[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21882-21883]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08530]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 24, 2016, from 8
a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, C
and D, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's phone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Evella Washington, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1535, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-6683, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On May 24, 2016, the committee will discuss, make
recommendations and vote on information related to the premarket
approval application regarding St. Jude Medical's AMPLATZER Patent
Foramen Ovale (PFO) Occluder. The AMPLATZER PFO Occluder is a
percutaneously delivered permanent cardiac implant for PFO closure. The
device is indicated for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke in
patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke due to a presumed
paradoxical embolism.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
10, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled on May
24, 2016 between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before April 28, 2016. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by May 2, 2016.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact AnnMarie Williams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-5966,
at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 8, 2016.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-08530 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


 Coppers Reader's Guide 1 Reader's Guide Coppers Cases CRM: Rosanna Louie EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Reader's Guide # 2 to Coppers E Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2005 0558 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the Coppers EDocket The Agency is providing the " Reader's Guide" to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various items contained in the Coppers E docket.

Docket Item 1. Federal Register Notice: Coppers Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED); Notice of Availability This document formally and publicly announces the availability of coppers RED and its supporting documents available on the internet for public viewing, and solicits comments on the extent of copper sulfate use as a root killer and the potential burden placed on POTWs by this use.

Docket Item 2. Reader's Guide to the Coppers E Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2005 0558 This document is designed to annotate all revised risk assessments and other support documents in support of the coppers RED.

Docket Item 3. Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) for Coppers, July 11, 2006 This document publishes the Agency's decision on the reregistration of copper compounds addressed in this RED, a summary of the Agency's findings in the human health and ecological risk assessments, and information regarding requirements registrants need to fulfill as part of reregistration Docket Item 4. Response to Comments, Transmittal Memo for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Re Registration of Copper sulfate ( Case # 0636), Group II copper compounds ( Case # 0649), and Copper salts ( Case # 4029) for use on crops and as direct water applications, April 20, 2006 This document includes the response to comments received during the Phase 3 Public Comment period and the revised ecological risk assessment, which incorporated these comments. The appendices were excluded due to its size. No revisions were made since the October 24, 2005 version.

Docket Item 5. Coppers: Revised Human Health Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED) and Response to Comments from the Phase 3 Public Comment Period. Reregistration Case Numbers 0636, 0649, 4025, and 4026. DP Barcode D330433, June 29, 2006 Coppers Reader's Guide 2 Docket Item 6. Addendum to the Memorandum " Typical Application Information for Copper Products for Algaecide, Aquatic Herbicide, Molluscicide, Leech, and Tadpole Shrimp Control," April 27, 2006.

Docket Item 7. Copper ( Cu++) Alternatives Analysis for the Primary Aquatic Uses ( DP# 329640), June 19, 2006. This document summarizes the major alternatives to using copper in direct aquatic applications.

Docket Item 8. Overview of the Agricultural Uses of Copper Group II Pesticides and Their Alternatives ( DP# 328220), June 28, 2006.

This document describes the major available alternatives to using copper hydroxide and copper sulfate, the two highest used copper compounds.

Docket Item 9. Analysis of Water Chemistry to Develop Label Language for Re Registration for the Re Registration of Copper sulfate ( Case # 0636), Group II copper compounds ( Case # 0649), and Copper salts ( Case # 4029) for use on crops and as direct water applications, June 28, 2006.

Docket Item 10. BEAD Response to the Copper RED Public Comments ( DP# 330705), July 25, 2006.

This document address comments on direct aquatic uses of copper received during the Phase 3 Public Comment Period.

Docket Item 11. Responses to Public Comments on the Terrestrial Uses of Copper ( DP# 330704), July 27, 2006.

This document address comments on terrestrial uses of copper received during the Phase 3 Public Comment Period.


Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document BIOPESTICIDES REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt) Plant Incorporated Protectants This version of the Biopesticides Registration Action Document for the Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt) Plant Incorporated Protectants is dated October 15, 2001. This version corresponds to the version issued on September 29, 2001, with the following changes. The Agency has revised portions of Section I. Overview and Section II. Science Assessment relating to Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins expressed in corn ( Bt corn), in light of public comments received as of September 21, 2001. The Agency has also added two new sections entitled: " V. Bt Corn Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of Amended Registration" and " VI. Regulatory Position on Bt Corn."

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document i Table of Contents I. Overview ..................................................................................................................... I1 A. Executive Summary B. Corn C. Cotton D. Potatoes E. Bt Plant incorporated protectants Use, Registration Approval History, and Tolerance Listing .

II. Science Assessment ..................................................................................................... IIA1 A. Product Characterization ........................................................................................ IIA1 1. Corn 2. Cotton 3. Potatoes B. Human Health Assessment ...................................................................................... IIB1 1. Cry1Ab Corn 2. Cry1Ac Cotton 3. Cry3A Potato C. Environmental Assessment ...................................................................................... IIC1 1. Gene Flow and Weediness 2. Horizontal Transfer of Transgenes from Bt Crops to Soil Organisms 3. Ecological Exposure 4. Ecological Effects Testing 5. Environmental Reassessment Summary D. Insect Resistance Management ................................................................................. IID1 E. Benefits ..................................................................................................................... IIE1 III. Bt Cotton Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of the Amendment ........ III1 IV. Regulatory Position on Bt Cotton ................................................................................. IV1 V. Bt Corn Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of the Amendment ............ V1 VI. Regulatory Position on Bt Corn .................................................................................... VI1 Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document ii BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS PLANT INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS REGISTRATION ACTION TEAM Benefits Assessment Edward Brandt, M. A. Robert Torla, Ph. D. Felicia Wu Morris, M. A., M. S.

Environmental Fate and Effects Risk Assessment Zigfridas Vaituzis, Ph. D. Chris Wozniak, Ph. D. Robyn Rose, M. S. Gail Tomimatsu, Ph. D.

Health Effects Risk Assessment John Kough, Ph. D. Michael T. Watson, Ph. D.

Insect Resistance Management Assessment Sharlene Matten, Ph. D. Alan Reynolds, M. S. Robyn Rose, M. S.

Registration Support Willie Nelson, M. S. Mike Mendelsohn Communications Support Brian Steinwand Toby Tiktinski Biopesticides Registration Action Document Team Leader Mike Mendelsohn Office of Pesticide Programs William Jordan Office of General Counsel Keith A. Matthews Suzanne Krolikowski Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I1 I. Overview This version of the Biopesticides Registration Action Document for the Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt) Plant Incorporated Protectants is dated October 15, 2001. This version corresponds to the version issued on September 29, 2001, with the following changes. The Agency has revised portions of Section I. Overview and Section II. Science Assessment relating to Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins expressed in corn ( Bt corn), in light of public comments received as of September 21, 2001. The Agency has also added two new sections entitled: " V. Bt Corn Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of Amended Registration" and " VI. Regulatory Position on Bt Corn."

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. ( formerly Novartis Seeds, Inc.) and Mycogen Seeds c/ o Dow AgroSciences LLC came to the Agency indicating that as part of their business plans they would be phasing out their Event 176 corn products. Syngenta Seeds and Mycogen Seeds c/ o Dow AgroSciences LLC Event 176 Cry1Ab corn registrations expired on April 1, 2001 and on June 30, 2001, respectively. Existing stocks for these products must be used before or during the 2003 growing season. EPA has determined that allowing use of existing stocks for Event 176 Bt corn products through the 2003 growing season will not result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and the plantincorporated protectants will be gone from the environment long before resistance would have been predicted to develop. Both former registrants have agreed to comply with any increased IRM requirements that may result from this reassessment for any existing stocks.

Aventis requested voluntary cancellation of their Cry9C StarLink corn registration and this cancellation became effective on February 20, 2001.

