1 of 5 DRAFT FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING AUGUST 24  25, 2004 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2004 0240 TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2004 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 684 7200 FUMIGANT BYSTANDER EXPOSURE MODEL REVIEW: PROBABILISTIC EXPOSURE AND RISK MODEL FOR FUMIGANTS ( PERFUM) USING IODOMETHANE AS A CASE STUDY

8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Panel Members   Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Chair)

8: 45 AM Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official  Ms. Myrta Christian

8: 50 AM Welcome  Mr. Joseph J. Merenda, Jr. ( Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy. EPA)

8: 55 AM Opening Remarks  Mr. Jim Jones ( Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

9: 00 AM Introduction, Goals and Objectives   Mr. Jeffrey Dawson ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

9: 15 AM Probabilistic Exposure and Risk Model for Fumigants ( PERFUM)  Dr. Richard Reiss on behalf of the Arvesta Corporation

10: 00 AM BREAK

10: 15 AM Probabilistic Exposure and Risk Model for Fumigants ( PERFUM)  Dr. Richard Reiss on behalf of the Arvesta Corporation

11: 30 AM LUNCH

12: 30 PM Public Comments

1: 30 PM Questions to the Panel Critical Element 1: Documentation Question 1: The background information presented to the SAP panel by the PERFUM developers provides both user guidance and a technical overview of the system. Please 2 of 5 comment on the detail and clarity of this document. Are the descriptions of the specific model components scientifically sound? Do the algorithms in the annotated code perform the functions as defined in this document? Please discuss any difficulties encountered with respect to loading the software and evaluating the system including the presented case study?

Critical Element 2: System Design/ Inputs Question 2: In Section 2.3: Development of the PERFUM Modeling System of the background document, a series of detailed individual processes and components included in PERFUM are presented. The key processes include ( 1) incorporation of ISCST3 into PERFUM, ( 2) probabilistic treatment of flux rates; and ( 3) development of a receptor grid. Please comment on these proposed processes, the nature of the components included in PERFUM and the data needed to generate an analysis using PERFUM? Are there any other potential critical sources of data or methodologies that should be considered?

3: 00 PM BREAK

3: 15 PM Questions to the Panel ( continued)

Question 3: The determination of appropriate flux/ emission rates is critical to the proper use of the PERFUM model as these values define the source of fumigants in the air that can lead to exposures. Upon its review of how flux rates can be calculated, the Agency has identified a number of questions it would like the panel to consider. In PERFUM, flux rates were treated as a probabilistic variable with an uncertainty developed from the statistical bounds of the flux calculation. For each measurement period a standard error is generated that reflects the measurement uncertainty of the flux rate. PERFUM then perturbs the concentration estimates within each period by the standard error using Monte Carlo methods to simulate the uncertainty in the flux estimates. What, if any, refinements are needed for this process including the manner in which flux values were calculated for each monitoring period to generate the standard error estimates? How appropriate is it to use a flux/ emission factor from a single monitoring study ( or small number of studies) and apply it to different situations such as for the same crop in a different region of the country? Please comment on PERFUM's capability to adequately consider multiple, linked application events as well as single source scenarios? Does PERFUM appropriately address situations where data are missing? In the backcalculation approach used for estimating emission rates, the regression of measured versus modeled values can be forced through the origin or not. Which approach does the panel prefer and what are the implications of each approach?

4: 30 PM ADJOURNMENT 3 of 5 DRAFT FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING AUGUST 24  25, 2004 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2004 0240 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2004 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 684 7200 FUMIGANT BYSTANDER EXPOSURE MODEL REVIEW: PROBABILISTIC EXPOSURE AND RISK MODEL FOR FUMIGANTS ( PERFUM) USING IODOMETHANE AS A CASE STUDY

8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Panel Members   Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Chair)

8: 35 AM Administrative procedures by Designated Federal Official  Ms. Myrta Christian

8: 40 AM Follow up from Previous Day's Discussion   Mr. Jeffrey Dawson ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

9: 00 AM Questions to the Panel ( continued)

Question 4: The integration of actual time base meteorological data into ISCST3 is one of the key components that separates the PERFUM methodology from that being employed by the Agency in its current assessment. There are several potential sources of these data including the National Weather Service, Federal Aviation Administration, California Irrigation Management Information System ( CIMIS), and the Florida Automated Weather Network ( FAWN). The Agency is also aware that there are several approaches that can be used to process meteorological data and acknowledges that PERFUM used PCRAMMET which is a standard Agency tool for this purpose as well as other techniques in some cases ( e. g., for the FAWN & CIMIS data). Various datasets from both California and Florida were used as the basis for the PERFUM case study. Please comment on the methods used to select monitoring station locations? What criteria should be used to identify meteorological regions for analysis and how should specific monitoring data be selected from within each region? Please comment on the manner that data from the selected various stations were processed? Data quality and uncertainty associated with these data vary with the source. Does the panel agree with the approaches used to characterize these factors? Anemometer sampling height has been identified as a concern by the Agency in preparation for this meeting. What are the potential impacts of using data collected with different anemometer heights in an analysis 4 of 5 of this nature? Does PERFUM treat stability class inputs appropriately? Does PERFUM appropriately calculate bounding air concentration estimates by concurrently using upperbound meteorological and emission/ flux inputs?

