Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Erioglaucine and Tartrazine ( Aquashade *)

Case No. 4010 2 Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document for Erioglaucine and Tartrazine ( Aquashade*)

Approved by: __________________ Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Date: September 23, 2005 3 Erioglaucine and Tartrazine Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team Office of Pesticide Programs Health Effects Risk Assessment Cathy Eiden Danette Drew Kim Morgan Wade Britton Environmental Fate and Effects Risk Assessment Dan Rieder Silvia Termes Jim Goodyear Stephanie Syslo Registration Support Tracy White Joanne Miller Risk Management Kendra Tyler Laura Parsons Bonnie Adler 4 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations AGDCI Agricultural Data Call In ai Active Ingredient aPAD Acute Population Adjusted Dose AR Anticipated Residue BCF Bioconcentration Factor CFR Code of Federal Regulations cPAD Chronic Population Adjusted Dose CSF Confidential Statement of Formula CSFII USDA Continuing Surveys for Food Intake by Individuals DCI Data Call In DEEM Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DFR Dislodgeable Foliar Residue DWLOC Drinking Water Level of Comparison. EC Emulsifiable Concentrate Formulation EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPI Suite Estimation Programs Interface Suite TM EUP End Use Product FDA Food and Drug Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FOB Functional Observation Battery G Granular Formulation GENEEC Tier I Surface Water Computer Model GLN Guideline Number HAFT Highest Average Field Trial IR Index Reservoir LC50 Median Lethal Concentration. A statistically derived concentration of a substance that can be expected to cause death in 50% of test animals. It is usually expressed as the weight of substance per weight or volume of water, air or feed, e. g., mg/ l, mg/ kg or ppm. LD50 Median Lethal Dose. A statistically derived single dose that can be expected to cause death in 50% of the test animals when administered by the route indicated ( oral, dermal, inhalation). It is expressed as a weight of substance per unit weight of animal, e. g., mg/ kg. LOC Level of Concern LOD Limit of Detection LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level MATC Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration 5 Fg/ g Micrograms Per Gram Fg/ L Micrograms Per Liter mg/ kg/ day Milligram Per Kilogram Per Day mg/ L Milligrams Per Liter MOE Margin of Exposure MRID Master Record Identification ( number). EPA's system of recording and tracking studies submitted. MUP Manufacturing Use Product NA Not Applicable NAWQA USGS National Water Quality Assessment NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NR Not Required NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level OP Organophosphate OPP EPA Office of Pesticide Programs OPPTS EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances PAD Population Adjusted Dose PCA Percent Crop Area PDP USDA Pesticide Data Program PHED Pesticide Handler's Exposure Data PHI Preharvest Interval ppb Parts Per Billion PPE Personal Protective Equipment ppm Parts Per Million PRZM/ EXAMS Tier II Surface Water Computer Model Q1* The Carcinogenic Potential of a Compound, Quantified by the EPA's Cancer Risk Model RAC Raw Agriculture Commodity RED Reregistration Eligibility Decision REI Restricted Entry Interval RfD Reference Dose RQ Risk Quotient SCI GROW Tier I Ground Water Computer Model SAP Science Advisory Panel SF Safety Factor SLC Single Layer Clothing SLN Special Local Need ( Registrations Under Section 24( c) of FIFRA) TGAI Technical Grade Active Ingredient TRR Total Radioactive Residue USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey UF Uncertainty Factor UV Ultraviolet WPS Worker Protection Standard 6 Introduction The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) was amended in 1988 to accelerate the reregistration of products with active ingredients registered prior to November 1, 1984. The amended Act calls for the development and submission of data to support the reregistration of an active ingredient, as well as a review of all submitted data to the EPA. Reregistration involves a thorough review of the scientific database underlying a pesticide's registration. The purpose of the Agency's review is to reassess the potential risks arising from the currently registered uses of the pesticide; to determine the need for additional data on health and environmental effects; and to determine whether or not the pesticide meets the " no unreasonable adverse effects" criteria of FIFRA.

On August 3, 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) was signed into law. This Act amends FIFRA and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) to require reassessment of all existing tolerances for pesticides in food. FQPA also requires that by August 3, 2006, EPA must review all tolerances in effect on the day before the enactment of the FQPA, which was August 2, 1996. FQPA also amends the FFDCA to require a safety finding in tolerance reassessment based on factors including aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. The existing exemption from tolerance for erioglaucine has been reassessed.

This document presents the Environmental Protection Agency's ( hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) decision regarding the reregistration eligibility of the registered uses of the aquatic algaecide/ herbicide Aquashade* and other related end use products containing the dyes erioglaucine and tartrazine as active ingredients. The Agency's reregistration eligibility determination is based on its review of required data and published scientific literature. The Agency has found that currently registered uses of erioglaucine/ tartrazine are eligible for reregistration.

Use Profile The dyes erioglaucine ( Acid Blue 9 or FD& C Blue No. 1) and tartrazine ( Acid Yellow 23 or FD& C Yellow No. 5), when combined, act as an aquatic algaecide/ herbicide. This aquatic herbicide, commonly referred to by the trade name Aquashade*, will be referred to as erioglaucine/ tartrazine or " the dyes" throughout the rest of the document. The mixture of erioglaucine and tartrazine control the wavelength range of the sunlight spectrum required for photosynthesis, thereby inhibiting growth of filamentous algae and submerged aquatic vegetation. It can be used in natural or manmade ponds, lakes, fountains, fish farms, and fish hatcheries, and may be applied by both professional applicators and homeowners. Application is recommended early in the growing season while growth is on the bottom of the water body, or later in the season after the killing 7 and/ or removal of any existing growth. There are 4 registered end use products containing the combination of erioglaucine and tartrazine; each product has a different ratio of the dyes, but in all the product formulations the percent of erioglaucine is higher than tartrazine.

Human Health Risk Assessment Reference: " Aquashade: HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED);" W. Britton; 9/ 13/ 05.

Toxicology This risk assessment takes a weight of the evidence approach and considers available data from a variety of sources, including the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the Food and Agriculture Organization/ World Health Organization ( JECFA). This information is sufficient to evaluate the toxicity of erioglaucine/ tartrazine and related compounds. Both erioglaucine and tartrazine are listed as safe for general use as food, drug, and cosmetic color additives by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA). The Agency is not aware of any adverse effects associated with exposure resulting from the FDA approved uses of either tartrazine or erioglaucine. Based on the information available from these sources, the available toxicity database is complete and there are no data gaps.

Erioglaucine and tartrazine both have very low toxicity potentials. A definitive target organ has not been identified and clinical signs of toxicity were not observed in any study performed using these dyes. Both are rapidly metabolized and excreted in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Erioglaucine is poorly absorbed; this is not the case for tartrazine which can be found in bile. However, generally the parent compounds are excreted unchanged mainly in feces with a small amount excreted by the urine. Systemic toxicity was observed in one study in the toxicity database and was limited to a decrease in mean body weight following long term dietary exposure to high doses in rats. There were no adverse effects observed in mice or dogs. All NOAELs were reported to be greater than or equal to 500 mg/ kg/ day with the exception of a non guideline 21 day dermal study in rats. The NOAEL for this study was 5 mg/ kg/ day which was the highest dose tested.

