[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5636-5639]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63779; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.9

January 26, 2011.
    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 January 21, 2011, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-
controversial rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9 to add its routing
options, which are currently contained in its fee schedule, to the rule
and to introduce additional options to the rule. The text of the
proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 and is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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 self-regulatory organization 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
    The Exchange's current fee schedule contains a list of routing
options. The Exchange proposes to move the current list of routing
options from the fee schedule and codify it in Rule 11.9(a)(3). In
addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the existing routing option
descriptions to provide additional clarity and introduce additional
routing options to Rule 11.9(a)(3).
    The Exchange intends to implement the rule change upon filing with
the Commission with respect to all routing options, except ROOC, which
the Exchange intends to implement on or about February 14, 2011.

    First, the Exchange proposes to move its discussion of available
routing options, which is located at the end of the fee schedule, and
codify it in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(a)-(r).
    Currently, the fee schedule has the following descriptions of
routing strategies:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROUQ...................................  sweeps the EDGX book, then
                                          routes to other destination
                                          centers.
ROUC...................................  sweeps the EDGX book, then
                                          sequentially sweeps the
                                          balance, if any, to the
                                          following destinations: other
                                          destination centers, then
                                          Nasdaq OMX BX, NYSE, and the
                                          remainder posts to EDGX.
ROUD...................................  sweeps the EDGX book before
                                          being routed to other
                                          destination centers.
ROUE...................................  sweeps the EDGX book, then
                                          other destination centers, and
                                          any remainder routes to other
                                          market centers.
ROUZ...................................  sweeps the EDGX book before
                                          interacting with solicited
                                          orders on a price/time
                                          priority basis.
INET...................................  sweeps the EDGX book and
                                          removes liquidity from Nasdaq,
                                          if the order is marketable, or
                                          posts on Nasdaq, if the order
                                          is non-marketable.
ROBA...................................  sweeps the EDGX book and routes
                                          to BATS BZX Exchange as an
                                          immediate or cancel (IOC)
                                          order, with the remainder
                                          being cancelled if there is no
                                          execution.
ROBX...................................  sweeps the EDGX book and routes
                                          to Nasdaq BX Exchange as an
                                          immediate or cancel (IOC)
                                          order, with the remainder
                                          being cancelled if there is no
                                          execution.
ROBY...................................  sweeps the EDGX book and routes
                                          to BATS BYX Exchange as an
                                          immediate or cancel (IOC)
                                          order, with the remainder
                                          being cancelled if there is no
                                          execution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9(b)(2) to cross-reference
the routing options listed in proposed Rule 11.9(b)(3), as described in
more detail below.
    The Exchange proposes to describe how its routing options work in
Rule 11.9(b)(3). The Exchange's system (``System'') provides a variety
of routing options. Routing options may be combined with all available
order types and times-in-force, with the exception of order types and
times-in-force whose terms are inconsistent with the terms of a
particular routing option. The System will consider the quotations only
of accessible markets. The term ``System routing table'' refers to the
proprietary process for determining the specific trading venues to
which the System routes orders and the order in which it routes them.
The Exchange reserves the right to maintain a different System routing
table for different routing options and to modify the System routing
table at any time without notice. The System routing options are
described in more detail below.
    The ROUC strategy currently states that under this strategy an
order sweeps the book then sequentially sweeps the balance, if any, to
the following destinations: Other destination centers, then Nasdaq OMX
BX, NYSE, and the remainder posts to EDGX. The Exchange proposes to
amend the description to state that it is a routing option under which
an order checks the System for available shares and then is sent
sequentially to destinations on the System routing table, Nasdaq OMX
BX, and NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are
posted on the Exchange's book. The Exchange will place this proposed
description in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(a).
    The ROUD strategy description states that it sweeps the book before
being routed to other destination centers. The Exchange proposes to
revise this description to state that it checks the System for
available shares and then is sent sequentially to destinations on the
System routing table. The ROUE routing strategy currently states that
it sweeps the book, then other destination centers, and any remainder
routes to other market centers. The Exchange proposes to revise this
description to state that an order routed under this strategy checks
the System for available shares, and then is sent to destinations on
the System routing table. The revised descriptions of the ROUD and ROUE
routing strategies, as described above, will be placed in proposed
Rules 11.9(b)(3)(b)-(c).
    The INET strategy is currently described as a strategy that sweeps
the EDGX book and removes liquidity from Nasdaq, if the order is
marketable, or posts on Nasdaq, if the order is non-marketable. The
Exchange proposes to revise the description to read that ``such an
order checks the System for available shares and then is sent to
Nasdaq. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted on
Nasdaq book.'' The proposed description of the INET routing strategy,
as described above, will be placed in proposed Rule 11.9(b)(3)(d).
    The Exchange's current description of the ROBA strategy states that
it is a strategy under which an order sweeps the book and routes to
BATS BZX Exchange as an immediate or cancel (IOC) order, with the
remainder being cancelled if there is no execution. The Exchange
proposes to revise such description to read that such order checks the
System for available shares and then is sent to BATS BZX Exchange as an
IOC order. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are
cancelled. The proposed description will be placed in Rule
11.9(b)(3)(e).
    ROBX is currently described as a strategy under which an order
sweeps the book and routes to Nasdaq BX Exchange as an IOC order, with
the remainder being cancelled if there is no execution. This
description is proposed to be revised to read that such order ``checks
the System for available shares and then is sent to Nasdaq BX Exchange
as an immediate or cancel (IOC) order. If shares remain unexecuted
after routing, they are cancelled.''
    ROBY is currently described as a strategy under which an order
sweeps the EDGX book and routes to BATS BYX Exchange as an immediate or
cancel (IOC) order, with the remainder being cancelled if there is no
execution. This description is proposed to be revised to state that
such order ``checks the System for available shares and then is sent to
BATS BYX Exchange as an IOC order. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are cancelled.'' The revised descriptions of the ROBX and
ROBY strategies are proposed to be placed in Rules 11.9(b)(3)(f)-(g).
    The Exchange proposes to codify the following strategies in Rule
11.9(b)(3)(h)-(r) as well:
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(h), the Exchange proposes to describe
the ROUT routing option as a routing option under which an order checks
the System for available shares, and then is sent to destinations on
the System routing table.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(i), the Exchange proposes to describe
the ROUX routing option under which an order checks the System for
available shares and then is sent to destinations on the System routing
table.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(j), the Exchange proposes to describe
the RDOT routing option as a routing option under which an order checks
the System for available shares, and then is sent sequentially to
destinations on the System routing table. If shares remain unexecuted
after routing, they are sent to the NYSE.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(k), the Exchange proposes to describe
the