The Event 176 and Cry9C products are not being considered for extensions. They will generally not be discussed in this reassessment document.

No regulatory changes are being required for Bt potato products.

A. Executive Summary EPA has completed a comprehensive reassessment of the time limited registrations for all existing Bt corn and cotton plant incorporated protectants. As part of EPA's reassessment, the Agency has decided to extend the registrations with additional terms and conditions for the Bt corn and cotton plant incorporated protectants including requiring confirmatory data to ensure protection of non target organisms and lack of accumulation of Bt proteins in soils, measures to limit gene flow from Bt cotton to wild ( or weedy) relatives, and a strengthened IRM program, especially related to compliance. Although the Bt potato product does not have an expiring registration, EPA has also included information on this plant incorporated protectant in Section II. Science Assessment section of the document. This reassessment has been designed to assure that the decisions on the renewal of these registrations are based on the most current health and ecological data. Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I2 The Bt cotton comprehensive reassessment has been completed and the Bt cotton registration is now set to automatically expire on September 30, 2006 except for the external, unsprayed refuge option which will expire September 30, 2004.

The Bt corn comprehensive reassessment has been completed and the Bt corn registrations are now set to automatically expire on October 15, 2008.

During this reassessment, EPA has conducted an open and transparent public process that incorporated sound and current science, and substantial public involvement.

The complete reassessment document is fashioned after the Agency's traditional Reregistration Eligibility Document ( RED). This format was selected to present the data and findings in a format that is familiar to the registrants, the users and the general public. The Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document has nine major sections:

1. Product Characterization 2. Human Health Assessment 3. Ecological Assessment 4. Insect Resistance Management 5. Benefits. 6. Bt Cotton Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of the Amendment 7. Regulatory Position on Bt Cotton. 8. Bt Corn Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of the Amendment 9. Regulatory Position on Bt Corn.

1. Product Characterization and Human Health Assessment This section provides information on the specific transformation systems that were used for each product, the characterization of the DNA insert, the inheritance and stability characteristics of the product line, and the protein characterization and levels of Bt protein expression for the various plant tissues. Specific information and data for each of the registrations seeking renewal are included in tabular and descriptive formats.

The health effects assessment confirms EPA's original findings that there are no unreasonable adverse health effects from these products. The human health assessment for the Bt plant incorporated protectants draws heavily on the science and toxicology of proteins. All the currently registered Bt plant incorporated protectants are proteins. The source bacterium has been a registered microbial pesticide which has been approved for use on food crops. The Bt proteins approved for use in food are expected to behave as would be expected of a dietary protein. The Bt microbial pesticides have a long history of safe use without adverse health or environmental effects. Several types of data are Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I3 required for the Bt plant incorporated protectants in order for the Agency to make the " reasonable certainty of no harm" finding that is required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The data are evaluated in order to determine that ( 1) the protein behaves as would be expected of a dietary protein breaking down rapidly in digestive fluids; ( 2) the protein is not structurally related to any known food allergen or protein toxin; and ( 3) the protein does not display any oral toxicity when administered at high doses. In this section of the assessment, product specific data are addressed for each of the following areas: in vitro digestion assay, heat stability and amino acid sequence homology comparisons, and acute oral toxicity, including mutagenicity and developmental toxicity, subchronic toxicity and chronic exposure and oncogenicity. Product specific information is also addressed for immune system effects, endocrine effects, dose response and dietary risk characterizations. The rationale is presented for why any dietary protein, including the Bt proteins, would not be expected to raise concerns for subchronic and chronic effects such as mutagenicity, oncogenicity and developmental toxicity. A discussion of immune system effects, endocrine effects and dietary and non dietary risk characterization is included for each product as would be found in any assessment for a pesticide chemical's food tolerance determination since implementation of the FQPA amendments to the FFDCA.

This document will also serve as EPA's review of the associated tolerance exemptions ( i. e., tolerance exemption reassessments) under 408( q) of the FFDCA. By this reassessment, EPA has completed its tolerance reassessment for Cry1Ab ( 180.1173) and for Cry3A ( 180.1147). The tolerance exemptions for Cry1Ac ( 180.1155) and Cry1F ( 180.1217) do not require reassessment at this time.

Since the September 2000 version of the risk and benefits assessments and the October 2000 SAP meeting, these sections have been updated by indicating additional data which might be needed. Product characterization data supporting currently registered products is adequate, but would be improved with more information. This information includes: analytical methods and method validation for the currently registered Cry proteins following OPPTS guidelines, heat stability and/ or processing data, amino acid sequencing data comparing to known toxins, stepwise 8 amino acid fragment comparisons to known allergens, post translational modifications ( i. e. potential glycosylation sites), and as valid methods become available, more complete analysis of the amino acid sequence expressed in the plant ( known as the MALDI TOF).

a. Bt Corn Tests have shown no toxicity to mammals from the Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins; the proteins are readily digestible in gastric fluids and are non glycosylated, the proteins are inactivated by typical food processing, and anticipated exposure of farm workers to the proteins is negligible. The Cry1Ab protein acute oral toxicity data submitted demonstrated no effects at the relatively high dose level of 4,000 mg/ kg. The Cry1F protein acute oral toxicity data submitted demonstrated no effects at the relatively high dose level of 5,050 mg/ kg. The Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins were readily degraded in gastric fluid in vitro. Exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely since the Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins are contained within corn plant cells which essentially eliminates or reduces exposure routes Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I4 to negligible. Oral exposure, at very low levels, may occur from ingestion of processed products and drinking water. Worker exposure to the Cry protein via seed dust is also expected to be negligible because of the low amount of protein expressed in seeds of the transformed plants. Taken in total, these data allow the Agency to make a determination that for human health, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U. S. population, including infants and children, to the Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production. Thus, EPA concludes that there are no adverse effects on human health from the use of Cry1Ab or Cry1F proteins expressed in corn.

b. Bt Cotton Tests have shown no toxicity to mammals from the Cry1Ac protein; the protein is readily digestible in gastric fluids and are non glycosylated, the protein is inactivated by typical food processing, and anticipated exposure to the protein from farm workers are negligible. The Cry1Ac protein acute oral toxicity data submitted demonstrated no effects at the relatively high dose level of 5,000 mg/ kg. Cry1Ac protein is degraded between two minutes and seven minutes by gastric fluid in vitro. Exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely since the Cry1Ac protein is contained within cotton plant cells which essentially eliminates or reduces exposure routes to negligible. Oral exposure, at very low levels, may occur from ingestion of processed products and drinking water. Worker exposure to the Cry protein via seed dust is also expected to be negligible because of the low amount of protein expressed in seeds of the transformed plants. Taken in total, these data allow the Agency to make a determination that for human health, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U. S. population, including infants and children, to the Cry1Ac protein and the genetic material necessary for its production. Thus, EPA concludes that there are no adverse effects on human health from the use of Cry1Ac protein expressed in cotton.

2. Ecological Assessment The ecological assessment section of this document focuses heavily on evaluating the impacts of Bt plant incorporated protectants on non target species. EPA recognizes that there has been considerable public concern about the potential for these products to have significant and unintended consequences for non target species such as the monarch butterfly. This assessment relies not only on the original data developed in support of the Bt registrations, but additionally, on data developed and submitted to EPA under a Data Call In ( DCI) requirement as well as recently published literature. Specific data is cited for concerns related to gene outcrossing and weediness, fate in soils and potential indirect effects on soil biota, direct effects on non target species including mammals, avian and aquatic species, insects, lepidoptera, and endangered or threatened species.

