1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code 109702 DP Barcode D293413 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2006 SUBJECT: Addendum to the EFED RED Chapter for Cypermethrin TO: Dirk Helder, Chemical Review Manager Veronique C. LaCapra, Chemical Review Manager Margaret Rice, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch 2 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508P)

FROM: Michael Hoffmann, Biologist Miachel Rexrode, Aquatic Biologist, Senior Scientist Ronald Parker, Senior Environmental Engineer José Luis Meléndez, Chemist Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507P)

THROUGH: Karen Whitby, Acting Chief Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507P)

The purpose of this Addendum to the EFED RED Chapter for Cypermethrin is to address a number of issues that were raised by the Special Review and Reregistration Division ( SRRD) and other parties regarding previous versions of the chapter. This addendum contains a list of issues and EFED's corresponding responses, as well as additional analyses on the effects of buffers on spray drift, a revised terrestrial risk assessment, and additional details on ecological incidents reported for cypermethrin.

Issue # 1: There has been inconsistent use of various input parameters for determining exposure and risk to terrestrial animals in the original risk assessment and the subsequent revisions. Corrected mammalian and avian acute and chronic RQs are needed, along with a clear explanation of which input values were incorrect in the original assessment, and what the correct T REX input values are.

Response to Issue # 1: Mammalian and avian acute and chronic RQs have been recalculated, and a clear explanation of which input values were used to derive them has been included below in Table 1 of the revised terrestrial risk assessment. The maximum number of applications per year, the minimum application intervals, and the maximum application rates for each crop were derived from the product labels and have been used as stated. The foliar half life of 16.1 days that was used in this revision was based on data for 2 cypermethrin in Willis and McDowell ( 1987). This half life is different than was used previously in all versions of the cypermethrin risk assessment. Additional discussion regarding this half life is provided below in the revised terrestrial risk assessment.

Issue # 2: No effects were observed in the available chronic avian studies with cypermethrin, but the highest dose tested was only 50 ppm. In a previous revision, the permethrin NOAEC ( identified as 150 ppm) was used to determine chronic risk to birds instead of the NOAEC value of > 50 ppm used in the original risk assessment, but with no supporting explanation. In addition, the permethrin NOAEC is listed as 125 ppm on p. 67 of the original cypermethrin risk assessment, and has been changed to 500 ppm in the most recent EFED addendum for permethrin. Therefore, the 150 ppm NOAEC value used for cypermethrin seems to be a mistake. The NOAEC that is most appropriate for determining chronic avian risk should be clearly identified and explained.

Response to Issue # 2: Neither the 125 ppm nor the 150 ppm values should be reported as the  NOAEC value for the permethrin avian reproduction study ( MRID 42322902). The 150 ppm treatment was not actually a concentration tested in the available studies, and although the 125 ppm was a true test level, it represents an incorrect NOAEC because no significant effects were observed at any test level up to and including the highest test concentration of 500 ppm.

Instead, EFED has recalculated risk quotients for birds below based on the correct NOAEC of 500 ppm ( LOAEC > 500 ppm) from the two avian reproduction studies for permethrin ( MRID 42322902 and MRID 42322901). The available avian reproduction studies for cypermethrin ( MRID 90072 and MRID 90074) showed no adverse treatment related effects to mallards or bobwhite quail. However, they were only conducted at maximum concentrations of 50 ppm. Although no effects were seen in either study, if the nondefinitive NOAEC (> 50 ppm) value from the avian reproduction studies with cypermethrin was used, uncertainty would be high because risk to avian species could not be precluded. Subsequently, the NOAEC value for permethrin ( NOAEC = 500 ppm) was used to demonstrate low risk to birds resulting from cypermethrin use. Permethrin data are considered to be suitable surrogate data for cypermethrin because both chemicals are pyrethroids, they are structurally similar compounds with similar modes of action, and both are expected to be of low chronic toxicity to birds.

The use of the NOAEC of 500 ppm did not result in any chronic LOC exceedances for birds ( described in the revised terrestrial risk assessment below). This is in contrast to the original assessment, which found that avian species were at chronic risk when estimates were based on a NOAEC of > 50 ppm.

Issue # 3: The original EFED assessment lists different NOAECs ( and NOAELs) for determining chronic mammalian risk in different parts of the assessment and it is not clear as to which of the reported values is correct. In the original assessment, chronic risk to mammals was eventually determined using a NOAEL of 7.5 mg/ kg/ day and a NOAEC of 150 ppm ( MRIDs 00112912, 42068504, 9202704). While revisions to the original assessment employed these values to determine chronic risk to mammals for most crop scenarios, risk to mammals for the cotton crop scenario was determined using a NOAEL of 5 mg/ kg/ day and a NOAEC of 150 ppm. The correct NOAEL ( and NOAEC) for assessing chronic mammalian risk for all crops should be identified.

Response to Issue # 3: The NOAEC value of 150 ppm ( LOAEC = 750 ppm, NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day, and LOAEL = 50/ 37.5 mg/ kg/ day) from a 3 generation reproduction study ( MRIDs 00112912, 42068504, and 92027040) was based on decreased body weight gain in parents ( typically   10% from controls for males and females) and decreased mean litter weight gain during lactation (  12% to 21% for F1B and   12% to 17% for F1B females for days 10 to 28). The NOAEC value of 100 ppm ( LOAEC = 500 ppm, NOAEL = 5 mg/ kg/ day, and LOAEL = 25 mg/ kg/ day) from another 3 generation reproduction study ( MRID 00090040) was based on decreased body weight gain in parents (  3% and   7% from controls for males and females, respectively, at the 500 ppm level; p  0.05) and pups (  4.0% from controls at the 500 ppm level; p  0.01). In 3 this addendum, the NOAEC value of 100 ppm ( NOAEL = 5 mg/ kg/ day) was used to determine chronic risk to mammals for all crop scenarios because it is the most conservative ( lowest), accurate value available for cypermethrin.

" Issue # 4: A thorough description of the ecological incidents for cypermethrin is needed.

Response to Issue # 4: The incidents that were attributed to cypermethrin exposure are very limited in information. However, five incidents involving terrestrial organisms ( birds, goats, dogs) were noted. The incident involving birds ( 5000 sparrows) may be attributed to birds eating insects that had been killed from cypermethrin use the previous night on an eggplant crop ( I011348 001); however, a number of other chemicals could also be responsible. Incidents involving fish and other aquatic organisms were about double the incidents involving terrestrial organisms. Although in about half of these aquatic incidents the source of cypermethrin was not reported ( I007107 003, I006971 001, I010444 004, I013857 011), several fish kills were attributed to termidicide use of cypermethrin ( I009966 002, I001031 001, I000011 001, I015094 001).

Additional details on the reported terrestrial and aquatic incidents for cypermethrin are detailed below in Incident Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Issue # 5: EFED should provide a complete explanation of the data requirements and should thoroughly address any relevant changes that have been made to the original risk assessment.

Response to Issue # 5: In the original risk assessment for cypermethrin, the following data gaps were identified:

( 1) 71 4 ( a): Avian Reproduction, Quail ( 2) 72 4 ( b): Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle, Freshwater ( 3) OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 850.1735: Whole Sediment Acute Toxicity Testing with Freshwater Invertebrates ( Chironomus tentans) ( 4) EPA/ 600/ R 99/ 064: Chronic Freshwater Sediment Testing A 65 day Test with Chironomus tentans ( 5) EPA/ 600/ R01/ 020: Chronic Estuarine/ Marine Sediment Testing A 28 day Test with Leptocheirus plumulosus However, since the original assessment was written, the OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 850.1735, EPA/ 600/ R 99/ 064, and EPA/ 600/ R01/ 020 studies have been submitted to the Agency by the Pyrethroid Working Group, but have not yet been reviewed or incorporated into this risk assessment. In addition, the NOAEC values from the available avian reproduction studies for permethrin have been used in lieu of definitive values for cypermethrin, and are considered appropriate for precluding significant chronic risk to avian species ( see discussion in the revised terrestrial risk assessment below). Therefore, at this time, only 72 4( b): Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle, Freshwater, is still identified as a data gap.

