their request within this period. Upon acceptance of this
request, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this
notice will be permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is
consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0837, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0837. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Miederhoff, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that

you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you
mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background on the Receipt of Requests to Cancel and/or Amend
Registrations to Delete Uses

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the
registrant, Cheminova Inc., to amend to terminate uses of two malathion
product registrations. Malathion is a non-systemic, broad spectrum
organophosphate pesticide with numerous commercial agricultural and
residential uses, as well as several wide area applications including
use as a public health adulticide, as an abatement treatment for fruit
fly, and in the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. In a letter dated June
24, 2008, Cheminova requested EPA to amend to terminate uses of
pesticide product registrations identified in Table 1 of this notice.
Cheminova Inc., has requested termination of several uses of malathion
because it does not wish to support these uses. In granting this
request, the Agency will neither terminate the last malathion products
registered in the United States, nor terminate the last pesticide
products registered in the United States for these uses.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant
to amend to terminate uses of malathion product registrations. The
affected products and the registrants making the requests are
identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.
    Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any
time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to
terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA
requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation,
EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for
voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section
6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period
on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor
agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide
would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The malathion registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day
comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the
proposed requests.
    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of
publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are
substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an
order will be issued canceling and/or amending the affected
registrations.

   Table 1.--Malathion Product Registrations with Pending Requests for
                                Amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Registration Number           Product Name           Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4787-5                            Fyfanon Technical   Cheminova, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4787-43                           Malathion           Cheminova, Inc.
                                   Technical
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for
the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 2.--Registrant Requesting Voluntary Cancellation and/or Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPA Company Number                Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4787                                        Cheminova, Inc. Washington
                                             Office
                                            1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite
                                             700
                                            Arlington, VA 22209
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request and Considerations for
Reregistration of Malathion

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before November 7, 2008. This
written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to
the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If
the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the
effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier
cancellation action are controlling.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. If the request for voluntary cancellation and/or
use termination is granted, the Agency intends to publish a
cancellation order in the Federal Register which will include the
following existing stocks provisions.
    1. The registrant may continue to sell and/or distribute existing
stocks of Fyfanon Technical and Malathion Technical, EPA Reg. Nos.
4787-5 and

4787-43, with previously approved labeling that includes the terminated
uses until six months from the date of publication of the cancellation
order in the Federal Register.
    2. Persons other than the registrant may continue to sell and/or
distribute existing stocks of Fyfanon Technical and Malathion
Technical, EPA Reg. Nos. 4787-5 and 4787-43, with previously approved
labeling that includes the terminated uses until such stocks are
exhausted.
    3. Persons other than the registrant may continue to sell and/or
distribute existing stocks of Fyfanon Technical and Malathion
Technical, EPA Reg. Nos. 4787-5 and 4787-43, with previously approved
labeling that includes the terminated uses, provided that they are not
used to formulate products labeled for any of the terminated uses.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 23, 2008.
 Steven Bradbury,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-23387 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35741-35742]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2006-24216]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated May 11, 2012, the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 222, Use Of Locomotive Horns at
Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Part 229, Locomotive Safety
Standards; and Part 234, Grade Crossing Signal System Safety and State
Action Plans. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2006-24216.
    In a letter dated September 3, 2003, FRA granted SRTD conditional
relief from 49 CFR Sections 229.125 and 234.105(c)(3) on SRTD's Blue
and Gold Lines. In a letter dated July 28, 2006, FRA granted SRTD
conditional relief from 49 CFR Part 222 at 17 shared highway-rail grade
crossings. In a letter dated June 22, 2011, FRA extended the existing
terms and conditions of SRTD's waivers for an 18-month period. FRA
could not conclude that granting relief for a 5-year period was
justified because FRA's field investigation revealed SRTD failed to
comply with other applicable rail safety regulations.
    In a petition dated May 11, 2012, SRTD stated they are not
proposing any change of scope in their request for an extension. SRTD
affirmed that 49 CFR 229.125 and 234.105(c)(3) would still apply to all
shared highway-rail grade crossings on SRTD's Blue and Gold Lines. SRTD
confirmed that 49 CFR part 222 would still apply to the 17 shared
highway-rail grade crossings. SRTD explained that their request is
consistent with the waiver process for shared use. (See Statement of
Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over the Safety of Railroad
Passenger Operations and Waivers Related to Shared Use of the Tracks of
the General Railroad System by Light Rail and Conventional Equipment,
65 FR 42529 (July 10, 2000); see also Joint Statement of Agency Policy
Concerning Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by
Conventional Railroads and Light Rail Transit Systems, 65 FR 42626
(July 10, 2000)).
    In the petition, SRTD acknowledged noncompliance with 49 CFR part
225, Railroad Accidents/Incidents: Reports Classification, and
Investigations; and 49 CFR part 228, Hours of Service of Railroad
Employees; Recordkeeping and Reporting; Sleeping Quarters. SRTD

