AGENCY POSITION PAPER FOR JUNE 2004 SAP ( 5/ 04/ 04)

The Agency has reviewed and evaluated the product characterization data, human health data, ecological toxicity data, and insect resistance management plan for the Cry1F/ Cry1Ac proteins expressed in Widestrike cotton, and the data to support continuation of the 95: 5 external, unsprayed structured refuge for cotton bollworm resistance management for Bollgard cotton and Bollgard II cotton. Following is a brief description of the Agency& rsquo; s position based on the scientific findings.

The mammalian toxicity data submitted for WideStrike cotton includes toxicity testing on each individual Cry protein as well as studies with the combination of Cry1Ac and Cry1F. All the tests were done with purified protein at high doses approaching the limit dose values for acute oral toxicity. Based on the results of mammalian toxicity studies and product characterization data for the Cry1F and Cry1Ac proteins expressed in WideStrike cotton, the Agency& rsquo; s risk assessment indicates that WideStrike cotton should not cause adverse effects to human health.

Based on the evaluation of the submitted limit dose testing data and information on the general biology of Bt Cry proteins, the Agency& rsquo; s ecological risk assessment did not identify any adverse effects on the flora and fauna of the cotton agroecosystems that would be expected from the cultivation of WideStrike cotton. Specific data were reviewed relating to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, Cry protein fate in soils, potential effects on soil biota and field census data examining the effects on non target foliar insects, and endangered or threatened species hazard assessment, particularly Lepidoptera listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The submitted studies examined the effects of the Cry1F and Cry1Ac proteins separately and in combination to detect any possible synergistic effects. No synergistic effects or increase in non target host range as a result of stacking were identified.

WideStrike cotton, expressing both the Cry1F and Cry1Ac insecticidal control proteins, is intended to protect cotton from feeding by three key lepidopteran pests of cotton in their respective geographies: tobacco budworm ( Heliothis virescens, TBW, Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)), pink bollworm ( Pectinophora gossypiella, PBW, Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), and cotton bollworm ( Helicoverpa zea, CBW, Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Dow AgroSciences& rsquo; ( Dow& rsquo; s) proposed insect resistance management ( IRM) plan for WideStrike proposes the following refuge options:

1. 5% external unsprayed refuge option. Five percent of the cotton fields must be planted to non Bt cotton and not be treated with any lepidopteran control technology. The refuge must be at least 150 ft. wide ( preferably 300 ft.) and within ½ mile ( preferably adjacent or within 1/ 4 mile or closer) of the Bt cotton.

2. 20% external sprayable refuge option. Twenty percent of the cotton fields must be planted to non Bt cotton and may be treated with lepidopteran active insecticides ( or other control technology) except for microbial Bt formulations. The refuge must be within 1 mile ( preferably within ½ mile or closer) of the Bt cotton fields.

3. 5% embedded refuge option ( for TBW and CBW). Five percent of a cotton field ( or fields) must be planted with non Bt cotton as a block within a single field, at least 150 ft. wide ( preferably 300 ft. wide) or single field blocks within a one mile squared field unit. The refuge may be treated with lepidopteran active insecticides ( or other control technology) only if the entire field or field unit is treated at the same time.

4. Embedded ( in field strip) refuge option for PBW. One single row of a non Bt cotton variety must be planted for every 6 to 10 rows of Bt cotton. This can be treated with lepidopteran active insecticides ( or other control technology) only if the entire field is treated at the same time.

5. Community refuge option. Farmers can combine neighboring fields within a one mile squared field unit that act as a 20% sprayable refuge or the 5% unsprayed refuge. Participants in the community refuge option must have a community refuge coordinator and appropriate documentation is required.

Based on the Agency& rsquo; s analysis, the Dow IRM plan is appropriate for insect resistance management to the Cry1F and Cry1Ac proteins expressed in WideStrike cotton. The Dow CBW modeling efforts show that we can have high confidence that there will not be a significant change in population fitness of CBW on WideStrike cotton in a 15 year time horizon even without a high dose for either Cry1Ac or Cry1F and incomplete cross resistance ( 20 to 60% maximum shared binding). For TBW, the addition of a second insecticidal control protein ( ICP), makes the 20% refuge even more durable than for a single ICP expressed at a high dose and reduces the refuge size ( as compared to a single, high dose ICP) needed for the same level of protection as predicted by past TBW resistance management models across the same time horizon. For PBW, WideStrike cotton expresses a high dose of Cry1Ac. Cry1F is not effective against PBW. A market mix of different Bt cottons, as well as other control technologies, further reduces the expected selection pressure for resistance against the Cry1F and Cry1Ac proteins expressed in WideStrike cotton.