Issue # 6: A revised spray drift discussion is needed.

Response to Issue # 6: A revised discussion is included below in the section entitled, " Effect of Buffers on Spray Drift."

Issue # 7: It appears that the EFED may have overlooked the acute toxicity study with Daphnia magna ( MRID 43293501; Wheat and Evans, 1994) or transcribed its results incorrectly in the RED. The 48 hr EC50 value of 161.5 pptr ( 161.5 ng ai/ L) from the study ( not µ g a. i./ L, as it was reported in the Chapter) appears to be the most sensitive endpoint available for freshwater invertebrates, yet it was not used to calculate risk for this taxonomic group. 4 Response to Issue # 7: MRID 43293501 was not overlooked in the document and the most sensitive endpoint was used to calculate risk to freshwater invertebrates; however, MRID 43293501 was misclassified in the RED and the units for the endpoint were reported incorrectly. The individual data evaluation record ( DER) for the study indicates that the study was not scientifically sound because there was significant contamination of the controls. The study report itself also states that the measured " residues from the cypermethrin exposure  did not follow a serial dilution pattern" and that the " analysis of test samples failed to yield useful results." Therefore, the study should have been classified as Invalid and should not have been discussed in the RED.

Issue # 8: In the analysis of effects on estuarine/ marine invertebrates, toxicity data from benthic and open water species were combined. Yet in the analysis of effects on freshwater invertebrates, the Science Chapter separated toxicity data for benthic species from data for Daphnia magna, and used Daphnia magna as a surrogate for all freshwater water column invertebrates. Data from water only studies with freshwater invertebrate species considered to be benthic were not used in the effects characterization for the water column. In addition, not all of the test organisms listed as benthic in Table E 4 are actually sediment dwellers; for example, adult whirligigs ( Gyrinus), backswimmers ( Notonecta), water boatmen ( Corixa), and water mites ( Piona). The segregation of benthic from water column species was not discussed, and no justification was presented. By segregating data from benthic and water column species this assessment deviates from EPA's stated practice of basing screening level RQs on the most sensitive species in each category of organisms. Daphnia magna is in fact the least sensitive of the five freshwater crustacean species for which water only toxicity data are presented in Appendix E. As has been found for other synthetic pyrethroids, amphipods ( Gammarus and Hyalella) are substantially more sensitive than Daphnia magna. If data from all water only toxicity tests with freshwater invertebrates were used to characterize effects on water column species, the Toxicity Reference Value would have been 0.0036 µ g/ L ( Hyalella azteca, 96 h LC50) rather than 0.42 µ g/ L ( Daphnia magna, 48 h EC50). RQs for freshwater invertebrates would have been approximately 100 times greater than those calculated in the Science Chapter. Use of Daphnia magna data to represent all water column invertebrates reduces the apparent risk of cypermethrin.

Response to Issue # 8: The Agency acknowledges that some of the species listed in the table referring to Freshwater Benthic Invertebrates are not benthic ( e. g., adult whirligigs ( Gyrinus), backswimmers ( Notonecta), water boatmen ( Corixa), and water mites ( Piona)). EFED also agrees that the data for aquatic invertebrates would have been most transparently separated based on water column toxicity ( studies with water only systems) data and sediment toxicity ( studies with water sediment systems) data.

The two most important considerations when selecting toxicity data to characterize risk to a specific taxonomic group are whether the data are the most sensitive available and whether the exposure scenario under which the endpoints were derived are appropriate and representative of that group of organisms. The RED explicitly states in Appendix E:

" In the water system studies, organisms were exposed only to cypermethrin in overlying water; there was no sediment in the test chamber. Thus, while data from these studies provide information regarding the sensitivity of benthic organisms to cypermethrin in surface water, no data from these studies regarding exposure to cypermethrin in sediment are available. Therefore, data are insufficient for use in quantifying risks to benthic organisms," and " studies using the water sediment system more accurately depict the environmental exposure of benthic organisms than the water system studies."

Therefore, only those studies that exposed sediment dwellers to cypermethrin in a water sediment system were considered appropriate for determining risk to benthic organisms. The only two studies that met these criteria were MRID 44074402 and MRID 44074406.

EFED agrees that it may be appropriate to use the study with Hyallella ( MRID 44423501) to characterize 5 risk to freshwater water column dwelling species because this species can spend time in both the water column and benthos and because the study was conducted in a water only system. However, the EFED reviewer exercised best professional judgment and chose the Daphnia measurement endpoint because the use of this endpoint allows for a comparative analysis of toxicity to most other chemicals. Although the 96 hour LC50 value of 0.0036 µ g a. i./ L for Hyalella azteca ( based on a water only system) may be appropriate for determining risk to all freshwater water column dwelling organisms, freshwater invertebrate acute RQs still exceeded all acute LOCs ( RQ range= 0.4  4.8) when based on the 48 h EC50 value of 0.42 µ g a. i./ L for Daphnia magna. If based on the endpoint for Hyalella, acute RQs would be approximately 100 times higher and range from 49.4 to 558.3.

In addition, chronic RQs for freshwater invertebrates would also increase if the Hyalella measurement endpoint is used. Because no chronic data were available for freshwater invertebrates, a surrogate NOAEC toxicity value was derived to calculate chronic RQs for this taxonomic group. Previously, the chronic NOAEC estimated for freshwater invertebrates was based on the acute to chronic ratio method, determined by using the acute Daphnia measurement endpoint and the following mathematical relationship:

Estuarine/ marine invertebrate LC50 ( 0.00475 µ g a. i./ L) / Estuarine/ marine invertebrate NOAEC ( 0.000781 µ g a. i./ L) = Freshwater invertebrate LC50 ( 0.42 µ g a. i./ L)/ X ( estimated value for Freshwater invertebrate NOAEC), where X = 0.069 µ g a. i./ L.

Based on this derived NOAEC for freshwater invertebrates, chronic RQs exceeded chronic LOCs and ranged from 0.5 to 2.8. However, because a more sensitive endpoint has now been identified, a chronic NOAEC can be estimated for freshwater invertebrates using the acute Hyalella measurement endpoint and the following mathematical relationship:

Estuarine/ marine invertebrate LC50 ( 0.00475 µ g a. i./ L) / Estuarine/ marine invertebrate NOAEC ( 0.000781 µ g a. i./ L) = Freshwater invertebrate LC50 ( 0.0036 µ g a. i./ L)/ X ( estimated value for Freshwater invertebrate NOAEC), where X = 0.00059 µ g a. i./ L.

Based on this newly estimated NOAEC value, chronic RQs for freshwater invertebrates would be approximately 100 times higher and range from 57.6 to 325.4. Therefore, while use of the Daphnia EC50 value may foster a comparative analysis, its use may also result in RQs that underestimate acute and chronic risk to freshwater water column dwelling invertebrates.

Issue # 9: The analysis described above based on Daphnia magna leads EFED to the erroneous conclusion in the Aquatic Effects Characterization Section that estuarine/ marine invertebrates are substantially more sensitive to cypermethrin than freshwater invertebrates. The EFED states that for estuarine/ marine invertebrates, the lowest LC50 value reported is 0.00475 µ g a. i./ L, which is 100 times lower than reported for other aquatic animals. However, it appears that data for freshwater amphipods was ignored ( e. g. Hyalella azteca and Gammarus species), which are approximately 100 times more sensitive than Daphnia magna. Moreover, the relative sensitivities would be better represented by means, medians or Entire Sensitivity Distributions. The EFED Science Chapter also says that estuarine/ marine invertebrates are expected to be the taxonomic group at greatest risk. However, based on studies not yet published, freshwater and marine invertebrates are approximately equal in their sensitivity to cypermethrin.