Since the September 2000 version of the risk and benefits assessments and the October 2000 SAP meeting, this section has been updated to indicate 1) Collembola and earthworm tests are no longer necessary to evaluate risk to soil non target organisms from Bt crops, 2) additional Bt corn avian data with a higher percentage of Bt corn in the diet may be needed for a more thorough assessment of Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I5 chronic risk, 3) if continuing non target insect census data was available, long range risk characterization might be improved, 4) additional Cry protein soil accumulation data is being considered to provide a more complete exposure characterization, 5) Bt cotton isolation distances may need revision in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands due to gene flow concerns, and 6) informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service wad initiated regarding the Karner Blue Butterfly.

a. Bt Corn EPA has also reviewed the original data base and the new data, information, and comments regarding ecological effects for Bt corn. EPA has reviewed the potential for gene capture and expression of the Cry1Ab/ Cry1F endotoxin in corn by wild or weedy relatives of corn in the United States, its possessions or territories. The Agency has determined that there is no significant risk of gene capture and expression of any B. t. endotoxin by wild or weedy relatives of corn product registrations in the U. S., its possessions or territories. In addition, the USDA/ APHIS has made this same determination under its statutory authority under the Plant Pest Act.

The Agency has concluded that based on the weight of evidence there are no unreasonable adverse effects of Cry1Ab or Cry1F protein expressed in corn to non target wildlife or beneficial invertebrates. However, EPA is requiring insect census estimates from representative fields to determine if there are long term adverse impacts from the use of Bt corn, field tests of Cry1Ab and Cry1F protein accumulation and/ or persistence in soil under a range of conditions typical of Bt crop cultivation as confirmatory data, and chronic avian data.

In the Cry1Ab ecological effects testing done, no treatment related effects were observed in Bobwhite quail or catfish fed Cry1Ab corn as part of their diet. No measurable deleterious effects from the Cry1Ab protein on honey bee larvae, honey bee adults, parasitic wasps, Ladybird beetles, green lacewings, Collembola ( springtails), and Daphnia were observed in submitted studies.

In the Cry1F ecological effects testing done, no treatment related effects were observed in Bobwhite quail fed Cry1Ab corn as part of their diet. No measurable deleterious effects from the Cry1F protein on honey bees, parasitic wasps, Ladybird beetles, green lacewings, Collembola ( springtails), earthworms, Daphnia, and Monarch butterflies were observed in submitted studies.

MON 810 and Bt11 show relatively low toxicity to monarch larvae and the Cry1F protein has no detectable impact on monarch larvae. Overall, the available information indicates a very low probability of risk to monarchs in areas beyond the near edge of corn fields. Inside corn fields and at the near edge of corn fields there is low probability of monarch larvae encountering a toxic level of pollen for the Bt corn products covered by this risk assessment.

Limited data do not indicate that Cry proteins have any measurable effect on microbial populations in the soil. Horizontal transfer from transgenic plants to soil bacteria has not been demonstrated. Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I6 Cry1Ab protein bioactivity from Cry1Ab corn tissue added to the soil decreased with an estimated DT 50 ( Degradation Time) of 1.6 days and an estimated DT 90 of 15 days. The bioactivity of purified Cry1Ab protein in soil decreased with an estimated DT 50 of 8.3 days and a an estimated DT 90 of 32.5 days. The bioactivity of purified Cry1F protein in soil decreased with an estimated DT 50 of 3.13 days.

b. Bt Cotton EPA has also reviewed the original data base and the new data, information, and comments regarding ecological effects for Bt cotton. EPA has reviewed the potential for gene capture and expression of the Cry1Ac endotoxin in cotton by wild or weedy relatives of cotton in the United States, its possessions or territories. EPA has concluded that there is a possibility for gene transfer in limited geographic locations where wild or feral cotton relatives exist. This transfer is of concern because 1) traits which enhance the survival, invasiveness or adaptability of a plant have the potential to increase the frequency of that trait ( allele) in the recipient population and result in a shift in community dynamics ( e. g., species abundance, distribution) for multiple species, 2) the native genome of any wild species is effectively altered by the introduction of an adaptive trait ( e. g., resistance to insects, diseases, stress) and a net loss in the biodiversity of the recipient species may occur as alleles or even biotypes of the species are lost through this genetic introduction and selection, and 3) wild or feral species which are genetically compatible with crop plants and other non domesticated plant species, and are recipients of novel traits, may transfer these traits in a reciprocal fashion to these related species in subsequent generations. Therefore, EPA has imposed restrictions on the planting of commercial cotton in southern Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin Islands. In addition, restrictions to prevent gene flow have been imposed for test plots and breeding nurseries in Hawaii and Puerto Rico although the registrant may provide data which will allow EPA to ease or remove these restrictions in the future.

The Agency has concluded that the weight of evidence indicates no unreasonable adverse effects of Cry1Ac protein expressed in cotton to non target wildlife or beneficial invertebrates. EPA further believes that cultivation of Cry1Ac cotton may result in fewer adverse impacts to non target organisms than result from the use of chemical pesticides. However, EPA is requiring insect census estimates from representative fields to determine if there are long term adverse impacts from the use of Bt cotton and field tests of Cry1Ac protein accumulation and/ or persistence in soil under a range of conditions typical of Bt crop cultivation as confirmatory data.

In the ecological effects testing done, no treatment related effects were observed in Bobwhite quail fed Cry1Ac cottonseed meal as part of their diet. No measurable deleterious effects from the Cry1Ac protein on honey bee larvae, honey bee adults, parasitic wasps, Ladybird beetles, green lacewings and Collembola ( springtails) were observed in submitted studies. The larvae of endangered Lepidoptera species in cotton growing counties ( Quino Checkerspot butterfly, Saint Francis' Satyr butterfly and Kern Primrose Sphinx moth) are not going to be exposed to Cry1Ac protein because their habitats do not overlap with cotton fields. Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I7 Limited data do not indicate that Cry proteins have any measurable effect on microbial populations in the soil. Horizontal transfer from transgenic plants to soil bacteria has not been demonstrated. Purified microbially produced Cry1Ac protein produced a DT 50 ( Degradation Time) of 9.3 20.2 days. Ground, lyophilized Cry1A( c) cotton line 931tissue produced a DT 50 of 41 days. Based upon estimates of 60,000 plants per acre, a total of 1.44 grams of Cry protein per acre would enter the soil when the cotton plants are incorporated after harvest.

3. Insect Resistance Management Available data indicate that after six years of commercialization, no reported insect resistance has occurred to the Bt toxins expressed either in Bt potato, Bt corn, or Bt cotton products. The Agency believes that the existing IRM plan for Bt potato is adequate to mitigate Colorado potato beetle resistance. The existing IRM plan for Bt corn which had been strengthened for the 2000 growing season) was strengthened to further mitigate European corn borer, corn earworm, and southwestern corn borer. The existing IRM plan for Bt cotton ( already strengthened for the 2001 growing season) was further strengthened to mitigate tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, and pink bollworm resistance including requiring additional data to more closely examine the effectiveness of the 5% external, unsprayed refuge option.

The issue of insect resistance management has generated more data, meetings, and public comments than all of the other sections covered in this BRAD. Insect resistance management ( IRM) is the set of practices aimed at reducing the potential for insect pests to become resistant to a pesticide. Bt IRM is of great importance because of the threat insect resistance poses to the future use of Bt plantincorporated protectants and Bt technology as a whole. EPA considers protection of insect ( pest) susceptibility of Bt to be in the " public good." EPA has determined that development of resistant insects would constitute an adverse environmental effect. In order to delay the development of insect resistance to Bt corn and cotton plant incorporated protectants, EPA has mandated specific IRM requirements to strengthen the existing IRM programs as part of the terms and conditions of the registrations.

a. Bt Corn The Agency has determined that the 20% non Bt field corn refuge requirements for Bt corn grown in the Corn Belt and the 50% non Bt corn refuge requirements for Bt corn grown in cotton growing areas are scientifically sound, protective, feasible, sustainable, and practical to growers. Models have been developed by scientists in academia to predict the estimated time that insect resistance would develop to compare IRM strategies for Bt field corn. For example, if a high dose is achieved to control ECB ( as it is for the currently registered Bt corn products), then these models predict that ECB will not evolve resistance for at least 99 years if a 20% refuge is implemented in the Corn Belt. Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I8 Models are also used to predict the evolution of CEW resistance. These models indicate that 50% non Bt field corn refuge in cotton growing areas is sufficient to delay CEW resistance for at least the time frame of the registrations. A 20% non Bt field corn refuge in the Corn Belt is sufficient to delay CEW resistance because CEW do not overwinter in the Corn Belt. EPA believes that the use of these models provides confidence that resistance will not evolve under the time frame of the registrations.