As a condition of the Bollgard ® cotton and Bollgard ® II cotton registrations, EPA required the Monsanto Company conduct CBW alternate host research studies and pyrethroid overspray studies that would support the adequacy of the 5% external, unsprayed, structured refuge for CBW resistance management. Based on the Agency& rsquo; s review of the pyrethroid overspray studies, pyrethroid oversprays in Bollgard cotton fields will increase the level of control of CBW and delay the evolution of resistance. The Agency& rsquo; s review of the two year alternate host studies conducted in five states indicates that both C3 and C4 alternative hosts serve as unstructured refugia. CBW moths are produced on alternative hosts in sufficient numbers throughout the cotton growing season ( synchronous) to mate with any putative resistant CBW moths emerging in Bollgard or Bollgard II cotton fields and dilute resistance. That is, the susceptible CBW moths coming from alternative hosts will reduce the intensity of Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 resistance selection in CBW and lower the likelihood of resistance evolution. Despite the limitations EPA has identified associated with the Gustafson et al. ( 2001/ 2004) model, both the pyrethroid overspray data and alternate host data support the model& rsquo; s predictions that it will take many times longer for CBW resistance evolution than without the inclusion of these parameters. Other data regarding CBW reverse migration indicated no significant impact on CBW adaptation to Bt corn and cotton. Based on the Agency& rsquo; s analyses, the pyrethroid overspray studies and alternative host studies support the continuation of the 5% external, unsprayed structured non Bt ( Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton refuge for CBW resistance management. EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us Last updated on Thursday, May 27th, 2004 URL: http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ 2004/ june/ positionpaper. htm


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23092-23093]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08693]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88691; File No. SR-MIAX-2020-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Delay Implementation of an Amendment to Rule
518, Complex Orders, To Permit Legging Through the Simple Market

April 20, 2020.
    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 April 14, 2020, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX
Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to delay implementation of the
change to allow a component of a complex order \3\ that legs into the
Simple Order Book \4\ to execute at a price that is outside the
NBBO.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``complex order'' is any order involving the concurrent
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options in the same
underlying security (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex
order), for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one
(3.00) and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. Mini-options may only be part of a complex order that
includes other mini-options. Only those complex orders in the
classes designated by the Exchange and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular with no more than the applicable number of legs,
as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and
communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular, are eligible for
processing. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5).
    \4\ The ``Simple Order Book'' is the Exchange's regular
electronic book of orders and quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(15).
    \5\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from the appropriate Securities Information Processor
(``SIP''). See Exchange Rule 518(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 IV 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
    On October 22, 2019, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
amend subsection (c)(2)(iii) of Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders, to
remove the provision which provides that a component of a complex order
that legs into the Simple Order Book may not execute at a price that is
outside the NBBO.\6\ The proposed rule change indicated that the
Exchange would announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days
following the operative date of the proposed rule. The implementation
date will be no later than 90 days following the issuance of the
Regulatory Circular. The Exchange now proposes to further delay the
implementation of this functionality until the fourth quarter of 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 87440 (November 1,
2019), 84 FR 60117 (November 7, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes this delay in order to allow the Exchange to
re-prioritize its software delivery and release schedule as a result of
a shift in priorities resulting from the impact the Coronavirus
pandemic has had on Exchange operations. The Exchange will issue a
Regulatory Circular notifying market participants prior to implementing
this functionality.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it
is 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in, securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by
allowing the Exchange additional time to implement the proposed
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The Exchange's proposal to
delay the implementation of the proposed functionality does not impose
an undue burden on competition. Delaying the implementation will simply
allow the Exchange additional time to properly

plan and implement the proposed functionality.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the operative delay to allow the Exchange to
provide notice of the implementation delay as early as possible. The
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to promptly notify its members of
the delay in implementing the functionality that will allow the
component legs of a complex order to execute outside the NBBO when they
execute against orders on the Simple Order Book. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2020-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2020-07. 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 (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 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2020-07 and should be submitted on
or before May 15, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08693 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EDC MID-CYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE

AGENDA

September 14, 2007

12:00 pm – 2:00 pm Eastern Time

Participation by Teleconference Only

866-299-3188

code:<PHONE_NUMBER>#

12:00-12:10 pm	Welcome	Dr. Deborah Swackhamer,

	-  Roll Call	Subcommittee Chair

	- Overview of Agenda

12:10-12:15 pm	Administrative Procedures	Lorelei Kowalski,

BOSC Executive Committee DFO

12:15-12:50 pm	Goal 1 Progress	Dr. Mary Gilbert &

		Dr. Marc Mills,

Office of Research and Development

12:50-1:10 pm	Goal 2 Progress	Dr. Susan Laessig,

Office of Research and Development

1:10-1:25 pm	Overview of Performance	Dr. Elaine Francis,

	Measures and the Updated MYP	Office of Research and

		Development

1:25-1:30 pm	Public Comment

1:30-2:00 pm 	Subcommittee Discussion	Dr. Deborah Swackhamer,

		Subcommittee Chair

2:00 pm	Adjourn

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50648]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-136-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-10-25_Errata filing to MISO-PJM
JOA revisions to address congestion overlap to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/25/17.
    Accession Number: 20171025-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/15/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-164-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Stipulation and Offer of Settlement of Public Service
Company of Colorado.
    Filed Date: 10/25/17.
    Accession Number: 20171025-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/15/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-165-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-26_SA 3030 Tenaska-
Entergy 1st Rev GIA (J486) to be effective 10/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20171026-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-166-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-25 NSP-MVLP-
Connection Agrmt-0.0.0-653 to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20171026-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-167-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3179R1 Transource Missouri &
OPPD Interconnection Agreement to be effective 10/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20171026-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-168-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Interconnection
Service Agreement No. 1371, Queue No. K19 to be effective 7/28/2005.
    Filed Date: 10/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20171026-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/17.