RDOX routing option under which an order checks the System for
available shares, and then is sent to the NYSE.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(l), the Exchange proposes to describe
the ROLF routing option under which an order checks the System for
available shares, and then is sent to LavaFlow ECN.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(m), the Exchange proposes to describe
the ROPA routing option under which an order checks the System for
available shares and then is sent to NYSE Arca as an immediate or
cancel order (IOC). If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are
cancelled.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(n), the Exchange proposes to describe
the IOCX routing option under which an order checks the System for
available shares and then is sent to EDGA.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(o), the Exchange proposes to describe
the IOCT routing option under which an order checks the System for
available shares and then is sent sequentially to destinations on the
System routing table. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they
are sent to EDGA.
    In proposed rule 11.9(b)(3)(p), the Exchange proposes to describe
the ROOC routing option for orders that the entering firm wishes to
designate for participation in the opening or closing process of a
primary listing market (NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE Amex, or NYSE Arca) if
received before the opening/closing time of such market. If shares
remain unexecuted after attempting to execute in the opening or closing
process, they are either posted to the book, executed, or routed like a
ROUT routing option, as described in proposed Rule 11.9(b)(3)(h),
above.
    The Exchange also proposes to introduce the SWPA and SWPB routing
strategies and add them to proposed Rules 11.9(b)(3)(q)-(r). Under the
SWPA strategy, an order would check the System for available shares and
then would be sent to Protected Quotations and only for displayed size.
Under this strategy, orders would not have to contain sufficient size
to execute against all Protected Quotations (emphasis added). If any
shares remain unexecuted, such remainder will be cancelled back to the
User. Under the SWPB routing strategy, an order would check the System
for available shares and then is sent to Protected Quotations and only
for displayed size. Under this strategy, orders would have to contain
sufficient size to execute against all Protected Quotations. The entire
SWPB order will be cancelled back to the User immediately if at the
time of entry there is insufficient quantity in the SWPB order to
fulfill the displayed size of all Protected Quotations. The Exchange
believes that the proposed introduction of the SWPA/B routing options
will provide market participants with greater flexibility in routing
orders consistent with Regulation NMS. This proposed rule change is
similar to NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(vi) (NASDAQ's ``MOPP'' strategy)
and BATS Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.13(a)(3)(D) (``Parallel T'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4758, BATS Rule 11.13(a)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange also believes that the proposed
introduction of the routing options, described above, will provide
market participants with greater flexibility in routing orders, without
having to develop their own complicated routing strategies.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ which requires the rules of an
exchange to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed change to introduce the routing options
described above will provide market participants with greater
flexibility in routing orders without developing complicated order
routing strategies on their own. In addition, it will provide
additional clarity and specificity to the Exchange's rules regarding
routing strategies and will further enhance transparency with respect
to Exchange routing offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\8\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\ permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange notes that waiver of
this requirement will allow the Exchange to immediately offer Exchange
Users new routing strategies, and with respect to the ROOC option, as
soon as the technology for such strategy is completed. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the new routing strategies to become immediately available,
and, with respect to the ROOC option, available on or about February
14, 2011, and would immediately provide additional clarity and
specificity to the Exchange's rules regarding routing strategies and
further enhance transparency with respect to Exchange routing
offerings. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 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.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ For the 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 such 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2011-01 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-EDGX-2011-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such 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 publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-01 and should be submitted on
or before February 22, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2132 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75495-75498]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24304]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0366]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, and Other Storms With
High Winds; Captain of the Port Zone Sector Virginia

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for the
navigable waters of the Sector Virginia Captain of the Port (COTP)
Zone, to be enforced in the event of hurricanes, tropical storms, and
other storms with high winds. This action is necessary to ensure the
safety of the waters of the Sector Virginia COTP Zone. This rule
establishes actions to be completed by industry and vessels within the
COTP Zone before hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with
high winds threatening the State of Virginia make landfall, and
afterwards as well.

DATES: This rule is effective December 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0366 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Chief Waterways Management Division
U.S. Coast Guard;<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    Virginia has the potential to be affected by hurricanes and
tropical storms on a yearly basis, especially between the months of
June and November. Additionally, severe storms generating high winds
and rough seas are also common in the winter months. In response, on
September 14, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zone; Hurricanes, Tropical Storms,
and other Storms with High Winds; Captain of the Port Zone Virginia''
(88 FR 63042). There, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited
comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this safety zone.
During the comment period that ended October 16, 2023, we received one
comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Virginia (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with hurricanes, tropical storms, and
other storms pose a safety concern to the maritime community. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable
waters in the safety zone before, during, and after a hurricane,
tropical storm, or other storm.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment that concurred with the
proposed rulemaking on our NPRM published September 14, 2023. The
comment also addressed the need for Coast Guard Sector Virginia to
maintain and update the Port Heavy Weather Plan. The comment is
referring to the Maritime Severe Weather Contingency Plan, which
advises the maritime community of the sequence and timing of COTP
decisions and actions made pursuant to 33 CFR parts 160 and 165 that
may be taken when there is the threat of a hurricane. The Plan also
recommends actions to be taken to minimize storm related deaths,
injury, damage, and threats to the environment. Coast Guard Sector
Virginia will review and update the Maritime Severe Weather Contingency
Plan as necessary to reflect the promulgation of this rule, and to
provide guidance on advisable steps to take in addition to those
required by the rule. Aside from adding the word ``Sector'' to the
title of the regulation to conform to 33 CFR 3.25-10, there are no
changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in
the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone on the navigable waters of the
Sector Virginia COTP Zone during hurricanes, tropical storms, and other
storms with high winds. This safety zone establishes actions to be
completed by local industry and vessels in the COTP zone prior to
landfall of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high

