[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45590-45591]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16602]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78260; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-95]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective July 1, 2016. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify certain fees charged for
Options Trading Permits (each an ``OTP'') and to decrease the fee
charged to registered floor personnel who are not subject to an OTP
Fee. The Exchange proposes to implement the changes effective July 1,
2016.
    Currently, the Exchange charges Floor Brokers, Office, and Clearing
participants a monthly fee of $1,000 for the first OTP and $250 per
month for each additional OTP.\3\ The Exchange proposes to reduce the
monthly OTP fee charged to Floor Brokers to $500, which is consistent
with trading permit fees charged to similarly situated market
participants on other options markets.\4\ The Exchange would continue
to charge Office and Clearing participants a monthly OTP Fee of $1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Fee Schedule, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \4\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, Section III.A. (Monthly
ATP Fees), available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (charging
Floor Brokers monthly fee of $500 per ATP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the reduced ($250)
monthly for any of these participants and to delete the language
stating that additional OTPs utilized by a Floor Broker would not
enable a second Floor Broker to operate on the Floor. As an initial
matter, Office and Clearing participants would rarely, if ever, require
a second OTP, so eliminated the reduced $250 would have little to no
practical impact on these participants. Regarding Floor Brokers,
historically each Floor Broker could only log in to a single Floor
Broker Order Capture Device (``FBOCD''), which provided access to the
Exchange-sponsored Floor Broker Order Capture System.\5\ This
limitation was required because the Floor Broker's log-in was used to
populate ``Executing Broker'' fields within the FBOCD system. Thus, in
order to conduct business at various locations on the Floor, Floor
Brokers needed to be able to log in to multiple FBOCD and therefore
would request additional OTPs. However, these additional OTPs were
assigned to the same individual Floor Broker and were not used to
provide for a second Floor Broker to operate on the Floor. In recent
years, however, the Exchange has upgraded and modified its System such
that each log-in permits Floor Brokers access to the System from any
FBOCD, whether located in a Floor Broker's booth or a general access
device located on the Trading Floor. As a result of this improved
remote access, Floor Brokers no longer require additional OTPs to
conduct business on the Floor. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the provision and the associated reduced Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The FBOCD is used by Floor Brokerage operations to comply
with the requirements of Rule 6.67, Order Format and System Entry
Requirements, namely, the systemization of order details and
electronic tracking of all events in the life of an order, up to and
including cancellation or execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to reduce the Options Floor Access Fee
(``Access Fee'') that is currently charged to registered personnel who
work on the Floor, but do not require an OTP as they do not execute
trades. The Exchange proposes to reduce the monthly Access Fee from
$130 to $125, which is consistent with fees charged by other options
exchanges for similarly situated floor personnel.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra n. 5 [sic], NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule,
Section III.A. (Floor Access Fee) (charging $125 per month for all
registered Floor personnel that do not pay Monthly ATP Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\8\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that modifying the OTP Fee for Floor Brokers
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the
reduced fee would apply to all Floor Brokers who, unlike other market
participants (i.e., Office and Clearing Participants), are restricted
to conduct business only on a manual basis on the Trading Floor. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage
competition, including by reducing the overhead costs for Floor Brokers
so that they may conduct a more competitive business attracting manual
orders to the Exchange, which additional volume and liquidity would
benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to
trade as well as enhancing price discovery. Further, because Office and
Clearing Participants rarely if ever require a second OTP, the proposed
removal of the reduced ($250) fee would have little to no impact on
them. Additionally, the proposed fee changes is [sic] reasonable
because it is similar to trading permit fees charged by another options
exchange to similarly situated market participants.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra n. 5 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed modification in the
Access

Fees is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as the
Access Fee is charged to all registered personnel that operate on the
Floor but do not execute transactions. The proposed fee is equitable
and not discriminatory as it applies equally to all similarly situated
individuals. Additionally, the proposed fee is reasonable because it is
similar to fees charged by another options exchange to similarly
situated floor personnel.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra n. 7 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes would encourage competition, including by reducing the
overhead costs for Floor Brokers so that they may conduct a more
competitive business attracting manual orders to the Exchange, which
would make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other
things, order execution and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-95 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-95. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-95, and should be
submitted on or before August 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16602 Filed 7-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738 R 06 028 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances July 2006 Agency ( 7508P)

Addendum to the 2002 Lindane Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) 2 Addendum to the 2002 Lindane Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED)

Case No. 315 Approved by:

______________________ Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division ________________________ Date 3 I. Introduction This document serves as an addendum to the July 2002 Lindane Reregistration Eligibility Decision document ( 2002 RED). This document addresses whether pesticide products containing the active ingredient lindane are eligible for reregistration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and whether existing tolerances for residues of lindane in food and feed are safe under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA).

This RED Addendum reflects the Agency's conclusions on the remaining lindane seed treatment uses in light of the information gathered since the 2002 RED. The seed treatment use is a source of human exposure to lindane, and it will add to the reservoir of lindane already present in the environment. EPA believes that dietary exposure to lindane from the seed treatment use may pose a risk to nursing infants who consume breast milk contaminated with lindane. EPA, however, is not able to quantify that risk at this time or determine whether current exposures result in any harm. Lindane's persistent and bioaccumulative nature is also of concern to the Agency. In addition, the Agency's updated analysis of the seed treatment use indicates very minor benefits to growers. In light of these factors, EPA now concludes that the six lindane seed treatment uses are ineligible for reregistration.

As of July 27, 2006, the Agency had received requests from all lindane technical and end use product registrants to voluntarily cancel all lindane product registrations. Once the cancellation process is complete, EPA will propose to revoke the existing lindane fat tolerances pursuant to section 408( l)( 2) of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA).

II. Background In July 2002, EPA issued a RED for lindane that captured the Agency's thencurrent analysis of the registered uses of lindane as well as the existing tolerances. The 2002 RED concluded in part that existing tolerances for lindane were no longer needed as the uses associated with those tolerances had all been cancelled, or voluntary cancellation had been requested. The 2002 RED also concluded that the current uses of lindane for seed treatment would be eligible for reregistration under FIFRA provided several conditions were met. First, EPA determined that a number of changes to the terms and conditions of registration of the seed treatment products were necessary to prevent " unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." These changes are specified in the 2002 RED. Second, EPA determined that the use of lindane for seed treatment was likely to result in residues in raw agricultural commodities derived from plants grown from seeds treated with lindane. Therefore, new tolerances for the existing seed treatment uses were needed. Third, EPA identified additional data that were needed to characterize lindane metabolites in order to establish appropriate tolerances for lindane. In summary, EPA determined that the currently registered lindane seed treatment products would be eligible for reregistration if: 1) the registrants amended product labels to reflect the terms and conditions specified in the 2002 RED; 2) the registrants provided the metabolism 4 data set forth in the 2002 RED; and 3) EPA was able to establish all required tolerances for residues of lindane in food.

