[Federal Register: November 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 66352-66354]
[DOCID:fr14no06-62]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54714]

Order Granting National Securities Exchanges a Limited Exemption
From Rule 612 of Regulation NMS Under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 To Permit Acceptance by Exchanges of Certain Sub-Penny Orders

 November 6, 2006.

I. Introduction

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is granting
national securities exchanges a limited exemption from Rule 612 \1\ of
Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') to permit them to accept certain cross orders priced in sub-
penny increments, subject

to the conditions described below. Rule 612 prohibits a national
securities exchange (among other entities) from displaying, ranking, or
accepting a bid or offer, an order, or indication of interest in any
national market system (``NMS'') stock \2\ that is priced in an
increment smaller than $0.01 per share, unless the price of the bid or
offer, order, or indication of interest is priced less than $1.00 per
share.\3\ If the bid or offer, order, or indication of interest is
priced less than $1.00 per share, the minimum allowable increment is
$0.0001 per share.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.612.
    \2\ An NMS stock is any non-option security for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan. See 17 CFR
242.600(b)(46) and (b)(47).
    \3\ See 17 CFR 242.612(a).
    \4\ See 17 CFR 242.612(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, the Commission approved a number of SRO rule changes
that, subject to the Commission's grant of exemptive relief, envision
the acceptance of certain cross orders arranged by members in sub-penny
prices.\5\ A cross transaction involves a buy order and sell order for
the same security at the same price that are pre-matched by an exchange
member, whether as principal or agent, and submitted to the exchange
for execution.\6\ In absence of an exemption from the Rule 612, an
exchange is prohibited from accepting cross orders priced above $1.00
per share in sub-penny increments,\7\ even if such orders are
immediately executed and printed by the exchange. However, pursuant to
Rule 612(c), the Commission, by order, may exempt from the provisions
of Rule 612, either unconditionally or on specified terms and
conditions, any person, security, quotation, or order (or any class or
classes of persons, securities, quotations, or orders) if the
Commission determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54550
(September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59563 (October 10, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-
05) (approving, among other things, rules permitting cross
transactions in increments as small as $0.000001); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54538 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59184
(October 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-43) (approving, among other things,
benchmark orders that could be priced in increments as small as
$0.0001).
    \6\ For example, a member could pair together a customer market
order to buy and a customer market order to sell at the midpoint
between the exchange's best bid and offer (``BBO''), which would
result in a sub-penny execution (e.g., $17.895) if the BBO were an
odd number of cents wide (e.g., $17.89 x $17.90). In addition, a
member could offer sub-penny price improvement when trading as
principal with a customer order.
    \7\ An exchange may, consistent with Rule 612(b) of Regulation
NMS, establish rules that permit it to accept orders that are priced
less than $1.00 per share in increments as small as $0.0001, whether
or not as part of a cross transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission hereby grants the
national securities exchanges a limited exemption from Rule 612
permitting them to accept certain sub-penny cross orders. This
exemption is limited to the acceptance by national securities exchanges
of cross orders arranged by members that are priced in sub-penny
increments and immediately executed against each other,\8\ and
otherwise accepted and handled in accordance with rules approved or
established pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Therefore, if an exchange accepts two sub-penny orders that
are not immediately executed against each other, the exchange must
immediately cancel both orders or be in violation of Rule 612. If
the exchange ranked or displayed either sub-penny order, it also
would be in violation of Rule 612, as this exemption extends only to
the acceptance of such orders. For purposes of this exemption, a
cross order is immediately executed if the exchange automatically
executes the cross with no delay other than for confirming that the
conditions for the cross imposed by the exchange's rules are
satisfied.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, Rule 612 is designed to limit the ability of a
market participant to gain execution priority over a competing limit
order by an economically insignificant amount. The Commission noted
that, ``[i]f investors' limit orders lose execution priority for a
nominal amount, investors may over time decline to use them, thus
depriving the markets of liquidity.'' \10\ In addition, Rule 612 is
intended to reduce the incidence of quote flickering, which makes it
more difficult for market participants to identify the best price
available in the national market system at a given moment, and to
prevent excessive reduction of depth at the best inside quotation.\11\
In adopting Rule 612, the Commission explicitly declined to prohibit
sub-penny executions, provided such executions do not result from an
impermissible sub-penny orders or quotations.\12\ The Commission
observed that sub-penny trading ``does not raise the same concerns as
sub-penny quoting. Sub-penny executions do not cause quote flickering
and do not decrease depth at the inside quotation. Nor do they require
the same systems capacity as would sub-penny quoting. In addition, sub-
penny executions due to price improvement are generally beneficial to
retail investors.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37551 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
    \11\ See id. at 37752.
    \12\ See id. at 37556. A sub-penny execution could result, for
example, from a midpoint or volume-weighted trading algorithm or
from price improvement that a broker-dealer provides to a customer
order.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that this exemption is consistent with the
protection of investors because allowing the exchanges to accept sub-
penny cross orders for the limited purpose of immediately executing
them is akin to a sub-penny execution and should not implicate any of
the problems with sub-penny quoting identified by the Commission in
adopting Rule 612. Because these sub-penny cross orders are prohibited
from being displayed, they will not cause quote flickering, decrease
depth at the inside quotation, or degrade systems capacity.
Furthermore, because this exemption applies only to pre-arranged cross
orders, these sub-penny orders will not gain any execution advantage
over resting limit orders on the book.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Nothing in this exemption relieves a national securities
exchange of the requirement to establish all rules, including its
rules related to cross transactions, in a manner consistent with
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b), and Rule 19b-4
thereunder, 17 CFR 240.19b-4, before accepting sub-penny orders in
reliance on this exemption. In reviewing proposed rules relating to
cross transactions, the Commission would evaluate, among other
things, whether cross orders could gain execution priority over
resting limit orders in a manner inconsistent with the Exchange Act.
See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54391 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52836 (September 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08) (approving,
among other things, NSX Rule 11.12(b), which permits crosses that
are priced at least $0.01 better than any displayed order on the
book, and Rule 11.12(c), which permits midpoint crosses); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54422 (September 11, 2006), 71 FR 54537
(September 15, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2004-21) (approving, among other
things, CBOE Rule 52.11, which permits crosses to occur at the same
price as displayed orders on the book if the cross transaction: (1)
Is for at least 5000 shares; (2) is for a principal amount of at
least $100,000; and (3) is greater in size than any single public
customer order displayed on the book at the proposed cross price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Commission believes that this exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest to facilitate the
execution of pre-arranged cross orders on the exchanges. When the
Commission adopted Rule 612, exchange rules did not contemplate sub-
penny crosses, which therefore could occur only in the over-the-counter
(``OTC'') market. Since that time, some exchanges have proposed to
offer such execution services.\15\ In the OTC market, a broker-dealer
could execute a sub-penny cross without the two orders involved having
to be accepted by any entity subject to Rule 612. The broker-dealer
could simply arrange the trade at the sub-penny price, as principal or
agent, and report the execution to the