winds threatening Virginia and in the aftermath of landfall. Port
Conditions (WHISKEY, X-RAY, YANKEE, ZULU, and RECOVERY) are
standardized terms for states of operation instituted by the COTP which
are clearly communicated to port facilities, vessels, and members of
the Marine Transportation System (MTS).
    Ports and waterfront facilities are encouraged to take action when
specific Port Conditions are declared. Under Port Condition WHISKEY,
ports and waterfront facilities should remove all debris and secure
potential flying hazards. Upon a declaration that Port Condition X-RAY
is in effect, port facilities should ensure that potential flying
debris and hazardous materials are removed, and that loose cargo and
cargo equipment is secured. Upon a declaration of Port Condition
YANKEE, terminal operators should terminate all cargo operations not
associated with storm preparations. All facilities should continue to
operate in accordance with approved Facility Security Plans (as defined
at 33 CFR 101.105, and as further described in 33 CFR 105.400 to
105.415), and to comply with all applicable requirements of the
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. chapter 701).
    The COTP retains flexibility in controlling and reconstituting
vessel traffic during periods of heavy weather, and it will allow for
the expedited resumption of the MTS following such events. The safety
zone consists of all waters of the territorial seas within the Sector
Virginia COTP Zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-10. Portions of the
safety zone might be activated at different times, as conditions
dictated. Notice of Port Conditions and their requirements will be
given via Marine Safety Information Bulletins and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time of day of the regulated area. This
regulatory action determination is based on the necessity to protect
life, port infrastructure, and the environment during hurricanes,
tropical storms, and other storms with high winds. The scope of the
regulation is narrow and will only apply when a hurricane, tropical
storm, or other storm with high winds impacts the navigable waters of
the Virginia COTP Zone. These events are infrequent and of short
duration. Regulatory restrictions will be lifted as soon as
practicable.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal Government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone that prohibits entry in
certain waters of the Sector Virginia COTP Zone for the duration needed
to ensure safe transit of vessels and industry before and after a
hurricane, tropical storm, or other storm with high winds. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.520 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.520  Safety Zone; Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, and other
Storms with High Winds; Captain of the Port Zone Sector Virginia.

    (a) Regulated areas. All navigable waters, as defined in 33 CFR
2.36, within the Captain of the Port Zone Sector Virginia, as described
in 33 CFR 3.25-10, or some portion of those waters, during specified
conditions. Port conditions and safety zone activation may vary for
different portions of the regulated area at different times, based on
storm conditions and its projected track.
    (b) Definitions.
    Captain of the Port means Commander, Coast Guard Sector Virginia.
    Representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer or civilian employee who has been authorized to act on
the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    Port Condition WHISKEY means a condition set by the COTP when
National Weather Service (NWS) weather advisories indicate sustained
gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47 knots) are predicted to reach the
COTP zone within 72 hours.
    Port Condition X-RAY means a condition set by the COTP when NWS
weather advisories indicate sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47
knots) are predicted to reach the COTP zone within 48 hours.
    Port Condition YANKEE means a condition set by the COTP when NWS
weather advisories indicate that sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/
34-47 knots) are predicted to reach the COTP zone within 24 hours.
    Port Condition ZULU means a condition set by the COTP when NWS
weather advisories indicate that sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/
34-47 knots) are predicted to reach the COTP zone within 12 hours.
    Port Condition RECOVERY means a condition set by the COTP when NWS
weather advisories indicate that sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/
34-47 knots) are no longer predicted for the regulated area. This port
condition remains in effect until the regulated areas are deemed safe
and are reopened to normal operations.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Port Condition WHISKEY. All vessels must
exercise due diligence in preparation for potential storm impacts. All
oceangoing tank barges and their supporting tugs and all self-propelled
oceangoing vessels over 500 gross tons (GT) must make plans to depart
no later than setting of Port Condition Yankee unless authorized by the
COTP. The COTP may modify the geographic boundaries of the regulated
area and actions to be taken under Port Condition WHISKEY, based on the
trajectory and forecasted storm conditions.
    (2) Port Condition X-RAY. All vessels must ensure that potential
flying debris and hazardous materials are removed, and that loose cargo
and cargo equipment is secured. Vessels at facilities must carefully
monitor their moorings and cargo operations. Additional anchor(s) must
be made ready to let go, and preparations must be made to have a
continuous anchor watch during the storm. Engine(s) must be made
immediately available for maneuvering. Also, vessels must maintain a
continuous listening watch on VHF Channel 16. All oceangoing tank
barges and their supporting tugs and all self-propelled oceangoing
vessels over 500 GT must prepare to depart the port and anchorages
within the affected regulated area. These vessels shall depart
immediately upon the setting of Port Condition YANKEE. During this
condition, slow-moving vessels may be ordered to depart to ensure safe
avoidance of the incoming storm. Vessels that are unable to depart the
port must contact the COTP to receive permission to remain in port.
Vessels with COTP's permission to remain in port must implement their
pre-approved mooring arrangement. The COTP may require additional
precautions to ensure the safety of the ports and waterways. The COTP
may modify the geographic boundaries of the regulated area and actions
to be taken under Port Condition X-RAY based on the trajectory and
forecasted storm conditions.
    (3) Port Condition YANKEE. Affected ports are closed to all inbound
vessel traffic. All oceangoing tank barges and their supporting tugs
and all self-propelled oceangoing vessels over 500 GT must have
departed the regulated area. The COTP may require additional
precautions to ensure the safety of the ports and waterways. The COTP
may modify the geographic boundaries of the regulated area and actions
to be taken under Port Condition YANKEE based on the trajectory and
forecasted storm conditions.
    (4) Port Condition ZULU. Cargo operations are suspended, except
final preparations that are expressly permitted by the COTP as
necessary to ensure the safety of the ports and facilities. Other than
vessels designated by the COTP, no vessels may enter, transit, move, or
anchor within the regulated area. The COTP may modify the geographic
boundaries of the regulated area and actions to be taken under Port
Condition ZULU based on the trajectory and forecasted storm conditions.
    (5) Port Condition RECOVERY. Designated areas are closed to all
vessels. Based on assessments of channel conditions, navigability
concerns, and hazards to navigation, the COTP may permit vessel
movements with restrictions. Restrictions may include, but are not
limited to, preventing, or delaying vessel movements, imposing draft,
speed, size, horsepower or daylight restrictions, or directing the use
of specific routes. Vessels permitted to transit the regulated area
shall comply with the lawful orders or directions given by the COTP or
representative.
    (6) Regulated Area Notice. The Coast Guard will provide notice of
where, within the regulated area, a declared Port Condition is to be in
effect via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information
Bulletins, or by on-scene representatives.
    (7) Exception. This regulation does not apply to authorized law
enforcement agencies operating within the regulated area.