The various end use products each have a different ratio of the two dyes. A product containing 68% erioglaucine and 4.5% tartrazine was tested for acute toxicity. The product has low acute oral toxicity with no deaths occurring near the limit dose ( category IV). It has a moderate acute dermal toxicity ( category III). There were no clinical signs of systemic toxicity in the acute oral and dermal studies. Based on the use pattern, an acute inhalation study is not required. The product caused slight eye irritation ( category III). It was negative for dermal irritation ( category IV), but it was determined to be a dermal sensitizer.

Based on the lack of evidence of pre and/ or post natal susceptibility following exposure to tartrazine or erioglaucine, and considering the lack of residual uncertainties and the 8 low level of concern for pre and/ or post natal toxicity and exposure, no special FQPA safety factor is needed. The special FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1X.

There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in any study, and no evidence of carcinogenicity was observed in carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats with erioglaucine ( Borzelleca and Hallagan, 1988a, 1988b) or tartrazine ( Borzelleca et al, 1990).

An acute reference dose ( aRfD) was not established since no appropriate endpoint could be attributed to a single exposure available from oral studies, including the developmental toxicity studies. A chronic reference dose ( cRfD) of 5 mg/ kg/ day was established for erioglaucine/ tartrazine based on a NOAEL of 500 mg/ kg/ day in a chronic oral toxicity study in dogs ( tartrazine) and a combined chronic oral toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rates ( erioglaucine), done by FDA. The NOAEL of 500 mg/ kg/ day was used as the dermal and inhalation exposure endpoint for residential and occupational risk assessments as well. The default assumption of 100% absorption was used for both dermal and inhalation assessments. Please refer to the human health risk assessment for a complete listing of studies and endpoints.

Dietary Risk from Food Based on the consideration of anticipated exposure scenarios and risk, a dietary food exposure assessment was not conducted. Although water treated with the dyes may potentially be used for irrigation of food crops and livestock watering and the dyes are registered for use in fish farms and hatcheries, the Agency has not quantitatively assessed exposures and risks from food sources for several reasons: ( 1) Erioglaucine/ tartrazine are used primarily in ornamental and/ or recreational lakes and ponds with very little treated water expected to be used for agricultural purposes. ( 2) Erioglaucine and tartrazine are highly water soluble compounds and are not likely to accumulate in livestock or fish tissues. ( 3) Any residues of erioglaucine and tartrazine occurring in foods from the use of the dyes as an aquatic algaecide/ herbicide would be negligible compared to residues in food from the common use of these dyes as food coloring additives, which are listed as safe for general use as food, drug and cosmetic color additives by the FDA. ( 4) The most significant route of exposure to erioglaucine and tartrazine from the use of the products is residential exposure, including residential handler and postapplication ( swimming) exposure. The Agency believes that the conservative residential exposure and risk estimates discussed below are more than adequate to cover any food exposures that could potentially occur from the use of the combination of dyes as an aquatic algaecide/ herbicide.

Dietary Risk from Drinking Water Since the dyes are directly applied by hand to contained water bodies with little or no outflow and because none of the treated water bodies serve as a source of drinking water, 9 drinking water exposure is not expected and therefore a drinking water assessment was not conducted.

Residential Risk Reference: Aquashade: HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( 09/ 13/ 05)

Aquatic herbicide products containing erioglaucine/ tartrazine are labeled for consumer use to control aquatic algae and weeds in ponds and lakes. The anticipated use patterns and current labeling indicate several residential handler scenarios based on the types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used to make dye applications. Residents or consumers applying erioglaucine/ tartrazine products to ponds or lakes may be exposed for short term ( 1 to 30 days) duration through skin contact or by inhalation. All residential handler scenarios assessed ( dermal and inhalation) resulted in estimated MOEs greater than 100 and, therefore, are not of concern. Residential short term dermal MOEs range from 1,930 ( Liquids for Pouring Applications) to 16,000 ( Liquids for LCO Handgun), and short term inhalation MOEs range from 550,000 ( Liquids for Garden Hose End Sprayer) to 6,600,000 ( Liquids for Pouring Applications).

Postapplication exposures to children and adults that contact erioglaucine/ tartrazinetreated swimming ponds are anticipated. To address the risk of such exposures, a screening tool called the Swimmer Exposure Assessment Model ( SWIMODEL) was applied. The SWIMODEL uses well accepted screening exposure assessment equations to calculate the total worst case exposure for swimmers expressed as a mass based intake value ( mg/ event). Postapplication residential exposure durations are expected to be short and intermediate term ( 1 to 6 months) in duration. All residential postapplication scenarios assessed ( dermal, ingestion, aural, buccal/ sublingual, and nasal/ orbital routes of exposure) resulted in estimated combined MOEs well above 100 (> 4900) and, therefore, are not of concern.

To better quantify residential erioglaucine/ tartrazine hazard, results from residential handler and residential postapplication ( i. e., swimmer) risk assessments were aggregated. Aggregate calculations of residential exposure were performed using worst case MOEs resulting from each assessment. The residential aggregated exposure resulted in an estimated MOE of 1400 and, therefore, is not a risk of concern.

Aggregate Risk In accordance with the FQPA, EPA must consider and aggregate pesticide exposures and risks from three major sources: drinking water, food and residential exposures. Since the dyes are applied to contained water bodies with little or no outflow, and none of the treated water bodies serves as a source of drinking water, no drinking water exposure is expected. Also, no quantitative dietary assessment was deemed necessary for reasons listed above. The most significant route of exposure to erioglaucine and tartrazine is 10 residential exposure, including residential handler and postapplication ( swimming) exposure. Estimated exposures ( combined) for residential handlers and swimmers were well below the Agency's level of concern. Therefore, the Agency finds no risk concerns due to aggregate exposures to erioglaucine and tartrazine.

Cancer Risk A cancer risk assessment was not conducted because there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the toxicology studies submitted for the dyes.

Cumulative Risk Characterization/ Assessment Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to erioglaucine and tartrazine and any other substances, and the dyes do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that the dyes do not share a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

Occupational Risk The Agency determined that the potential for occupational exposure from erioglaucine/ tartrazine exists in a variety of occupational environments. The anticipated use patterns and current labeling indicate several occupational exposure scenarios based on the types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used for application of the dyes. These include the handling of erioglaucine/ tartrazine during mixing, loading, and applying processes ( i. e. mixer/ loaders, and mixer/ loader/ applicators). As a result, a risk assessment has been completed for the occupational handler scenario. Short term ( 1 to 30 days) and intermediate term exposures ( 1 to 6 months) may occur; however, longterm exposures ( greater than 6 months) are not expected.