Following the 2002 RED, the registrants submitted revised labels for all end use products reflecting the risk mitigation measures specified in the 2002 RED. The Agency has reviewed and approved these labels. The registrants also submitted the required product and residue chemistry data, and the Agency reviewed these data and found them to be acceptable. To satisfy generic data requirements, Crompton ( now Chemtura) submitted a required seed leaching study; a nature of the residue study, also known as a plant metabolism study, originally required in the 1985 Lindane Registration Standard Data Call In ( DCI); and an anaerobic aquatic metabolism study to satisfy an anaerobic soil metabolism data requirement also originally required under the 1985 Lindane Reregistration Standard DCI.

The Agency has taken a number of actions with respect to lindane since the 2002 RED. EPA received and reviewed a number of comments on the 2002 RED. EPA also revoked all current tolerances of lindane, except for fat tolerances, because the associated uses had been cancelled ( 70 FR 55282, Sept. 21, 2005). EPA did not revoke the fat tolerances because residue data suggested that livestock that were fed lindane treated seeds would bear residues of lindane in meat commodities ( i. e., fat). In February 2006, EPA prepared and released for public comment a document titled " Assessment of Lindane and Other Hexachlorocyclohexane Isomers" ( 2006 Assessment). This assessment provided information on potential health effects of lindane as well as its associated isomers.

III. Lindane's toxicity The Agency's conclusions regarding effects of lindane in humans are largely based on studies in animals. Lindane primarily affects the nervous system. In acute, subchronic, and developmental neurotoxicity studies and chronic toxicity/ oncogenicity studies, lindane was found to cause neurotoxic effects. Lindane also appears to cause renal and hepatic toxicity. In addition, there is evidence that lindane may act as an endocrine disruptor. Moreover, infants and children are expected to be more susceptible to the potential adverse effects of lindane than adults. In both a developmental neurotoxicity study and a 2 generation reproduction study, offspring demonstrated increased susceptibility to lindane's adverse effects. The 2002 RED and its supporting documents provide a detailed summary of lindane's toxicity.

IV. Sources of Lindane Exposure A. Seed Treatment Use The seed treatment use is a source of human exposure to lindane. There are several possible routes by which this exposure may occur. First, individuals may be exposed to lindane residues when eating plants grown from treated seeds. Residue data demonstrate that the aerial portion of a growing crop will uptake lindane residues present 5 on treated seed ( 2002 RED, pp. 44 45). Second, consumption of meat is a potential source of lindane exposure. It is possible that livestock feed may be derived from grain grown from lindane treated seed. EPA expects that livestock fed lindane treated seed will bear residues of lindane in meat commodities ( i. e., fat). USDA annual pesticide monitoring data show one detection of lindane residues in milk in 1998, one detection in the fat of poultry in 2000, and three detections ( one from imported cows) in the fat of livestock ( e. g., cows) in 2001 and 2002 ( USDA Pesticide Data Program). In addition, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service ( FSIS) detected lindane in the fat of domestic and imported meat products in 1998, 1999 and 2000. For example, in 2000, four imported samples ( three calf and one pig) and 16 domestic samples ( cow, sheep, turkey, goat, veal) contained lindane. EPA acknowledges these detections cannot be attributed solely to treated seeds.

Third, treated seeds are a potential source of lindane in drinking water. Modeling also shows that lindane concentrations in both surface water and groundwater may reach environmentally significant levels ( greater than the Maximum Contaminant Level [ MCL] of 0.2 ppb), even when lindane is restricted to seed treatment uses only. Even considering lindane's very low use rate for seed treatment, lindane may be expected to reach water resources at environmentally significant levels because of its mobility and high persistence. Based on a screening level assessment, lindane from seed treatment may reach water resources at levels above the MCL of 0.02 ppb ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter at p. 3). This conclusion is based solely on lindane's use as a seed treatment and does not consider past uses of lindane ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter). Water monitoring data, to be discussed in Section IV. B. i. of this addendum, show that residues of lindane are present in surface water in the United States.

Exposure to lindane may also occur through volatilization from treated seeds. Field studies from Canada report an increase in lindane in the atmosphere in areas where lindane treated seeds are used ( 2006 Assessment at p. 20). Due to lindane's persistence and mobility, these lindane releases may contribute to human exposure via any route.

B. Other Sources of Exposure In addition to the seed treatment use, U. S. populations may be currently exposed to lindane from several other sources.

i. Past/ historical uses Lindane was first registered in the U. S. in the 1940s. Since that time, lindane has been registered for use on a wide variety of fruit and vegetable crops ( including seed treatment), ornamental plants, tobacco, greenhouse vegetables and ornamentals, forests, Christmas tree plantations, log dips, livestock dips, household sprays, domestic outdoor and indoor use by homeowners ( including dog dips, household sprays, and shelf paper), commercial food or feed storage areas and containers, wood or wooden structures sites, and human skin/ clothing ( a military use). In 1977, EPA initiated a Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration ( RPAR) review of lindane, now called a Special 6 Review, that resulted in the cancellation of lindane uses in smoke fumigation devices for indoor domestic use. Following the RPAR, EPA issued a Registration Standard for Lindane in September 1985 that included a requirement for the submission of additional data to support lindane registration and to address exposure concerns. Between 1993 and 1998, long range transport and environmental concerns about lindane increased; in response to these concerns, lindane registrants voluntarily cancelled all registered uses of lindane in 1998 and 1999, except for seed treatment uses on 19 agricultural crops and a dog mange treatment. The dog mange use was voluntarily cancelled in December 2001. Finally, in 2001 and 2002, the registrants voluntarily cancelled all but the following six lindane seed treatment uses: barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum, and wheat. As of 2002, the only remaining agricultural uses for lindane were the six seed treatment uses that are being addressed in this document.

Any of these past uses potentially result in continued exposures to lindane today due to its persistent, bioaccumulative nature and potential for long range transport. Indeed, as shown below, lindane has been detected in a variety of foods as well as surface waters. EPA cannot link these residue detections with particular uses of lindane.

The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition ( CFSAN)' s Total Diet Study summary of residues from 1991 to 2001 indicates that many food items contain residues of lindane ( http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ acrobat/ tds1byps. pdf). The summary shows almost 50 types of food items in which lindane has been detected at least once between 1991 and 2001. The food items with the most detects were plain milk chocolate candy bars, yellow mustard, and commercial chocolate chip cookies. In addition, FDA's pesticide residue monitoring program indicates that, between 1993 and 2003, lindane is consistently detected in 2% to 3% of foods tested ( http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ pesrpts. html).