For Bt sweet corn, no specific refuge requirements are necessary because sweet corn is typically harvested much earlier than field corn, 18 21 days after silking, and before most lepidopteran larvae complete development. However, to mitigate the development of resistance, EPA has determined that crop residue destruction is necessary within 30 days. This practice will likely destroy any live larvae left in Bt sweet corn stalks and prevent overwintering of any resistant insects.

The IRM program for Bt field and sweet corn also require: 1) anyone purchasing Bt corn to sign a grower agreement which contractually binds the grower to comply with the IRM program and that there will be a mechanism by the year 2003 by which every grower affirms, annually, their contractual obligations to comply with the IRM program, 2) an IRM education program, 3) an IRM compliance monitoring program including a third party compliance survey and mechanisms to address noncompliance 4) an insect resistance monitoring program for each target insect pest, 5) remedial action plans to be implemented if resistance does develop, and 6) annual reporting of the IRM ( and other) activities. No other pesticide products than the Bt crop products have such extensive IRM requirements.

b. Bt Cotton At this time, the Agency believes that available empirical data substantiate the success of the 5% external unsprayed, 20% external sprayed, and 5% embedded structured refuge options to delay resistance. However, EPA believes that it is imprudent to allow the 5% external, unsprayed refuge option for more than a limited period of time because current data indicates that this option has a significantly greater likelihood of insect resistance than either of the other refuge options. The 2000 SAP stated that the external, unsprayed option poses the highest risk to resistance evolution especially for cotton bollworm. Therefore, the external, unsprayed option expires after three growing seasons ( September 30, 2004). During the next two years, the registrant is required to develop considerable new data on alternative host plants as possible effective refuges. In addition, the registrant is required to submit protocols by December 1, 2001, to begin field tests on alternative hosts and chemical insecticide sprays on Bt cotton, and to provide annual reports each January 31st. If any of these terms and conditions are not met, the external, unsprayed refuge option will be eliminated. If, based upon these, and any other pertinent data, the registrant requests an amendment to the registration extending the expiration date of the external, unsprayed option, EPA will conduct a comprehensive assessment of whether all relevant data support such regulatory action, as part of a larger requirement that would also likely involve alternative host plants. Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I9 In addition, the Agency is mandating additional improvements to the current IRM programs that will require: 1) anyone purchasing Bt cotton to sign a grower agreement which contractually binds the grower to comply with the IRM program and that there will be a mechanism by the year 2003 by which every grower affirms their contractual obligations to comply with the IRM program, 2) an ongoing IRM education program, 3) an ongoing IRM compliance monitoring program including a third party compliance survey and mechanisms to address non compliance, 4) and ongoing insect resistance monitoring program for each target insect pest, 5) remedial action plans to be implemented if resistance does develop, and 6) annual reporting of the IRM ( and other) activities. No other pesticide products than the Bt crop products have such extensive IRM requirements.

4. Benefits EPA believes that significant benefits accrue to growers, the public, and the environment from the availability and use of certain Bt plant incorporated protectants. This section outlines how those benefits are defined and evaluated. Specific information on grower cost savings, increased yields, reduced conventional pesticide use, benefits to wildlife, etc. is presented by product. Direct benefits to growers for all Bt products is estimated to be less than $ 350 million in 2000. Major environmental benefits occur through less insecticide use and improved product quality.

a. Bt Corn In addition to assessing the risks from the use of Cry1Ab and Cry1F expressed in corn, EPA has evaluated the benefits from the use of these products. Direct grower benefits include improved yield and profitability, improved crop management effectiveness, reduction in farming risk, and improved opportunity to grow field corn in case of severe pest infestation. Total annual monetary grower benefits from the use of Bt field corn are less than $ 219 million annually. The magnitude of benefits for any year is largely a function of the level of lepidopteran insect pressure in that year. That is, other things being equal, the higher the insect pressure, the higher the benefits. The major environmental benefit is potential reduction in mycotoxins. EPA believes that use of Bt sweet corn would result in significant reductions in the use of chemical pesticides. However, the current use of Bt sweet corn is very low.

b. Bt Cotton In addition to assessing the risks from the use of Cry1Ac expressed in cotton, EPA has evaluated the benefits from the use of this product. Direct grower benefits include reduced pesticide use, improved crop management effectiveness, reduced production costs, improved yield and profitability, reduction in farming risk, and improved opportunity to grow cotton in areas of severe pest infestation. Total monetary grower benefits from the use of Bt cotton are between $ 60 million and $ 126 million. Indirect benefits may include improved populations of beneficial insects and wildlife in cotton fields, reduced pesticides runoff, reduced air pollution and waste from the use of chemical insecticides, improved farm worker and neighbor safety, and reduction of fossil fuel use. EPA believes that Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I10 cultivation of Cry1Ac cotton may result in fewer adverse impacts to non target organisms than result from the use of chemical pesticides.

5. Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of the Amendment a. Confirmatory Data i. Bt Corn The following table outlines the confirmatory data that must be provided to EPA as a condition of the amendment to the Cry1Ab and Cry1F corn product registrations including the due dates for the protocols and the data.

Data Description Due Date Residue Analytical Methods Analytical method including characterization of the antisera and independent laboratory validation required June 1, 2002 Protein Expression Expression data provided for initial registration; confirmatory data required to provide consistency across Bt crops March 15, 2003 For Bt11: Amino Acid Sequencing Comparison of AA sequence to known toxins and allergens Stepwise 8 amino acid analysis March 15, 2003 For MON810: Amino Acid Sequencing and heat stability Stepwise 8 amino acid analysis and processing and/ or heat stability study March 15, 2003 Cry1Ab Protein Levels in Soil Supplemental studies; protocol to be submitted before studies are initiated Protocol by March 15, 2002; interim report 12 months after protocol approved; final report 24 months after protocol approved Cry1F Protein Levels in Soil Supplemental studies; protocol to be submitted before studies are initiated Protocol by March 15, 2002; final report due no later than March 15, 2008 Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I11 Non target Insects Either existing studies or protocol and studies Existing studies or protocol by March 15, 2002; interim report 12 months after protocol approved; final report 36 months after protocol approved Monarch Long Term Exposure for Cry1Ab Examine fitness and reproductive costs to monarchs from subchronic exposure to Bt corn January 31, 2003 or earlier.

Chronic Avian Study Test a diet for chronic exposure to high levels of Bt corn that may occur in the field Existing studies or protocol by March 15, 2003; final report 18 months after approval of protocol.

IRM   North/ South Movement of Corn Earworm Potential for north to south movement of corn earworm Protocol by March 15 2002; interim report 12 months after protocol approved; final report 24 months after protocol approved IRM   Insecticide Impact on Effectiveness of Refuge Studies in areas where the refuge is commonly treated with insecticides Protocol March 15, 2002; interim report in 12 months; final report in 24 months after protocol submitted or approved IRM   Discriminating Concentration for Cry1F Development of discriminating concentration for ECB, CEW, SWCB Studies must be submitted on or before March 15, 2003 ii. Bt Cotton The following table outlines the confirmatory data that must be provided to EPA as a condition of the amendment to the Cry1Ac cotton product registration including the due dates for the protocols and the data.