The calculated occupational handler exposures for all scenarios resulted in estimated MOEs greater than 100 and, therefore, are not of concern. Short and intermediate term MOEs do not differ because they share the same toxicological endpoint. Short and intermediate term dermal MOEs range from 410 ( Liquids for Pouring Applications) to 4,300 ( Liquids for Garden Hose End Sprayer). Short and intermediate term inhalation MOEs range from 120,000 ( Liquids for Garden Hose End Sprayer) to 1,600,000 ( Liquids for Pouring Applications). A summary of the short and intermediate term risks ( dermal and inhalation) for each exposure scenario can be found in the occupational and residential exposure chapter referenced above. 11 Environmental Risk Assessment Reference: " Ecological Risk Assessment for the Re registration of Tartrazine (" Acid Yellow 23") and Erioglaucine (" Acid Blue 9") Dyes in the End use Products Aquashade, Admiral, and Algae Blocker;" James Goodyear and Silvia Termes; 09/ 10/ 05.

The Agency has conducted an environmental assessment of erioglaucine/ tartrazine for the purpose of making a reregistration eligibility decision. The Agency evaluated environmental fate and effects studies submitted for erioglaucine and tartrazine. Published literature on effects were obtained by EPA's Office of Research and Development through their literature search conducted as part of the ECOTOX program. The Agency has determined that the data are adequate to support a reregistration decision.

More in depth details of the ecotoxicity and environmental fate used to develop the risk assessment and to support the requirements are provided in the environmental risk assessment referenced above.

Environmental Fate and Transport Properties No environmental fate data were required for either dye based on the use pattern and toxicity studies. The environmental fate information in this assessment is qualitative, based mostly on data from the open literature on structurally related dyes. However, structure activity relationship estimates do not adequately estimate physical and chemical properties of salts, particularly those of large anions such as in Acid Blue 9 and Acid Yellow 23.

Unlike the uses on food, drugs, and cosmetics, the dyes are exposed to an open aquatic environment when used as herbicides. Because the concentrated products are added directly to a water body, the dyes ( which do not react chemically with each other) become diluted in the treated water. Neither runoff nor spray drift are routes of exposure because a specified amount of product is directly applied to the water body. End product labeling recommends target concentrations of a product at either " 1 ppm or 2 ppm", depending on the weed to be controlled. To attain these target concentrations, the labels specify the volume of product to be added per volume of water to be treated. For this assessment, these maximum target concentrations were assumed to be maintained after treatment and no degradation was assumed The major route of dissipation of the dyes in an aquatic environment is likely indirect photolysis, which depends on the nature and concentration of natural photosensitizers as well as on the geographical location and season when the products are used. Biotransformation under anaerobic conditions may also contribute to the dissipation of each dye. The specific chemical nature of photoproducts and metabolites is not known. 12 The dyes are predominantly associated with the water column and have no potential to volatilize from water. Although the dyes are not applied to soils, data indicate they would be unlikely to volatilize from soils. Acid Blue 9 and Acid Yellow 23 do not have the potential to bioaccumulate in fish.

Ecological Risk Assessment To estimate potential ecological risk, EPA usually integrates the results of exposure and ecological ecotoxicity using the risk quotient method. RQs are then compared to levels of concern ( LOCs), which represent the threshold of potentially significant risk in the environment. Generally, the higher the RQ is above the LOC, the higher the risks. The ecotoxicity studies submitted for the dyes included an avian oral, two avian dietary, two fish acute toxicity, and an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity. All studies indicated very low toxicity. All of the ecological toxicity studies were conducted with the Aquashade* end use product containing 23.63% Acid Blue 9 and 2.39% Acid Yellow 23 as the test substance, whereas the mammalian toxicity study was conducted with the Admiral WSP end use product which contains 49.72% Acid Blue 9 and 3.27% Acid Yellow 23.

1. Risk to Aquatic Animals Review of aquatic toxicity studies on bluegill fish, rainbow trout, and daphnia studies showed erioglaucine/ tartrazine to be " slightly toxic" to aquatic animals and aquatic invertebrate. The calculated RQs were less than 0.01, and no risks of concern were observed for any aquatic animal.

2. Risk to Terrestrial Animals The avian oral acute toxicity studies for both the bobwhite quail and the mallard duck found LD50s and NOAELs greater than or equal to 5,620 ppm. The dyes are considered to be practically nontoxic to birds. Two rat studies reviewed for the human health risk assessment showed that the dyes are practically non toxic to mammals. Since the dyes are applied directly applied to water, there are unlikely to be any pesticide residues on terrestrial food items, which forms the basis of EPA's standard terrestrial animal risk assessment. Therefore, acute RQs for birds and mammals exposed to the dyes via consumption of contaminated water were calculated for each of three body weight classes using the daily exposure value expressed as milligrams of erioglaucine/ tartrazine and the toxicity value expressed in terms of milligrams of the dye combination. RQs are below all levels of concern with RQs less than 0.01 and the dyes are not expected to harm terrestrial animals that drink treated water, or harm freshwater animals and invertebrates dwelling in treated, confined water bodies.

3. Risk to aquatic plants The combination of erioglaucine/ tartrazine in water bodies kills non target plants by depriving them of light necessary for photosynthesis. Because submerged aquatic plants are the target species and it is assumed that all submerged plants will be killed, no aquatic 13 plant studies were required. Because the dyes are only applied to contained ponds with little or no outflow, and since the runoff water is generally not used for irrigation, it is not expected to come into contact with non target aquatic organisms outside of the target pond. All submerged plants in a treated pond are considered to be targets; therefore, RQs were not calculated for aquatic plants.

4. Risk to terrestrial plants Terrestrial plants growing in dry land and semi aquatic environments are not exposed because the products containing erioglaucine/ tartrazine are applied to confined water bodies with little or no outflow. Therefore, a terrestrial plant risk characterization was not performed.

5. Endangered Species Based on EPA's screening level assessment, erioglaucine/ tartrazine will have no effect on endangered species of aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, or terrestrial plants. The Agency concludes that the only potential risks are direct effects to aquatic plants that may be present in treated ponds and lakes, and indirect effects to aquatic or terrestrial animals that depend on the vegetation in the treated water bodies.

The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act ( ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses that may affect any particular species, EPA uses basic toxicity and exposure data developed for the REDs and considers it in relation to individual species and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, geographic relationship between specific pesticide uses and species locations, and biological requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species, as part of a refined species specific analysis. When conducted this speciesspecific analysis will take into consideration any regulatory changes recommended in this RED that are being implemented at that time.

Following this future species specific analysis, a determination that there is a likelihood of potential impact to a listed species or its critical habitat may result in: limitations on the use of herbicide products containing erioglaucine/ tartrazine, other measures to mitigate any potential impact, or consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/ or the National Marine Fisheries Service as necessary. If the Agency determines the use of erioglaucine/ tartrazine " may affect" listed species or their designated critical habitat, EPA will employ the provisions in the Services regulations ( 50 CFR Part 402). EPA is not requiring specific label language at the present time relative to threatened and endangered species. If, in the future, specific measures are necessary for the protection of listed species, the Agency will implement them through the Endangered Species Protection Program. 14 Tolerance Reassessment The Agency has determined that the existing exemption from a tolerance for erioglaucine is adequate and is considered reassessed. However, the Agency will propose to establish an additional tolerance exemption for the FD& C Yellow No. 5 dye tartrazine.