The United States Geological Survey ( USGS) National Water Quality Assessment program ( NAWQA) database includes 373 surface water samples in which lindane was detected. Four of these samples had lindane concentrations of 0.1 ppb or greater, with a maximum concentration of 0.219 ppb detected in a sample from the agricultural " Harding Drain" in Stanislaus County, California in February 2000. The samples were collected between 1992 and 2004, with 199 of the samples with detections collected in 1999 or later. The USGS classified 115 of the samples with detections as having come from water bodies in areas of agricultural land use, 101 from water bodies in mixed land use areas, and 49 from water bodies in urban land use areas. Eight samples were classified as having been collected from areas classified as " other."

ii. Imported meats Lindane may currently be used in other countries to directly treat livestock against external parasites. Because U. S. tolerances currently exist for lindane in livestock fat, livestock or meat products that have been treated with lindane and containing lindane residues can be legally imported into the United States. Approximately 8 percent of red 7 meat and 5 percent of animal fat consumed by the U. S. population is imported, and red meat is among the fastest growing U. S. imports ( Jerardo 2003).

iii. Subsistence diets Indigenous populations are exposed to lindane via consumption of subsistence diets. As noted in the 2006 Assessment, indigenous populations rely heavily on animal fats and protein in their subsistence diets. For example, EPA reported high harvest amounts of walrus, seal and whale for Alaska communities. Residues of lindane and other HCH isomers are present in these animals even though they are not in areas where lindane is manufactured or used. As explained in Section V of this addendum, lindane and other HCH isomers are mobile once released into the environment and can be transported long distances. Lindane and other HCH isomers tend to accumulate in colder climates, such as the arctic, and concentrate in the food chain. Thus any manufacture or use of lindane, or other HCH isomers, is a potential source of exposure to indigenous populations ( 2006 Assessment at pp. 26, 44 45).

iv. Pharmaceutical use Lindane is also used as a treatment for lice and scabies. Individuals who use lindane pharmaceutical products will be exposed to lindane in amounts that will exceed exposure from the seed treatment use. The pharmaceutical use, though, is also a source of exposure to the general population. EPA believes that lindane from the pharmaceutical use may reach drinking water via " down the drain" release; that is, lindane enters drinking water when individuals using the pharmaceutical products wash off their hands/ bodies. Based on information from Los Angeles County, California, EPA estimated average effluent concentrations of lindane discharged from publicly owned treatment works to be 0.03 ppb ( 2002 RED at p. 23). In fact, California banned the pharmaceutical uses of lindane due to concerns about water contamination and acute neurotoxicity concerns from direct application. Although FDA has recommended that lindane be prescribed as a second line treatment since 1995, these products remain a source of exposure.

v. Use in foreign countries As far as EPA is aware, lindane is still being used in a few other countries. For example, EPA believes that lindane is still used in India. In addition, lindane is registered for use in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, 1 Papua New Guinea, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, and Zimbabwe ( Lindane NARAP Annex B). Because of lindane's persistence and potential for long range transport, EPA believes that releases of lindane in these other countries could result in exposures in the United States. Bailey et al. ( 2000) demonstrated that organochlorine pesticides including lindane can travel from eastern Asia to North America in as little as five days.

1 Mexico, however, has stated that it intends to phase out all uses of lindane. 8 V. Environmental Fate Lindane is a persistent organochlorine compound that is widely distributed in the environment with a long half life in various environmental compartments. The presence of lindane and other HCH isomers ( namely   and   HCH) in the environment and human and wildlife tissues, as well as the environmental fate and exposure routes of lindane, have been documented in detail in scientific literature as well as in the Agency's 2002 RED and 2006 Assessment. The fate characteristics of lindane, including persistence, bioaccumulative potential, and potential for long range transport, are the key elements to understanding the extent and scope of exposures associated with the use of lindane. Lindane's toxicity in association with these fate characteristics results in risks of concern for the Agency. Below is a summary of these concerns.

Based on the submitted environmental fate data, physical and chemical properties, lindane is a persistent, moderately mobile, and relatively volatile compound. Selected physical chemical properties of lindane are summarized in Table 1. Lindane can migrate over a long distance through various environmental media such as air, water and sediment. Due to the persistent nature and long range transport, lindane has been detected in air, surface water, groundwater, sediment, soil, ice, snowpack, fish, wildlife and humans. The source of these lindane detections is unclear; but it may be the result of a combination of past widespread use in the U. S. and other countries, lindane's extreme persistence, current seed treatment use, current use in foreign countries, and use as a pharmaceutical.

Table 1. Fate and Physical Chemical Properties of Lindane Parameter Value Molecular Weight 290.82 Solubility ( 25 oC) 7 mg/ L Vapor Pressure ( 25 oC) 9.4 x 10 6 torr Henry's Law Constant ( atm m3/ mol) 3.5 x 10 6 @ 25 ° C Hydrolysis Half life ( pH 5, 7, 9; 25 oC) Stable, stable, 43 53 days Aqueous Photolysis Half lives ( pH 5) Stable Soil Photolysis Half life Stable Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half lives 980 days Organic Carbon Partition Coefficients ( Koc) 1368 mL/ g ( mean of 4 soils)

Octanol   Water Partition Coefficient ( log Kow) 3.78 Bioconcentration Factors ( BCF) In fish bluegill sunfish, 780 ( fillet), 2500 ( viscera), 1400 ( whole fish tissues) 9 A. Persistence Once released into the environment, the primary process by which lindane dissipates is volatilization into the air, although abiotic and biotic degradation as well as uptake by crops can also occur. However, lindane is resistant to abiotic processes like photolysis and hydrolysis ( except at high pH), and degrades very slowly by microbial actions. The hydrolysis half lives of lindane were reported to be stable at pH 5 and pH 7, and   43 days at pH 9 ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter). Since lindane does not contain chromophores that absorb light > 290 nm, direct photolysis is not expected to occur. In an aerobic soil metabolism study, lindane degraded very slowly, with a calculated half life of 980 days ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter). Since most degradation pathways occur slowly, the presence of degradates is generally low. Possible lindane degradates could include pentachlorocyclohexene, 1,2,4, trichlorobenzene, and 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter).

Additional evidence of its persistence is the fact that lindane has been found at numerous hazardous waste sites which have been abandoned. Of the 1,662 current or former industrial sites on the National Priorities List, lindane was found in 189 ( ATSDR 1997 at p. 1).

B. Bioaccumulation and Bioconcentration Lindane can bio accumulate easily in the food chain due to its high lipid solubility and can bioconcentrate rapidly in microorganisms, invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals ( WHO 1991). The octanol water partition coefficient ( log Kow = 3.78, Table 1) for lindane indicates that it has the potential to bioaccumulate. Lindane has potential to enrich in lipid containing biological compartments. However, lindane is a multimedia chemical, existing and exchanging among different compartments of the environment such as the atmosphere, surface water, soil and sediment. In addition, temperature, humidity, and other environmental properties may have significant influence on environmental degradation rates. These properties likely affect the presence of lindane in the environment as well as the variability in the bioaccumulation, bioconcentration and biomagnification in the various biological compartments. Differences in accumulation are also likely due to different modes of uptake, metabolism and sources of contamination.