Response to Issue # 9: The EFED does not use means, medians, or Entire Sensitivity Distributions in screening level risk assessments, but rather, bases risk conclusions on the most sensitive data available. The EFED acknowledges that it may be considered appropriate to use the study with Hyallella ( MRID 44423501) to characterize risk to freshwater water column dwelling species ( Please refer to the Agency's Response to Issue # 8), and that based on such an analysis, the sensitivity of and risk to estuarine/ marine invertebrates is on par with freshwater invertebrates. However, while the EFED cannot comment on the unpublished data mentioned above, the increased sensitivity of estuarine/ marine invertebrates does appear to 6 be consistent among other pyrethroids and may be correlated with osmoregulation.

Issue # 10: The following is stated in the Science Chapter:

" For two studies, the acute NOAEC value for sub lethal effects was several orders of magnitude lower than the LC50 value; in rainbow trout, the acute NOAEC and LC50 values were 0.00068 µ g a. i./ L and 0.8 µ g a. i./ L, respectively ( Acc. No. 241598), and in bluegill sunfish, the acute NOAEC and LC50 values were < 0.0022 µ g a. i./ L and 2.2 µ g a. i./ L, respectively ( Acc. No. 241598). Thus, sub lethal effects can occur at exposure levels far below the concentrations that cause lethality."

However, the NOAEC values cited for Bluegill sunfish and Rainbow trout are incorrect. The NOAEC units should be mg/ L instead of µ g/ L. Therefore, the LC50 = 0.8 µ g a. i./ L and the NOAEC = 0.68 µ g/ L for rainbow trout, while the LC50 = 2.2 µ g a. i./ L and the NOAEC< 2.2 µ g/ L for bluegill sunfish.

Response to Issue # 10: The EFED acknowledges that the LC50 and the NOAEC values for rainbow trout are 0.8 and 0.68 µ g a. i./ L, respectively, while the LC50 and the NOAEC values for bluegill sunfish are 2.2 and < 2 µ g a. i./ L, respectively. Therefore, while sub lethal effects can still occur at exposure levels below the concentrations that cause lethality, the magnitude of the difference between these values may not be as large as originally anticipated. 7 Revised Terrestrial Animal Risk Assessment I. Introduction The terrestrial risk assessment for cypermethrin was revised according to the comments above. Based on the comments, risk quotients for terrestrial organisms were recalculated using T REX v1.2.3 and the input values and toxicity reference values described below in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Cotton, pecan, canola, and lettuce crop scenarios were all considered in this addendum in order to be consistent with the original risk assessment and because they represent over 90% of cypermethrin's agricultural use. However, risk quotients ( RQs) have now been calculated based on different NOAEC/ NOAEL values for birds and mammals, and different foliar dissipation half lives than were used in the original risk assessment.

II. Terrestrial Exposure Analysis The EFED terrestrial exposure model T REX ( T REX, Version 1.2.3, dated August 8, 2005) is used to estimate exposure and risk to avian and mammalian species. Input values for avian and mammalian toxicity as well as chemical application and foliar dissipation half life data are required to run the model. The model provides estimates of exposure concentrations and risk quotients ( RQs). Specifically, the model provides estimates of concentrations ( upper bound and mean) of chemical residues on the surface of different types of foliage and insects that may be dietary sources of exposure to avian, mammalian, reptilian, or terrestrialphase amphibian receptors. The surface residue concentration ( ppm) is estimated by multiplying the application rate ( pounds active ingredient per acre) by a value specific to each food item.

For multiple applications, the EEC is determined by adding the mass on the surface immediately following the application to the mass of the chemical still present on the surfaces on the day of application ( determined based on first order kinetics using the foliar half life as the rate constant). Input values used for estimating avian and mammalian exposure risks to cypermethrin are summarized in Table 1. The maximum number of applications per year, the minimum application intervals, and the maximum application rates for each crop were derived from the product labels, whereas the foliar half life of 16.1 days was based on data for cypermethrin in Willis and McDowell ( 1987).

The foliar half life of 16.1 days represents the 90% upper confidence limit of the mean half life for all crops that had half life estimates based on total residues ( internal plus dislodgeable residues). Data on all available crops ( i. e., cotton and beans) were considered because T REX is used to calculate terrestrial exposure concentration estimates on all plant surfaces following pesticide application, and not just concentration estimates on a particular crop. However, half lives based on dislodgeable residues alone were not considered for cypermethrin because the compound has a high log kow ( 6.4) and is expected to bind strongly to plants. Therefore, half lives based on total residues ( i. e., half lives of 7.9 and 4.8 for cotton and beans, respectively) will likely provide more realistic estimates, whereas half lives based on dislodgeable residues alone will likely underestimate exposure concentrations.

By comparing estimated concentrations to acute and chronic toxicity reference values, acute and chronic RQs are calculated. The EECs on food items may be compared directly with dietary toxicity data or converted to an oral dose, as is done for small mammals. For mammals, the residue concentration is converted to daily oral dose based on the fraction of body weight consumed daily as estimated through mammalian allometric relationships. The screening level risk assessment for cypermethrin uses upper bound predicted residues as the measure of exposure. Summaries of the predicted residues of cypermethrin that may be expected to occur on selected avian or mammalian food items immediately following application for the maximum use scenarios are presented in Table 2. 8 Table 1. Input parameters for cypermethrin used in T REX ( v1.2.3).

Crop Application rate ( lbs a. i./ A) Foliar half life a ( days) Frequency of application ( days) Maximum applications per year Cotton 0.1 16.1 3 6 Lettuce 0.1 16.1 7 6 Canola 0.1 16.1 7 4 Pecans 0.1 16.1 5 6 a This half life represents the 90% upper confidence limit of the mean half life for all crops that had half life estimates based on total residues ( internal plus dislodgeable residues) in Willis and McDowell ( 1987).

Table 2. Upper bound foliar estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs; in ppm) for cypermethrin applications to various crops. a Crop Foliage type Cotton Lettuce Canola Pecans Short grass 107 77 65 90 Tall grass 49 35 30 41 Broadleaf/ forage plants & small insects 60 43 36 51 Fruits/ pods/ seeds/ large insects 7 5 4 6 a EEC equivalent dose = Upper bound Kenega value * (% BW consumed/ 100). % BW consumed = 114%, 65%, and 29% for small, medium, and large birds, respectively.

III. Risk Characterization A. Terrestrial Risk Estimation  Integration of Exposure and Effects Data Results of the exposure and toxicity effects data are used to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects on non target species. For the assessment of cypermethrin risks, the risk quotient ( RQ) method is used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values ( refer to Appendix F). Estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) are divided by the most sensitive acute and chronic toxicity values ( Table 3; refer to the EFED RED Chapter for Cypermethrin for details on the studies from which these were derived). The RQs are then compared to the Agency's levels of concern ( LOCs). These LOCs, summarized in Appendix F, are the Agency's interpretive policy and are used to provide some perspective on estimated potential risk to non target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. These criteria are used to indicate when a pesticide's use as directed on the label has the potential to cause adverse effects on non target organisms which may warrant risk mitigation.

The EFED terrestrial exposure model T REX ( T REX, Version 1.2.3, dated August 8, 2005) was used to estimate exposure and risks in conservative scenarios to avian species for four forage food types and to mammalian species for five forage food types for spray applications of cypermethrin as described in the Exposure Characterization. For this risk assessment, terrestrial EECs as a result of spray applications were estimated using the maximum proposed application rate, the maximum number of applications, and the 9 minimum application interval for cypermethrin spray applications for four representative crop scenarios. Risk quotients were calculated using upper bound EECs. For birds, acute RQs were derived using a dietarybased and an oral based acute toxicity value, and chronic RQs were derived using a dietary based chronic toxicity value. For mammals, acute RQs were derived using an oral based acute toxicity value, and chronic RQs were derived using a dietary based chronic toxicity value and a calculated dose based chronic toxicity value ( as determined using T REX). Dietary based RQs were calculated using EECs expressed in terms of residue concentration for the various forage categories, and toxicity values ( LC50 or NOAEC) are expressed in units of dietary concentration. Dose based RQs were calculated using a body weight adjusted LD50 and consumption weighted equivalent dose sorted by food source and body size. For both birds and mammals, three weight categories ( or sizes) were considered.