stated they have been working diligently to address deficiencies and
are fully compliant. SRTD also stated they believe granting this waiver
extension is in the public interest and consistent with railroad
safety.
    SRTD operates 37.5 miles of light rail (including 48 light rail
stops or stations) 365 days a year using 76 light rail vehicles. Light
rail trains begin operation at 4 a.m. with 14 trains running every 15
minutes during the day and 7 trains running every 30 minutes in the
evening and on weekends. Blue Line and Gold Line trains operate until
10:30 p.m., and the Gold Line to Folsom, CA, operates until 7 p.m. SRTD
operates three- and four-car trains during the peak periods and two-car
trains during the off-peak hours. Single-car trains provide late
evening and Sunday service. The end-to-end running time on the light
rail Blue Line between Meadowview and Watt/Interstate 80 is 48 minutes.
The running time for the Gold Line between Sacramento Valley Station
and Folsom is 55 minutes. Weekday light rail ridership averages about
55,000.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by July 30, 2012 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-14549 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89485-89488]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28457]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99208; File No. SR-NSCC-2023-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Modify Addendum A (Fee Structure)

December 20, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 15, 2023, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency.
NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    NSCC is filing the proposed rule change to modify Addendum A (Fee
Structure) (``Addendum A'') of NSCC's Rules & Procedures (``Rules'') to
increase its Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee, as described below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Rules,
available at www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Addendum A
(Fee Structure) of the Rules to modify NSCC's Clearing Fund Maintenance
Fee effective January 1, 2024. The proposed fee change is discussed in
detail below.
Background
    NSCC's Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee was implemented in 2016 in
order to (i) diversify NSCC's revenue sources, mitigating NSCC's
dependence on revenues driven by trading volumes and (ii) add a stable
revenue source that would contribute to NSCC's operating margin by
offsetting increasing costs and expenses.\6\ The fee is charged to all
NSCC Members that are required to make deposits to the NSCC Clearing
Fund in proportion to the Member's average monthly cash deposit to the
Clearing Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78525 (Aug. 9,
2016), 81 FR 54146 (Aug. 15, 2016) (SR-NSCC-2016-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the annual budgeting process, NSCC reviews price levels
against its cost of operations and evaluates potential expense
reductions and/or fee changes to correct any misalignment of costs and
fees. NSCC's fees are cost-based plus a markup as approved by the Board
of Directors or management (pursuant to authority delegated by the
Board), as applicable. This markup is applied to recover development
costs and operating expenses and to accumulate capital sufficient to
meet regulatory and economic requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NSCC maintains procedures to control costs and regularly
review pricing levels against costs of operation. See NSCC
Disclosure Framework for Covered Clearing Agencies and Financial
Market Infrastructures, available at www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/NSCC_Disclosure_Framework.pdf,
at 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 2024 budgeting process, NSCC identified opportunities to
better align fees and costs for NSCC, which were approved by the
Businesses, Technology and Operations Committee of the Board of
Directors. NSCC anticipates an increase in the cost of funding NSCC's
default liquidity resources due to the rising interest rate
environment, which would constitute the significant majority of the
projected increase in NSCC's overall operating expenses. Specifically,
two tranches of senior notes issued in 2020 with lower coupon rates are
maturing in 2023, and these notes need to be refinanced with new
issuances at significantly higher prevailing market rates. As a result,
the weighted average rate of NSCC's senior notes portfolio and its
related interest expense would increase. NSCC is therefore proposing to
increase the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee to partially offset its
increasing cost of default liquidity resources.
Proposed Fee Changes
    Pursuant to Section V.F of Addendum A, NSCC charges a Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee, which is a monthly fee calculated, in arrears, as the
product of (A) 0.25% and (B) the average of each Member's (or Limited
Member's, if applicable) cash deposit balance in the Clearing Fund, as
of the end of each day, for the month, multiplied by the number of days
for that month and divided by 360. Based on its annal budgeting review,
NSCC proposes to increase the rate used to calculate the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee by 10 basis points from 0.25% to 0.35%. To effectuate
the proposed fee change, NSCC would amend Section V.F. of Addendum A
concerning the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee to reflect the new
calculation rate of 0.35%. NSCC would also remove the reference to
Limited Members in the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee description
because Limited Members are no longer required to maintain Clearing
Fund deposits at NSCC and therefore the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee
no longer applies to Limited Members.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In December 2021, NSCC adopted a proposed rule change to (i)
remove the requirement that Members and Mutual Fund/Insurance
Services Members pay a Mutual Fund Deposit into the Clearing Fund
relating to Mutual Fund Services, (ii) remove provisions relating to
the Mutual Fund Deposit and the Insurance Deposit and (iii) remove a
provision relating to establishing a Clearing Fund requirement for
NSCC Members that currently do not have a Clearing Fund requirement.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93722 (Dec. 6, 2021), 86 FR
70548 (Dec. 10, 2021) (SR-NSCC-2021-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expected Member Impact
    The proposed rule change would result in increased Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fees for NSCC Members, the impact of which would vary based
on each Member's average monthly cash deposit to the Clearing Fund.
Taken alone, the proposed rule change could be expected to result in an
increase of approximately $9 million in fee revenue. However, NSCC
notes that while the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee is being increased,