The estimated bio concentration factors ( BCF) of lindane were 780x in fillet, 2500x in viscera and 1400x in whole fish ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter). Although lindane may bioconcentrate rapidly, most data suggest that bio transformation, depuration and elimination are relatively rapid once exposure is eliminated. After 14 days of depuration, lindane levels were reduced by 96% in fillet, 95% in viscera, and 85% in whole fish. 10 C. Transport and Mobility Lindane has often been detected in ambient air, precipitation, and surface water throughout North America, and it has also been detected in areas of non use ( e. g., the Arctic), indicating long range transport of lindane occurs. The source of these lindane detections is unclear, but may be the result of a combination of manufacture ( i. e., release during manufacture, disposal of HCH isomers), past widespread use in the U. S. and other countries, its extreme persistence, current seed treatment use, current use in foreign countries, and the pharmaceutical use of lindane. Once released into the environment, lindane can partition into various environmental media. Lindane present in soil can leach to groundwater, sorb to soil particulates and transport to surface water via runoff, or volatilize to the atmosphere. However, the Henry's law constant ( Table 1) of lindane suggests that volatilization is the most important route of dissipation from water and moist soils followed by aerial long range transport. Adsorption of HCH isomers to soil and sediments is generally a preferential partitioning process after volatilization. Leaching of HCH isomers through soil is governed by their water solubility and their propensity to bind to soil. The calculated Koc of lindane ranges from 942 to 1798 mL/ g, with a mean of 1368 mL/ g for four soils tested ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter). These data suggest that lindane has low leaching potential. Data also indicate that lindane is expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment in water. Based on the results of a number of laboratory soil column leaching studies that used soils of both high and low organic carbon content as well as municipal refuse, lindane has low subsurface mobility in soils ( Melancon et al. 1986, Reinhart et al. 1991).

D. Volatility and Long Range Transport The behavior of lindane in the environment is complex because it is a multimedia chemical, existing and exchanging among different compartments of the environment such as the atmosphere, surface water, soil and sediment. Volatilization from soil and surface waters is a major dissipation route for lindane. The Henry's law constant for lindane suggests that it will volatilize from moist soil and surface water into the air, although microbial and chemical degradation and uptake by crops can also occur ( Walker et al. 1999). Lindane can also enter the air as adsorbed phase onto suspended particulate matter, but this process does not appear to be a major contributor like volatilization ( Walker et al. 1999 and Bidleman 2004). Brubaker and Hites ( 1998) measured the gas phase kinetics of the hydroxyl radical with lindane, and reported that it has long atmospheric half lives in air and, therefore, can be transported long distance.

Once airborne, lindane may move into the upper troposphere for more widespread regional and possibly transcontinental distribution as a result of large scale vertical perturbations that facilitate air mass movement out of the near surface. Also, it may reversibly deposit on terrestrial surfaces close to the source and still be transported over large distances, even global scales, through successive cycles of deposition and reemission as result of ambient temperature and latitude differences known as " global distillation or fractionation" ( Wania and Mackay 1996 as cited in U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter at pp 9 10). Recently, soil and air samples were collected for 11 organochlorine pesticides in northwest Alabama to estimate soil to air fluxes and their contribution to the atmospheric concentration ( Harner et al. 2001). The researchers concluded that the atmospheric concentration of lindane in northwest Alabama may be due to atmospheric advections or regional sources rather than the studied soils. A field study conducted by Waite et al. ( 2001) in Saskatchewan, Canada demonstrated volatilization of lindane from fields planted with lindane treated canola seed. Waite reported that significant quantities ( 12 30%) of applied lindane volatilize from treated canola seed to the atmosphere during the growing seasons and have direct implications on regional atmospheric concentrations of lindane. The study also estimated that a range of 66.4 to 188.8 tons of atmospheric load of lindane occurred during 1997 and 1998, following the planting of canola in the region of the Canadian prairies. Poissant and Koprivnjak ( 1996) reported that 90% of elevated lindane concentration in the atmosphere at Villeroy, Quebec in 1992 was from secondary emissions of applied lindane treated corn, while the rest was from the volatilization of residual lindane from the previous year seed treatment ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter at pp. 8 9).

Recently, seasonal air concentrations of lindane and other HCH isomers were monitored using Passive Air Samplers ( PAS) along an urban to rural transect in Toronto, Canada ( Motelay Massei et al. 2005). The air concentrations of lindane were 159 pg/ M3 to 1020 pg/ M3 in the rural sites during the spring summer monitoring period. A similar trend of air concentrations of lindane was also observed by Hoff et al. ( 1992) in Ontario, Canada. Both studies concluded that the continuing use of lindane during spring is likely associated with higher concentration of lindane in the air samples. Analysis of 1990 to 2001 data from the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network ( IADN) also confirmed that annual agricultural application was a key variable in explaining the annual cycle of atmospheric lindane concentrations ( Buehler et al. 2004). Jianmin et al. ( 2003) modeled lindane transport and deposition to the Great Lakes from usage areas in the Canada prairies and corn belt regions of southern Ontario and Quebec. Results showed that lindane transport to the Great Lakes during spring summer came mainly from application sites in the prairies, with minor contribution from the corn belt. They compared the modeled concentration with the monitoring data of the IADN sites, which were within 50 134% of those measured during summer, 16 51% in fall and 3 20% in winter.

E. Surface Water, Sediments and Groundwater Lindane is moderately mobile and can migrate over a long distance through various environmental media like water and sediment. Adsorption of lindane to soil and sediments is generally a preferential partitioning process after volatilization. The calculated Koc of lindane ranges from 942 to 1798 mL/ g, with a mean of 1368 mL/ g for four soils tested ( U. S. EPA 2002 EFED RED Chapter). These data suggest that lindane has low leaching potential. Data also indicate that lindane is expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment in water. Lindane reaches water resources via surface runoff and through rain and snow deposition ( ATSDR 1997 at p. 190 citing Tanabe et al. 1982; Wheatley and Hardman 1965). " For example, Lake Ontario received < 2 kg/ year of   HCH because of suspended sediment loading from the Niagara River between 1979 and 1981" ( ATSDR 1997 at p. 190 citing Kuntz and Warry 1983). Studies also show that the 12 Great Lakes received 3.7 to 15.9 metric tons/ year of lindane through atmospheric deposition ( ATSDR 1997 at p. 190 citing Eisenreich et al. 1981). Lindane has also been detected in stormwater runoff in Denver, Colorado and Washington, D. C. ( 0.052  0.1 µ g/ L) ( ATSDR 1997 at p. 190 citing Cole et al. 1984).

VI. Dietary Risk A. Presence of Lindane in Breast Milk Although there currently are no programs in the United States for monitoring lindane levels in human breast milk, EPA believes that lindane is present in the breast milk of at least some nursing mothers in the United States. In general, lindane is very persistent and highly soluble in fat or fatty tissue. Therefore, it has the potential to bioaccumulate in the food chain and bioconcentrate in microorganisms, invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals. In practical terms, this means that when women are exposed to lindane through food, water, or the atmosphere, they will accumulate lindane residues in their fatty tissue, including breast milk and breast milk fat, and that these lindane residues will remain there for an undetermined amount of time. 2 Thus, to the extent women in the United States are exposed to lindane, EPA believes that that lindane likely will accumulate in their breast milk or breast milk fat.