Active ingredient Current Tolerance Tolerance Reassessment Comment Tolerance Exemption Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.1074:

F. D.& C. Blue No. 1 F. D& C. Yellow No. 5 Exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an aquatic plant control agent.

No current exemptions Exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an aquatic plant control agent.

Proposed to add Exemption from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an aquatic plant control agent. In 1982, based on Aquashade's low toxicity profile, EPA waived residue chemistry data requirements and established an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for erioglaucine ( F. D& C. Blue No. 1) when used as an aquatic plant control agent.

What Registrants Need to Do The Agency has determined that the dye combination of erioglaucine/ tartrazine is eligible for reregistration. In the near future, the Agency intends to issue Data Call In Notices ( DCIs) requiring product specific data. Generally, registrants will have 90 days from receipt of a DCI to complete and submit response forms or request time extension and/ or waiver requests with a full written justification. For product specific data, the registrant will have 8 months to submit data and amended labels.

Manufacturing Use Products 1. Additional Generic Data Requirements The generic database supporting the reregistration of the dyes for the eligible uses has been reviewed and determined to be complete. No additional data are required.

2. Labeling for Manufacturing Use Products To ensure compliance with FIFRA, manufacturing use product ( MUP) labeling should be revised to comply with all current EPA regulations, PR Notices, and applicable policies. 15 End Use Products 1. Additional Product Specific Data Requirements Section 4( g)( 2)( B) of FIFRA calls for the Agency to obtain any needed product specific data regarding the pesticide after a determination of eligibility has been made. The registrant must review previous data submissions to ensure that they meet current EPA acceptance criteria and if not, commit to conduct new studies. If a registrant believes that previously submitted data meet current testing standards, then the study MRID numbers should be cited according to the instructions in the Requirement Status and Registrants Response Form provided for each product. The Agency intends to issue a separate product specific data call in ( PDCI), outlining specific data requirements.

2. Labeling for End Use Products Currently, there are no required labeling changes for erioglaucine/ tartrazine. 16 Appendices Appendix A. Food/ Feed Use Patterns Subject to Reregistration for Aquashade ( Case)

Site Application Timing Application Type Application Equipment Maximum Single Application Rate ( lb a. i./ A) Maximum Number of Applications Per Year Maximum Yearly Rate ( lb a. i./ A) Min. App Interval ( days) Use Directions and Limitations Commercial Fishery Water Systems Do not apply directly to water except as specified on the product label.

Do not contaminate water intended for irrigation or domestic purposes.

Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.

Preemergence Water treatment Package applicator 0.68365 lb A ft NS NS AN When needed Water treatment Measuring container/ Not on label/ Product container/ Squeeze applicator ( L) 0.004165 lb 1K gal 0.6897 lb A ft NS NS AN Lakes/ Ponds/ Reservoirs ( with Human or Wildlife Use) Do not apply directly to water except as specified on the product label.

Do not contaminate water intended for irrigation or domestic purposes.

Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.

Preemergence Water treatment Package applicator 0.68365 lb A ft NS NS AN When needed Water treatment Measuring container/ Not on label/ Product container/ Squeeze applicator ( L) 0.004165 lb K gal 0.6897 lb A ft NS NS AN Appendix B. Table of Generic Data Requirements and Studies Used to Make the Reregistration Decision GUIDE TO APPENDIX B Appendix B contains a listing of data requirements which support the reregistration for active ingredients within the case dicamba covered by this RED. In contains generic data requirements that apply dicamba in all products, including data requirements for which a " typical formulation" is the test substance.

The data table is organized in the following formats:

1. Data requirement ( Column 1). The data requirements are listed in the order in which they appear in 40 CFR 158. The reference numbers accompanying each test refer to the test protocols set in the Pesticide Assessment Guidance, which is available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. ( 703) 487 4650.

2. Use Pattern ( Column 2). This column indicates the use patterns for which the data requirements apply. The following letter designations are used for the given use patterns.

A. Terrestrial food B. Terrestrial feed C. Terrestrial non food D. Aquatic food E. Aquatic non food outdoor F. Aquatic non food industrial G. Aquatic non food residential H. Greenhouse food I. Greenhouse non food J. Forestry K. Residential L. Indoor food M. Indoor non food N. Indoor medical O. Indoor residential 3. Bibliographic Citation ( Column 3). If the Agency has acceptable data in its files, this column lists the identifying number of each study. This normally is the Master Record Identification ( MRID) number, but may be a " GS" number is no MRID number has been assigned. Refer to the Bibliography appendix for a complete citation of the study. 19 Appendix B. Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the Reregistration of Dicamba New Guideline Number Old Guideline Number Description Use Patterns Citations PRODUCT CHEMISTRY 63 0 Reports of multiple physical/ chemical characteristics D, E, G 43503401, 43503402 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS 850.2100 71 1A Avian Acute Oral Toxicity D, E, G 4336701 71 1B Avian Acute Oral  Duck D, E, G 4336702 850.2200 71 2A Avian Dietary Toxicity   Quail D, E, G 43503403 850.2200 71 2B Avian Dietary Toxicity   Duck D, E, G 43503404 850.2300 71 4A Avian Reproduction  Quail D, E, G 1 850.2300 71 4B Avian Reproduction   Duck D, E, G 1 71.3 Acute Wild Mammal Toxicity Rat D, E, G 45281101 850.1075 72 1A Fish Toxicity Bluegill D, E, G 43297502 850.1075 72 1C Freshwater Fish Toxicity Rainbow Trout D, E, G 43297501 850.1075 72 1D Freshwater Fish Toxicity Rainbow Trout   TEP D, E, G 850.1010 72 2A Freshwater Invertebrate Toxicity D, E, G 43297503 850.5400 122 2 Aquatic Plant Growth D, E, G TOXICOLOGY 870.1100 81 1 Acute Oral Toxicity  Rat D, E, G 45281101 870.1200 81 2 Acute Dermal Toxicity   Rabbit/ Rat D, E, G 45144401 870.2400 81 4 Primary Eye Irritation  Rabbit D, E, G 44902902 870.2500 81 5 Primary Skin Irritation D, E, G 45086102 870.2600 81 6 Dermal Sensitization D, E, G 44902904 870.3100 82 1A Subchronic Oral Toxicity: 90 Day Study Rodent D, E, G Satisfied 2 870.3150 82 1B Subchronic Oral Toxicity: 90 Day Study Non rodent D, E, G Satisfied 2 870.3200 82 2 21 Day Dermal   Rabbit/ Rat D, E, G 43410101 870.3700 83 3A Developmental Toxicity   Rat D, E, G 43408101 870.3700 83 3B Developmental Toxicity   Rabbit D, E, G Satisfied2 870.3800 83 4 2 Generation Reproduction   Rat D, E, G 43410901 870.4100 83 1A Chronic Feeding Toxicity   Rat D, E, G Satisfied2 870.4100 83 1B Chronic Feeding Toxicity  Nonrodent D, E, G Satisfied2 870.4200a 83 2A Oncogenicity Rat D, E, G Satisfied2 870.4200 83 2B Carcinogenicity Mice D, E, G Satisfied2 870.4300 83 5 Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Carcinogenicity: Rats D, E, G Satisfied2 870.5100 84 2 Bacterial Reverse Gene Mutation D, E, G Satisfied2 870.7485 85 1 General Metabolism D, E, G Satisfied2 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE 835.2120 161 1 Hydrolysis D, E, G Waived3 835.2240 161 2 Photodegradation  Water D, E, G Waived3 835.4400 162 3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism D, E, G Waived3 835.4300 162 4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism D, E, G Waived3 835.1240 163 1 Leaching/ Adsorption/ Desorption D, E, G Waived3 835.1410 163 2 Laboratory Volatilization D, E, G Waived3 20 New Guideline Number Old Guideline Number Description Use Patterns Citations None 165 4 Bioaccumulation in Fish D, E, G Waived3 1. Aquashade* is acutely non toxic to birds. Long term exposures are unlikely and chronic risks are not expected; therefore, no avian reproduction data are required.