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

    Dated: October 26, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23775 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46090-46091]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16580]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0034; FRL-10013-10-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected Sources
for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
May 23, 2013 (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected
Sources for which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification
Commenced After May 23, 2013 (EPA ICR Number 2485.04, OMB Control
Number 2060-0690), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through September 30, 2020. Public comments were previously requested,
via the Federal Register, on May 6, 2019 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 31,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0034, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Kraft
Pulp Mill Affected Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After May 23, 2013 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa)
were proposed on May 23, 2013, and promulgated on April 4, 2014. These
regulations apply to emissions of particulate matter (PM) and total
reduced sulfur (TRS) at recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks
(SDTs), lime kilns, digester systems, brown stock washer (BSW) systems,
multiple effect evaporator systems and condensate stripper systems at
kraft pulp mills that commenced construction, modification or
reconstruction after May 23, 2013. At pulp mills, where kraft pulping
is combined with neutral sulfite semi-chemical pulping, the provisions
of this subpart are applicable when any portion of the material charged
to an affected source is produced by the kraft pulping operation. This
subpart includes provisions specifying that sources complying with the
TRS standard for digester systems, BSW systems, evaporator systems and
condensate stripper systems by venting to a control device must collect
the gases in a closed-vent system subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart S. Facilities may be exempt from the TRS standard in
the NSPS if the facility can demonstrate that TRS emissions from a
brown stock washer cannot feasibly be controlled either technically or
economically. New facilities include those that commenced construction,
modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This
information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part
60, subpart BBa.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Kraft pulp mills.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBa).
    Estimated number of respondents: 14 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 5,250 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,580,000 (per year), which includes
$976,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes or
changes in regulatory requirements. The change in the burden and cost
estimates is due primarily to an increase in the number of new or
modified sources. The number of sources subject to the regulation has
increased in the past three years, based on the continued assumption
that an average of two existing mills (previously subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart BB) per year will replace aging emission units with
new emission units subject to

Subpart BBa. This has led to an increase in O&M costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-16580 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8500-8504]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0213; FRL-8813-8]

1,2,3-Propanetriol, Homopolymer Diisooctadecanoate; Exemption
from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 1,2,3-propanetriol, homopolymer
diisooctadecanoate, herein referred to as triglycerol diisostearate,
when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier) when applied to animals.
Valent Biosciences Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of
triglycerol diisostearate.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 25, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 26, 2010, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0213. 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., Confidential Business Information (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 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 Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Fertich, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this
unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you
and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain
entities. 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. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. 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-2009-0213 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before April 26, 2010.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0213, 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>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of May 6, 2009 (74 FR 20947) (FRL-8412-7),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E7354) by Valent
Biosciences Corporation, 870 Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.930 be amended by establishing
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,2,3-
propanetriol, homopolymer diisooctadecanoate, herein referred to as
triglycerol diisostearate. That notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for 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. . . .''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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. The nature of the toxic effects caused by
triglycerol diisostearate are discussed in this unit.
    The Agency has determined that triglycerol diisostearate is
represented by the group of chemicals known as polyglycerol esters of
fatty acids. Where specific information on triglycerol diisostearate is
not available, information on polyglycerol esters of fatty acids is
used to assess toxicity.
    The polyglycerol esters of fatty acids represent a large group of
closely related compounds with complex compositions. The individual
components are found as normal constituents of the human diet, i.e.
glycerol, glycerol mono-, di- and tri-fatty acid esters and individual
fatty acids. Hydrolysis by enzymes or gastric juices to form esters and
carbon dioxide is the main pathway for metabolic degradation for
polyglycerol esters of fatty acids.
    Acute toxicity studies conducted with polyglycerol esters of fatty
acids in rats and rabbits show no adverse effects at doses up to 29
grams/kilogram (g/kg) body weight. Repeated dose testing in rats over 5
days did not result in any deaths at doses up to 10 g/kg body weight..
    In a short-term study, rats were maintained on 9% polyglycerol
ester (equivalent to 4,500 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) and 1%
ground-nut oil for 17 weeks. No