    Dated: October 27, 2023.
J.A. Stockwell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia.
[FR Doc. 2023-24304 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79262-79263]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modifications to
Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1-
Motor vehicle, 2-Rail freight, 3-Cargo vessel, 4-Cargo aircraft only,
5-Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2020.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special
        Application No.                Applicant           Regulation(s) affected         permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5749-M.......................  Chemours Company Fc LLC.  173.315(a)..............  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize a new
                                                                                distillate trailer. (mode 1)
14372-M......................  Kidde Technologies Inc..  173.309(a), 180.213(a)..  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to update the permit with
                                                                                the addition of a new part
                                                                                number. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                                                5)
16308-M......................  Vero Biotech LLC........  173.175.................  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize a new absorbent
                                                                                filler surrounding the
                                                                                ampules being transported.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

20584-M......................  Battery Solutions, LLC..  173.185(f)(3),            To modify the special permit
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iii),       to authorize up to 400 lbs.
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iv),        of damaged/defective
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(v),         batteries in individual
                                                          173.185(c)(3),            packaging to be shipped in a
                                                          173.185(f),               55-gallon drum. (modes 1, 2,
                                                          173.185(f)(1).            3)
20986-M......................  Olin Corporation........  172.302(c), 173.26,       To modify the special permit
                                                          173.314(c), 179.13(b).    to clarify the GRL limit.
                                                                                (mode 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-27018 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6738-6739]
[DOCID:fr10fe10-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61499; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending Rule
991 Options Communications

February 4, 2010.
    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 January 13, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' 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 substantially 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 option trading rules pertaining
to its advertising, branch officer examination requirement, and
assuming customer loss policies to harmonize these policies with those
of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's 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 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
    Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, the American Stock Exchange,
LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, LLC, Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, the
New York Stock Exchange, LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia
Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the ``Options Self Regulatory
Council''), entered into an agreement dated June 5, 2008 (the ``17d-2
Agreement'') to allocate regulatory responsibility for common rules.
The Exchange is currently in the process of recertifying this 17d-2
Agreement.
    In order to continue this successful regulatory agreement, the
Exchange proposes to harmonize the following option trading rules with
comparable FINRA rules: NYSE Amex Rule 991, Communications to Customers
and NYSE Amex Rule 1106, Prior Approval of Certain Communications to
Customers.

Options Communications

    In furtherance of the 17d-2 Agreement, and in order to maintain
substantial similarity with FINRA rules, the Exchange proposes to amend
NYSE Amex Rule 991, Communications to Customers, to correspond to FINRA
Rule 2220, Options Communications. Many elements of current NYSE Amex
Rule 991 are identical to FINRA Rule 2220. However, FINRA 2220 contains
a more comprehensive definition section and approval process for
advertisements, correspondence, and institutional sales material. The
Exchange believes it is in the best interest of its Members to adopt
FINRA's more comprehensive requirements. To the extent that other FINRA
rules are incorporated into FINRA 2220 by reference, the Exchange
proposes to add such language directly into the corresponding sections
of proposed Rule 991.
    For instance, FINRA Rule 2357 makes the provisions of FINRA 2220
applicable to index warrants, currency index warrants and currency
warrants. As stated above, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex
Rule 991 to correspond to FINRA Rule 2220. Thus, to harmonize its rules
with FINRA's, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Rule 1106 to
correspond to FINRA Rule 2357, so that proposed NYSE Amex Rule 1106
will make the

provisions of proposed NYSE Amex Rule 991 applicable to index warrants,
currency index warrants and currency warrants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \4\ of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\5\ 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 facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system. Specifically, the
proposed rule changes would provide NYSE Amex Members with a clearer,
more consistent, and more comprehensive regulatory scheme, by
harmonizing NYSE Amex rules with FINRA rules. The Exchange further
notes that the proposed changes are neither novel nor controversial and
are modeled on existing FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 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.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of 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 the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ 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 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with existing FINRA rules, and
does not raise any new substantive issues. For these reasons, 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 promote greater harmonization between NYSE Amex Option
Communication rules and the related FINRA rules. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change effective and operative
upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ 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 may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-04 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-NYSEAmex-2010-04. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100
F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the Exchange's principal office
and on its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEAmex-2010-04 and
should be submitted on or before March 3, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2943 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 15 April 15, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Zinc Pyrithione Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Characterization Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document ( D301371)