Data Description Due Date Residue Analytical Methods Method submitted, but independent laboratory validation required June 1, 2002 Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I12 Protein Expression Expression data provided for initial registration; confirmatory data required to provide consistency across Bt crops March 15, 2003 Amino Acid and DNA Sequence Stepwise 8 amino acid analysis March 15, 2003 Cry Protein Levels in Soil Supplemental studies; protocol to be submitted before studies are initiated Protocol March 15, 2002; interim report January 31, 2003; final report January 31, 2004 Non target Insects Either existing studies or protocol and studies Existing studies or protocol March 15, 2002; studies due January 31, 2005 IRM   north/ south movement of cotton bollworm Potential for north to south movement of cotton bollworm January 31, 2004 IRM   Alternate Hosts/ Insecticide sprays Alternate host data as an effective refuge and sprays with chemical insecticides to enhance Bt cotton IRM effectiveness Protocol December 1, 2001; final protocol March 15, 2002; interim report March 15, 2003 and final March 15, 2004 b. Gene Flow Containment Provisions i. Bt Corn No provisions.

ii. Bt Cotton Until thorough research on the impacts of gene flow can be completed, restriction on where Bt cotton can be planted are being implemented. The following terms and conditions must be instituted to mitigate gene flow concerns:

a. No planting of Bt cotton south of Route 60 ( near Tampa) in Florida, Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I13 b. Commercial culture of Bt cotton is prohibited in the state of Hawaii, c. Test plots or breeding nurseries established in Hawaii must be surrounded by 24 border rows of a suitable pollinator trap crop regardless of the plot size and must not be planted within 3 miles of Gossypium tomentosum, d. Commercial culture, experimental plots and breeding nurseries of Bt. cotton are prohibited in the U. S. Virgin Islands, and e. Commercial culture of Bollgard   cotton is prohibited in Puerto Rico. Test plots or breeding nurseries established on the island of Puerto Rico must be surrounded by 24 border rows of a suitable pollinator trap crop regardless of the plot size and must not be planted within 3 miles of feral cotton plants.

Upon approval by EPA, test plots and/ or breeding nurseries in Hawaii, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico may be established without restrictions if alternative measures, such as insecticide applications, are shown to effectively mitigate gene flow.

c. Insect Resistance Management ( IRM) Program i. Bt Corn The Agency has determined that the unrestricted use of Cry1Ab and/ or Cry1F in corn is likely to lead to the emergence of resistance in one or more of the target insect pests unless measures are used to delay or halt the development of resistant insects. Because some corn pests also attack other crops, not only would the emergence of resistance affect the benefits of Bt corn, such insect resistance could also affect the efficacy of Bt cotton products and microbial formulations of Bt. The loss of Bt as an effective pest management tool   in field corn, sweet corn, or other crops   could potentially have serious adverse consequences for the environment to the extent that growers might shift to the use of more toxic pesticides and a valuable tool for organic farmers might be lost. The emergence of resistance in corn pests could also have significant economic consequences for corn growers. Therefore, EPA continues to require the registrants to implement an Insect Resistance Management ( IRM) program to mitigate the possibility that pest resistance will occur.

The required IRM program for Bt corn has the following elements:

1] Requirements relating to creation of a non Bt corn refuge in conjunction with the planting of any acreage of Bt field corn;

2] Requirements for the registrants to prepare and require Bt corn users to sign " grower agreements" which impose binding contractual obligations on the grower to comply with the refuge requirements;

3] Requirements for the registrants to develop, implement, and report to EPA on programs to educate growers about IRM requirements; Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I14 4] Requirements for the registrants to develop, implement, and report to EPA on programs to evaluate and promote growers' compliance with IRM requirements;

5] Requirements for the registrants to develop, implement, and report to EPA on programs to evaluate whether there are statistically significant and biologically relevant changes in target insect susceptibility to Cry1Ab protein and/ or Cry1F in the target insects;

6] Requirements for the registrants to develop, and if triggered, to implement a " remedial action plan" which would contain measures the registrants would take in the event that any insect resistance was detected as well as to report on activity under the plan to EPA;

7] Submit annual reports on sales, IRM grower agreements results, compliance, and educational program on or before January 31st each year.

a. Refuge Requirements 1) Field Corn a) Corn Belt Refuge Requirements For Cry1Ab and Cry1F Bt field corn grown outside cotton growing areas ( e. g., the Corn Belt), grower agreements ( also known as stewardship agreements) will specify that growers must adhere to the refuge requirements as described in the grower guide/ product use guide and/ or in supplements to the grower guide/ product use guide.

! Specifically, growers must plant a structured refuge of at least 20% non Bt corn that may be treated with insecticides as needed to control lepidopteran stalk boring and other pests.

! Refuge planting options include: separate fields, blocks within fields ( e. g., along the edges or headlands), and strips across the field.

! External refuges must be planted within ½ mile ( 1/ 4 mile or closer preferred).

! When planting the refuge in strips across the field, refuges must be at least 4 rows wide, preferably 6 rows wide.

! Insecticide treatments for control of ECB, CEW and Southwestern corn borer ( SWCB) [ Cry1Ab or Cry1F corn hybrids] and/ or fall armyworm ( FAW) and black cutworm ( BCW) [ Cry1F corn hybrids only] may be applied only if economic thresholds are reached for one or more of these target pests. Economic thresholds will be determined using methods recommended by local or regional professionals ( e. g., Extension Service agents, crop Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document 1Counties selected based on approximately 1000 A Bt cotton/ 5000 A total cotton using 1999 2001 cotton acreage reports from Monsanto and USDA/ NASS.

I15 consultants). Instructions to growers will specify that microbial Bt insecticides must not be applied to non Bt corn refuges.

b) Cotton Growing Area Refuge Requirements for Bt Corn For Cry 1Ab and Cry1F Bt field corn grown in cotton growing areas, grower agreements ( also known as stewardship agreements) will specify that growers must adhere to the refuge requirements as described in the grower guide/ product use guide and/ or in supplements to the grower guide/ product use guide.

! Specifically, growers in these areas must plant a structured refuge of at least 50% non Bt corn that may be treated with insecticides as needed to control lepidopteran stalk boring and other pests.

! Refuge planting options include: separate fields, blocks within fields ( e. g., along the edges or headlands), and strips across the field.

! External refuges must be planted within ½ mile ( 1/ 4 mile or closer preferred).

! When planting the refuge in strips across the field, refuges must be at least 4 rows wide, preferably 6 rows wide.

! Insecticide treatments for control of ECB, CEW and Southwestern corn borer ( SWCB) [ Cry1Ab or Cry1F corn hybrids] and/ or fall armyworm ( FAW) and black cutworm ( BCW) [ Cry1F corn hybrids only] may be applied only if economic thresholds are reached for one or more of these target pests. Economic thresholds will be determined using methods recommended by local or regional professionals ( e. g., Extension Service agents, crop consultants). Instructions to growers will specify that microbial Bt insecticides must not be applied to non Bt corn refuges.

! Cotton growing areas1 include the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Mississippi, South Carolina, Oklahoma ( only the counties of Beckham, Caddo, Comanche, Custer, Greer, Harmon, Jackson, Kay, Kiowa, Tillman, Washita), Tennessee ( only the counties of Carroll, Chester, Crockett, Dyer, Fayette, Franklin, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, Lake, Lauderdale, Lincoln, Madison, Obion, Rutherford, Shelby, and Tipton), Texas ( except the counties of Carson, Dallam, Hansford, Hartley, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Roberts, and Sherman), Virginia ( only the counties of Dinwiddie, Franklin City, Greensville, Isle of Wight, Northampton, Southampton, Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I16 Suffolk City, Surrey, Sussex) and Missouri ( only the counties of Dunkin, New Madrid, Pemiscot, Scott, Stoddard). The correct list of counties must be in the 2003 grower guide and may be provided as a supplement for the 2002 growing season.

b. Sweet Corn Post Harvest Requirements Sweet corn is harvested long before field corn. Therefore, if the sweet corn stalks remaining in the field and any insects remaining in the stalks are destroyed shortly after harvest, a refuge is not needed as a part of the IRM program for sweet corn. Growers must adhere to the following types of crop destruction requirements as described in the grower guide/ product use guide and/ or in supplements to the grower guide/ product use guide.