systemic toxicity was observed in the study. There were also no adverse
effects noted in a study where rats were maintained on a diet of 10%
polyglycerol ester (equivalent to 5,000 mg/kg/day) for 90 days. In a
third study, rats were fed a diet containing 15% polyglycerol ester
(equivalent to 7,500 mg/kg/day) of fatty acids for 5 weeks. No adverse
effects were reported during this study.
    In a long-term study, mice were fed a diet of either 5%
polyglycerol ester (equivalent to 2,500 mg/kg/day) or ground-nut oil
for 80 weeks. All animals survived the study and no adverse effects
were reported on body weight, food consumption or peripheral blood
picture. Microscopic examination of all major organs showed nothing
remarkable. Similar results were exhibited in a study with rats fed the
same diet for 2 years. In a third study, mice were maintained on a diet
of 1% polyglycerol ester (equivalent to 500 mg/kg/day) for 15.5 months.
There were no adverse effects noted in this study.
    In a reproductive study, rats were fed a diet containing 1.5%
polyglycerol ester (equivalent to 750 mg/kg/day) for three generations.
There were no significant effects on fertility or reproductive
performance during the first year. There were also no consistent,
compound-related abnormalities noted after gross and histological
examination of the third generation.
    No carcinogenicity studies are available on triglycerol
diisostearate, however, there was no systemic toxicity observed in mice
and rats at doses up to 2,500 mg/kg/day for 80 weeks and 2 years,
respectively.
    No neurotoxicity studies are available in the database; however,
there was no systemic toxicity in mice and rats at doses up to 2,500
mg/kg/day during prolonged exposure.
    No mutagenicity studies are available, however, polyglycerol esters
of fatty acids are normal constituents in the diet. Therefore, there is
no concern for mutagenic effects.

V. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    The primary route of exposure to triglycerol diisostearate from its
use as an inert ingredient in pesticide products would most likely be
through consumption of food to which pesticide products containing it
have been applied, and possibly through drinking water (from runoff).
    In addition to pesticide use, triglycerol diisostearate has
reported uses in personal care products, such as lipstick, lip gloss,
sunscreen, makeup, skin cream and cleanser. There is a potential
exposure via dermal and inhalation routes based on its use pattern in
personal care products.
    No hazard was identified for the acute and chronic dietary
assessment (food and drinking water), or for the short-, intermediate-,
and long-term residential assessments, and therefore no aggregate risk
assessments were performed.

VI. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFFDCA 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.''
    Unlike other pesticide ingredients for which EPA has followed as
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA
has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to triglycerol
diisostearate and any other substances and, triglycerol diisostearate
does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has not assumed that triglycerol diisostearate has 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
the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

VII. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408 of the 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 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 to EPA supports the choice
of a different factor.
    The Agency has determined that triglycerol diisostearate is
represented by the group of chemicals known as polyglycerol esters of
fatty acids. Where specific information on triglycerol diisostearate is
not available, information on polyglycerol esters of fatty acids is
used to assess toxicity. The toxicity database is sufficient for
polyglycerol esters of fatty acids and potential exposure is adequately
characterized given the low toxicity of the chemical. In terms of
hazard, there are low concerns and no residual uncertainties regarding
prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity. Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids
have low subchronic and chronic toxicity. There was no systemic
toxicity in mice and rats at very high doses for 80 weeks and 2 years
respectively. In a reproductive study with rats, there were no
significant effects on fertility or reproductive performance for three
generations. There were also no consistent, compound-related
abnormalities noted after gross and histological examination of the
third generation. No neurotoxicity studies are available, but there
were no signs of neurological effects observed in the database at high
doses. Therefore, the Agency concluded that the developmental
neurotoxicity study is not required. No immunotoxicity study is
available, however, no systemic toxicity was observed in mice and rats
at high doses. In addition, no hazard has been identified following
exposure to

triglycerol diisostearate. Based on this information, there is no
concern at this time for increased sensitivity to infants and children
to triglycerol diisostearate when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations and a safety factor analysis has not been used
to assess risk. For the same reason, EPA has determined that an
additional safety factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants
and children.

VIII. Determination of Safety

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Residues of concern are not anticipated from dietary exposure (food
and drinking water) or for residential exposure from the use of
triglycerol diisostearate for the proposed use pattern as an inert
ingredient (emulsifier) in pesticide formulations applied to animals. A
quantitative dietary risk or residential risk assessment was not
performed since no endpoint of concern was identified in the database.
    Taking into consideration all available information on triglycerol
diisostearate, 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 triglycerol diisostearate.
Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.930 for residues of triglycerol
diisostearate when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier) in
pesticide formulations applied to animals can be considered safe under
section 408 of the FFDCA.

IX. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to
determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active
and other ingredients) ``may have an effect in humans that is similar
to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such
endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.'' Following
recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory
Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis
for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone
systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted
EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of
potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use
FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine
whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to
require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources
allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
    When additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols
being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed,
triglycerol diisostearate may be subjected to further screening and/or
testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

B. Analytical Method

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
triglycerol diisostearate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels
(MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.