FROM: Kathryn Montague, M. S., Biologist Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

THRU: Rick Petrie, Team Leader Norm Cook, Branch Chief Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

Attached is the Zinc Pyrithione ecological hazard and environmental risk characterization for incorporation into the RED document. Page 2 of 15 ZINC Pyrithione ( Zinc 2 pyridinethiol 1 oxide)( 088002)

Ecological Hazard Assessment and Environmental Risk Characterization Executive Summary:

Zinc pyrithione is a bacteriostat, fungicide, microbiocide/ microbiostat registered for preservative uses in food packaging adhesives, food packaging materials, conveyor belts, and repeat use polymeric food contact materials ( indoor food), control of bacterial growth on laundered products ( indoor nonfood), preservation of adhesives, caulks, patching compounds, sealants, grouts, latex paints, coatings, dry wall, gypsum, pearlite, plaster ( indoor nonfood), and ductwork ( HVAC use). Zinc pyrithione is also used for the control of mildew in nonfood contact polymers and control of mildew and bacteria in styrene butadiene rubber and thermoplastic resins ( e. g. air ducts). Materials preservation extends to in can preservation of clay, mineral, pigment and guar gum slurries, latex emulsions, and similar high solids aqueous media. Zinc pyrithione is also conditionally registered as an antifoulant for incorporation as an active ingredient into boat paints.

The ecological effects database for zinc pyrithione is adequate to support the indoor uses considered in this RED. Zinc pyrithione is moderately toxic to birds via acute oral exposure, and slightly toxic to practically non toxic to birds via dietary exposure. It is also acutely toxic to mammals via oral ingestion ( Toxicity Category II). Zinc pyrithione is very highly toxic on an acute basis to freshwater and marine fish and invertebrates, as well as to aquatic plant species. It also causes adverse impacts on freshwater and marine invertebrate reproduction and growth at very low levels.

Due to the high toxicity of the parent compound to aquatic organisms, coupled with the parent compound's tendency to break down fairly rapidly into more persistent degradates in aquatic systems, aquatic organism acute toxicity tests with two major degradates of zinc pyrithione were submitted. These data indicate that both pyridine sulfonic acid and pyrithione sulfonic acid are only slightly toxic to practically non toxic to freshwater and marine/ estuarine fish and invertebrates and aquatic plants.

The reproductive and growth impacts to aquatic organisms indicate that zinc pyrithione is a potential endocrine disruptor. EPA is required under the 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 the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific basis for including, as Page 3 of 15 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 effects 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 the appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, zinc pyrithione may be subjected to additional screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

Environmental exposure modeling was not conducted for the indoor uses of zinc pyrithione considered in this RED. Exposure to terrestrial and aquatic organisms and plants is expected to be minimal from these indoor uses. Therefore, a full ecological risk assessment was not conducted for this RED. Risk to birds, mammals, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plants, including Endangered species, is not anticipated from the indoor uses of zinc pyrithione.

I. Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals A. Birds, Acute and Subacute 1. Zinc Pyrithione parent compound An acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck or bobwhite quail. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table 1. Avian Acute Oral Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione Species % a. i. LD50 ( mg/ kg) 95 % c. i. NOAEL Toxicity category MRID No. Author/ Yea r Study Classificatio n Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) 96 60 ( 44  81) < 31.2 moderately toxic 43864611 Campbell/ 1993 Core These results indicate that zinc pyrithione is moderately to avian species on an acute oral basis. The guideline requirement ( 71 1/ OPPTS 850.2100) is fulfilled ( MRID# 43864611).

Two subacute dietary studies using the technical grade of the active ingredient are required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck ( a waterfowl) and bobwhite quail ( an upland gamebird). Results of avian subacute dietary tests are tabulated below. Page 4 of 15 Table 2. Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione Species % ai LC50 ( ppm) ( 95 % c. i.) NOAEC ( ppm) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Northern Bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) 96 1063 ( 789  1412) < 253 slightly toxic 43864610 Campbell/ 1994 core Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos) 96 > 5000 ( N/ A) < 275 practicall y nontoxic 43864612 Campbell/ 1994 core These results indicate that zinc pyrithione is slightly toxic to practically non toxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basis. The guideline requirement ( 71 2/ OPPTS 850.2200) is fulfilled ( MRID # 43864610, 43864612).

B. Birds, Chronic Avian reproduction studies using the technical grade of the active ingredient are required for a pesticide when any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) birds may be subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the pesticide, especially preceding or during the breeding season, ( 2) the pesticide is stable in the environment to the extent that potentially toxic amounts may persist in animal feed, ( 3) the pesticide is stored or accumulated in plant or animal tissues, and/ or, ( 4) information derived from mammalian reproduction studies indicates reproduction in terrestrial vertebrates may be adversely affected by the anticipated use of the product. The currently registered uses of zinc pyrithione do not require avian reproduction testing. No avian reproduction data is available for zinc pyrithione.

C. Mammals, Acute and Chronic Wild mammal testing is required on a case by case basis, depending on the results of lower tier laboratory mammalian studies, intended use pattern and pertinent environmental fate characteristics. In most cases, rat or mouse toxicity values obtained from studies conducted to support data requirements for human health risk assessment substitute for wild mammal testing. These toxicity values are reported in the table below.