Moreover, in the 1970s and 1980s, lindane was detected in breast milk in women in Binghamton, New York; Saint Louis, Missouri; several places in Mississippi, and in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lindane also has been detected in breast milk of women in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the former Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the former Federal Republic of Germany ( FRG), Greece, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Rwanda, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, and Zaire ( Jensen 1991). Several of these countries, like Canada, have had production and use patterns similar to those in the United States. Given the U. S. and world wide presence of lindane in breast milk, EPA expects that, if U. S. monitoring programs existed, lindane would be detected in breast milk in other U. S. locales as well.

B. Lindane from Treated Seed Could Contribute to Breast Milk Contamination EPA believes that lindane from the treated seed use could contribute to levels of lindane in breast milk. As discussed earlier, there are several routes by which women in the United States could be exposed to lindane from treated seed. These include: ( 1) eating food grown from treated seed; ( 2) eating the meat of animals fed with feed grown 2 Several studies suggest, however, that once exposure stops, certain species may be able to eliminate lindane from their systems. EPA, however, cannot determine how quickly or slowly lindane may be eliminated from the human body. In comments, NRDC states that lindane is converted in to beta HCH in the body ( EPA NRDC Comments at p. 1). NRDC provides no support for this statement and EPA has found nothing independently to confirm or refute this statement. Beta HCH accumulates to a greater extent than lindane and cannot be as efficiently eliminated ( EPA 2006 Assessment at p. 19). 13 from treated seed; ( 3) consuming drinking water contaminated with lindane from the seed treatment use; and ( 4) being exposed to lindane that volatilizes from the seed treatment use. EPA believes that all of these are potential routes of exposure.

C. Infant Exposure to Lindane from Breast Milk and Resulting Risk Infants will be exposed to lindane if they are fed contaminated breast milk. Indeed, for women, lactation is the most important route of elimination for persistent contaminants such as lindane ( Jensen 1991 at p. 10). EPA is not able to conduct a scientifically quantitative assessment of the risks associated with exposure to lindane in breast milk due to the uncertainties regarding current monitoring data and the lack of a validated method for quantifying the infant exposure. In general, concentrations of manmade chemicals in human milk often are more than ten times higher than in cow's milk from the same area. Frequently, limit values established for contaminants in cow's milk are exceeded in human milk. Newborns and infants, whose main foodstuff is breast milk, may have a higher relative daily intake of these pollutants than adults ( Jensen 1996).

As far as EPA is aware, there have been no overt illnesses in infants from exposure to lindane in breast milk. In addition, breast milk is the natural and superior foodstuff for newborns, and infants, and nursing provides important immunological and psychological benefits. Moreover, virtually all national and international experts agree that women should not forgo breast feeding even though breast milk may be contaminated with low levels of lindane, other organochlorine pesticides, and persistent industrial chemicals like PCBs ( Jensen 1991 at p. 288).

Nevertheless, there is a dearth of long term studies of the effects of infant exposure to lindane in breast milk. Thus, the potential long term effects of newborn and infant exposure to lindane in breast milk are difficult to assess. EPA is currently unable to determine whether there are in fact adverse effects from exposure of infants to lindane in breast milk. However, EPA believes that, because of lindane's prior detections in breast milk, its physio chemical properties, and its continued presence in the diet, the potential for adverse effects to infants from consumption of breast milk cannot be dismissed due to a lack of data.

VII. Impact on Growers Lindane is registered in the U. S. as a seed treatment use on wheat, barley, oats, rye, corn, and sorghum. An application to register lindane for use as a seed treatment for canola is pending before the Agency. In support of the 2002 RED, EPA assessed the potential impacts on growers of cancellation of the lindane seed treatment uses ( U. S. EPA 2002 BEAD Analysis). At the time of the 2002 RED, there were registered alternatives for all lindane seed treatment uses except oats and rye. Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were identified as the primary seed treatment alternatives to lindane ( U. S. EPA 2002 BEAD Analysis at p. 1). 14 For the wheat, barley, corn, and sorghum seed treatment uses, grower level effects of cancellation of lindane were expected to be minor. For these uses, EPA estimated an increased treatment cost to growers using lindane ranging from 0.3% of gross revenue to 4.4% of gross revenue. In some cases, these increased treatment costs would be offset by the effectiveness of alternatives on other pests. For example, for sorghum, EPA estimated increased treatment costs to growers using lindane of 3.5 4.4% of gross revenue. However, the Agency found that this increase would likely be offset by increased yields due to control of chinch bugs and aphids ( U. S. EPA 2002 BEAD Analysis at p. 9). Overall, for uses for which alternatives are registered, EPA concluded the impact of cancellation of lindane to individual growers using lindane would be minor. Further, the Agency estimated that only 6% to 7% of total acres of wheat, barley, and corn planted and only 1% of total acres of sorghum planted were being treated with lindane.

At the time of the 2002 RED, no alternatives were registered for oats and rye. EPA estimated cancellation of the lindane seed treatment use could result in a 9% yield loss to growers using lindane; however, the Agency estimated that only 1% of total acres of oats and rye planted were being treated with lindane. For the growers affected, this crop loss would be partially offset by a lower treatment cost, but the Agency concluded that cancellation of the lindane seed treatment for oats and rye would have a major effect on individual growers using lindane ( U. S. EPA 2002 BEAD Analysis at pp. 3 4).

Since the time of the 2002 RED, additional alternatives to the lindane seed treatment uses have been registered. Most notably, imidicloprid is now registered as a seed treatment use for oats and rye. Thus, there are now alternatives for all lindane seed treatment uses. The registration of imidicloprid for oats and rye significantly alters the Agency's 2002 assessment of grower level impacts. A 9% yield loss to growers using lindane would no longer be expected if lindane were cancelled, though growers switching to imidicloprid would experience increased treatment costs of 0.52 1.7% of net revenues. The Agency considers this to be a minor effect ( U. S. EPA 2005 BEAD Update). For all uses, the Agency expects an average increase in treatment cost of 0.29% of net revenues.

In addition, it appears that use of lindane treated seeds is declining. In 2002, EPA estimated that approximately 4.8 million acres of corn crops were grown from lindanetreated seed ( 7 percent of the total corn acreage). This translated to approximately 52,000 pounds of lindane used for corn seed treatment. Updated information shows a substantial reduction in these figures. For 2004 2005, EPA estimates that less than three million acres of corn crops were grown from lindane treated seed ( less than 4 percent of the total corn acreage). This amounts to less than 30,000 pounds of lindane used for corn seed treatment. These revised figures suggest that use of lindane to treat corn seeds has declined by greater than 40 percent.

The Agency has received reports that some farmers using treated seeds will opt for lindane treated seeds because lindane treated seeds appear to repel sandhill cranes from corn crops. Two studies have estimated that sandhill cranes will damage 20 percent of corn crops grown near wetlands. It appears that this use is most common in 15 Wisconsin. EPA has no information indicating how much the potential 20 percent crop damage would be prevented by the use of lindane treated seeds. As a result, the Agency is unable to quantify any resulting benefit from using lindane treated seeds in this manner. Due to reduced availability of lindane treated seeds, Wisconsin has submitted a FIFRA § 18 emergency exemption request to use anthraquinone to control sandhill crane damage. EPA granted Wisconsin's FIFRA § 18 emergency exemption request and believes anthraquinone is an alternative for protecting crops from sandhill cranes.