X. Conclusions

    Based on the information in this preamble, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to
residues of triglycerol diisostearate. Accordingly, EPA finds that
exempting triglycerol diisostearate from the requirement of a tolerance
will be safe.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 104-4).
    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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: February 19, 2010.
Meredith F. Laws,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. 180.930, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredient to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
1,2,3-Propanetriol, homopolymer                       Emulsifier
 diisooctadecanoate (CAS Reg.
 No. 63705-03-3)
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-3859 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96150-96152]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31488]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79676; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Listing Standards
for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies

December 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 8, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standards for special
purpose acquisition companies (``SPACs'') set forth in Section 102.06
of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual'') to (i) reflect
changes to the SPAC structure in transactions that have come to market
in recent years and (ii) adjust the quantitative requirements for
initial and continued listing. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standards for
Acquisition Companies (or ``ACs'') set forth in Section 102.06.
    An AC (typically known in the marketplace as a special purpose
acquisition company or ``SPAC'') is a special purpose company formed
for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more operating businesses or assets. The
securities sold by the AC in its initial public offering are typically
units, consisting of one share of common stock and one or more warrants
(or a fraction of a warrant) to purchase common stock, that are
separable at some point after the IPO. Management generally is granted
a percentage of the AC's equity and may be required to purchase
additional shares in a private placement at the time of the AC's IPO.
    The typical AC structure has changed significantly since the NYSE
adopted its current listing standards. The listing standards of the
Nasdaq Stock Market and NYSE MKT both permit the listing of ACs with
this revised structure and the NYSE now proposes to revise Section
102.06 accordingly.
    Currently, Section 102.06 requires that at least 90% of the
proceeds raised in the IPO and any concurrent sale of equity securities
be placed in a trust account. Further, Section 102.06 requires that,
within 36 months or such shorter time period as specified by the AC,
the AC complete one or more business combinations having an aggregative
fair market value of at least 80% of the value of the trust account
(the ``Business Combination''). Until the AC has completed a business
combination of at least 80% of the trust account value, the AC must,
among other things, submit the Business Combination to a shareholder
vote. Any public shareholders who vote against the Business Combination
have a right to convert their shares of common stock into a pro rata
share of the aggregate amount then in the trust account, if the
business combination is approved and consummated. The AC cannot
consummate its Business Combination if public shareholders owning in
excess of a threshold amount (to be set no higher than 40%) of the
shares of common stock issued in the AC's initial public offering
exercise their conversion rights in connection with such Business
Combination.
    Since the adoption of Section 102.06, ACs that went public and did
not list on an exchange began to adopt a modified structure. In
response, Nasdaq and NYSE MKT both amended their listing rules to
accommodate these changes. The Exchange understands that these changes
were made to address a strategy that had been undertaken by hedge funds
and other activist investors in relation to a number of ACs. The
Exchange understands that these investors may have acquired an interest
in an AC and used their ability to vote against a proposed acquisition
as leverage to obtain additional consideration not available to other
shareholders. For example, they may negotiate the sale of their stake
to an affiliate of the AC's management for a price higher than their
pro rata share of the trust account. In other cases, the withheld votes
may have caused the proposed acquisition to fail altogether. The
Exchange understands the revisions to the AC structure were adopted to
prevent this sort of ``greenmail.''
    Under the revised structure, an AC would not seek a vote on the
Business Combination unless otherwise required by law. Instead, the AC
would conduct a redemption offer pursuant to Rule 13e-4 and Regulation
14E under the Act after the public announcement and prior to the
completion of the business combination, enabling shareholders who are
opposed to the transaction to tender their shares in exchange for a pro
rata share of the cash held by the acquisition vehicle. This is the
same outcome available to public shareholders who vote against the
acquisition pursuant to the Exchange's existing rule. Under this new
alternative, shareholders would still maintain the ability to ``vote
with their feet'' if they oppose a proposed transaction and would, as
just noted, also obtain their pro rata share of the AC's cash through
the tender offer pursuant to Rule 13e-4 and Regulation 14E under the
Act. As such, the Exchange believes that the protections provided by
the existing rule would continue to be available. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to modify Section 102.06 to allow an AC to conduct a
tender offer for all shares of all shareholders in exchange for a pro
rata share of the cash held in trust by the AC in compliance with Rule
13e-4 and Regulation 14E under the Act instead of soliciting a
shareholder vote.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would require an AC that is
not subject to the Commission's proxy rules to conduct a tender offer
for shares in