Table 3 . Mammalian Acute Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione Species % ai Test Type Toxicity Values ( mg/ kg)/ category MRID No. Author/ year Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus) tech acute oral LD50 630( m), 460 ( f) / II 42827901 Moreno/ 1986 Page 5 of 15 Mammalian chronic toxicity studies were not available for zinc pyrithione.

D. Insects A honey bee acute contact study using the technical grade of the active ingredient is not required for the currently registered uses of zinc pyrithione.

E. Terrestrial Field Testing Terrestrial field testing is not required for the currently registered uses of zinc pyrithione.

II. Toxicity to Freshwater Aquatic Animals A. Freshwater Fish, Acute 1. Parent compound Two freshwater fish toxicity studies using the technical grade of the active ingredient are required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to fish. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish). Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table 4 . Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione Species % ai LC50 ( ppb ai) ( 95 % c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 97.8 3.6 ( 3.07  4.33) 1.6 very highly toxic 43864613 Boeri/ 1994 core Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 97.8 2.68 ( 2.10  3.27) 1.1 very highly toxic 43864606 Boeri/ 1994 core These results indicate that zinc pyrithione is very highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 1/ OPPTS 850.1075) is fulfilled ( MRID# 43864613, 43864606).

2. Degradates Zinc pyrithione has two major degradates, pyridine sulfonic acid and pyrithione sulfonic acid. Two freshwater fish acute toxicity studies using these degradates were submitted. Page 6 of 15 Table 5. Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity of Pyridine sulfonic acid ( zinc pyrithione degradate).

Species % ai LC50 ( ppb ai) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 98 57100 ( 48300  69800) 46900 slightly toxic 43864627 Ward/ 1993 core Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 98 68500 ( 55200  85000) 55200 slightly toxic 43864621 Boeri/ 1994 core These results indicate that pyridine sulfonic acid is slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 1/ OPPTS 850.1075) is fulfilled ( MRID# 43864627, 43864621).

Table 6 . Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity of Pyrithione sulfonic acid ( zinc pyrithione degradate).

Species % ai LC50 ( ppb ai) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 98.5 92300 ( 73600  124000) 73600 slightly toxic 43864616 Ward/ 1994 core Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 98.5 58800 ( 48700  71000) 48700 slightly toxic 43864618 Ward/ 1994 core These results indicate that pyrithione sulfonic acid is slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 1/ OPPTS 850.1075) is fulfilled ( MRID# 43864616, 43864618).

B. Freshwater Fish, Chronic A freshwater fish early life stage test using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a pesticide when it may be applied directly to water or if the end use product is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, ( 2) any aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 mg/ l, ( 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute LC50 or EC50 value, or, ( 4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less than 0.01 of any Page 7 of 15 acute LC50 or EC50 value and any one of the following conditions exist: studies of other organisms indicate the reproductive physiology of fish may be affected, physicochemical properties indicate cumulative effects, or the pesticide is persistent in water ( e. g., half life greater than 4 days). The preferred test species is rainbow trout, but other species may be used.. Freshwater fish early life stage testing is required for zinc omadine and its major degradates due to the very high acute toxicity of parent zinc omadine to freshwater fish. The results of this testing is summarized below:

Table 7. Freshwater Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity of Zinc Omadine ® ( parent)

Species % ai NOAEC/ LOAEC ( ppb) Endpoints Affected MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 98.2 1.22/ 2.82 Survival, sublethal effects ( bent spinal columns), and length 45204102 Boeri/ 1999 core The guideline requirement ( 72 4b/ OPPTS 850.1300) is fulfilled ( MRID# 44535401).

Table 8. Freshwater Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity of Pyridine 2 sulfonic acid Species % ai NOAEC/ LOAEC ( ppb) Endpoints Affected MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 98.2 NOAEC = 10 ( highest level tested) no adverse effects observed 45204102 Boeri/ 1999 core The guideline requirement ( 72 4b/ OPPTS 850.1300) is fulfilled.

C. Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute 1. Parent compound A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. Results of this test are tabulated below. Page 8 of 15 Table 8 . Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione ( parent)

Species % ai LC50 or EC50 ( ppb ai) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Waterflea ( Daphnia magna) 97.8 8.25 ( 5.24  25.82) < 1.1 very highly toxic 43864604 Boeri/ 1994 core Freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca 98.2 136 ppb highly toxic 449218 01 Supplemental The results indicate that parent zinc pyrithione is highly to very highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 2/ OPPTS 850.1010) is fulfilled ( MRID# 43864604).

2. Degradates Zinc pyrithione has two major degradates, pyridine sulfonic acid and pyrithione sulfonic acid. Two freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity studies using these degradates were submitted.

Table 9 . Freshwater Invertebrate Toxicity of Pyridine Sulfonic Acid Species % ai LC50 or EC50 ( ppb ai) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Waterflea ( Daphnia magna) 98 > 122000 122000 practically non toxic 43864622 Ward/ 1994 core The results indicate that pyridine sulfonic acid is practically non toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 2/ OPPTS 850.1010) is fulfilled ( MRID# 43864622) for this degradate of zinc pyrithione.

Table 10 . Freshwater Invertebrate Toxicity of Pyrithione Sulfonic Acid Species % ai LC50 or EC50 ( ppb ai) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Waterflea ( Daphnia magna) 98.5 > 127000 32800 practically non toxic 43864619 Ward/ 1994 core Page 9 of 15 The results indicate that pyrithione sulfonic acid is practically non toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 2/ OPPTS 850.1010) is fulfilled ( MRID# 43864619) for this degradate of zinc pyrithione.

D. Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic A freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle test using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a pesticide if the end use product may be applied directly to water or expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, ( 2) any aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 mg/ l, or, ( 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute EC50 or LC50 value, or, ( 4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less than 0.01 of any aquatic acute EC50 or LC50 value and any of the following conditions exist: studies of other organisms indicate the reproductive physiology of invertebrates may be affected, physicochemical properties indicate cumulative effects, or the pesticide is persistent in water ( e. g., half life greater than 4 days). The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. Freshwater aquatic invertebrate lifecycle testing was required for zinc pyrithione due to the likelihood of runoff from the application sites, the likelihood of repeated or continuous exposure from multiple applications, and the high acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table 11. Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione Species % ai NOAEC/ LOAEC ( ppb) Endpoints Affected MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Waterflea ( Daphnia magna) 98.2 2.7/ 5.8 reproduction length 44535401 Boeri/ 1998 core The guideline requirement ( 72 4b/ OPPTS 850.1300) is fulfilled ( MRID# 44535401).

E. Freshwater Field Studies No freshwater field studies were submitted for zinc pyrithione.

III. Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals A. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute 1. Parent Page 10 of 15 Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine fish using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a chemical when the end use product is intended for direct application to the marine/ estuarine environment or the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test species is sheepshead minnow.

Table 12 . Acute Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione ( parent) to Estuarine/ Marine Fish Species % ai LC50 ( ppb ai) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) 97.8 400 ( 200 590) 200 highly toxic 43864605 Boeri/ 1994 core The results indicate that parent zinc pyrithione is highly toxic to estuarine/ marine fish on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 3a/ OPPTS 850.1025) is fulfilled ( MRID # 43864605).

2. Degradates Zinc pyrithione has two major degradates, pyridine sulfonic acid and pyrithione sulfonic acid. Two marine/ estuarine fish acute toxicity studies using these degradates were submitted.

Table 13. Acute Toxicity of Pyridine Sulfonic Acid to Estuarine/ Marine Fish Species % ai LC50 ( ppb ai) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) 98 > 127000 127000 practicall y nontoxic 43864623 Boeri/ 1994 core The results indicate that pyridine sulfonic acid is practically non toxic to estuarine/ marine fish on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 3a/ OPPTS 850.1025) is fulfilled ( MRID # 43864623).

Table 14. Acute Toxicity of Pyrithione Sulfonic Acid to Estuarine/ Marine Fish Species % ai LC50 ( ppb ai) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb ai) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) 98.5 > 137000 137000 practically non toxic 43864617 Boeri/ 1994 core The results indicate that pyrithione sulfonic acid is practically non toxic to estuarine/ marine fish Page 11 of 15 on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 3a/ OPPTS 850.1025) is fulfilled ( MRID # 43864617).

B. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic Estuarine/ marine fish early life stage testing is not required for the currently registered uses of zinc pyrithione. The freshwater fish early life stage test, which is required, should provide an adequate endpoint for use in future risk assessments, since freshwater fish species appear to be more sensitive to zinc pyrithione than marine/ estuarine species.

C. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute 1. Parent Compound Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine invertebrates using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a pesticide when the end use product is intended for direct application to the marine/ estuarine environment or the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table 15: Acute Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione ( parent) to Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates Species % ai. 96 hour LC50/ EC50 ( ppb) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) shell deposition 97.8 22.0 ( 18.9  27.3) 7.1 very highly toxic 43864608 Boeri et al/ 1994 core Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia) 97.8 4.7 ( 4.04 5.53) 1.6 very highly toxic 43864607 Boeri et al/ 1994 core The results indicate that parent zinc pyrithione is very highly toxic to estuarine/ marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline requirements ( 72 3b and 72 3c/ OPPTS 850.1035 and 850.1045) are fulfilled ( MRID# 43864608, 43864607).

2. Degradates Zinc pyrithione has two major degradates, pyridine sulfonic acid and pyrithione sulfonic acid. Two freshwater estuarine/ marine invertebrate acute toxicity studies using these degradates were Page 12 of 15 submitted.

Table 16: Acute Toxicity of Pyridine Sulfonic Acid to Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates Species % ai. 96 hour LC50/ EC50 ( ppb) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) shell deposition 99.1 85600 ( 73300  102500) 51100 slightly toxic 43864624 Boeri et al/ 1994 core Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia) 98 71000 ( 62800 81100) 51900 slightly toxic 43864626 Boeri et al/ 1994 core The results indicate that pyridine sulfonic acid is slightly toxic to estuarine/ marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline requirements ( 72 3b and 72 3c/ OPPTS 850.1035 and 850.1045) are fulfilled for this degradate of zinc pyrithione ( MRID# 43864624, 43864626).

Table 17: Acute Toxicity of Pyrithione Sulfonic Acid to Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates Species % ai. 96 hour LC50/ EC50 ( ppb) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) shell deposition 98.5 96200 ( 89313  104560) 21900 slightly toxic 43864615 Boeri et al/ 1994 core Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia) 98.5 70300 ( 61600 81600) 19400 slightly toxic 43864620 Boeri et al/ 1994 core The results indicate that pyrithione sulfonic acid is slightly toxic to estuarine/ marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline requirements ( 72 3b and 72 3c/ OPPTS 850.1035 and 850.1045) are fulfilled for this degradate of zinc pyrithione ( MRID# 43864615, 43864620).

D. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic An estuarine/ marine invertebrate life cycle toxicity test is required for a pesticide if the end use product may be applied directly to water or expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, ( 2) any aquatic Page 13 of 15 acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 mg/ l, or, ( 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute EC50 or LC50 value, or, ( 4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less than 0.01 of any aquatic acute EC50 or LC50 value and any of the following conditions exist: studies of other organisms indicate the reproductive physiology of invertebrates may be affected, physicochemical properties indicate cumulative effects, or the pesticide is persistent in water ( e. g., half life greater than 4 days). Estuarine/ marine invertebrate life cycle testing was submitted for zinc pyrithione.