NSCC also anticipates that average Clearing Fund balances would be
reduced following the implementation of the T+1 settlement cycle in May
2024.\9\ As a result, the proposed fee change is expected to increase
NSCC's overall annual fee revenue by approximately $3 million. NSCC
projects that over half of its Members would see an increase of less
than $25,000, approximately 29 Members would see increases ranging from
$25,000-$100,000, and approximately 20 Members would see an increase of
over $100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96930 (Feb. 15,
2023), 88 FR 13872 (Mar. 6, 2023) (S7-05-22) (Shortening the
Securities Transaction Settlement Cycle). For example, NSCC analysis
suggests that the aggregate volatility component of NSCC's margin
calculation could potentially be reduced by 41% by a move to a T+1
settlement cycle. See DTCC White Paper, Advancing Together: Leading
the Industry to Accelerated Settlement (February 2021), available at
www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/White%20Paper/DTCC-Accelerated-Settle-WP-2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Outreach
    NSCC has conducted ongoing outreach to Members in order to provide
them with notice of the proposed changes and the anticipated impact for
the Member. As of the date of this filing, no written comments relating
to the proposed changes have been received in response to this
outreach. The Commission will be notified of any written comments
received.
Implementation Timeframe
    NSCC would implement this proposal on January 1, 2024. As proposed,
a legend would be added to Addendum A stating there are changes that
became effective upon filing with the Commission but have not yet been
implemented. The proposed legend also would include the date on which
such changes would be implemented and the file number of this proposal,
and state that, once this proposal is implemented, the legend would
automatically be removed.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, NSCC believes
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the
Act \10\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) \11\ thereunder for the reasons
set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \12\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its participants. NSCC believes the
proposed fee is reasonable and would be allocated equitably among its
full-service Members. Because the proposed changes do not alter how the
Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee is currently allocated (i.e., charged) to
Members, NSCC believes the fee would continue to be equitably
allocated. More specifically, as mentioned above, the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee is and would continue to be charged to all Members in
proportion to the Member's average monthly cash deposit to the Clearing
Fund. As such, and as is currently the case, Members that make greater
use of NSCC's guaranteed services or which have activity in those
services that present greater risk to NSCC would generally be subject
to a larger Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee because such Members would
typically be required to maintain larger Clearing Fund deposits
pursuant to the Rules.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \13\ See Rule 4 and Procedure XV, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC also believes that the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee would
continue to be a reasonable fee under the described changes. As
described above, the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee was implemented in
2016 in order to (i) diversify NSCC's revenue sources, mitigating
NSCC's dependence on revenues driven by trading volumes and (ii) add a
stable revenue source that would contribute to NSCC's operating margin
by offsetting increasing costs and expenses. NSCC proposes to adopt a
10 basis point increase in the fee to help offset increased costs
funding NSCC's default liquidity resources due to the rising interest
rate environment. As noted above, the net interest carry on NSCC's
medium term notes is projected to decline next year as legacy senior
notes mature and are refinanced at higher prevailing market rates. For
this reason, NSCC believes the proposed changes to the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee are reasonable.
    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act \14\ requires NSCC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to
enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other
material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing
agency. The proposed fees would be clearly and transparently published
in Addendum A of the Rules, which are available on a public
website,\15\ thereby enabling Members to identify the fees and costs
associated with participating in NSCC. As such, NSCC believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under
the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
    \15\ See supra note 5.
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the changes to the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee would impose any burden on competition. The Clearing
Fund Maintenance Fee is charged ratably based on each Members' use of
NSCC's guaranteed services, as reflected in Members' cash deposits to
the Clearing Fund. Thus, the fee is designed to be reflective of each
Member's individual activity at NSCC. While Member's may experience
some impact from the increase in fees, NSCC notes that average Clearing
Fund balances would also be reduced following the implementation of the
T+1 settlement cycle in May 2024, offsetting some of this impact.\17\
NSCC believes the proposed fee change would not unfairly inhibit access
to NSCC's services by any Member. NSCC therefore believes the proposed
rule change would have a minimal impact on Members and would not impose
any burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has conducted outreach to Members to provide them with notice
of the proposed fees.
    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received, NSCC will amend
this filing to publicly file such comments as an Exhibit 2 to this
filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General questions regarding
the rule filing process or logistical questions regarding this filing
should be directed to the Main Office of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \19\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NSCC-2023-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NSCC-2023-013. 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 website (https://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 website 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website (https://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number
SR-NSCC-2023-013 and should be submitted on or before January 17, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christina Z. Milnor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28457 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