exchange for a pro rata share of the cash held in trust by the AC in
compliance with Rule 13e-4 and Regulation 14E under the Act and provide
information similar to that required by the Commission's proxy rules,
even if the AC seeks a shareholder vote. This change would assure that
investors, in all cases, get comparable information about the proposed
transaction.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the requirement that the AC
cannot consummate its Business Combination if public shareholders
owning in excess of a threshold amount (to be set no higher than 40%)
of the shares of common stock issued in the AC's initial public
offering exercise their conversion rights in connection with such
Business Combination. The Exchange notes that this limitation does not
exist under the rules of Nasdaq or NYSE MKT and also that there will be
disclosure enabling shareholders to include in their decision making
consideration of the fact that the post-Business Combination entity may
vary in size depending on how many shares are redeemed for cash. The
amended rule would permit AC shareholders to make their own informed
decisions as to whether they want to participate in the Business
Combination.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the quantitative requirements
of Section 102.06. Under the current rule, an AC must have an aggregate
market value of $250 million and $200 million of market value of
publicly-held shares \4\ at the time of initial listing. The Exchange
has observed that most of the ACs that have listed on other markets in
recent years are significantly smaller than they would need to be to
meet the NYSE's current quantitative requirements. As such, the
Exchange proposes to change the aggregate market value and market value
of publicly-held shares requirements of Section 102.06 to $100 million
and $80 million, respectively. The Exchange notes that there are a
number of ACs listed currently on other markets that would have met
these revised requirements, but not those of the current rule, and that
there is no evidence that these companies are unfit for exchange
trading. The Exchange also notes that its revised quantitative
requirements would remain higher than those of Nasdaq and NYSE MKT.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Shares held by directors, officers, or their immediate
families and other concentrated holding of 10 percent or more are
excluded in calculating the number of publicly-held shares.
    \5\ The Exchange notes that an AC could list on Nasdaq Global
Market under Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 5405(b)(3) on the basis of a
market value of listed securities of $75 million and a market value
of publicly held shares of $20 million. The Exchange's understanding
is that Nasdaq calculates the market value of listed securities by
multiplying the total shares outstanding by the public offering
price per share, which is also how the Exchange calculates aggregate
market value for purposes of Section 102.06. As such, the comparable
requirements are clearly lower on Nasdaq Global Market in both
cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adjust the continued listing
standards for ACs to align them with the proposed revised initial
listing standards. Currently, the Exchange will initiate suspension and
delisting procedures of an AC prior to its Business Combination if its
average aggregate global market capitalization fell below $125 million
or the average aggregate global market capitalization attributable to
its publicly-held shares fell below $100 million, in each case over 30
consecutive trading days. An AC is not eligible to follow the
compliance plan procedures outlined in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 with
respect to this criterion, and any such AC is subject to an immediate
trading suspension and the commencement of immediate delisting
proceedings. The Exchange proposes to replace this with a provision
under which a pre-Business Combination AC would be subject to prompt
initiation of suspension and delisting procedures if its average global
market capitalization fell below $50 million or its aggregate market
value of publicly-held shares fell below $40,000,000 over 30
consecutive trading days. The Exchange believes that this continued
listing standard is appropriate as it is consistent with the
requirement applied to operating companies (as described in the next
paragraph), but without the cure periods provided to operating
companies. The Exchange would notify the AC if its average aggregate
global market capitalization fell below $75,000,000 or its aggregate
market value of publicly-held shares fell below $60,000,000.
    Currently, an AC upon consummation of its Business Combination is
subject only to the continued listing requirements applicable to
operating companies (i.e., either its average global market
capitalization or its stockholders' equity must be at least $50
million).\6\ In connection with its adjustment of the initial listing
standards for ACs, the Exchange proposes to adopt a requirement that,
immediately after consummation of the Business Combination, the post-
Business Combination company must meet the following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition, when a listed AC consummates its Business
Combination, the Exchange will consider whether the Business
Combination gives rise to a ``back door listing'' as described in
Section 703.08(E). If the resulting company would not qualify for
original listing, the Exchange will promptly initiate suspension and
delisting of the AC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A price per share of at least $4.00;
     a global market capitalization of at least $150,000,000;
     an aggregate market value of publicly-held shares of at
least $40,0000,000; and
     the requirements with respect to shareholders and
publicly-held shares set forth in Section 102.01A for companies listing
in connection with an initial public offering.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Currently, Section 102.01A requires companies listing in
connection with their IPO to have a minimum of 400 holders of 100
shares and 1,100,000 publicly-held shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a listed AC consummates its Business Combination, the Exchange
will require the AC to submit an original listing application which
must be approved by the Exchange prior to consummation of the Business
Combination. The Exchange believes that by requiring a post-Business
Combination AC to meet a significantly enhanced continued listing
requirement, it would better ensure that only ACs that post-Business
Combination are clearly suitable for listing on the NYSE will remain
listed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \9\ of the Act, in particular in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change furthers these goals in that it imposes additional requirements
on ACs, which are designed to protect investors and the public interest
and prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices on the part
of ACs and their promoters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed revisions to the aggregate
market value and market value of publicly-held shares requirements are
consistent with the protection of investors in that a number of ACs
have listed on other markets that would have