10: 30 AM BREAK

10: 45 AM Questions to the Panel ( continued)

Question 5: The Agency model, ISCST3 is the basis for the PERFUM approach. This model has been peer reviewed and is commonly used for regulatory purposes by the Agency. PERFUM also uses other Agency systems such as PCRAMMET. Please recommend any parameters that should be altered to optimize the manner that they are used in PERFUM? Does the panel agree with the manner in which the receptor grid was developed, and if not, please provide suggestions for improving this approach? ISCST3, as integrated into PERFUM, was run assuming rural, flat terrain which would be typical of treated farm fields but might not be typical of surrounding residential areas. Does the panel concur with this approach? What are the implications of such an approach? What improvements can be made to this approach? ISCST3, as integrated into PERFUM, was run in regulatory mode which includes the use of the " calms" processing routine. Does the panel concur with this approach? If not, please suggest a suitable alternative?

12: 00 AM LUNCH

1: 00 PM Questions to the Panel ( continued)

Critical Element 3: Results Question 6: Soil fumigants can be used in different regions of country under different conditions and they can be applied with a variety of equipment. Please comment on whether the methodologies in PERFUM can be applied generically in order to assess a wide variety of fumigant uses? What considerations with regard to data needs and model inputs should be considered for such an effort?

Question 7: Please comment on whether PERFUM adequately identifies and quantifies airborne concentrations of soil fumigants that have migrated from treated fields to sensitive receptors? The Agency is particularly concerned about air concentrations in the upper ends of the distribution. Are these results presented in a clear and concise manner that would allow for appropriate characterization of exposures that could occur at such levels? The PERFUM model calculates the concentration distributions both in all directions and for only the maximum concentration direction. Can the panel comment on how accurately the model approximates both of these distributions?

2: 30 PM BREAK

2: 45 PM Questions to the Panel ( continued) 5 of 5 Question 8: A sensitivity/ uncertainty analysis has been conducted and is described in the PERFUM background document. What types, if any, of additional contribution/ sensitivity analyses are recommended by the panel to be the most useful in making scientifically sound, regulatory decisions? What should be routinely reported as part of a PERFUM assessment with respect to inputs and outputs? Are there certain tables and graphs that should be reported? What types of further evaluation steps does the panel recommend for PERFUM?

3: 30 PM ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Ms. Myrta Christian, via telephone: ( 202) 564 8450; fax: ( 202) 564 8382; or email: christian. myrta@ epa. gov


[Federal Register: December 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 65117]
[DOCID:fr09de09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL10-20-000, QF84-447-008]

O.L.S. Energy--Camarillo; Notice of Filing

December 2, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 24, 2009, O.L.S. Energy--Camarillo
(Camarillo) filed, pursuant to 18 CFR 292.205(a)(1), 292.205(c) and
385.207 (2009) of the Commission's regulations implementing the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act, a petition for temporary waiver of the
efficiency standard for its natural gas-fired topping-cycle qualifying
cogeneration facility, located in Camarillo, California, for calendar
years 2009 and 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 24, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29280 Filed 12-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 55814-55816]
[DOCID:fr25se06-55]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54463; File No. SR-NASD-2006-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Delivery of Options Disclosure Documents

September 15, 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 August 17, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') 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 NASD. NASD filed the
proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial'' rule change under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which rendered the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD proposes to amend NASD Rule 2860 (Options) to (1) require that
a copy of each amendment to the options disclosure document,
Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options (``ODD''), be
distributed to each customer not later than the time of the delivery of
a confirmation of a transaction in the category of options issued by
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') to which the amendment
pertains and (2) clarify that

revisions to the Special Statement for Uncovered Option Writers
(``Special Written Statement'') be distributed to each customer
approved for writing uncovered short options not later than the time of
the delivery of a confirmation of a transaction in options issued by
the OCC. The text of the proposed rule change is available on NASD's
Web site, http://www.nasd.com, at NASD's Office of the Secretary, and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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
    NASD is proposing revisions to the requirement to deliver
amendments and/or revisions to the options disclosure documents in NASD
Rule 2860 to conform to similar rules of other self-regulatory
organizations.\4\ Specifically, NASD is amending the rule to more
clearly delineate the particular delivery requirements applicable to
the ODD and the Special Written Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Rule 9.15; ISE Rule 616; Phlx Rule 1029; Amex Rule
926; and NYSE Rule 726 (collectively, ``Options Exchanges'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, NASD Rule 2860(b)(11)(A) requires that amendments and
revisions to both disclosure documents be distributed to each customer
not later than the time a confirmation of a transaction is delivered to
each customer who enters into a transaction in options issued by the
OCC. By contrast, the rules of the Options Exchanges require that
amendments to the ODD be distributed to each customer not later than
the time a confirmation of a transaction in the category of options to
which the amendment pertains is delivered to such customer.
    NASD believes that the delivery of an amendment to the ODD is
appropriately triggered by a customer transaction in an options
contract to which such amendment pertains. Furthermore, the proposed
rule change will harmonize NASD's rule for amendments to the ODD with
those of the Options Exchanges.
    In addition, through a new subparagraph (2), NASD is clarifying
that revisions to the Special Written Statement be distributed to each
customer having an account approved for writing uncovered short options
not later than the time a confirmation of a transaction is delivered to
each customer who enters into a transaction in options issued by the
OCC. NASD states that the rules of the Options Exchanges do not address
delivery of revisions to the Special Written Statement.
    NASD has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. NASD will announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Notice to Members to be published no later
than 60 days following the filing of the rule change with the
Commission for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will be
30 days after the date of the Notice to Members.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) \5\ of the Act in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. NASD is proposing the rule change to harmonize
NASD's rule for delivery of amendments to the ODD with those of the
Options Exchanges and to clarify members' delivery obligations for
revisions to the Special Written Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD 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

    NASD has neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms,
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\6\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-100 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-NASD-2006-100. 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 office of NASD. 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-NASD-2006-100 and should be
submitted on or before October 16, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-8141 Filed 9-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P