! Crop destruction must occur no later than 30 days following harvest, but preferably within 14 days.

! The allowed crops destruction methods are: rotary, mowing, discing, or plow down. Crop destruction methods should destroy any surviving resistant insects.

ii. Bt Cotton The Agency has determined that the unrestricted use of Cry1Ac as expressed in cotton is likely to lead to the emergence of resistance in one or more of the target insect pests unless measures are used to delay or halt the development of resistant insects. EPA is requiring the registrant to implement an Insect Resistance Management ( IRM) program to mitigate the possibility that pest resistance will occur. The required IRM program for Bt cotton has the following elements:

1] Requirements relating to creation of a non Bt cotton refuge in conjunction with the planting of any acreage of Bt cotton;

2] Requirements for the registrant to prepare and require Bt cotton users to sign " grower agreements" which impose binding contractual obligations on the grower to comply with the refuge requirements;

3] Requirements for the registrant to develop, implement, and report to EPA on programs to educate growers about IRM requirements;

4] Requirements for the registrant to develop, implement, and report to EPA on programs to evaluate and promote growers' compliance with IRM requirements;

5] Requirements for the registrant to develop, implement, and report to EPA on programs to evaluate whether there are statistically significant and biologically relevant changes in susceptibility to Cry1Ac protein in the target insects; Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I17 6] Requirements for the registrant to develop, and if triggered, to implement a " remedial action plan" which would contain measures the registrant would take in the event that any insect resistance was detected as well as to report on activity under the plan to EPA;

7] Submit annual reports on or before January 31st each year.

All growers of Bt cotton must employ one of the following structured refuge options:

External, Unsprayed Refuge Ensure that at least 5 acres of non Bt cotton ( refuge cotton) is planted for every 95 acres of Bt cotton. The size of the refuge must be at least 150 feet wide, but preferably 300 feet wide. This refuge may not be treated with sterile insects, pheromones, or any insecticide ( except listed below) labeled for the control of tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, or pink bollworm. The refuge may be treated with acephate or methyl parathion at rates which will not control tobacco budworm or the cotton bollworm ( equal to or less than 0.5 lbs active ingredient per acre). The variety of cotton planted in the refuge must be comparable to Bt cotton, especially in the maturity date, and the refuge must be managed ( e. g., planting time, use of fertilizer, weed control, irrigation, termination, and management of other pests) similarly to Bt cotton. Ensure that a non Bt cotton refuge is maintained within at least ½ linear mile ( preferably adjacent to or within 1/ 4 mile or closer) from the Bt cotton fields. This option expires after the 2004 growing season unless extended by amendment as described below. EPA intends to review the data specified in the data requirements concerning alternate hosts and chemical insecticide sprays applied to Bt cotton, and decide in 2004 whether the new data support continuation of an external, unsprayed refuge as part of a larger requirement that would also likely involve alternative host plants. If these data support the continued availability of the external, unsprayed refuge option, EPA may approve an amendment to this registration to maintain the availability of this option.

External Sprayed Refuge Ensure that at least 20 acres of non Bt cotton are planted as a refuge for every 80 acres of Bt cotton ( total of 100A) . The variety of cotton planted in the refuge must be comparable to Bt cotton, especially in the maturity date, and the refuge must be managed ( e. g., planting time, use of fertilizer, weed control, irrigation, termination, and management of other pests) similarly to Bt cotton. The non Bt cotton may be treated with sterile insects, insecticides ( excluding foliar Btk products), or pheromones labeled for control of the tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, or pink bollworm. Ensure that a non Bt refuge is maintained within at least 1 linear mile ( preferably within ½ mile or closer) from the Bt cotton fields.

Embedded Refuge Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I18 Plant at least 5 acres of non Bt cotton ( refuge cotton) for every 95 acres of Bt cotton. The refuge cotton must be embedded as a contiguous block within the Bt cotton field, but not at one edge of the field ( i. e., refuge block( s) surrounded by Bt cotton). For very large fields, multiple blocks across the field may be used. For small or irregularly shaped fields, neighboring fields farmed by the same grower can be grouped into blocks to represent a larger field unit, provided the block exists within one mile squared of the Bt cotton and the block is at least 150 feet wide, but preferably 300 feet wide. Within the larger field unit, one of the smaller fields planted to non Bt cotton may be utilized as the embedded refuge. The variety of cotton planted in the refuge must be comparable to Bt cotton, especially in the maturity date, and the refuge must be managed ( e. g., planting time, use of fertilizer, weed control, irrigation, and management of other pests) similarly to Bt cotton. This refuge may be treated with sterile insects, any insecticide ( excluding foliar Btk products), or pheromones labeled for the control of tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, or pink bollworm whenever the entire field is treated. The refuge may not be treated independently of the surrounding Bt cotton field in which it is embedded ( or fields within a field unit).

Embedded Refuge for Pink Bollworm Only Plant the refuge cotton as at least one single non Bt cotton row for every six to ten rows of Bt cotton. The refuge may be treated with sterile insects, any insecticide ( excluding foliar Btk products), or pheromones labeled for the control of pink bollworm whenever the entire field is treated. The in field refuge rows may not be treated independently of the surrounding Bt cotton field in which it is embedded. The refuge must be managed ( fertilizer, weed control, etc.) identically to the Bt cotton. There is no field unit option.

Optional Community Refuge Pilot This option allows multiple growers to manage refuge for external, unsprayed and external, sprayed refuge options or both. This option is not allowed for the embedded/ in field options. A community refuge program will be allowed as a continuing pilot for the 2002 growing season. The community refuge for insect resistance management must meet the requirements of either the 5% external unsprayed refuge and/ or the 20% sprayed option, or an appropriate combination of the two options. The registrant must implement the 2002 community refuge pilot program as described in the Bollgard ® Cotton 2002 Refuge Guide.

6. Regulatory Position on Bt Corn EPA's finding that Cry1Ab or Cry1F protein expressed in corn will not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment is based on the analysis contained in the succeeding sections of this BRAD and the specific terms and conditions that are imposed upon this registration, as set forth in Section V. In general terms, EPA concludes that use of Cry1Ab or Cry1F as expressed in corn is effective at controlling significant lepidopteran pests of corn including Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I19 European corn borer, corn earworm, and southwestern corn borer. Therefore, these products have clear benefits for users. Beyond these economic benefits, EPA determines that Cry1Ab and Cry1F corn hybrids, to the extent they are an alternative to the use of other corn insecticides, will provide benefits in that use of Cry1Ab or Cry1F protein expressed in corn results in less human and environmental risk than chemical alternatives. In addition, EPA finds that the use of these products, subject to the specific terms and conditions set forth below, would not pose risks to human health or to non target species. EPA also concludes that the use of Cry1Ab or Cry1F corn hybrids expressed in corn raises concerns with respect to: insect resistance management. As discussed below, the registrations for Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins expressed in corn is subject to specific terms and conditions that effectively restrict the use of the product in ways that EPA determines will adequately mitigate these concerns. Therefore, EPA determines that the allowed use will not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Finally, EPA has identified the need for certain confirmatory data on potential accumulation of Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins in soil and field impacts of Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins on non target species. The registration of these products is specifically conditioned on submission of these data 7. Regulatory Position on Bt Cotton The Bt cotton product was registered for commercial use in October 1995 as a conditional registration under FIFRA Section 3( c)( 7)( B). The data reviewed for the initial registration as well as new data and reports received, results of public meeting, hearings, workshops, forums, and Scientific Advisory Panel meetings, and public comments received regarding the Bt crops reassessment have been taken into consideration. The scientific assessment has included product characterization, human health effects, gene flow, effects on non target organisms, ecological exposure, insect resistance management, and benefits. Over the last six years, new data and information have been provided to the Agency in each of these areas and these data have been incorporated into the science assessment and been taken into account in making regulatory decisions.