All toxicity reference values for terrestrial animals and risk quotients ( RQs) are summarized in Table 3. All terrestrial RQs are summarized below in Table 4.

Table 3. Toxicity reference values for mammals and birds for cypermethrin.

Exposure scenario Species Exposure duration Toxicity reference value Reference Mammals Acute Rat Single oral dose LD50 ( M) = 247 mg/ kg bw MRID 00056800 Chronic Rat 3 generation reproduction study NOAEC ( toxicity to parents and offspring) = 100 ppm ( 5 mg/ kg/ day)

LOAEC = ( toxicity to parents and offspring) = 500 ppm ( 25 mg/ kg/ day) MRID 00090040 Birds Acute Mallard duck 5 day dietary LC50 > 2,634 mg a. i./ kg diet MRID 90071 Acute Bobwhite quail Single oral dose LD50 > 2,000 mg a. i./ kg body wt MRID 44546024 Chronic Mallard duck and Bobwhite quail Reproduction study NOAEC = 500 ppm LOAEC > 500 ppm MRID 42322902 and MRID 42322901 a a The NOAEC and LOAEC values reported here are from avian reproduction studies for permethrin. The available avian reproduction studies for cypermethrin ( MRID 90072 and MRID 90074) showed no adverse treatment related effects to mallards or bobwhite quail; however, they were only conducted at maximum concentrations of 50 ppm. Although no effects were seen, the non definitive NOAEC value of > 50 ppm could not be used to preclude chronic risk to avian species, and the NOAEC value for permethrin was used to demonstrate low risk to birds resulting from cypermethrin use. Permethrin data are considered to be suitable surrogate data for cypermethrin because both chemicals are pyrethroids, they are structurallysimilar compounds with similar modes of action, and both are expected to be of low chronic toxicity to birds.

Table 4. Risk quotient ranges for various usage scenarios for cypermethrin.

Avian Species Mammalian Species Crop Acute Dose based a, b Acute Dietary based a, b Chronic Dietary based c Acute Dose based Chronic Dietary based Chronic Dose based Cotton < 0.01  0.08 < 0.01  0.04 0.01  0.21 < 0.01  0.19 d 0.07   1.07 e 0.06   9.27e 10 Table 4. Risk quotient ranges for various usage scenarios for cypermethrin.

Avian Species Mammalian Species Crop Acute Dose based a, b Acute Dietary based a, b Chronic Dietary based c Acute Dose based Chronic Dietary based Chronic Dose based Lettuce < 0.01  0.06 < 0.01  0.03 0.01  0.15 < 0.01  0.14 d 0.05  0.77 0.04   6.69e Canola < 0.01  0.05 < 0.01  0.02 0.01  0.13 < 0.01  0.11 d 0.04  0.65 0.04   5.61e Pecans < 0.01  0.07 < 0.01  0.03 0.01  0.18 < 0.01  0.16 d 0.06  0.90 0.05   7.80e a All reported RQs are actually less than the reported values because they are based on toxicity reference values expressed by inequality signs ( LD50 > 2,000 mg/ kg bw and LC50 > 2,634 ppm).

b All acute RQ values are below the LOC for acute risk ( 0.5), acute restricted use ( 0.2), and endangered species ( 0.1). c All chronic RQ values are below the LOC for chronic risk ( 1). d Acute RQ value exceeds the LOC for endangered species ( 0.1). e Chronic RQ value exceeds the LOC for chronic risk ( 1).

1. Avian Species All dose based ( RQ range = < 0.01  < 0.08) and dietary based RQs ( RQ range = < 0.01  < 0.04) for acute risk to avian species are below the LOC for acute risk ( 0.5), acute restricted use ( 0.2), and endangered species ( 0.1) for the maximum spray application scenarios considered in this risk assessment ( Table 4). In addition, all dietary based chronic RQs for avian species are below the chronic risk LOC ( 1) ( RQ range = < 0.01  < 0.21; Table 4). Dose based RQs for chronic risk to avian species could not be calculated because there were no acceptable dose based toxicity values for birds available.

2. Mammalian Species Based on the maximum spray application scenarios for all crops considered in this risk assessment, dosebased RQs for acute risk to mammalian species do exceed the LOC for endangered species ( 0.1), but not for acute risk ( 0.5) or acute restricted use ( 0.2) ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.19; Table 4). Specifically, cypermethrin use does appear to pose an acute risk on cotton ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.19; Table 4), lettuce ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.14; Table 4), canola ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.11; Table 4), and pecans ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.16; Table 4). For cotton uses there is acute endangered species risk to small mammals feeding on short grass ( RQ = 0.19) and broadleaf plants/ small insects ( RQ = 0.11), and medium sized mammals feeding on short grass ( RQ = 0.16). For lettuce uses, there is acute endangered species risk to small and medium sized mammals feeding on short grass ( RQs = 0.14 and 0.12, respectively). For canola uses, there is acute endangered species risk to small and medium sized mammals feeding on short grass ( RQs = 0.11 and 0.10, respectively). For pecan uses, there is acute endangered species risk to small and medium sized mammals feeding on short grass ( RQs = 0.16 and 0.13, respectively).

Dietary based RQs for acute risk to mammalian species could not be calculated because there were no acceptable dietary based toxicity values for mammals available.

For all crop scenarios considered in this risk assessment, only the dietary based RQ for chronic risk to mammalian species feeding on short grass exceeds the chronic risk LOC ( 1) for the maximum spray application to cotton ( RQ = 1.07; Table 4). However, all other chronic dietary based RQs for all crop scenarios are below the LOC ( RQ range = 0.04 to 0.90; Table 4). Dose based RQs for chronic risk to mammalian species do exceed the chronic LOC ( RQ range = 0.04 to 9.27; Table 4) for all crop scenarios. Specifically, dose based RQs for all sizes of mammals feeding on short grass, tall grass, and broadleaf 11 plants/ small insects exceed the chronic risk LOC for use of cypermethrin on cotton ( RQ ranges = 4.24 to 9.27, 1.94 to 4.25, and 2.39 to 5.21, respectively), lettuce ( RQ ranges = 3.06 to 6.69, 1.40 to 3.07, and 1.72 to 3.76, respectively), canola ( RQ ranges = 2.57 to 5.61, 1.18 to 2.57, and 1.44 to 3.15, respectively), and pecans ( RQ ranges = 3.57 to 7.80, 1.64 to 3.57, and 2.01 to 4.39, respectively). All dose based RQs are below the chronic risk LOC for mammals feeding on fruits/ pods/ large insects or seeds.

B. Risk Description  Interpretation of Direct Effects Based on the revised analyses, exposure of terrestrial organisms to cypermethrin spray applications relative to the use patterns identified in this assessment is not expected to result in acute and chronic risk to listed and non listed birds and reptiles. However, there is acute and chronic risk to mammals.

1. Avian Species As might be expected from the available toxicity studies that demonstrated that cypermethrin is practically non toxic to avian species on an acute oral and dietary basis ( toxicity reference values: LD50 > 2,000 mg/ kgbw and LC50 > 2,634 ppm), none of the predicted acute dose based or dietary based EECs exceed the most sensitive toxicity endpoints, suggesting that avian mortality is unlikely and exposure to cypermethrin does not appear to pose an acute risk ( all RQs   0.08). In addition, given that all chronic dietary based RQs are below the LOC ( RQ range = < 0.01  < 0.21), chronic risk to avian species also appears to be low.