2 rl rl rl rl W d, rl d rl VI m 0 a A '. A n n h n n A 9 h A h d d, ul n 0 ul a0 W 0 url m d Q) m rl r a, P d, m ( d rn m m VI cy rl cv rl m Y Y Y v Y w Y w w w Y W u cc 0 d [ z m W W cd ul d d a\ W U3 a0 0) al 0 al m a P * [ z al  4 f: rl rl cv rl m d [ z d Q) * m W  4 c tn  4 W E $ W m2 W W E 2 a h m w p: 8 X ow  4 pc E X E w pc H H a H a8 w m H m u 0 0 3 U 0: 2 p: v1 8 5 m kU5 F3 9  8 ? 9 8 s sX sB s u 3 a w 0 id B 3 3 u X a WA p:  404 ? ? A 9 W 2 ! 3 3 E f3 d u5 a. pc. El w E E W W W a 0 Q a a m X w pc X X 3 8 30 these significance levels are well approximated by the standard normal distribution with the sample sizes observed in each survey. Significant differences from the FY86 national estimate were observed at the 0.05 level for both the FY82 and FY84 surveys ( Table 8 9). In the FY82 survey, the national estimates for the PCB homologs and total PCBs were lower than in the FY86 survey; the difference was highly significant for tetra, penta, and hexa chlorobiphenyls, as well as for total PCBs. However, except for tetrachlorobiphenyl, different IQS were used between the FY82 and FY86 surveys for the PCB homologs. A significant difference in the national estimates for beta BHC was also observed between FY82 and FY86; the FY86 estimate was 135 ng/ g lower than the FY82 estimate. Both surveys used the same IQS for quantitating beta BHC. In the FY84 survey, the national estimate for only one of the analyzed PCB homologs differed significantly from the N86 estimate. The 115 ng/ g increase in hexachlorobiphenyl for FY86 relative to FY84 was highly significant. An increase of 164 ng/ g in total PCBs for FY86 relative to FY84 was also highly significant. Increases in the FY86 national estimates for p, p DDT and p, p DDE relative to the FY84 estimates were also significant at the 0.05 level. All three of these compounds were quantitated using the same IQS in the FY84 and FY86 " ATS. Table 8 10 presents the estimated chlorobiphenyl distribution across the five prevalent PCB homologs for the FY82,

FY84, and FY86 surveys. It is clear that the dominance of hexachlorobiphenyl observed in the FY86 analysis was present in the FY82 and FY84 surveys as well.

<IP_ADDRESS>. Marginal Estimates. Marginal estimates for the four census regions, three age groups, two sex groups, and two race groups are presented ( with their standard errors) in Tables J 3 through J 6 ( Appendix J) for the ten analyzed semivolatiles, total PCBs, and overall chlorination level across the three 8 31 h. 1"; ,,,,, ,

Table 8 10. Chlorobiphanyl Distribution Across the Five PCB Homologs Considered for Statistical Analysis in the FY86 IURATS Chlorobiphenyl distribution for homolog i ( i= 4,5,6,7,8) is calculated as follows:

average concentration estimate for Homolog i * average concentration estimate for Total PCB where " Total PCB" is the sum of the average concentration estimates across the five homologs in the above table. Each homolog omitted from the table was detected in no more than 30% of the NHATS FY86 composite samples.