Table 18: Chronic Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione ( parent) to Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates Species % ai. LOEC ( ppb) NOAEC ( ppb) MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia) 98.2 growth: 4.20 ppb repro: 9.16 ppb growth: 2.28 ppb repro: 4.20 ppb 44911101 Boeri et al/ 1999 core E. Estuarine and Marine Field Studies No estuarine or marine field study data is available for zinc pyrithione.

IV. Toxicity to Plants A. Terrestrial Currently, terrestrial plant testing is not required for pesticides other than herbicides except on a case by case basis ( e. g., labeling bears phytotoxicity warnings, incidents of plant damage have been reported, or literature indicating phytotoxicity is available). Terrestrial plant testing is not required for zinc pyrithione.

B. Aquatic Aquatic plant testing is not required for pesticides other than herbicides except on a case by case basis ( e. g., labeling bears phytotoxicity warnings, incidents have been reported involving plants, or literature is available that indicates phytotoxicity). Since algae is a target pest for zinc pyrithione, aquatic plant toxicity testing was required. Tier II data were submitted on the freshwater green alga Selenastrum capricornutum for parent zinc pyrithione and the major degradates, pyridine sulfonic acid and pyrithione sulfonic acid. The results of these tests are tabulated below. Page 14 of 15 1. Parent Compound Table 19: Acute Toxicity of Zinc Pyrithione ( parent) to Alga and Aquatic Plants Species % ai. 96 hour LC50/ EC50 ( ppb) ( 95% c. i.) NOEC ( ppb) MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Freshwater green alga ( Selenastrum capricornutum) 97.8 28.0 ( 24.3 33.0) 7.8 43864609 Ward et al/ 1994 core Blue green alga ( Anabaena flos aquae) 98.3 7.1 3.8 45564901 core Freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa) 98.3 2.6 2.4 45565001 core Aquatic vascular plant, duckweed ( Lemna gibba) 98.2 8.87 4.0 45204104 core The results indicate that parent zinc pyrithione is very highly toxic to aquatic plants on an acute basis. Guideline 123 1/ OPPTS 850.5400 is not fulfilled for zinc pyrithione; testing on one additional species ( marine diatom, preferably Skeletonema costatum) is required.

2. Degradates Table 20: Acute Toxicity of Pyridine Sulfonic Acid to Aquatic Plants Species % ai. 96 hour LC50/ EC50 ( ppb) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Freshwater green alga ( Selenastrum capricornutum) 98 28900 ( 23000  46200) 5460 slightly toxic 43864625 Boeri et al/ 1994 core The results indicate that pyridine sulfonic acid is slightly toxic to freshwater green algae on an acute basis. No further aquatic plant toxicity testing with this degradate of zinc pyrithione is required. Page 15 of 15 Table 21: Acute Toxicity of Pyrithione Sulfonic Acid to Aquatic Plants Species % ai. 96 hour LC50/ EC50 ( ppb) ( 95% c. i.) NOAEC ( ppb) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Freshwater green alga ( Selenastrum capricornutum) 98.5 28200 ( 26000  30800) 11800 slightly toxic 43864614 Boeri et al, 1994 core The results indicate that pyrithione sulfonic acid is slightly toxic to freshwater green algae on an acute basis. No further aquatic plant testing is required for this degradate of zinc pyrithione.

V. Environmental Exposure and Risk Environmental exposure modeling was not conducted for the indoor uses ( materials preservative) of zinc pyrithione considered in this RED. Exposure to terrestrial and aquatic organisms and plants is expected to be minimal from these indoor uses. Therefore, a full ecological risk assessment was not conducted for this RED. Risk to birds, mammals, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plants is not anticipated from the indoor uses of zinc pyrithione.


[Federal Register: November 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 67866]
[DOCID:fr17no08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-174-000]

Evergreen Wind Power V, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

November 10, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Evergreen Wind Power, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 1, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-27196 Filed 11-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49107-49108]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2018-N-0073; FDA-2018-N-0074; FDA-2010-N-0155; FDA-
2014-N-0987; FDA-2016-D-1164; FDA-2014-N-2029; FDA-2012-N-0369; FDA-
2017-N-6730; FDA-2009-N-0025; FDA-2014-N-2294; and FDA-2018-N-1129]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approvals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
information collections that have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information
collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control
number and expiration date of OMB approval for

each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the
supporting statements for the information collections are available on
the internet at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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.

        Table 1--List of Information Collections Approved by OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            OMB control    Date approval
           Title of collection                  No.           expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irradiation in the Production,                 0910-0186       7/31/2021
 Processing, and Handling of Food.......
State Enforcement Notifications.........       0910-0275       7/31/2021
Veterinary Feed Directive...............       0910-0363       7/31/2021
Generic Clearance for the Collection of        0910-0796       7/31/2021
 Qualitative Data on Tobacco Products
 and Communications.....................
Quality Facility Attestation............       0910-0854       7/31/2021
Administrative Practices and Procedures;       0910-0191       8/31/2021
 Formal Evidentiary Public Hearing......
Regulations Under the Federal Import           0910-0212       8/31/2021
 Milk Act...............................
Medical Device Reporting................       0910-0437       8/31/2021
Animal Food Labeling; Declaration of           0910-0721       8/31/2021
 Certifiable Color Additives............
Evaluation of the Food and Drug                0910-0788       8/31/2021
 Administration's Fresh Empire
 Multicultural Youth Tobacco Prevention
 Campaign...............................
National Agriculture and Food Defense          0910-0855       8/31/2021
 Strategy Survey........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Dated: September 25, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-21209 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P