It should be noted that some uncertainty regarding acute and chronic risk to birds does exist. Both acute dose based and acute dietary based RQs were based on toxicity reference values that were expressed using inequality signs (>) and a NOAEC of 500 ppm was used to determine chronic risk to birds, despite that a LOAEC was not established ( there were no statistically significant effects at this highest treatment level). Therefore, both acute and chronic risks are likely to be overestimated. However, the use of these conservative estimates of toxicity for birds still did not result in any LOC exceedances.

In addition, the NOAEC value of 500 ppm used to estimate risk to avian species is from two avian reproduction studies for permethrin ( MRID 42322902 and MRID 42322901). The available avian reproduction studies for cypermethrin ( MRID 90072 and MRID 90074) showed no adverse treatment related effects to mallards or bobwhite quail. However, they were only conducted at maximum concentrations of 50 ppm. Although no effects were seen in either study, if the non definitive NOAEC (> 50 ppm) value from the avian reproduction studies with cypermethrin was used, uncertainty would be high because risk to avian species could not be precluded; chronic dietary RQs could exceed the chronic risk LOC and range from < 0.13 to < 2.14 for cotton, < 0.10 to < 1.54 for lettuce, < 0.08 to < 1.29 for canola, and < 0.11 to < 1.80 for pecans. Subsequently, the NOAEC value for permethrin was used to demonstrate low risk to birds resulting from cypermethrin use. Permethrin data are considered to be suitable surrogate data for cypermethrin because both chemicals are pyrethroids, they are structurally similar compounds with similar modes of action, and both are expected to be of low chronic toxicity to birds.

1. Mammalian Species Based on the submitted acute oral toxicity study on mammals, cypermethrin is categorized as moderately toxic to mammals on an acute oral basis ( LD50 = 247 mg/ kg bw). As might be expected from this acute dose based study with rats, there are some slight exceedances of the acute endangered species LOC ( 0.1), primarily for risk to small and medium sized mammals feeding on short grass ( for all crops). The only other acute LOC exceedance is for cotton, where the RQ for small mammals feeding on broadleaf plants/ small insects exceeds the acute endangered species LOC. This suggests that mammalian mortality could possibly result upon exposure to cypermethrin in the environment, and that cypermethrin use does appear to pose an acute risk on cotton ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.19), lettuce ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.14), canola ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.11), and pecans ( RQ range = < 0.01  0.16). The highest estimated upper bound dose based EEC ( 102 12 mg/ kg bw for small mammals that feed on short grass) under the most conservative application scenario considered in this risk assessment ( spray applications to cotton) is slightly less than one fifth the adjusted LD50 value for small mammals ( 543 mg/ kg bw). Based on the highest acute dose based RQ value of 0.19 ( for dose based acute risk to small mammals feeding on short grass under the cotton use scenario), a cypermethrin application rate of ~ 0.05 lb a. i./ A would be required to ensure that all acute RQ values are less than the LOCs for all mammals under all crop scenarios ( approximately half of the current rate of 0.1 lb a. i./ A).

The NOAEC value of 100 ppm ( 5 mg/ kg/ day) from the 3 generation reproduction study ( MRID 00090040) was based on decreased body weight gain in parents (  3% and   7% from controls for males and females, respectively, at the 500 ppm level; p  0.05) and pups (  4.0% from controls at the 500 ppm level; p  0.01). Based on this NOAEC value, only the dietary based RQ for chronic risk to mammalian species feeding on short grass exceeds the chronic risk LOC ( 1) for the maximum spray application to cotton ( RQ = 1.07); all other chronic dietary based RQs for all crop scenarios considered in this risk assessment are below the LOC ( RQ range = 0.04 to 0.90).

Dose based RQs for chronic risk to mammalian species do exceed the chronic LOC ( RQ range = 0.04 to 9.27) for all crop scenarios. Specifically, dose based RQs for all sizes of mammals feeding on short grass, tall grass, and broadleaf plants/ small insects exceed the chronic risk LOC for use of cypermethrin on all crop scenarios considered, while all dose based RQs are below the chronic risk LOC for mammals feeding on fruits/ pods/ large insects or seeds. These analyses indicate that mammals are at chronic risk and that adverse outcomes ( decreased growth in parents and offspring) may result from dietary and oral exposure to cypermethrin. The highest estimated upper bound dose based EEC ( 102 mg/ kg bw for small mammals that feed on short grass) under the most conservative application scenario considered in this risk assessment ( spray applications to cotton) is about 10 times higher than the adjusted NOAEL for small mammals ( 11 mg/ kg bw). Based on the highest RQ value of 9.27 ( for dose based chronic risk to small mammals feeding on short grass under the cotton use scenario), a cypermethrin application rate of ~ 0.01 lb a. i./ A would be required to ensure that all acute and chronic RQ values are less than the LOCs for all mammals under all crop scenarios.

One source of uncertainty for this risk assessment is that the dietary based chronic RQs suggest a lower risk to mammals than do the dose based chronic RQs. In general, dose based estimates of toxicity are the basis of risk conclusions since they are body weight specific and typically present a more conservative estimate of risk ( higher RQs), although the dietary based estimates do provide further insight into potential risks of some compounds. The dose based approach considers the uptake and absorption kinetics of a gavage toxicity study to approximate exposure associated with uptake from a dietary matrix. Toxic response is a function of duration and intensity of exposure. For many compounds a gavage dose represents a very short term high intensity exposure. Although the dose based estimates may not reflect reality in that animals do not receive a gavage while feeding, it is possible that a short duration, high intensity exposure could occur associated with feeding on a agricultural field since many animals may gorge themselves when food items are available. While the dietary based estimates may suggest greater " realism", they too suffer from some uncertainties. Primarily, the dietary based approach assumes that animals in the field are consuming food at a rate similar to that of confined laboratory animals despite the fact that energy content in food items differs between the field and the laboratory as does the energy requirements of wild and captive animals.

To bound the estimates of risk to mammals resulting from acute and chronic exposure to cypermethrin, RQs using mean Kenaga residue values rather than upper bound values were calculated. Using the nonconservative mean residue values, implying that higher predicted residue values are expected half the time, dose based RQs still exceed the chronic LOC for cotton ( maximum RQ = 3.27), lettuce ( maximum RQ = 2.36), canola ( maximum RQ = 1.98), and pecans ( maximum RQ = 2.75), while no dietary based chronic RQs ( maximum RQ = 0.38) or acute RQs ( maximum RQ = 0.07) exceed the LOCs. However, relying on the mean Kenaga residue values for calculating RQs would not protect birds and mammals that consume food items that have residues on the higher end of the residue distribution. An analysis of the residue distribution 13 for the different food items using input values from Fletcher et al. ( 1994) and assuming a log normal distribution of residues on food items shows that the mean Kenaga values range from about the 62 87 percentile indicating that up to 38% of the higher end food item residue estimates are not captured by using the mean Kenaga values. In contrast, for the upper end Kenaga residue estimates, about 3 13% of the upperend residue estimates were not captured. This highlights the fact that the upper end Kenaga values are not a maximum exposure level.

IV. References Fletcher, J. S., J. E. Nellesson and T. G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA foodchain ( Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environ. Tox. And Chem. 13( 9): 1383 1391.

Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. IN: F. Coulston and F. Corte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology and Technology. Vol 1. George Theime Publishers, Stuttgart, Germany. pp. 9 28.

T REX. 2005. Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model ( T REX), Version 1.2.3. August 8, 2005. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

Willis and McDowell. 1987. Pesticide persistence on foliage. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 100: 23 73.

Effect of Buffers on Spray Drift The screening level risk assessment indicates that peak EECs exceed acute levels of concern for all aquatic taxa considered. The ecological risk assessment includes an evaluation of the relative contribution of runoff and spray drift to the exposure simulated by PRZM/ EXAMS. A hypothetical scenario was run ( for use on NC cotton) in which application of cypermethrin resulted in no spray drift. The resulting EEC of 2.2 µ g a. i./ L, which represented transport of cypermethrin to water via runoff and erosion alone, is high enough to exceed the acute LOC for all aquatic taxa.