NASD.\16\ To execute the same trade on an exchange, however, the
exchange's systems might require the broker-dealer to enter matching
buy and sell orders that are explicitly priced in a sub-penny increment
that, absent an exemption, would not be permitted by Rule 612. The
Commission does not believe that Rule 612 should preclude an immediate
sub-penny execution on an exchange that results from the submission by
a member of a cross order arranged by that member that otherwise is in
accordance with exchange rules established consistent with Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act. The Commission believes, therefore, that
this exemption is consistent with the public interest because it will
level the playing field between the exchanges and the OTC market as
venues for sub-penny crossing transactions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 5.
    \16\ While a broker-dealer may execute a cross at a sub-penny
price without violating Rule 612, the broker-dealer may not accept a
sub-penny order. For example, the broker-dealer could accept a
market order to buy, internalize it, and give the customer an
execution at $10.001 (assuming such execution is consistent with all
applicable Commission and SRO rules including, for example, rules
relating to best execution and order protection). Rule 612 prohibits
the broker-dealer from accepting a limit order to buy that the
customer has explicitly priced at $10.001.
    \17\ However, as with sub-penny crosses arranged in the OTC
market, nothing in this exemption permits a broker-dealer itself to
accept a limit order that a customer has explicitly priced in an
increment not permitted by Rule 612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission concludes that this limited
exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is
consistent with the protection of investors.

III. Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS,
that a national securities exchange may accept cross orders priced in
sub-penny increments, provided that:
    (1) The orders are immediately executed against each other; and
    (2) The cross transaction is effected in accordance with exchange
rules approved or established pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange
Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19120 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 32629]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC11-6-002]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 14, 2012, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a compliance filing in
accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order (FERC
or Commission) in North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 138
FERC ] 61,193 (2012) (March 15 Order).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 15, 2012.

    Dated: May 25, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13274 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day period time to review the proposed regulations is insufficient.  We are requesting that the review period be extended to 180 days.  We respectfully request an extension for a reasonable response.  Thank You.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 216 (Friday, November 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 62805]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-29-000]

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC; Notice of Schedule for the
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Coyote Springs
Compressor Station Project