The Cry1Ac product registration will automatically expire on midnight September 30, 2006 except for the external, unsprayed refuge option which will expire September 30, 2004. EPA intends to review the data specified in the data requirements concerning alternate hosts and chemical insecticide sprays on Bt cotton, and decide in 2004 whether the new data support continuation of an external, unsprayed refuge as part of a larger requirement that would also likely involve alternative host plants. If these data support the continued availability of the external, unsprayed refuge option, EPA may approve an amendment to this registration to maintain the availability of this option.

EPA's finding that Cry1Ac protein expressed in cotton will not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment is based on the analysis contained in the preceding sections of this BRAD and the specific terms and conditions that are imposed upon this registration, as set forth in Section III. In general terms, EPA concludes that use of Cry1Ac expressed in cotton is effective at controlling significant lepidopteran pests of cotton, including tobacco budworm, cotton Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I20 bollworm, and pink bollworm. Therefore, this product has clear benefits for users. Beyond these economic benefits, EPA determines that Cry1Ac provides benefits as an alternative to the use of other cotton insecticides in that use of Cry1Ac protein expressed in cotton results in less human and environmental risk. In addition, EPA finds that the use of this product, subject to the specific terms and conditions set forth below, would not pose risks to human health or to non target species. EPA also concludes that the use of Cry1Ac expressed in cotton raises concerns with respect to: 1) the risk of gene flow to feral cotton species; and 2) insect resistance management. As discussed below, the registration for Cry1Ac protein expressed in cotton is subject to specific terms and conditions that effectively restrict the use of the product in ways that EPA determines will adequately mitigate these concerns. Therefore, EPA determines that the allowed use will not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Finally, EPA has identified the need for certain confirmatory data on potential accumulation of Cry1Ac protein in soil and field impacts of Cry1Ac protein on non target species.

B. Bt Corn Plant incorporated protectants 1. Bt11, Cry1Ab Bt Corn OPP Chemical Code: 006444 Pesticide Name: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab Delta Endotoxin and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production ( Plasmid Vector pZ01502) in Corn Trade and Other Names: Bt11, YieldGard ® , AttributeJ Uses: Full Commercial Use in Field Corn and Sweet Corn Registrants:

Syngenta Seeds, Inc.  Field Crops  NAFTA Syngenta Seeds, Inc.  Vegetables  NAFTA P. O. Box 12257 600 N. Armstrong Place Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 2257 Boise, Idaho 83704 2. MON810, Cry1Ab Bt Corn OPP Chemical Code: 006430 Pesticide Name: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab Delta Endotoxin and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production in Corn Trade and Other Names: MON 810, Yieldgard ® Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I21 Uses: Full Commercial Use in Field Corn Registrant: Monsanto Company 700 Chesterfield Parkway North St. Louis, MO 63198 3. TC1507, Cry1F Bt corn OPP Chemical Code: 006481 Pesticide Name: Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies Cry1F Protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production ( Plasmid Insert PHI 8999) in Corn Trade and Other Names: Herculex   I Insect Protection, Pioneer Brand Seed Corn with Herculex   I Applicants: Mycogen Seeds c/ o Dow Agrosciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 1054 Pioneer Hi Bred International, Inc. 7250 NW 62nd Avenue P. O. Box 552 Johnston, Iowa 50131 0552 Uses: Full Commercial Use in Field Corn C. Bt Cotton Plant incorporated protectants Cry1Ac Bt Cotton OPP Chemical Code: 006445 Pesticide Name: Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki Delta Endotoxin as Produced by the Cry1Ac Gene and Its Controlling Sequences as Expressed in Cotton.

Trade and Other Names: BollGard ® Uses: Full Commercial Use in Cotton with Geographic Limitations Due to Weedy Relatives Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I22 Target Pest( s): Cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm & pink bollworm Registrant: Monsanto Company 700 Chesterfield Parkway North Saint Louis, Missouri 63198 D. Bt Potato Plant incorporated protectants Cry3A Bt Potato OPP Chemical Code: 006432 Pesticide Name: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3A Delta Endotoxin and the Genetic Material Necessary for its Production in Potato Trade and Other Names: NewLeaf ® Uses: Full Commercial Use in Potatoes Target Pest( s): Colorado Potato Beetle Registrant: Monsanto Company 700 Chesterfield Parkway North Saint Louis, Missouri 63198 E. Bt Plant incorporated protectants Use, Registration Approval History, and Tolerance Listings 1. Use History a) Bt Corn EPA estimates adoption of Bt field corn was 0.4 million acres ( 1%) in 1996, 4.4 million acres ( 6%) in 1997, 14.5 million acres ( 18%) in 1998, 19.8 million acres ( 26%) in 1999, and 19.5 million acres ( 25%) in 2000, the last year for which EPA has firm data.

The following map was provided to the Agency by the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee ( 2000), from data compiled by FSI, Inc. Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I23 b) Bt Cotton The Bollgard acreage and percent of cotton acreage planted to Bollgard ( provided by Monsanto in its annual sales reports) from 1996 2000 is summarized on a state by state level below. The 1996 2001 Beltwide Cotton Insect Loss Reports produced by Mississippi State provide additional detailed use data and are found at http:// www. msstate. edu/ Entomology/ Cotton. html.

Bollgard acreage in each state 1996 2000 State Bollgard ® Acreage 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Alabama 348,810 251,784 306,535 398,683 314,500 Arizona 53,290 175,537 207,713 197,911 210,245 Arkansas 166,881 113,490 111,818 173,652 294,364 California 618 9,868 29,129 91,705 54,584 Florida 52,836 55,030 53,377 45,249 48,974 Georgia 375,744 533,340 508,842 693,288 580,908 Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document State Bollgard ® Acreage 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 I24 Kansas     1,056 Louisiana 157,411 202,080 244,616 382,839 450,076 Mississippi 443,986 410,333 506,149 746,163 800,775 Missouri 498 592 519 6,254 21,415 New Mexico 393 2,693 20,869 12,263 12,242 North Carolina 20,519 21,027 77,490 274,312 424,880 Oklahoma 11,772 7,103 11,459 69,545 90,925 South Carolina 53,864 91,891 71,894 176,149 128,684 Tennessee 10,833 17,431 57,649 390,245 380,453 Texas 98,819 186,654 276,520 458,694 570,410 Virginia 86 37 1,876 6,300 24,857 U. S. Total 1,796,390 2,078,890 2,486,493 3,585,437 4,409,348 c. Bt Potato Although no specific reporting requirements were required as part of this registration in 1995, EPA recommended the continued development of a data base to monitor the use of the genetically modified potatoes and correlate possible resistant reports with the use sites. Based on three year averages, about 1 million acres of fall potatoes are planted in the U. S. annually. According to information provided in Monsanto/ NatureMark's annual status reports and meetings with the Agency, about 10,000 A ( or 1% of the total) in 1996 and 25,000 A ( or 2.5% of the total) in 1997 were planted in Bt potatoes ( marketed as NewLeaf ® Russet Burbank and NewLeaf ® Superior and NewLeaf ® Atlantic varieties) in the U. S.