2. Information from open literature are included to supplement the submitted studies. No additional data are required.

3. All Environmental Fate Data Requirements were placed under " reserved" in 1993, depending on the results of the required ecological toxicity studies. Because the risk assessment did not identify risks to fish, aquatic invertebrates, or mammals, the environmental fate studies may be waived. 21 Appendix C. Technical Support Documents Additional documentation in support of this RED is maintained in the OPP docket, located in Room 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA. It is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 8: 30 AM to 4: 30 PM.

The nitrapyrin docket initially contained preliminary risk assessments and related documents as of October 27, 2004. Sixty days later, the comment period closed. The Agency considered the comments and added the formal " Response to Comments" documents to the docket. All documents, in hard copy form, may be viewed in the OPP docket room or downloaded or viewed via the Internet at the following website:

http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm.

These documents include:

HED Documents:

Aquashade: Revised HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. ( Wade Britton and Kim Morgan. 9/ 27/ 2005)

Aquashade: Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment ad Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. ( Wade Britton. 9/ 27/ 2005)

EFED Documents:

Ecological Risk Assessment. Reregistration: " Acid Blue 9" ( Erioglaucine) and " Acid Yellow we" ( Tartrazine) Dyes Used Together in the End Use Products Aquashade, Aquashade OA, Admiral Liquid, Admiral WSP and Pond Care Algae Blocker for Control of Algal Growth and Other Undesirable Aquatic Plants 22 Appendix D. Citations Considered to be Part of the Database Supporting the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( Bibliography)

GUIDE TO APPENDIX D 1. CONTENTS OF BIBLIOGRAPHY. This bibliography contains citations of all studies considered relevant by EPA in arriving at positions and conclusions stated elsewhere in the Reregistration Eligibility Document. Primary sources for studies in this bibliography have been the body of data submitted to EPA and its predecessor agencies in support of past regulatory decisions. Selection from other sources, including published literature, in those instances where they have been considered, are included.

2. UNITS OF ENTRY. The unit of entry in this bibliography is called a " study." In the case of published materials, this corresponds closely to an article. In the case of unpublished materials submitted to the Agency, the Agency has sought to identify documents at a level parallel to the published article from within the typically larger volumes in which they were submitted. The resulting " studies" generally have a distinct title ( or at least a single subject), can stand alone for purposes of review, and can be described with a conventional bibliographic citation. The Agency has also attempted to unite basic documents and commentaries upon them, treating them a s single studies.

3. IDENIFICATION OF ENTRIES. The entries in this bibliography are sorted numerically by Master Record Identifier, or " MRID" number. This number is unique to the citation, and should be used whenever a specific reference is required. It is not related to the six digit " Accession Number", which has been used to identify volumes of submitted studies ( see paragraph 4( d)( 4) below for further explanation). In a few cases, entries added to the bibliography late in the review may be preceded by a nine character temporary identifier. These entries are listed after all MRID entries. This temporary identifying number is also used whenever specific reference is needed.

4. FORM OF ENTRY. In addition to the Master Record Identifier ( MRID), each entry consists of a citation containing standard elements followed, in the case of EPA, by a description of the earliest known submission. Bibliographic conventions used reflect the standard of the American National Standards Institute ( ANSI), expanded to provide for certain special needs.

a. Author. Whenever the author could confidently be identified, the Agency has chosen to show a personal author. When no individual was identified, the Agency has shown an identifiable laboratory or testing facility as the author. When no author or laboratory could be identified, the Agency has shown the first submitter as the author. 23 b. Document date. The date of the study is taken directly from the document. When the date is followed by a question mark, the bibliographer has deduced the date from the evidence contained in the document. When the date appears as ( 1999), the Agency was unable to determine or estimate the date of the document.

c. Title. In some cases, it has been necessary for the Agency bibliographers to create or enhance a document title. Any such editorial insertions are contained between square brackets.

d. Trailing parentheses. For studies submitted to the Agency in the past, the trailing parentheses include ( in addition to any self explanatory text) the following elements describing the earliest known submission:

( 1) Submission date. The date of the earliest known submission appears immediately following the word " received."

( 2) Administrative number. The next element immediately following the word " under" is the registration number, experimental use permit number, petition number, or other administrative number associated with the earliest known submission.

( 3) Submitter. The third element is the submitter. When authorship is defaulted to the submitter, this element is omitted.

( 4) Volume Identification ( Accession Numbers). The final element in the trailing parentheses identifies the EPA accession number of the volume in which the original submission of the study appears. The six digit accession number follows the symbol " CDL," which stands for " Company Data Library." This accession number is in turn followed by an alphabetic suffix, which shows the relative position of the study within the volume. 24 Open Literature Books Lynch, D. G. " Estimating the Properties of Synthetic Organic Dyes", in Handbook of Property Estimation Methods for Chemicals Environmental Health Sciences, Edited by Robert S. Boethling and Donald Mackay. Published by Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL; Pages 447 467. And pertinent references therein.

Marmion, D, M. Handbook of U. S. Colorants Food, Drugs, and Medical Devices, Third Edition., 1991. Published by John Wiley and Sons, New York Helz, G. R., Zepp, R. G., and Crosby, D. G, Editors. 1994. Aquatic and surface photochemistry. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

Journal Articles Jank. M., Köser, H., Lücking, F., Martienssen, M., and Wittchen, S. 1998, " Decolorization and Degradation of Erioglaucine ( Acid Blue 9) Dye in Wastewater," Environmental Technology, v. 19( 7), pp. 741 747.

Weber, E. J. and Adams, R. L. 1995. " Chemical and Sediment Mediated Reduction of the Azo Dye Disperse Blue 79," Environ. Sci. Technol. v. 29, pp. 1163 1170.

Baughman, G. L. 1995. " Fate of azo dyes in aquatic systems. Part 3: The role of suspended sediments in adsorption and reaction of acid and direct dyes," Dyes and Pigments, v. 27, pp. 197 210.

Brown, D. and Laboureur, P. 1983, " The Degradation of Dyestuffs: Part I Primary biodegradation under anaerobic conditions," Chemosphere, v. 122, pp. 397 404.

Baran, W., Makowski, A., Wardas, W. 2003. " The influence of FeCl3 on the photocatalytic degradation of dissolved azo dyes in aqueous TiO2 suspensions," Chemosphere, v. 53, pp 82 95.