VIII. Regulatory Determination Pursuant to FIFRA, EPA must determine, after submission of relevant data, whether pesticide active ingredients are eligible for reregistration. ( FIFRA § 4( g)( 2)( A).) In order to be reregistered, EPA must find that an active ingredient meets the standard in section 3( c)( 5) of FIFRA. ( See FIFRA § 4( a)( 2).) This requires EPA to examine, in part, whether a pesticide causes unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Pursuant to section 2( bb) of FIFRA, " unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" is defined, in part, as " any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide." In other words, to determine whether a pesticide causes unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, EPA must examine broadly the costs and benefits of the pesticide's use, including economic, social and environmental costs and benefits.

Based on new information the Agency received since the 2002 RED, and the review of existing information, EPA has determined that the seed treatment uses of lindane are ineligible for reregistration under FIFRA because the current risks outweigh the benefits of the use of the pesticide. As of July 27, 2006, the Agency had received requests from all lindane technical and end use product registrants to voluntarily cancel all lindane product registrations. Once the cancellation process is complete, EPA will propose to revoke the existing lindane fat tolerances pursuant to section 408( l)( 2) of FQPA.

EPA believes the costs and benefits associated with the seed treatment use have changed significantly since the 2002 RED. At the time of the 2002 RED, there were no alternatives to the seed treatment use for oats and rye for control of wireworm. EPA estimated that without the availability of lindane treated seeds, untreated plots might suffer as much as a 9% yield loss. The Agency considered this to be a major impact on growers who used lindane treatment for these crops. However, this was the only major impact on growers. For all other lindane seed treatment uses, alternatives existed and grower impacts were expected to be minor.

In March 2006, EPA registered imidicloprid as a seed treatment use on oats and rye for wireworm control. The Agency believes imidicloprid is as effective as lindane for control of wireworm. With the availability of imidicloprid, EPA no longer expects a yield loss in the absence of lindane. Growers are expected to see increased treatment costs of 0.52 1.7% of net revenues with use of imidicloprid. The Agency considers this to be a minor impact. In addition, at least with respect to corn, use of lindane treated 16 seeds has dropped by over 40 percent, from approximately 4.8 million acres to less than 3 million acres ( less than 4 percent of total corn acreage).

Overall, the benefits of the lindane seed treatment uses are now negligible. For all uses, if lindane were cancelled, the Agency would expect to see average treatment costs increase by $ 1.82 per acre. This is equal to 0.29% of net revenues. For some crops, the increased treatment costs may be partially offset by better control of certain pests. In sum, the benefits of the lindane seed treatment use to growers are very minor, and cancellation of the lindane seed treatment uses is not expected to have an appreciable impact on growers.

Under FIFRA, EPA must balance the benefits of the lindane seed treatment use against the human health, environmental and social costs in determining whether the risk posed is unreasonable. EPA has identified a number of sources of exposure to lindane beyond the seed treatment. Past uses of lindane, consumption of imported meat, and pharmaceutical uses of lindane are all current sources of exposure. For indigenous populations who rely on subsistence diets, exposure to lindane or HCH isomers may result from current or past manufacture or use due to the long range transport of lindane. EPA believes these sources of lindane have produced a reservoir of lindane in the environment that may remain for some time due to lindane's persistence.

The seed treatment use adds to this current lindane exposure. There are multiple routes by which individuals may be exposed to lindane from the seed treatment use. As discussed previously, consumption of crops grown from treated seed, consumption of livestock fed treated seed and consumption of drinking water are all routes of exposure to lindane from the seed treatment use. There may be additional exposure due to volatilization of lindane from treated seeds. The lindane seed treatment use will add to the existing reservoir of lindane in the environment.

EPA believes this potential ongoing exposure may be of particular concern to nursing infants. Due to lindane's tendency to accumulate in fatty tissues, it has been detected in the breast milk of women in the United States and in many other foreign countries. Although there is no current monitoring data for the U. S., EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that lindane is present in the breast milk of U. S. women given ongoing exposure to lindane and the chemical's fate characteristics. EPA acknowledges there is uncertainty on the level of risk posed to nursing infants and that no adverse effects have been reported. However, the potential for adverse effects from consumption of lindane in breast milk cannot be dismissed.

EPA finds the overall costs of continued registration of lindane for seed treatment are high. The seed treatment use will only add to the existing sources of lindane exposure. Ongoing releases of lindane into the environment are of concern due to the environmental fate characteristics of the chemical. Lindane is persistent and mobile and will accumulate in human fat tissue. This potential for ongoing and future exposure to lindane is of particular concern for nursing infants because of the potential for exposure to lindane via breast milk. 17 In sum, EPA finds that these costs of continued lindane registration far outweigh the benefits of the seed treatment use. Therefore, the lindane seed treatment uses are not eligible for reregistration under FIFRA.

IX. Bibliography Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR). 1997. Toxicological Profile for Alpha Beta, Gamma, and Delta Hexachlorocyclohexane. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Bailey, R., L. A. Barrie, C. J. Halsall, P. Fellin, and D. C. G. Muir. 2000. Atmospheric organochlorine pesticides in the western Canadian Arctic: Evidence of transpacific transport. Journal of Geophysical Research 105: 11,805 11,811.

Bidleman, T. April 28, 2004. Communication from Terry Bidleman, Meteorological Service of Canada to Keith Chanon, U. S. EPA, Re: Atmospheric transport and fate of HCHs.

Buehler, S., I. Basu, R. Hites. 2004. Causes of variability in pesticide and PCB concentrations in air near the Great Lakes. Environ Sci Technol 38: 414 422.

Brubaker, W. W., and R. A. Hites Jr. 1998. OH reaction kinetic of gas phase   and   hexachlorocyclohexane and hexachlorobenzene. Environ Sci Technol 32: 766 769.

Cole, R. H., R. E. Frederick, R. P. Healy, et al. 1984. Preliminary findings of the priority pollutant monitoring project of the nationwide urban runoff program. J Water Pollut Control Fed 56: 898 908/

Eisenreich, S. J., B. B. Looney, and J. D. Thornton. 1981. Airborne organic contaminants in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Environ Sci Technol 15: 30 38.

Harner, T., T. F. Bidleman, L. M. M. Jantunen, and D. Mackay. 2001. Soil air exchange model of pesticides in the United States cotton belt. Environ Tox Chem 20: 1612 1621.

Hoff, R. M. D. C. G. Muir, and N. P. Griff. 1992. Annual cycle of polychlorinated biphenyls and organohalogen pesticides in air in southern Ontario: 1. Air concentration data. Environ Sci and Technol 26: 266 275.