Acreage information was gathered from 94 of 112 total customers in 1996. The proportion of NewLeaf ® potatoes on these farms ranged from 0.1% to 69% of total potato acreage. Farm size ranged from less than 500 to 5000 acres. About 50,000 acres (< 4%) of Bt potatoes were planted in Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I25 1998 and 1999. Bt potatoes were marketed as NewLeaf ® Russet Burbank, Superior, Atlantic, and Shepody varieties. About 5,000 acres (< 0.4%) of NewLeaf ® Bt potatoes were planted in 2000.

2. Registration and New Use Approval History Date Bt Crop Company EPA Reg. No( s)

March 1995  Seed Increase May 1995  Full Commercial ( No expiration date) Cry3A Potatoes Monsanto 524 474 March 1995  Seed Increase August 1995  Full Commercial Note: Registration Expired 4/ 1/ 01. Event 176 Cry1Ab Field Corn Syngenta 66736 1 March 1995  Seed Increase August 1995  Full Commercial Note: Registration Expired 6/ 30/ 01. Event 176 Cry1Ab Field Corn Mycogen Seeds c/ o Dow AgroSciences LLC 68467 1 March 1998  Full Commercial Note: Registration Expired 4/ 1/ 01. Event 176 Cry1Ab Popcorn Syngenta 66736 1 May 1995  Seed Increase October 1995  Full Commercial September 2001  Reassessed Full Commercial Cry1Ac Cotton Monsanto 524 478 May 1996  Seed Increase August 1996  Full Commercial October 2001  Reassessed Full Commercial Bt 11 Cry1Ab Field Corn Syngenta 67979 1 February 1998  Full Commercial October 2001  Reassessed Full Commercial Bt 11 Cry1Ab Sweet Corn Syngenta 65269 1 May 1996  Seed Increase December 1996  Full Commercial October 2001  Reassessed Full Commercial MON810 Cry1Ab Corn Monsanto 524 489 Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I26 May 1996  Seed Increase Note: MON 801 Registration Voluntarily Cancelled May 1998 MON 801 Cry1Ab Corn Monsanto 524 492 March 1997  Full Commercial Note: Registration Voluntarily Cancelled 12/ 20/ 2000. Cry1Ac Corn DeKalb/ Monsanto 69575 2 May 1998  Full Commercial for feed use only. Note: Registration Voluntarily Cancelled 2/ 20/ 01. Cry9C Corn Aventis CropScience USA LP 264 669 May 2001  Full Commercial October 2001  Reassessed Full Commercial Cry1F Corn Mycogen Seeds c/ o Dow AgroSciences LLC 68467 2 May 2001  Full Commercial October 2001  Reassessed Full Commercial Cry1F Corn Pioneer Hi Bred International Inc./ DuPont 29964 3 3. Food Clearances/ Tolerance Exemptions By this reassessment, EPA has completed its tolerance reassessment for Cry1Ab ( 180.1173) and for Cry3A ( 180.1147) under 408( q) of the FFDCA. The tolerance exemptions for Cry1Ac ( 180.1155) and Cry1F ( 180.1217) do not require reassessment at this time. The following tolerance exemptions allow the use of the listed plant incorporated protectants in food and/ or feed.

a) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3A delta endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production are exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plantincorporated protectant in potatoes. [ 40 CFR 180.1147; 60 FR 21728, May 3, 1995]

b) Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki Cry1Ac delta endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as plant incorporated protectants in all plant raw agricultural commodities.[ 40 CFR 180.1155; 62 FR 17722, Apr. 11, 1997]

c) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as plantincorporated protectants in all plant raw agricultural commodities. [ 40 CFR 180.1173; 61 FR 40343, Aug 2, 1996] Bt Plant Incorporated Protectants October 15, 2001 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I27 The following tolerance exemption is also considered reassessed because it is included in the more broad tolerance exemption described in ( c) above. The Agency plans on revoking this more narrow tolerance exemption in the near future in order to reduce confusion.

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production ( plasmid vector pCIB4431) in corn is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant incorporated protectant in the raw agricultural commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn. [ 40 CFR 180.1152; 60 FR 42446, Aug. 16, 1995]

d) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant incorporated protectant in the food or feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn. [ 40 CFR 180.1217; 66 FR 30321, June 6, 2001]


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 192 (Thursday, October 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55840-55841]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21942]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-477-000]

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Extension of Time
Request

    Take notice that on September 29, 2021, Mountain Valley Pipeline,
LLC (Mountain Valley) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time, until October 13,
2022, to place the Greene Interconnect in service.
    Mountain Valley states that the Greene Interconnect facilities were
mechanically complete and ready for service in late February 2021.\1\
Mountain Valley is unable to place the Greene Interconnect in service
until the Mountain Valley mainline facilities are completed. Mountain
Valley has not completed construction of the mainline due to unforeseen
litigation and permitting which Mountain Valley says is needed to
provide natural gas flows to the Greene Interconnect. The Commission
issued an order on October 9, 2020 granting Mountain Valley an
extension of time until October 13, 2022 to complete construction and
place the mainline facilities in service.\2\ To align project
completion deadlines, Mountain Valley requests that an extension of
time until October 13, 2022 to place the Greene Interconnect in
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Weekly Construction Report No. 23, Docket No. CP19-477-
000 (filed March 25, 2021).
    \2\ Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 173 FERC ] 61,026 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Mountain Valley's
request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or
answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are

contested,\4\ the Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the
request within 45 days.\5\ The Commission will address all arguments
relating to whether the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause
to grant the extension.\6\ The Commission will not consider arguments
that re-litigate the issuance of the certificate order, including
whether the Commission properly found the project to be in the public
convenience and necessity and whether the Commission's environmental
analysis for the certificate complied with the National Environmental
Policy Act.\7\ At the time a pipeline requests an extension of time,
orders on certificates of public convenience and necessity are final
and the Commission will not re-litigate their issuance.\8\ The OEP
Director, or his or her designee, will act on all of those extension
requests that are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \5\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \6\ Id. at P 40.
    \7\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \8\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 18, 2021.

    Dated: October 1, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21942 Filed 10-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2153-2154]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2022-1193; Summary Notice No. 2022-40]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; L3Harris
Technologies

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2022-1193]
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the

public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 2023.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-1193.
    Petitioner: L3Harris Technologies.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(i), 91.7(a),
91.109, 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.403(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),
91.409(a)(1) & (2), 91.417(a) & (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: L3Harris Technologies (L3Harris)
seeks relief to operate the FVR-55 unmanned aircraft system (UAS),
weighing over 55 pounds (lbs.) but no more than 70 lbs., for the
purpose of platform development, training, and aerial data acquisition.

[FR Doc. 2023-00484 Filed 1-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 87 (Monday, May 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21381-21382]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-1522-000]

Playa Solar 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Playa Solar 1, 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 May 22, 2017.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 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 electronic 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
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 2, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09247 Filed 5-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71381-71382]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0908]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the
Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified date and time. This
action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from
hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement
period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without
permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160
will be enforced on the date and time listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR
165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1 below.
This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 9,
2011 (76 FR 69614).

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. Tzell Travel Group Liberty         Launch site: A barge
     Island Safety Zone 33 CFR            located in approximate
     165.160(2.1).                        position 40[deg]41'16.5'' N.,
                                          074[deg]02'23'' W. (NAD 1983),
                                          approximately 360 yards east
                                          of Liberty Island. This Safety
                                          Zone is a 240-yard radius from
                                          the barge.
                                          Date: October 27,
                                          2016.
                                          Time: 8:50 p.m.-10:30
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the
safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones
but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other
vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of
enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.
    If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for
the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: September 29, 2016.
M.H. Day,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2016-25048 Filed 10-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P