Tai, W. T., Chang, C. Y, Ing, C. H., and Chang, C. F. 2004. " Adsorption of acid dyes from aqueous solutions on activated bleaching earth," J. Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 275, pp 72 78.

Mon, J., Flury, M., and Harsh, J. B. 2005 ." Sorption of four triarylmethane dyes in a sandy soil determined by batch and column experiments," Geoderma. in press.

Mon, J., Flury. M., and Harsh. 2005 " A quantitative structure activity relationship ( OSAR) analysis of triarylmethane dye tracers," Journal of Hydrology, in press. 25 Bibliography PC Code: 110301 43297501 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A 96 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 196A/ 107A. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 39 p.

43297502 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A 96 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 196A/ 108. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 38 p.

43297503 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A 48 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran ( Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 196A/ 109. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 38 p.

43336701 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 196/ 103A. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 24 p.

43336702 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 196/ 104. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 23 p.

43410101 Wolven, A. ( 1962) Acid Blue 9 The Safety Evaluation of FD& C Blue # 1 on the Skin of Rabbits: Lab Project Number: 20729. Unpublished study prepared by Leberco Laboratories. 106 p.

43503401 Ellison, F. ( 1994) Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Aqua Shade Blue 9: Color, Physical State, Odor, Boiling Point, Specific Gravity, Solubility, Vapor Pressure, pH and Stability: Lab Project Numbers: 140 11: 2398: DTI 2398. Unpublished study prepared by Case Consulting Labs, Inc. 19 p.

43503403 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A Dietary LC50 Study With the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 196 101. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Int'l, Ltd. 36 p.

43503404 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A Dietary LC50 Study With the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 196 102. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Int'l, Ltd. 35 p.

44902902 Fitzgerald, G. ( 1992) Primary Eye Irritation Study: Lake Colorant II: ( in Rabbits): Lab Project Number: 92G 0511. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Corporation. 22 p.

44902904 Fitzgerald, G. ( 1992) Buehler Sensitization Test: Lake Colorant II: ( in Guinea Pigs): Lab Project Number: 92G 0512. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Corporation. 23 p.

45086102 Tay, C. ( 2000) Acute Dermal Irritation ( in Rabbits): Admiral WSP: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 00 0661 G2. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Corp. 19 p. { OPPTS 870.2500}

45144401 Cerven, D. ( 2000) Acute Dermal Toxicity in Rabbits/ LD50 in Rabbits: Admiral WSP: Lab Project Number: 1100: MB 00 8314.02. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Labs. 14 p. { OPPTS 870.1200}

45281101 Graver, K. ( 2000) Acute Oral Toxicity/ LD 50 in Rats: Admiral WSP: Lab Project 26 Number: MB 00 8731.01: 1000. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 13 p. { OPPTS 870.1100}

Bibliography PC Code: 110302 43297501 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A 96 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 196A/ 107A. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 39 p.

43297502 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A 96 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 196A/ 108. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 38 p.

43297503 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A 48 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran ( Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 196A/ 109. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 38 p.

43336701 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 196/ 103A. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 24 p.

43336702 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 196/ 104. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 23 p.

43408101 Smith, J. ( 1972) Acid Yellow 23 Rat Teratology Study: Lab Project Numbers: 71R 719A; 71R 721A. Unpublished study prepared by Bio dynamics, Inc. 142 p.

43410901 Smith, J. ( 1973) Acid Yellow 23: Three Generation Reproduction Study of FD& C Yellow 5: Lab Project Number: 71R/ 735. Unpublished study prepared by Bio dynamics Inc. 212 p.

43503402 Ellison, F. ( 1994) Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Aqua Shade Yellow 23: Color, Physical State, Odor, Boiling Point, Specific Gravity, Solubility, Vapor Pressure, pH and Stability: Lab Project Number: 140 13: 2398: DTI 2398. Unpublished study prepared by Case Consulting Labs, Inc. 20 p.

43503403 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A Dietary LC50 Study With the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 196 101. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Int'l, Ltd. 36 p.

43503404 Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. ( 1994) Aquashade: A Dietary LC50 Study With the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 196 102. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Int'l, Ltd. 35 p.

44902902 Fitzgerald, G. ( 1992) Primary Eye Irritation Study: Lake Colorant II: ( in Rabbits): Lab Project Number: 92G 0511. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Corporation. 22 p.

44902904 Fitzgerald, G. ( 1992) Buehler Sensitization Test: Lake Colorant II: ( in Guinea Pigs): Lab Project Number: 92G 0512. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Corporation. 23 p.

45086102 Tay, C. ( 2000) Acute Dermal Irritation ( in Rabbits): Admiral WSP: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 00 0661 G2. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Corp. 19 p. { OPPTS 870.2500}

45144401 Cerven, D. ( 2000) Acute Dermal Toxicity in Rabbits/ LD50 in Rabbits: Admiral WSP: Lab Project Number: 1100: MB 00 8314.02. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Labs. 14 p. { OPPTS 870.1200} 27 45281101 Graver, K. ( 2000) Acute Oral Toxicity/ LD 50 in Rats: Admiral WSP: Lab Project Number: MB 00 8731.01: 1000. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 13 p. { OPPTS 870.1100} 28 Appendix E. Generic Data Call In The Generic Data Call In will be posted at a later date. 29 Appendix F. Product Specific Data Call In Please insert Product Specific Data Call In here. Appendix G EPA'S BATCHING OF AQUASHADE PRODUCTS FOR MEETING ACUTE TOXICITY DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR REREGISTRATION In an effort to reduce the time, resources and number of animals needed to fulfill the acute toxicity data requirements for reregistration of products containing AQUASHADE as the active ingredient, the Agency has batched products which can be considered similar for purposes of acute toxicity. Factors considered in the sorting process include each product's active and inert ingredients ( identity, percent composition and biological activity), type of formulation ( e. g., emulsifiable concentrate, aerosol, wettable powder, granular, etc.), and labeling ( e. g., signal word, use classification, precautionary labeling, etc.). Note that the Agency is not describing batched products as " substantially similar" since some products within a batch may not be considered chemically similar or have identical use patterns.

Using available information, batching has been accomplished by the process described in the preceding paragraph. Notwith standing the batching process, the Agency reserves the right to require, at any time, acute toxicity data for an individual product should the need arise.

Registrants of products within a batch may choose to cooperatively generate, submit or cite a single battery of six acute toxicological studies to represent all the products within that batch. It is the registrants' option to participate in the process with all other registrants, only some of the other registrants, or only their own products within a batch, or to generate all the required acute toxicological studies for each of their own products. If a registrant chooses to generate the data for a batch, he/ she must use one of the products within the batch as the test material. If a registrant chooses to rely upon previously submitted acute toxicity data, he/ she may do so provided that the data base is complete and valid by today's standards ( see acceptance criteria attached), the formulation tested is considered by EPA to be similar for acute toxicity, and the formulation has not been significantly altered since submission and acceptance of the acute toxicity data. Regardless of whether new data is generated or existing data is referenced, registrants must clearly identify the test material by EPA Registration Number. If more than one confidential statement of formula ( CSF) exists for a product, the registrant must indicate the formulation actually tested by identifying the corresponding CSF.