Jensen, Allan Astrup and Stuart A. Slorach. 1991. Chemical Contaminants in Human Milk. CRC Press, Inc. 18 Jensen, Allan Astrup. 1996. Chapter 9. Environmental and Occupational Chemicals in Drugs and Human Lactation. Second Edition. P. N. Bennett, ed. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Jerardo, A. 2003. Import share of U. S. food consumption stable at 11 percent. Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA). FAU 79 01.

Jianmin, M., S. Daggupaty, T. Harner, and Y. Li. 2003. Impacts of lindane usage in the Canadian Praires on the Great Lakes Ecosystem. 1. Coupled atmospheric transport model and modeled concentrations in air and soil. Environ Sci and Technol 37: 3774 3781.

Kuntz, K. W. and N. D. Warry. 1983. Chlorinated organic contaminants in water and suspended sediments of the lower Niagara River. J Great Lakes Res 9: 241 248 Melancon S. M., Pollard J. E., S. C. Hern. 1986. Evaluation of SESOIL, PRZM and PESTAN in a laboratory column leaching experiment. Environ Toxicol Chem 5: 865 878.

Motelay Massei, A., T. Harner, M. Shoeib, Diamond M., G. Stern, and B. Rosenberg. 2005. Using passive samplers to assess unban rural trends for persistent organic pollutants and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 2. Seasonal Trends for PAHs, PCBs, and Organochlorine Pesticides.

Poissant, L. and J. F. Koprivnjak. 1996. Fate and atmospheric concentrations of   and   hexachlorocyclohexane in Quebec, Canada. Environ Sci Technol 30: 845 851.

Reinhart, D. R. and F. G. Pohland. 1991. The assimilation of organic hazardous wastes by municipal solid waste landfills. J Ind Microbiol 8: 193 200.

Tanabe, S., R. Tatsukawa, M. Kawano, et al. 1982. Global distribution and atmospheric transport of chlorinated hydrocarbons: HCH( BHC) isomers and DDT compounds in the Western Pacific, Eastern Indian and Antarctic Oceans. J Oceanogr Soc Jpn 38: 137 148 U. S. EPA. July 31, 2002. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Lindane. Case 0315.

U. S. EPA. July 31, 2002. Revised EFED RED Chapter for Lindane. Environmental Fate and Effects Divison ( EFED). PC Code No. 009001; DP Barcode D254764.

U. S. EPA. February 5, 2002. BEAD's Impact Analysis of the Seed Treatment uses of Lindane on Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye, Corn, Sorghum, and Canola. Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD). 19 U. S. EPA. January 11, 2006. 2005 Update to the 2002 Impact Analysis of the Seed Treatment Uses of Lindane on Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye, Corn, and Sorghum. Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD).

U. S. EPA. January 25, 2006. Characterization of Use of Lindane Treated Seed to Repel Sandhill Cranes ( Supplement to the 2005 Update to the 2002 Impact Analysis of the Seed Treatment Uses of Lindane on Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye, Corn, and Sorghum. Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD). DP Barcode D324247.

U. S. EPA. February 8, 2006. Assessment of Lindane and Other Hexachlorocyclohexane Isomers.

Waite, D., N. P. Gurprasad, J. F., Sproull, D. V. Quiring and M. W. Kotylak. 2001. Atmospheric movements of lindane from canola fields planted with treated seed. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 768 775.

Walter, K., D. A. Vallero and R. G. Lewis. 1999. Factors influencing the distribution of lindane and other hexachlorocyclohexanes in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 33: 4373 4378.

Wania. F. and Mackay, D. 1996. Tracking the distribution of persistent organic pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 30: 390A 396A.

Wheatley, G. A. and J. A. Hardman. 1965. Indications of the presence of organochlorine insecticides in rainwater in central England. Nature 207: 486 487 World Health Organization ( WHO). 1991. Lindane ( Environmental Health Criteria 124). 208 pp.


[Federal Register: August 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 50605-50607]
[DOCID:fr27au08-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

August 19, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER01-989-006.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    Description: Green Mountain Power Corporation submits Change-in-
Status Report resulting from the merger of Gas de France, which holds
an indirect 12.78% interest in GMP, and SUEZ SA to form GDF SUEZ.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080813-0298.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 2, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-553-010.
    Applicants: Rolling Hills Generating L.L.C.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis re Rolling Hills
Generating, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1947-009.
    Applicants: Occidental Power Services, Inc.
    Description: Occidental Power Marketing, LP et. al. submits an
updated

market power analysis and rate schedule revisions pursuant to Order 697
and 697-A.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080813-0157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 2, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2559-008; ER02-669-008; ER00-2391-009; ER00-
3068-008; ER98-3511-012; ER99-2917-010; ER98-3566-015; ER02-1838-008;
ER98-3563-012; ER98-3564-013; ER05-714-003; ER03-623-008; ER04-290-004;
ER01-1710-011; ER04-187-006; ER05-236-006; ER02-2166-008; ER01-2139-
012; ER03-1375-005; ER02-1903-009; ER02-2120-006
    Applicants: Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC; Bayswater Peaking
Facility, LLC; Doswell Limited Partnership; FPL Energy Cape, LLC; FPL
Energy Maine Hydro, LLC; FPL Energy MH 50, LP; FPL Energy Power
Marketing, Inc.; FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC; FPL Energy Wyman, LLC; FPL
Energy Wyman IV, LLC; Gexa Energy LLC; Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility,
LLC; Meyersdale Windpower, LLC; Mill Run Windpower, LLC; North Jersey
Energy Associates, L.P.; Northeast Energy Associates, LP; Pennsylvania
Windfarms, Inc.; Somerset Windpower, LLC; Waymart Wind Farm L.P.; FPL
Energy Marcus Hook, L.P.; FPLE Rhode Island State Energy, L.P.
    Description: FPLE Triennial Filers submits their revised Appendix
B-1 which was mistakenly left off in the 6/30/08 submission of their
triennial market power analysis.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2008
    Accession Number: 20080813-0166
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 02, 2008

    Docket Numbers: ER04-222-006.
    Applicants: CPV Milford, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Market Power Update of CPV Milford, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1193-002.
    Applicants: CPV Liberty, LLC.
    Description: CPV Liberty, LLC submits Substitute Original Sheet 3,
reflecting the correct effective of 6/6/08 to their application filed
on 6/30/08 pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-274-000.
    Applicants: Juice Energy, Inc.
    Description: Juice Energy, Inc submits clean and redline version of
their revised Market-Based Rate Tariff reflecting the revised citation.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.
    Docket Numbers: ER08-637-004.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.