8 32 surveys. The estimates for census regions and age groups are plotted for each survey in Appendix K with plus and minus two standard error bars. The tables also contain estimates of the difference in the marginal estimates between the FY86 survey and each previous survey. The following results are suggested from the marginal estimates in Tables 5 3 through J 6 ( references to significant differences between surveys are made at the 0.05 level using the t test described above):

rn Large differences in the estimates of PCB homologs and of total PCB concentration were evident between FY86 and FY82 for many of the subpopulations. These differences, often several times larger than their standard errors, were generally significant for the northcentral and northeast census regions, the 15 44 and 45+ age groups, whites, and both sexes. In each case, the FY86 estimate was higher than the FY82 estimate. . ..

rn Among PCB homologs, significant differences in the marginal estimates between FY86 and FY84 were primarily relegated to hexachlorobiphenyl. All subpopulations except the 0 14 age group observed significant differences in the marginal estimate for this homolog between the two surveys. For total PCBs, significant differences between surveys were observed for the northcentral and northeast census regions, the 45+ age group, both race groups, and females. In each case, the FY86 estimate was higher than the FYS4 estimate.

rn Excluding the PCB homologs, few significant differences in marginal estimates were observed between FY82 and FY86 among the subpopulations.

rn Excluding the PCB homologs, there is some evidence that significant differences exist in marginal estimates for p, p DDTand p, p DDEbetween the FY86 and FY84 surveys. Differences in p, p DDEwere significant across all age groups, sex groups, and race groups; the FY86 estimate was larger than the FY84 estimate in each instance. For p, p DDT, significant differences were observed for the 45+ age group, northeast census region, and males as a result of larger marginal estimates in the FY86 survey.

8 33 I Thus Tables J 3 through 5 6 indicate that whenever significant differences occurred in the marginal estimates between surveys, higher estimates were associated with the FY86 survey. In FY82, most differences occurred with PCBs; these differences were primarily observed for the two highest age groups and the northeast and northcentral census regions. In EY84, most +

differences were observed for hexachlorobiphenyl, p, p DDE, and p, p DDT; these differences tended to be consistent across all subpopulations.

<IP_ADDRESS>. Likelihood Ratio Tests. For the ten compounds analyzed within each survey using the additive model, statistical hypothesis tests were conducted within each survey to determine if there were statistically significant differences in average concentration between individuals between different geographic regions, age groups, race groups, and sex groups. Likelihood ratio principles were used to conduct these tests ( Section 6.2.2). For the FY86 survey, these tests were performed in Section 7.3. Table 8 11lists the significance levels obtained from performing the likelihood ratio tests on the FY82, FY84, and FY86 data. These results show a relative consistency across all surveys. No significant'differences were noted across age groups or sex groups in either survey. Significant effects due to census region and age groups were observed in each survey for most of the PCB homologs, hexachlorobenzene, and pesticides. Specifically, the importance of both the census region and age group effects on the concentration values remains evident in the FY86 NHATS as in the prior surveys.

<IP_ADDRESS>. Conclusions. The conclusions of statistical analysis on surrogate adjusted concentrations for semivolatile organic compounds are similar between the three surveys. Age group and census region appear to be the most significant demographic effects on many of these concentrations within each survey. ,

Table 8 11. Significance Levels from Hypothesis Testa for Differences Between Demographic Groups for Selected Sdvolatiles in the FY82, FY84, and FY86 " AT&)

Significance Levels Compound@) FY82 FY84 . FY86 Effect of Census Region P P DDT Pt P DDE BETA BHC HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE TRANS NONACHLOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL eo. 001* < o. 001* < o .001* 0.005* eo. 001* 0.001* 0. on* 0.141 0.947 0.442 < o. 001* 0.031* eo. 001* eo. 001* 0.187 eo. 001* eo. 001+ eo. 001: > O. 50 0.216 0.036 0.001* eo. 001* 0* 009+ eo. 001* eo. 001* 0.047* 0* 001* 0.408 0.140 Effect of Age Group PtP DDT \