In deciding how to meet the product specific data requirements, registrants must follow the directions given in the Data Call In Notice and its attachments appended to the RED. The DCI Notice contains two response forms which are to be completed and submitted to the Agency within 90 days of receipt. The first form, " Data Call In Response," asks whether the registrant will meet the data requirements for each product. The second form, " Requirements Status and Registrant's Response," lists the product specific data required for each product, including the standard six acute toxicity tests. A registrant who wishes to participate in a batch must decide whether he/ she will provide 31 the data or depend on someone else to do so. If a registrant supplies the data to support a batch of products, he/ she must select one of the following options: Developing Data ( Option 1), Submitting an Existing Study ( Option 4), Upgrading an Existing Study ( Option 5) or Citing an Existing Study ( Option 6). If a registrant depends on another's data, he/ she must choose among: Cost Sharing ( Option 2), Offers to Cost Share ( Option 3) or Citing an Existing Study ( Option 6). If a registrant does not want to participate in a batch, the choices are Options 1, 4, 5 or 6. However, a registrant should know that choosing not to participate in a batch does not preclude other registrants in the batch from citing his/ her studies and offering to cost share ( Option 3) those studies.

Four products were found which contain Aquashade as the active ingredient. These products have been placed in a no batch group in accordance with the active and inert ingredients and type of formulation.

Batching Instructions:

No Batch: Each product in this Batch should generate their own data.

NOTE: The technical acute toxicity values included in this document are for informational purposes only. The data supporting these values may or may not meet the current acceptance criteria.

No Batch EPA Reg. No. Percent Active Ingredient 33068 1 Acid Blue # 9: 23.63 Acid Yellow # 23: 2.39 33068 2 Acid Blue # 9: 2.36 Acid Yellow # 23: 0.24 67064 1 Acid Blue # 9: 49.72 Acid Yellow # 23: 3.27 67064 2 Acid Blue # 9: 15.31 Acid Yellow # 23: 1.00 32 Appendix H. List of Registrants sent this DCI.

Aquashade W175 N11163 Stonewood Dr. Ste 234 Germantown, Wi 53022 33 Appendix I. List of Available Related Documents and Electronically Available Forms Pesticide Registration Forms are available at the following EPA internet site:

http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/

Pesticide Registration Forms ( These forms are in PDF format and require the Acrobat reader)

Instructions 1. Print out and complete the forms. ( Note: Form numbers that are bolded can be filled out on your computer then printed.)

2. The completed form( s) should be submitted in hardcopy in accord with the existing policy.

3. Mail the forms, along with any additional documents necessary to comply with EPA regulations covering your request, to the address below for the Document Processing Desk.

DO NOT fax or e mail any form containing ' Confidential Business Information' or ' Sensitive Information.'

If you have any problems accessing these forms, please contact Nicole Williams at ( 703) 308 5551 or by e mail at williams. nicole@ epa. gov.

The following Agency Pesticide Registration Forms are currently available via the internet: at the following locations:

8570 1 Application for Pesticide Registration/ Amendment http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 1. pdf 8570 4 Confidential Statement of Formula http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 4. pdf 8570 5 Notice of Supplemental Registration of Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 5. pdf 8570 17 Application for an Experimental Use Permit http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 17. pdf 8570 25 Application for/ Notification of State Registration of a Pesticide To Meet a Special Local Need http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 25. pdf 8570 27 Formulator's Exemption Statement http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 27. pdf 34 8570 28 Certification of Compliance with Data Gap Procedures http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 28. pdf 8570 30 Pesticide Registration Maintenance Fee Filing http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 30. pdf 8570 32 Certification of Attempt to Enter into an Agreement with other Registrants for Development of Data http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 32. pdf 8570 34 Certification with Respect to Citations of Data ( PR Notice 98 5) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 5. pdf 8570 35 Data Matrix ( PR Notice 98 5) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 5. pdf 8570 36 Summary of the Physical/ Chemical Properties ( PR Notice 98 1) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 1. pdf 8570 37 Self Certification Statement for the Physical/ Chemical Properties ( PR Notice 98 1) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 1. pdf Pesticide Registration Kit www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ registrationkit/

Dear Registrant:

For your convenience, we have assembled an online registration kit which contains the following pertinent forms and information needed to register a pesticide product with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP):

1. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) as Amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996.

2. Pesticide Registration ( PR) Notices a. 83 3 Label Improvement Program   Storage and Disposal Statements b. 84 1 Clarification of Label Improvement Program c. 86 5 Standard Format for Data Submitted under FIFRA d. 87 1 Label Improvement Program for Pesticides Applied Through Irrigation Systems ( Chemigation) e. 87 6 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products Policy Statement f. 90 1 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products; Revised Policy Statement g. 95 2 Notifications, Non notifications, and Minor Formulation Amendments h. 98 1 Self Certification of Product Chemistry Data with Attachments ( This document is in PDF format and requires Acrobat reader.) 35 Other PR Notices can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ NoticesPesticide Product Registration Application Forms ( These forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. EPA Form No. 8570 1, Application for Pesticide Registration/ Amendment b. EPA Form No. 8570 4, Confidential Statement of Formula c. EPA Form No. 8570 27, Formulator's Exemption Statement d. EPA Form No. 8570 34, Certification with Respect to Citations of Data e. EPA Form No. 8570 35, Data Matrix 4. General Pesticide Information ( Some of these forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. Registration Division Personnel Contact List b. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( BPPD) Contacts c. Antimicrobials Division Organizational Structure/ Contact List d. 53 F. R. 15952, Pesticide Registration Procedures; Pesticide Data Requirements ( PDF format) e. 40 CFR Part 156, Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices ( PDF format) f. 40 CFR Part 158, Data Requirements for Registration ( PDF format) g.. 50 F. R. 48833, Disclosure of Reviews of Pesticide Data ( November 27, 1985)

Before submitting your application for registration, you may wish to consult some additional sources of information. These include:

1. The Office of Pesticide Programs' website.

2. The booklet " General Information on Applying for Registration of Pesticides in the United States", PB92 221811, available through the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) at the following address:

National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 The telephone number for NTIS is ( 703) 605 6000.

3. The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System ( NPIRS) of Purdue University's Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems. This service does charge a fee for subscriptions and custom searches. You can contact NPIRS by telephone at ( 765) 494 6614 or through their website.

4. The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network ( NPTN) can provide information on active ingredients, uses, toxicology, and chemistry of pesticides. You can contact NPTN by telephone at ( 800) 858 7378 or through their website: ace. orst. edu/ info/ nptn. 36 The Agency will return a notice of receipt of an application for registration or amended registration, experimental use permit, or amendment to a petition if the applicant or petitioner encloses with his submission a stamped, self addressed postcard. The postcard must contain the following entries to be completed by OPP:

1. Date of receipt; 2. EPA identifying number; and 3. Product Manager assignment.

Other identifying information may be included by the applicant to link the acknowledgment of receipt to the specific application submitted. EPA will stamp the date of receipt and provide the EPA identifying file symbol or petition number for the new submission. The identifying number should be used whenever you contact the Agency concerning an application for registration, experimental use permit, or tolerance petition.