met the proposed new standards (but not those in the existing rule) and
there is no evidence that they have proven unfit for exchange trading.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to modify Section 102.06
to allow an AC to conduct a tender offer for all shares of all
shareholders in exchange for a pro rata share of the cash held in trust
by the AC in compliance with Rule 13e-4 and Regulation 14E under the
Act instead of soliciting a shareholder vote protects investors and the
public interest, as it will help prevent ``greenmail'' strategies where
professional investors seek to force ACs to give them consideration not
available to other shareholders as a condition for voting in favor of
an acquisition.
    The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of
investors to delete the requirement that a Business Combination not go
forward if shareholders exceeding a threshold amount exercise their
conversion rights, as shareholders will be informed in advance of the
fact that the size of the post-Business Combination entity will vary
depending on the amount of securities that are converted and they will
be able to make their own informed decisions as to whether to
participate in light of that disclosure. The Exchange believes that the
proposed amendments to the continued listing standards are consistent
with the protection of investors as the requirements for pre-Business
Combination ACs would be as high as those applied to operating
companies and the standard applied at the time of the Business
Combination would be significantly higher than that applied to other
continued listings.
    While the proposed amended quantitative requirements for the
listing of ACs would be lower than those for other listing applicants,
the Exchange does not believe that this difference is unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes this to be the case because
market value-based listing standards are largely adopted to ensure
adequate trading liquidity and, consequently, efficient market pricing
of a company's securities. As an investment in an AC prior to its
Business Combination represents a right to a pro rata share of the AC's
assets held in trust, AC shares typically have a trading price very
close to their liquidation value and the liquidity and market
efficiency concerns relevant to listed operating companies do not arise
to the same degree. As such, the Exchange does not believe it is
unfairly discriminatory to apply different market value requirements to
ACs than to other listing applicants.

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. The proposed rule change is
designed to harmonize the Exchange's rules with changes in the AC
structure prevalent in the marketplace and embodied in the rules of
other listing markets. As such, it is intended to promote competition
for the listing of ACs.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-72 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-72. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office 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-NYSE-2016-72 and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31488 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42989-42991]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17178]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69980; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Decommissioning of NSCC's Over-the-Counter (OTC) Equity Comparison
Service

July 12, 2013.
    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 July 2, 2013, the 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.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') of NSCC with respect to the decommissioning of
the OTC Equity Comparison Service, as well as technical changes, as
more fully described below.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC 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

    (i) NSCC provides a framework for the comparison and recording of
transactions in eligible equity and debt securities executed on
national stock exchanges and in the over-the-counter (``OTC'') market,
through its Comparison and Trade Recording Operation, provided pursuant
to Rule 7

and Procedure II of the Rules. NSCC also provides an Obligation
Warehouse service pursuant to Rule 51 and Procedure IIA, under which
certain transactions may be submitted for comparison that are not
otherwise submitted for processing to NSCC through its other services.
Over time, in efforts to promote straight-through processing, markets
have assumed increasing responsibility for trade comparison (i.e.,
matching the buy and sell side of a securities transaction) at the
point of trade, and submitting the transaction to NSCC on a ``locked-
in'' basis for trade recording purposes (i.e., with the transaction
details having been already compared). Today, all marketplaces
interfacing with NSCC have assumed responsibility for equity comparison
on their respective venues; as a result the level of over-the-counter
bilateral submissions of equity transactions to the equity comparison
operation has become nominal.\3\ In addition, NSCC's OTC Equity
Comparison service operates through legacy batch processing at the end
of the day. Trade capture processes now mostly run in a real-time
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ During May 2013, NSCC compared an average of approximately
90 sides (an approximate average of 45 trades) for equity
transactions through its OTC Comparison service. As of June 24,
2013, NSCC compared a total of 74 sides (37 trades) for the entire
month of June 2013 to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7 and Procedure II each contain notes stating that the
comparison function offered thereunder will discontinue once each
exchange and/or marketplace assumes responsibility for trade
comparison.\4\ Therefore, in light of the assumption of the comparison
function by each marketplace and minimal volume to equity trades
submissions to the OTC Equity Comparison service, NSCC proposes to
decommission its OTC Equity Comparison service offering. The proposed
change will not, however, impact comparison services with respect to
debt transactions (which are compared through the Real Time Trade
Matching (or ``RTTM'') system) or transactions submitted to the
Obligation Warehouse, both of which will continue to be processed in
the ordinary course. Once the OTC Equity Comparison service is
decommissioned, comparison submissions for equity transactions other
than those submitted to the Obligation Warehouse in accordance with
Rule 51 and Procedure IIA will not be accepted by NSCC and related
output will not be produced. As a result, upon the effective date of
this proposal, all equity transactions submitted for processing to
NSCC, other than those submitted through the Obligation Warehouse, must
be compared prior to submission (i.e., at the marketplace of execution
or through FINRA/NASDAQ's Automated Comparison Transaction facility
(``ACT'') and submitted to NSCC on a locked-in basis for trade
recording).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnotes to Rule 7 and Procedure II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate this proposal, NSCC will mend Rule 7 (Comparison and
Trade Recording Operation) and Procedure II (Trade Comparison and
Recording Service) to reflect rules text changes consistent with the
above. NSCC also proposes to make technical changes to Procedure II to:
(i) delete a provision relating to the submission of municipal
securities transactions by Members on behalf of non-members, and (ii)
delete a provision relating to potential announcement via Important
Notice of the availability of the comparison service for when-issued
corporate securities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ With respect to the former provision, the function described
is no longer in use and the provision has become obsolete, and with
respect to the latter provision, a comparison service is not
currently scheduled to be implemented for corporate when-issued
securities and NSCC would submit a rule filing to the Commission in
the event such an implementation is proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition Rule 5 (General Provisions) will be revised to clarify
that output issued by NSCC with respect to transactions either compared
by it, or recorded locked-in transactions (defined as ``Compared
Contracts''), evidence valid, binding and enforceable compared
transactions for purposes of the Rules. In this regard, Rule 1
(Definitions) will be revised to reflect the definition of ``Compared
Contracts''.
    NSCC will also: (i) Amend its fee schedule in Addendum A to the
Rules to delete references to charges associated with OTC equity
comparison, and (ii) make technical changes to the numbering of
footnotes and certain cross-references in the Rules to reflect the
changes noted above.
    The effective date of the proposed rule change will be announced
via an NSCC Important Notice at least 30 days in advance of its
implementation.
    (ii) Statutory Basis. The proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \6\ of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and the rules and regulations
thereunder, because it provides for operational efficiencies by
promoting the comparison of transactions at the point of trade, and
therefore are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition, as usage of the OTC
Equity Comparison service has declined significantly and other
alternatives (including NSCC's Obligation Warehouse and the ACT
facility) are available.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received with respect to this filing.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2013-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2013-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's Web site
(http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rule_filings/nscc/2013.php). 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-NSCC-2013-09 and should be
submitted on or before August 8, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17178 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72296-72297]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0175]