The effect of a 150 foot spray buffer on potential exposure from runoff and erosion cannot currently be quantified. Presumably, the mass of cypermethrin that would be applied to that portion the field within 150 feet of a water body would be less than that applied to the rest of the crop, and would decline with distance. However, the PRZM model is an edge of field model which cannot simulate an untreated area between the field and the receiving water body.

The expected effect of a spray buffer on exposure through spray drift can be quantified using the AgDRIFT model, which was developed using extensive field data collected by the Spray Drift Task Force. This is important because while the EEC from PRZM/ EXAMS used in the screening model represents a 1 in 10 year exposure from combined runoff/ erosion and spray drift, the output from AgDRIFT can be made to represent the amount of exposure from spray drift that could occur any time a pesticide is applied.

AgDRIFT modeling for cypermethrin indicates that the exposure from spray drift alone could be sufficient to exceed levels of concern for aquatic organisms, and that implementation of a spray buffer can reduce that exposure significantly. Using typical spray conditions ( 10 ft. release height, 10 mph wind, and a fine tomedium droplet size distribution [ DSD]), the AgDRIFT model simulates a concentration of 0.73 µ g a. i./ L in 14 the standard pond from spray drift if no buffer zone is observed. Risk quotients calculated with this EEC would exceed the acute LOCs of 0.5 for freshwater and estuarine/ marine fish and invertebrates.

The table below shows the effect of spray buffers on the concentration of cypermethrin that AgDRIFT simulates in the standard pond. These values reflect the typical spray conditions described above, and an application rate of 0.1 lb ai/ acre:

Buffer ( ft) 0 50 100 150 200 Concentration ( µ g a. i./ L) 0.73 0.44 0.31 0.24 0.20 When a buffer of 150 feet is simulated, the resulting concentration of cypermethrin in the pond resulting from drift alone is reduced by two thirds. This is sufficient to reduce the EEC below the acute level of concern of 0.5 for estuarine/ marine fish ( RQ = 0.24 µ g a. i./ L/ 0.95 µ g a. i./ L = 0.25). This reduction would not reduce the risk quotients for drift alone below the acute LOC for freshwater fish ( RQs of 0.61), but the reduction in exposure could lead to lower levels of mortality, and perhaps be sufficiently protective for less sensitive species. The toxicity reference values for freshwater and estuarine/ marine invertebrates ( LC50 = 0.0036 and 0.0048 µ g a. i./ L, respectively) are so low that even a two third reduction in exposure still results in RQs far above the LOC ( RQ = 67 and 50, respectively).

The use of a spray buffer would reduce exposure under conditions other than the typical conditions described above, but conditions more conducive to spray drift could result in unacceptable exposure from drift alone regardless of the buffer. For instance, if the wind speed ( 10 mph) and release height ( 10 ft) are kept the same as above, but a very fine to fine DSD is simulated instead of a fine to medium DSD, much greater exposure to cypermethrin could result.

Buffer ( ft) 0 50 100 150 200 Concentration ( µ g a. i./ L) 1.7 1.2 0.96 0.8 0.68 The resulting amount of spray drift would lead to more than three times the exposure at 150 feet than if the fine to medium DSD were used, and the resulting EECs would still exceed the LOC for all aquatic taxa.

In summary, the maintenance of a 150 foot spray buffer can result in significant reductions in exposure to aquatic organisms, provided that application occurs during typical conditions and the DSD used for application is not too fine. Such exposure from spray drift alone can be expected any time cypermethrin is applied, regardless of whether a significant runoff/ erosion event happens soon after. The spray buffer is an important mitigation measure, therefore, even if any reduction in runoff and erosion it might lead to cannot be quantified.

Incident Reports for Cypermethrin 15 Incident Table 1. Terrestrial Incident Reports Involving Cypermethrin. Location and Incident # Date Organisms Involved Formulation Certainty Index a Legality b Description I011348 001 8/ 31/ 9 9 Sparrows Ustad ( an Indian pesticide containing cypermethrin) 1 UN A report on the Internet ( Third World Network) described a massive killing of sparrows in a small village in Bangladesh as the result of Ustad ( an Indian pesticide containing cypermethrin). In eggplant and pointed gourd fields there was a spraying of Ustad the night before. The sparrows ate insects that had died from the spraying and they, in turn, died by the thousands. An original estimate was that 5000 had died but later indications were that the number was much higher. Residents were shocked by the massive kill of these birds and protests were made against the use of pesticides. However, many toxic pesticides are used in the area, including some illegal products. It is unlikely that cypermethrin was the cause because it has low acute toxicity to vertebrates.

I000340 009 10/ 9/ 9 2 Goats AMMO 2.5  EC 2 UN The report implied that an unspecified number of goats may have suffered illness ( incapacitation) due to nearby application of cypermethrin ( drift) to cotton. Insufficient information was given in the incident report to lend a greater certainty to the cause of the event.

I000103 010 3/ 7/ 90 Sparrows, mockingbird, and barred owl Demon  Spray 1 UN According to the investigative report, 11 dead birds were found near a private dwelling ( 9 sparrows, a mockingbird, and a barred owl). It was suspected that the mortality was due to toxicosis. Four birds were selected for necropsy ( 1 mockingbird and 3 sparrows). The premises had been periodically sprayed for termites for 8 years, the most recent being 2 month prior to the event with cypermethrin. Earlier treatments had been done with lindane. Analysis of brain ChE activity gave normal results. Residue analysis of gizzard/ crop contents revealed the presence of Heptachlor Epoxide and a significant amount of Dieldrin. there was an insufficient amount of brain tissue left to make a residue analysis of the brain for Dieldrin. According to the report brain tissue residue of 1ppm is considered significant but body residues are usually many times greater than brain residue. The birds were observed to undergo convulsions just before dying. Crop/ gizzard content residue analysis revealed Dieldrin at 7480 ppb and Hrptachlor Epoxide at 710 ppb. There was no evidence of organophosphate, carbamate, lindane, or cypermethrin pesticides; it is unlikely that cypermethrin contributed to the observed bird mortality.

I000340 006 12/ 3/ 9 2 Dog Cynoff  EC 2 UN According to the investigative report, a dog was dipped and also exposed to pyrethroid products. The dog's illness ( incapacitation) was suspected to be due to one of these exposures. Since the report indicated exposure to permethrin and cypermethrin, which are known toxicants to animals, it is possible that the observed incapacitation of the dog was due to either or both of the chemicals. Insufficient information was given in the incident report to lend a greater certainty to the cause to the event.

I000340 002 12/ 18/ 92 Cat Cynoff  EC 3 RU According to the report, a cat was exposed to toxic fumes of cypermethrin by following applicator around as he worked and was incapacitated. According to the incident report the cat was in the treatment area where it could be exposed to toxic fumes of cypermethrin. This exposure was probably responsible for the observed illness in the cat. Insufficient information was given in the report to lend a greater certainty to the cause of the event. 16 Incident Table 1. Terrestrial Incident Reports Involving Cypermethrin. Location and Incident # Date Organisms Involved Formulation Certainty Index a Legality b Description a Certainty index scoring reflects the likelihood that the pesticide was responsible for the alleged damage. Highly probable ( 4); Probable ( 3); Possible ( 2); Unlikely ( 1); Unrelated ( 0). b Legality: RU= Registered Use, MA= Misuse ( accidental), MI= Misuse ( intentional), UN= Undetermined N/ R: not reported Incident Table 2. Aquatic Incident Reports Involving Cypermethrin. Location and Incident # Date Organisms Involved Formulation Certainty Index a Legality b Description I008737 001 8/ 8/ 98 Lobster Raid Fogger K Ready to Use 3 RU In a 5000 gal. saltwater tank in Cocoa Beach, FL 32931, an owner, Rancher/ Breeder/ Farmer found 800 lobsters dead and another 25 lobsters still alive in the tank. He used a product ( EPA Reg. No. 4822 452): RAID Concentrate  Deep Reach Fogger in a room adjacent to the tank room then closed the tank room door for the night, but did not place a towel under the door. An air conditioner was turned off. He does not have UV/ ozone sterilization. He has added another 200 300 lobsters to this same tank and they seem fine. He has tested water, ammonia nitrites, nitrate, pH and all are within normal limits. He could not locate the EPA Reg. No. on the container. Breeder has changed 1000 gallons in the tank and is expecting another immediate shipment of lobsters and is wondering if its O. K. to add them to the tank!