Pt P DDE BETA BHC HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE TRANS NONACHLOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL > O. 50 eo. 001+ eo. 001* 0.001* > O. 50 0.009* 0.001* > 0.50 0.015* 0.117 eo. 001* eo. 001: 0.022* eo. 001* eo. 001 co. 001* eo. 001* eo. 001* 0.057 eo. 001; KO. om* < o. 001* < 0.001 eo. 001: 0.005* > O. 50 eo. 001 0.811 eo. 001* 0.001*

' I Effect of Sex Group PtP DDT p, p DDE BETA BHC HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE TRANS NONACHLOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL 0.952 0.379 0.966 0.946 0.694 0.814 . 0.994 0.353 0.6' 23 0.534 0.551 0.565 0.771 0.233 0.321 0.974 0.971 0.777 0.379 0.543 0.260 0.675 0.617 0.549 0.562 0.381 0.693 0.203 0.243 0.490 Table 8 11. ( cont.)

Significance Levels Compound@) ~~ 82 84 FY86 Effect of Race Group PtP DDT Pt P DDE BETA BHC HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE TRANS NONACHLOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE TETRACSLIOROBIPIIENYL PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL HEPTACHLOROBIPIIENYL * 0.433 0.259 0.286 0.805 0.808 0.569 0.259 0.452 0.501 0.495 0.786 0.846 0.484 0.711 0.879 0.890 0.802 0.936 0.383 0.908 0.337 0.605 0.228 0 619 0.389 0.245 0.244 0.280 0.289 0.368 Significance declared at the 0.05 level.

tl) Data adjusted for surrogate recoveries ( see Section 5.2). Likelihood ratio tests are based on the chi square distribution.

p, p DDE concentrations for FY86 use m/ Z= 316 ( see Section 5.1.2).

8 36 Despite the similarities between surveys, differences in estimated subpopulation concentrations were significant for some PCB homologs and pesticides between the FY82/ FY84 surveys and the FY86 survey. In most cases, these differences indicated that FY86 estimates were higher than in the previous surveys. These results are contrary to the downward trends concluded in previous trends analyses ( Robinson, et. al., 1990). These results are more likely due, however, to analytical effects rather than environmental effects. Since a period of only four years exist between the collection of specimens for these three surveys, it is unlikely that major changes in the actual concentration levels in human adipose tissue will be observed over this time period under normal exposure conditions. In making generalizations across the surveys, such analytical factors as differences in IQS and surrogate compounds between surveys, and differences in design factors, must also be considered as attributable toward observed differences. The national average estimates from the statistical modelling on ten semivolatiles tend to agree with the estimates obtained from the weighted average calculations ( Section 8 3 21.

Thus the weighted averages in Table 8 8 may provide useful estimates in national average concentrations which are relatively similar to what would be achieved through statistical modelling.

8 37

 9.0 ~ FERENCES Dinh, K. 1991. USEPA. Guideline for adjusting concentrations in " ATS data. Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Draper NR, and Smith H. 1981. Applied regression analysis, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Kish, L, and Scott, A. 1971. Retaining units after changing strata and probabilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66 ( 335) : pp. 461 470.

Mack GA, Leczynski B, Chu A, and Mohadjer L. 1984. Battelle Columbus Division and Westat, Inc. Survey design for the national adipose tissue survey. Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics a ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Pfotection Agency. Contract No. 68 01 6721.

Mack, GA, and Panebianco, DL. 1986. Battelle Columbus Division. Statistical Analysis of the M82 MIATS Broad Scan Analysis Data. Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerlythe Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Document No. NHATS SS 04. Contract No. 68 02 4243.

MRI. f988a. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile analytes: adipose tissue sample compositing. Interim Report # 1. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4252.

MRI. 1988b. Quality assurance project plan for WA 28: broad scan analysis of adipose tissue from the FY 1986 EPA NEATSrepository Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4252.

MRI. 17 March 1989. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds FY 1986 NHATS composites, batch 1 interim data report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protecti. onAgency. Contract No. 68 02 4252.

MRI. 19 May 1989. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds FY 1986 " ATS composites, batch 2 interim data report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. . Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4252. MRI. 21 July 1989. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds  FY 1986 NHATS composites, batch 3 interim data report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4252.

MRI. 21 July 1989. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds  FY 1986 NHATS composites, batch 4 interim data report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4252.

~  21. 22 September 1989. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds  FY 1986 NHATS composites, batch 3 revised tables and analysis report forms. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4252.