Public Meeting of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council
(RCC) Motor Vehicles Working Group

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was
created on February 4, 2011. After private sector consultations and
bilateral negotiations, the RCC released the Joint Action Plan on
Regulatory Cooperation on December 7, 2011. The Joint Action Plan is a
practical first step to increased regulatory cooperation between the
United States and Canada. In order to implement the initiatives
identified in the Joint Action Plan, bilateral working groups led by
senior officials from regulatory agencies have developed work plans
with concrete objectives, deliverables and milestones for tangible
progress within the RCC's two-year mandate. On January 30 and 31, 2012,
the RCC and its bi-national working groups facilitated stakeholder
meetings in Washington, DC. This notice announces a public meeting of
the RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on January 15, 2013. The meeting
will start at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m., local time, or
until all registered speakers have been heard.

ADDRESSES: The January 15, 2013 public meeting will be held at the
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building, 11th Floor, 477 Michigan Ave.,
Detroit, MI 48226. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with
disabilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to attend the public
meeting, please contact Mr. Christopher Morris, NHTSA Office of
Rulemaking, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at
(202) 493-2218, or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please contact Mr. Morris
at least ten days before the meeting date of January 15, 2013. Please
provide the following information: Name, affiliation, address, email
address, and telephone number.
    For other questions regarding the RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group,
you may contact Mr. Ezana Wondimneh, Chief of the NHTSA International
Harmonization Division in the U.S., by

email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Mr. Merz Rustom, Director, Motor Vehicle
Standards, Research and Development at Transport Canada, by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by fax at
(613) 990-2913.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation
Council was created on February 4, 2011. After private sector
consultations and bilateral negotiations, the RCC released the Joint
Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation on December 7, 2011. For more
information on the Joint Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation, see
http://www.trade.gov/rcc/rcc-summary.asp. The Joint Action Plan is a
practical first step to increased regulatory cooperation between the
United States and Canada. In order to implement the initiatives
identified in the Joint Action Plan, bilateral working groups led by
senior officials from regulatory agencies have developed work plans
with concrete objectives, deliverables and milestones for tangible
progress within the RCC's two-year mandate. On January 30 and 31, 2012,
the RCC and its bi-national working groups facilitated stakeholder
meetings in Washington, DC.
    The January 15, 2013 public meeting is being held pursuant to the
RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group Work Plan. For more information on the
Work Plans, see http://www.trade.gov/rcc/documents/Existing-Motor-Vehicle-Safety-Standards.pdf, or http://www.trade.gov/rcc/ for future
Work Plans.
    Public Meeting Procedures. The public meeting provides a forum for
the public to speak about topics within the mandate of the RCC Motor
Vehicles Working Group. In order to comply with the occupancy limits of
the meeting space, attendance is limited to 100 persons, and pre-
registration is required. For space reasons, it is asked that you
consider limiting your company's or association's delegation to 3-5
persons. If you would like to attend the public meeting as a speaker or
as an observer, please contact the person identified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Depending on
the available space, registration for persons attending the public
hearing as observers may be accepted after that date.
    For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for
approximately ten minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if
a large number of people wish to make presentations. Once we learn how
many people have registered to speak at the meeting, we will allocate
an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for
necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for
anyone else in the audience who wishes to give an oral presentation.
    We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other
material to the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible,
we prefer that speakers not use any audio-visual aids or computer
slideshows; however, if you plan to use such aids, you must provide
those materials in advance of the meeting and notify the contact person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    NHTSA and Transport Canada will conduct the meeting informally.
Presenters wishing to provide supplementary information should submit
it to the contact person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
    For security purposes, government-issued photo identification is
required to enter the Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building. Non-U.S.
citizens may be required to show passports. To allow sufficient time to
clear security and enter the building, NHTSA recommends that
participants arrive 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of the event,
and that luggage, laptop computers, and personal effects be kept to a
minimum.

Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-29369 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P