Evidently, the RAID Fogger spread ( creeped) under the door and into the Lobster Tank Room where it contacted the uncovered tank. The LC/ 50 for fish: ( rainbow trout) = 2.0 to 2.8 ug/ l. It then, obviously settled because after the incident another 200 300 lobster were added to the tank and the product was not a hazard. I001031 001 4/ 26/ 94 Bluegill, Carp, Catfish, Largemouth Bass Demon TC  EC 4 UN This fish kill resulted from the application of Demon TC as a termite barrier around a home in Henderson, Kentucky. Underground drainage tile had been installed around the home to divert water to a pond 50 feet away, and the night following the application of Demon there was a heavy rainfall which resulted in dumping some of the Demon into the pond. Approximately 44 fish we re killed. The pond in back of the house was estimated to be 1 2 acres in area, and a sample of water taken 3 days after the rainfall, where the drainage tile pipe enters the water, contained 4.1 ppb cypermethrin. I007107 003 2/ 7/ 97 Minnows N/ R 4 UN This incident is one of the incidents stated on a consolidated report submitted by the Pesticide Investigation Unit, California Dept. of Fish and Game for the year 1997. One thousand Gambusia ( minnows) reported dead in Placer County on 2 7 1997. Pesticide Investigation Unit, California Department of Fish and Game confirmed through its findings that the gambusia mortality was caused by cypermethrin poisoning. I006971 001 2/ 6/ 98 Bass, bluegill, shad Demon TC  EC 2 UN Zeneca reported that Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture was contacted about fish kills in several small ponds fed by a small stream. State investigators estimated 2,200 dead fish ( i. e., bass, bluegill, shad) were impacted along with various other unspecified aquatic organisms. Soil and water samples were obtained, Analysis showed trace levels of chlorpyrifos and permethrin, and exceptionally high levels of cypermethrin. Initial investigation focused on a local pest control applicator. A multi agency investigation team later focused its attention to alternative explanations. State analysis showed high levels of cypermethrin in both soil and water. 17 Incident Table 2. Aquatic Incident Reports Involving Cypermethrin. Location and Incident # Date Organisms Involved Formulation Certainty Index a Legality b Description I009966 002 2/ 9/ 98 Bluegill, bass, crappie, catfish, minnow, carp, shad Demon TC  EC 4 MA A fish kill was reported on February 9, 1998 in Chattanooga, the result of a termiticide containing cypermethrin entering Rogers Branch and its un named tributaries. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Association assessed the cost of the dead fish at $ 609.33. Civil penalties and damages were assessed, suggesting misuse of the pesticide.

Further information was provided by a 6( a)( 2) report from Zenaca Ag Products ( I006971 001). They claim that their investigation indicate that the kill was not likely the result of any labeled use of Demon TC or of the minor spill reported on the property in November  December 1997. They claim the exposure characteristics suggest " introduction of relatively massive amounts of chemical directly into the water course."

No analyses were submitted with the report, but the circumstances of the kill and the assessment of civil penalties indicate that exposure to this chemical was the probable cause of the kill. I010444 004 6/ 23/ 00 Fishunspecified N/ R 3 MA To comply with 6( a) 2 regulations, FMC reported an incident that occurred in Silver Spring, MD ( the location was not given in the report but was known to this writer). A treatment tank was being cleaned out by an applicator and the washings entered Rock Creek, causing a fish kill extending from an area near Walter Reed Hospital to the Potomac River. Initial estimates were that between 1000 and 150,000 fish were killed, but estimates were later revised to 10,000. The Maryland Dept. of Agricuoture found 50 ppb cypermethrin in the water, although no analyses of the fish were made. I013857 011 2/ 25/ 03 Fishunspecified N/ R 3 MI To comply with 6( a) 2 requirements, Syngenta reported that the February 25, 2003, issue of the Independent ( London) carried an account of a large fish kill in the river Slea, in Lincolnshire. According to this newspaper, someone had dumped Cypermethrin into surface water drains at an industrial site, infecting 13 miles of the river and causing the death of 100,000 fish. The newspaper account gave no report of an analysis being made of the fish or of the water, but it is presumed that there was some reason for the allegation. I004876 011 8/ 5/ 91 Crayfish and stoneflies N/ R 4 MA There was nearly a complete kill of crayfish and stoneflies for a 6 mile stretch. I000011 001 4/ 3/ 92 Fishunspecified Demon TC  EC 2 RU Pond 150 200 ft from treatment site experienced fishkill via alleged underground stream under home, after termite control. Magnitude of fish kill not reported. I015094 001 4/ 24/ 04 Fishunspecified Prevail FT  EC 2 RU FMC 6( a)( 2) incident report stated that a contractor applied Prevail ( cypermethrin) on a horizontal soil surface where a concert slab was to be poured. 5000 dead fish were found in a stream 1/ 2 to 1 mile from the construction site. No analyses were given. Since the report did not give any analysis of either the fish or the creek water, only a possible index can be given. a Certainty index scoring reflects the likelihood that the pesticide was responsible for the alleged damage. Highly probable ( 4); Probable ( 3); Possible ( 2); Unlikely ( 1); Unrelated ( 0). b Legality: RU= Registered Use, MA= Misuse ( accidental), MI= Misuse ( intentional), UN= Undetermined N/ R: not reported


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70200-70201]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28836]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0479; FRL-9937-10-Region 8]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Federal
Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities;
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation),
North Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Federal Implementation Plan for
Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation), North Dakota'' (EPA
ICR No. 2478.02 OMB Control No. 2008-0001) to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et se.). Before doing so,
EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 2016. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0479 online using www.regulations.gov 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre Rothery, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Air Program, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-
1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR covers information collection requirements in
the final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Oil and Natural Gas
Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan,
Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation), North Dakota (40 CFR part 49, subpart K,
Sec. Sec.  49.4161 through 49.4168), herein referred to as the FBIR
FIP. In general, owners or operators are required to: (1) Conduct
certain monitoring; (2) keep specific records to be made available at
the EPA's request; and (3) to prepare and submit an annual report (40
CFR part 49, subpart K, Sec. Sec.  49.4166 through 49.4168). These
records and reports are necessary for the EPA Administrator (or the
tribal agency

if delegated), for example, to: (1) Confirm compliance status of
stationary sources; (2) identify any stationary sources not subject to
the requirements and identify stationary sources subject to the
regulations; and (3) ensure that the stationary source control
requirements are being achieved. All information submitted to us
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of oil and
natural gas facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
    Estimated number of respondents: 780 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion, annually.
    Total estimated burden: 29,655 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $6,503,000 (per year), includes $5,121,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is likely an increase in burden in this
ICR compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB due to an
anticipated adjustment in the estimated number of respondents to
account for industry growth. In addition, there is likely an increase
in cost in this ICR to take into account current labor rates.