To assist us in ensuring that all data you have submitted for the chemical are properly coded and assigned to your company, please include a list of all synonyms, common and trade names, company experimental codes, and other names which identify the chemical ( including " blind" codes used when a sample was submitted for testing by commercial or academic facilities). Please provide a chemical abstract system ( CAS) number if one has been assigned.

Documents Associated with this RED The following documents are part of the Administrative Record for this RED document and may be included in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket. Copies of these documents are not available electronically, but may be obtained by contacting the person listed on the respective Chemical Status Sheet.

1. Health Effects Division and Environmental Fate and Effects Division Science Chapters, which include the complete risk assessments and supporting documents. 2. Detailed Label Usage Information System ( LUIS) Report.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24775-24776]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2310-230]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available
for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands.
    b. Project No: 2310-230.
    c. Date Filed: April 4, 2019 and supplemented May 7, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: South Canal in Placer County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Brian Madigan, Senior Hydro License
Coordinator, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Mail Code N11D, P.O. Box
770000, San Francisco, California 94177; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Joy Kurtz at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2310-230.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to grant Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) permission to use
project lands within the project boundary to construct and operate a
raw water intake on South Canal in order to meet PCWA's water supply
demands for western Placer County. The water withdrawn from the project
would be done in accordance with an existing water supply agreement
between the licensee and PCWA, which obligates the licensee to provide
a certain volume of water to PCWA for purchase. The raw water intake on
South Canal would withdraw a maximum of 62 million gallons of water per
day and serve as a redundant withdrawal location to other withdrawal
points within the project that are operated by PCWA. Because of this
redundancy, water withdrawn via the intake would not increase the
amount of water currently withdrawn from the project area. Construction
activities within the project boundary would include installation of
the intake structure, which would be recessed into the canal, and
outfitted with an inclined trash rack and three five- foot slide gates.
The velocity through the trash rack on the intake structure would not
exceed 0.8 feet per second. The intake structure would connect to three
existing 60-inch steel pipes. Additionally, storm drain facilities
located near one of PCWA's transfer basins, located on the bank side of
South Canal, would be restored following construction of the intake.
This work would entail repairs to the concrete walls and restoration of
an existing drainage inlet and manhole.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS''; ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to the non-project use application. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11177 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14389-14392]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0115]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Approaches to Ocean City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary security
zone encompassing certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. The
security zone is necessary to prevent waterside threats

before, during and after National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
equipment testing conducted offshore near Ocean City, MD, from April
25, 2021, through May 8, 2021. Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region or his designated representative.
We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0115 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Samuel M. Danus, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On February 17, 2021, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA) notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting U.S.
Government training and systems testing from 9 a.m. on April 25, 2021,
through 10 p.m. on May 8, 2021. The training and testing will take
place in two locations offshore of Ocean City, MD. The COTP Maryland-
National Capital Region has determined that a security zone is needed
for waterborne protection of the public, mitigation of potential
terrorist acts, and the enhancing of public and maritime safety and
security in order to safeguard life, property, and the environment on
or near the navigable waters near Ocean City, MD.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the security of vessels
and government equipment involved in this event by prohibiting vessels
from entering the security zone. If a person or vessel has been granted
permission to enter the zone, they must not enter waters within 1,000
yards of the on scene Coast Guard vessel or test equipment being used
by Coast Guard personnel. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking
under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1232).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a security zone from 9 a.m. on
April 25, 2021, through 10 p.m. on May 8, 2021. The security zone will
be enforced from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on April 25, 2021, and those same
hours on April 26, 2021, April 27, 2021, April 28, 2021, April 29,
2021, April 30, 2021, May 1, 2021, May 2, 2021, May 3, 2021, May 4,
2021, May 5, 2021, May 6, 2021, May 7, 2021 and May 8, 2021. The
security zone will cover all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, from
surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following
points beginning at 38[deg]23'56'' N, 074[deg]48'06'' W, thence south
to 38[deg]21'40'' N, 074[deg]48'33'' W, thence south to 38[deg]17'54''
N, 074[deg]49'57'' W, thence southwest to 38[deg]15'04'' N,
074[deg]51'44'' W, thence northwest to 38[deg]18'52'' N,
074[deg]54'24'' W, thence north to 38[deg]22'55'' N, 074[deg]52'44'' W,
and northeast back to the beginning point. The zone is approximately
9.3 nautical miles in length and 3.6 nautical miles in width. If a
person or vessel has been granted permission to enter the zone, they
must not enter waters within 1,000 yards of the on scene Coast Guard
vessel or test equipment being used by Coast Guard personnel.
    The duration of the rule and enforcement of the zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these
navigable waters while the Coast Guard vessel and test equipment are
being used. All vessels and persons must obtain permission from the
COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or his designated representative
before entering the security zone. Equipment testing operations may
occur anywhere within the security zone during the enforcement periods.
Vessels and persons will not be permitted to enter the security zone
within 1,000 yards of the Coast Guard vessel or test equipment. While
this 1,000 yards area lies within the security zone, its exact location
within the security zone may change. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on location and
duration of the security zone. This security zone will be enforced 182
hours over the course of a two week period. Vessels will be able to
safely transit around the security zone, which impacts a small area of
the North Atlantic Ocean, where vessel traffic is normally low.
Additionally, the Coast Guard will make notifications to the maritime
community via marine information broadcasts. The Coast Guard will
update such notifications as necessary to keep the maritime community
informed of the status of the security zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a security
zone lasting only 182 total enforcement hours that will prohibit entry
within a small portion of the North Atlantic Ocean. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive. If you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts,
you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is
published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0115 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0115  Security Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Approaches to
Ocean City, MD.

    (a) Location. The following is a security zone: All waters of the
North Atlantic Ocean, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at 38[deg]23'56'' N,
074[deg]48'06'' W, thence south to 38[deg]21'40'' N, 074[deg]48'33'' W,
thence south to 38[deg]17'54'' N, 074[deg]49'57'' W, thence southwest
to 38[deg]15'04'' N, 074[deg]51'44'' W, thence northwest to
38[deg]18'52'' N, 074[deg]54'24'' W, thence north to 38[deg]22'55'' N,
074[deg]52'44'' W, and northeast back to the beginning point. All
coordinates are based on datum NAD 83.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    Designated representative means the Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer operating the on scene Coast Guard vessel
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the security zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessel enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (3) A person or vessel operating in the security zone described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section must not enter waters within 1,000
yards of the on scene Coast Guard vessel or test equipment being used
by Coast Guard personnel.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced 9 a.m. to 10
p.m. on April 25, 2021, and those same hours on April 26, 2021, April
27, 2021, April 28, 2021, April 29, 2021, April 30, 2021, May 1, 2021,
May 2, 2021, May 3, 2021, May 4, 2021, May 5, 2021, May 6, 2021, May 7,
2021 and May 8, 2021.

    Dated: March 9, 2021.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-05391 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P