    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits copies of their compliance filing, responding to the questions
set forth in Appendix B of the June 13 Order.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 02, 2008

    Docket Numbers: ER08-799-001.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits
an errata to their Master Services Agreement 230, Open Access
Transmission Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 filed on 4/7/08 with VFT,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-895-001.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits
responses to the inquiries posed in the Notice of Deficiency that
Commission issued on 6/24/08.
    Filed Date: 08/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-0290.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1213-002.
    Applicants: Westmoreland Partners.
    Description: Westmoreland Partners submits revision to its proposed
market-based rate tariff filed on 6/30/08 pursuant to Order 697 and
697-A.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080813-0297.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1236-001.
    Applicants: IPA Trading, LLC.
    Description: IPA Trading, LLC submits an amendment to its Rate
Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1384-000
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Company
    Description: Nevada Companies submits amendments to the Sierra
Pacific Resources Operating Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff,
to be effective 10/10/08.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080813-0296.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 2, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1387-000; ER08-1388-000; ER08-1389-000; ER08-
1390-000; ER08-1391-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-op.; Idaho Power
Company; NorthWestern Corporation; PacifiCorp; Portland General
Electric Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Company et. al. submits modifications to
Rate Schedule 25 et al. to reflect amendments to the Amended and
Restated 2008-2009 Northern Tier Transmission Group Funding Agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 2, 2008

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1392-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Application of Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm, LLC for
order accepting initial market-based rate tariff, waiving regulations,
and granting blanket approvals.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1399-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits their Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement with
Manitoba Hydro.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1400-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits its Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement with
MidAmerican Energy Co.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1401-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc

submits its Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement with
OVEC Balancing Authority.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1402-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company.
    Description: Request of Duquesne Light Co. for transmission rate
incentives and approval to implement incentives through formula
transmission rates.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1403-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc., submits its Capital Projects
Report and schedule of the unamortized costs of the ISO's funded
capital expenditures for the quarter ending 6/30/08.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1404-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent System Transmission.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits motion for Commission approval of the proposed suspension and
eventual termination of the Independent Market Monitor-Balancing
Authority Agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1405-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed clarifications and revisions to Module D of the
Midwest ISO's Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve
Markets Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1406-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc. et. al. submits notice of
cancellation of the Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement
with Waterside Power, LLC effective 6/1/05 etc.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1408-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Company submits an
errata--Substitute cover page for the agreement in both clean and
redlined version to rectify the error to the 3/6/08 filing.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 2, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:
    Docket Numbers: OA07-33-002; OA07-11-003.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-op.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Compliance Filing of Deseret
Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 08, 2008

    Docket Numbers: OA07-39-002; OA08-71-001.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA07-52-004.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Compliance Filing of Puget Sound
Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5.p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19807 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33640-33642]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 704, 707, 717, 720, 721, 723, 761, 790, and 799

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0405; FRL-7336-5]

Change of Official Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics'
Mailing Address; Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has
discovered an error in the mailing address that appears in certain
sections of 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R. By these technical
amendments, OPPT corrects those errors.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0405. All documents in the
docket are listed on the regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and has
particular applicability to anyone who might need or want to
communicate in writing with OPPT or submit information to OPPT. Since
this action may apply to anyone, OPPT has not attempted to describe all
the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

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

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR parts 704, 707, 717,
720, 721, 723, 761, 790, and 799 through the Government Printing
Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In this technical amendments document, OPPT is correcting errors
found in the mailing address in certain sections in 40 CFR chapter I,
subchapter R.

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

    This document is issued by OPPT under its general rulemaking
authority, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.). In addition, section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good
cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.
OPPT has determined that there is good cause for making this a rule
final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment. OPPT has
determined that these amendments are technical and non-substantive.
Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. OPPT finds that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

III. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this
Action?

    No. This final rule implements technical amendments to 40 CFR
chapter I, subchapter R, to correctly reflect the change in OPPT's
official mailing address, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any
requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that a technical correction is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' subject to review by OMB under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Nor does this rule contain any information collection
requirements that require review and approval by OMB pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Because
this action is not economically significant as defined by section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action will not
result in environmental justice related issues and does not, therefore,
require special consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since the Agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is
not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any
other statute (see Unit II.B.), this action is not subject to
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. Nor does this action significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of tribal governments as specified by Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action does not

involve any technical standards that require the Agency's consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). This rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to
affect energy supply, distribution, or use. In issuing this rule, EPA
has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive
Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7,
1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings
implications of this rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive order.

IV. Congressional Review Act

    Yes. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 of CRA allows the issuing
agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the
CRA, if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public
procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement (5
U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause
finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective
date of June 12, 2006. EPA will submit a report containing this rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 704, 707, 717, 720, 721, 723, 761,
790, 799

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure.

    Dated: May 25, 2006.
Margaret N. Schneider,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 704--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 704 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(a).

Sec.  Sec.  704.9 and 704.25  [Amended]

0
2. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, ATT:''
and adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN:''
in Sec.  Sec.  704.9 and 704.25(g).

Sec.  704.104  [Amended]

0
3. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and
adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in
Sec.  704.104(g).

PART 707--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for part 707 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2611(b) and 2612.

0
5. By revising paragraph (c) in Sec.  707.65 to read as follows:

Sec.  707.65  Submission to agency.

* * * * *
    (c) You must submit TSCA section 12(b) notices by one of the
following methods:
    (1) Mail to the Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN:
TSCA 12(b) Notice.
    (2) Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East,
Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: TSCA 12(b)
Notice. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202)
564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal
hours of operation.

PART 717--[AMENDED]

0
6. The authority citation for part 717 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(c).

Sec.  717.17  [Amended]

0
7. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and
adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in
Sec.  717.17(c).

PART 720--[AMENDED]

0
8. The authority citation for part 720 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2613.

Sec.  Sec.  720.75 and 720.102  [Amended]

0
9. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and
adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in
Sec.  Sec.  720.75(b)(2) and (e)(1) and 720.102(d).

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
10. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

Sec.  Sec.  721.11, 721.30, and 721.185  [Amended]

0
11. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and adding in its place ``Document Control
Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in Sec.  Sec.  721.11(b) introductory text,
721.30(b) introductory text, and 721.185(b)(1).

PART 723--[AMENDED]

0
12. The authority citation for part 723 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604.

Sec.  723.50  [Amended]

0
13. Section 723.50, paragraph (e)(1) is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the phrase ``TSCA Document Control Officer (7407),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460'' and adding in its place ``TSCA Document Control Officer,
Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001''.

0
b. By removing the phrase ``EPA by writing the Environmental Assistance
Division, (7408), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling the TSCA Assistance Information
Service at<PHONE_NUMBER>; TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>; online service modem
(202) 554-5603'' and adding its place ``the Environmental Assistance
Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sec.  723.175  [Amended]

0
14. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and
adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in
Sec.  723.175(i)(3).

PART 761--[AMENDED]

0
15. The authority citation for part 761 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.

Sec.  Sec.  761.185 and 761.187  [Amended]

0
16. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and
adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in
Sec.  Sec.  761.185(f) and 761.187(d).

PART 790--[AMENDED]

0
17. The authority citation for part 790 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603.

Sec.  790.5  [Amended]

0
18. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and
adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in
Sec.  790.5(b).

PART 799--[AMENDED]

0
19. The authority citation for part 799 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.

Sec.  799.5  [Amended]

0
20. By removing the phrase ``Document Control Office (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460'' and
adding in its place ``Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001'' in
Sec.  799.5.
[FR Doc. E6-9078 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S