    Dated: November 3, 2015.
Darcy O'Connor,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-28836 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11988]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 27, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0048.
    Date Filed: February 25, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: March 18, 2010.
    Description: Application of ACG Air Cargo Germany GmbH (``ACG'')
requesting a foreign air carrier permit to the full extent authorized
by the Air Transport Agreement between the United States and the
European Community and the Member States of the European Community to
enable it to engage in: (i) Foreign scheduled and charter air
transportation of property and mail from any point or points behind any
Member State of the European Union via any point or points in any
Member State and via intermediate points to any point or points in the
United States and beyond; (ii) foreign scheduled and charter air
transportation of property and mail between any point or points in the
United States and any point or points in any member of the European
Common Aviation Area; (iii) foreign scheduled and charter air
transportation of property and mail between the United States and any
point or points; (iv) other charters pursuant to prior approval
requirements; and (v) transportation authorized by any additional route
rights made available to European Community carriers in the future. ACG
further requests exemption authority to the extent necessary to enable
it to provide the services described above pending the issuance of a
foreign air carrier permit and such additional or other relief as the
Department may deem necessary or appropriate.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0049.
    Date Filed: February 25, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: March 18, 2010.
    Description: Application of TUI Airlines Nederland, B.V. d/b/a
Arkefly (Arkefly) requesting an exemption and a foreign air carrier
permit authorizing Arkdfly to conduct operations to and from the United
States to the full extent authorized by the United States-European
Union Air Transport Agreement, including authority to engage in: (i)
Charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail from
any point(s) behind any Member State(s) of the European Community via
any point(s) in any Member State(s) and intermediate points to any
point(s) in the United States and beyond; (ii) charter Foreign air
transportation of persons, property and mail between any point(s) in
the United States and any point(s) in any member of the European Common
Aviation Area; (iii) charter foreign cargo air transportation between
any point(s) in the United States and any other point(s); (iv) other
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (v)
transportation authorized by any additional route or other right(s)
made available to European Community carrier in the future. Arkefly
also registers its trade name pursuant to Part 215.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-5409 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 50952]
[DOCID:fr28au06-78]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54338; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No.
1 Thereto To Allow Listing of Up to Seven Short-Term Options Series per
Class

August 21, 2006.
    On June 27, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to modify its short-term option
series pilot program (``Pilot Program'') \3\ to change the number of
short-term series that may be listed in an options class from five to
seven. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission on July
11, 2006.\4\ The amended proposal was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 19, 2006.\5\ No comments were received. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52011 (July 12,
2005), 70 FR 41451 (July 19, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-63) (approving
short-term option series on a pilot basis through July 12, 2006).
The Pilot Program has since been extended through July 12, 2007. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53984 (June 14, 2006), 71 FR
35718 (June 21, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-48).
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, a partial amendment, the Exchange
corrected a typographical error in the proposed rule text.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54133 (July 12,
2006), 71 FR 41062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Program currently provides that the Exchange may open up
to five short-term series for each expiration date in an approved
class. CBOE has proposed to increase the maximum to seven. The Exchange
has stated it would list approximately the same number of series with
strike prices above and below the price of the underlying security or
value of the index at about the time the series is opened. CBOE also
proposed that, if the Exchange has opened less than seven series in a
particular options class for a given expiration date, it could open
additional series in that class if the Exchange deems it necessary to
maintain an orderly market or meet customer demand, or when the current
value of the underlying index moves substantially from the exercise
price or prices of the series already opened.
    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\6\
In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. The proposal is a reasonable expansion of a
Pilot Program that offers the market potentially useful products while
not appearing to raise any concerns about quote capacity.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ The Exchange, should it wish to propose an extension,
expansion, or permanent approval of the Pilot Program, must submit a
report on the Pilot Program to the Commission. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 51172 (February 9, 2005), 70 FR 7979
(February 16, 2005). The Commission notes that the Exchange
submitted a report on June 13, 2006, in connection with its filing
to extend the Pilot Program through July 12, 2007. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 53684 (June 14, 2006), 71 FR 35718 (June
21, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2006-49), as
amended, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14193 Filed 8-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


accordance with the requirements of the American Welding Society weld
components of the hoisting system. Accordingly, these welders must meet
the qualification requirements of American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1
Structural Welding Code--Steel, or AWS D1.2 Structural Welding Code--
Aluminum, as applicable.
    (b) The employer must ensure that these welders:
    (i) Are familiar with the weld grades, types, and materials
specified in the design of the system; and
    (ii) Perform the welding tasks in accordance with 29 CFR part 1926,
subpart J (``Welding and Cutting'').

20. OSHA Notification

    (a) To assist OSHA in administering the conditions of this
variance, the employer must exercise due diligence in notifying the
Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) at
OSHA's national headquarters, or the appropriate State-Plan Office, of:
    (i) Any chimney-related construction operation using the conditions
specified herein, including the location of the operation and the date
the operation will commence, at least 15 calendar days prior to
commencing the operation;
    (ii) Any emergency operation or short-notice project using the
conditions specified herein, and when 15 days are not available before
start of work, as soon as possible after the employer knows when the
operation will commence. This information must include the location and
date of the operation;
    (b) The employer can notify OTPCA at OSHA's national headquarters
of pending chimney-related construction operations by:
    (i) Telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>;
    (ii) Facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    (iii) Email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (c) To assist OSHA in administering the conditions of this
variance, the employer must exercise due diligence by informing OTPCA
at OSHA's national headquarters as soon as possible after it has
knowledge that it will:
    (i) Cease to do business;
    (ii) Change the location and address of the main office for
managing the activities covered by this variance; or
    (iii) Transfer the activities covered by this variance to a
successor company.
    (d) OSHA must approve the transfer of this variance to a successor
company.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified
by 29 U.S.C. 655, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912),
and 29 CFR part 1905.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 18, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-06509 Filed 3-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40858-40859]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0400; FRL-8142-9]

4-Aminopyridine Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of May 30, 2007
(72 FR 29995) (FRL-8132-2), concerning the availability of EPA's
ecological risk assessments, and related documents for the pesticide 4-
aminopyridine. This document is extending the comment period for 4-
aminopyridine for 23 days. The new comment period ends August 22, 2007.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register of May 30, 2007.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. What Action is EPA taking?

    This document extends the public comment period established in the
Federal Register of May 30, 2007. In that document, EPA announced the
availability of ecological risk assessments and opened a 60-day

public comment period. EPA is hereby extending the comment period,
which was set to end on July 30, 2007.

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

    Section 4(g)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, directs that, after submission of
all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the Administrator
shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient
are eligible for reregistration. Further provisions are made to allow a
public comment period. However, the Administrator may extend the
comment period, if additional time for comment is requested. In this
case, the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Protection
Institute have requested additional time to develop comments. The
Agency believes that an additional 23 days is warranted.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Fumigants, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: July 18, 2007.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-14367 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: January 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2961-2962]
[DOCID:fr18ja06-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of CharterMac To Withdraw
Its Common Shares, No Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the
American Stock Exchange LLC File No. 1-13237

January 11, 2006.
    On January 5, 2006, CharterMac, a Delaware statutory trust
(``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common shares, no par value
(``Security''), from listing and registration on the American Stock
Exchange LLC (``Amex'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 5, 2005, the Board of Trustees (``Board'') of the
Issuer unanimously approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from
listing on Amex and to list the Security on the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''). The Issuer stated that the following reason
factored into the Board's decision to withdraw the Security from Amex
and list the Security on NYSE: the majority of all real estate
investment trust and financial services companies are traded on NYSE.
The Issuer stated that the Board believes it is in the best interest of
the Issuer to be traded on the same exchange as other market
competitors. The Issuer expects the Security to begin trading on NYSE
on January 10, 2006.
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the
requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in
effect in the State of Delaware, in which it is incorporated, and
providing written notice of withdrawal to Amex.
    The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the
Security from listing on Amex, and shall not affect its

continued listing on NYSE or its obligation to be registered under
Section 12(b) of the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before February 6, 2006, comment
on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

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

the File Number 1-13237 or;

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-13237. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-462 Filed 1-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P