MRI. 25 September 1989. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds  FY 1986 NHATS composites, batch 5 interim data report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract NO, 68 02 4252.

MRI. 28 September 1989. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds  FY 1986 NHATS composites, ~

batch 5 revised tables and analysis report forms. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Bnvironmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4252.

MRI. 13 July 1990. Analysis of adipose tissue for semivolatile organic compounds  FY 1986 NHATS composites, revised PCB data batches 1 5. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract NO. 68 02 4252.

\ Orban JE, Leczynski B, Collins TJ, and Sasso NR. 1988. Battelle Columbus Division. FY86 NHATS composite design. Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4294.

9 2 f? fi :(? 228 Orban JE, and Lordo, RA. 1989. Battelle Columbus Division. Statistical methods for analyzing NHATS composite sample data  evaluation of multiplicative and additive model methodologies. Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4294.

Panebianco DL. 1986. Battelle Columbus Division. A review of hospital nonresponse and its effect on standard errors of sample estimates in NHATS. Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 02 4243.

Robinson, PE, Mack, GA, Remmers, J, Levy, R, and Mohadjer, L. 1990. Trends of PCB, hexachlorobenzene, and @ benzene hexachloride levels in the adipose tissue of the U. S. population. Environmental Research. 53: pp. 175 192.

Rogers, J. 1991. Westat, Inc. FY86 NHATS Semi Volatile Organic Compounds: Outlier Analysis. Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 D9 0174.

Stanley, JS, Balsinger, J, Mack, GA, and Tessari, JD. 1986. Midwest Research Institute, Battelle Columbus Division, and Colorado State University. Comparability study of analytical methodology for TSCA chemicals in human adipose tissue. Quality Assurance Program Plan. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerly the Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contracts No. 68 02 3938and 68 02 4243,

Westat, 1990. NHATS Comparability Study, Draft 3.0. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( formerlythe Office of Toxic Substances), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68 DO 0174.

USEPA. 1986. Broad scan analysis of the FY82 NHATS specimens. Volume 111: Semi volatile organic compounds. EPA Publication NO. EPA 560/ 5 86 037.

USEPA. 1991. Chlorinated dioxins and furans in the general U. S. populqtion: NHATS FY87 results. EPA Publication No. EPA S60/ 5 91 003.

9 3  3. Rccfpitnt's Accession NO.

PAGE I FPA 747 R 94 OOi I 4. Title 8nd SuMWe 5. Report Date Semivolatile Organic Compounds in the Gener'al U. S. Pbpulation: NHATS FY86 Results  Volume I 6.

a Petfonning Organizatian Rept. N.,.

14. 12 spond~ . Ownhtlon Wmo and ~ fim~~

Chemical Management Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U. S. . Environmental Protection Agency Washinston, DC 20460 1% * pPletY Notes Khoan T. Dinh, Work Assignment Marlager Technical Programs Branch The Environmental Protection Agency's National Human Adipose Tissue Survey ( NHATS) was performed annually to quantify the levels of selected chemicals in the adipose tissue of humans in the U. S. population. Specimens collected in fiscal. year 1986 were earmarked for an analysis to estimate national average concentrations of 111 semivolatile compounds in adipose tissue, to identify differences in average concentrations among subpopulatiuns, and to compare results with previous surveys in the " ATS. For 17 semivolatiles detected in at least half of the 50 analytical samples, statistical modeling techniques were conducted to address these objectives.

Among demographic effects on average concentration, the age group effect was most often statistically significant,. with higher concentrations associated with higher ages. Among PCB homologs, the 45+ year age group had from 108% to 706% higher average concentrajtions than $ he 0 14 year age group, with similar increases observed for pesticides. Geographic effects were only occasionally significant, and no significant race or sex effects were observed.

Statistically significant increases in concentration ( generally less than 100%) from the FY82 NHATS were observed for three PCB homologs, while increases of 50% to 100% from the FY84 NHATS were. significant for p, p DDT and p, p DDE. Mixed findings were observed for other semivolatiles analyzed in all three surveys. 7 ooatmant hslyJs 8. oercrtpto~~

c. COSATl Field/ Group B. A~ aUabilftyatemant 19. Security Class ( This Rewort) 21. No. of Pages NTIS 1 22. Price I 1 See Instructions on Reverse OPTIONAL FORM 2R ( 4 7; ( Formerty NTIS 35) Department of Commerce