    On January 13, 2021, Gas Transmission Northwest LLC (GTN) filed a
prior notice request pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (FERC or Commission) regulations found at Title 18 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 157.205 and 157.208, requesting
authorization to construction the new Coyote Springs Compressor Station
in Morrow County, Oregon. The proposed project is known as the Coyote
Springs Compressor Station Project (Project), and GTN states it would
provide operation reliability and flexibility and allow it to meet its
mainline certificated capacity while still meeting its design pressure
requirements.
    On January 21, 2021, the FERC issued its Notice of Application for
the Project. Subsequent to Commission staff's Environmental Assessment
(EA) Report (issued on March 15, 2021), however, Commission staff
determined that the Project could result in effects on National
Register of Historic Places-eligible properties (historic properties).
On October 8, 2021, GTN filed supplemental information clarifying that
the Project would result in no adverse effect on historic properties,
which does not meet the requirement of no effect on historic properties
under the prior notice regulations (found at Title 18 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 157.206(3)(ii) and Appendix II). Therefore,
the Project has converted to a Natural Gas Act 7(c) application. This
notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare a
supplemental EA for the Project and the planned schedule for the
completion of the environmental review.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of supplemental EA--March 4, 2022
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--June 2, 2022

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    GTN states that as a result of existing design pressure
requirements and operational fluctuations, its existing Coyote Springs
Lateral is operationally constrained. In order to alleviate delivery
pressure concerns, GTN proposes to install, own, and operate the 1,586
horsepower greenfield Coyote Springs Compressor Station, in Morrow
County, Oregon, on the Coyote Springs Lateral near Milepost 304.25. GTN
states the new compressor station would provide operational reliability
and flexibility and allow it to meet the mainline certificated design
capacity and design pressure requirements.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the
supplemental EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in
specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings
made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the
documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register
for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' (i.e., CP21-29), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: November 5, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24656 Filed 11-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 75575]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0038; OMB No. 1660-0030]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Request for the Site Inspection, Landowners
Authorization/Ingress/Egress Agreement.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Request for the Site Inspection, Landowners Authorization/
Ingress/Egress Agreement.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0030.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 010-0-09, Request for the Site
Inspection; FEMA Form 010-0-10, Landowner's Authorization Ingress-
Egress Agreement.
    Abstract: FEMA's Individual and Households Program provides
temporary housing to eligible survivors of federally declared disasters
in the form of financial payments for rent assistance. When eligible
survivors are unable to make use of rental assistance due to a lack of
available housing resources, FEMA may provide direct assistance.
Manufactured housing units are a form of direct assistance that FEMA
may provide. This information is required to determine whether the
infrastructure of a site identified by the survivor supports the
installation of the unit. This collection also obtains permission for
FEMA and its contractors to place the unit on the property. The
property owner certifies that they will not obstruct access to the unit
nor will they have a lien placed against the unit for their own debts,
thus ensuring they will maintain the property so that FEMA can remove
the unit when required.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,700 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $47,600.00. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$3,229,500.00.

    Dated: December 4, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-29654 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42072-42075]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17482]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0563]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, DE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the waters of Indian River Bay adjacent to Millsboro, Delaware. The
safety zone will restrict vessel traffic on Indian River Bay in the
vicinity of a fireworks barge on August 22 and September 26, 2015, from
8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on each day. Should inclement weather
require cancellation of the fireworks display on the above scheduled
dates, the safety zone will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on
August 23 and September 27, 2015. This safety zone is necessary to
protect the surrounding public and vessels from the

hazards associated with a fireworks display.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0563 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard,
Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
COTP Captain of the Port

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (Docket Number USCG-2015-0563), indicate the specific
section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a
reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your
comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax,
mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you
submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast
Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand
deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been
received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0563) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0563) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue Federal
Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    This NPRM represents the first time the Coast Guard is seeking
comments on the proposed safety zone at this location.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of this safety zone is to protect mariners and
spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, such
as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and
falling hot embers or other debris.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, proposes to establish a
safety zone on specified waters that will encompass all waters of
Indian River Bay, within a 200-foot radius of the fireworks barge in
approximate position 38-36.58 N., 075-09.00 W., adjacent to Millsboro,
Delaware. The safety zone will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.
on August 22 and September 26, 2015, unless cancelled earlier by the
Captain of the Port. Should inclement weather require cancellation of
the fireworks display on the above scheduled dates, the safety zone
will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 23 and
September 27, 2015, respectively.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay,
or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Delaware
Bay, or his representative may be contacted via VHF channel 16 or at
215-271-4807.

E. 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 or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order
12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although
this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect
of this rule will not be significant because: the Coast Guard will make
extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via
maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly;
vessels may still be permitted to transit through the safety zone with
the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and
the size and duration of the zone are relatively limited in scope.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to anchor or transit along Indian River Bay, adjacent to
Millsboro, Delaware, on August 22 and September 26, 2015, respectively
from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m., unless cancelled earlier by the
Captain of the Port.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel
traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or his designated
representative and the safety zone is limited in size and duration. The
Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of
Indian River Bay.
    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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    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
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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.

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 165,
applicable to safety zones on the

navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic
from anchoring or transiting a portion of Indian River Bay near
Millsboro, Delaware, in order to protect the safety of life and
property on the waters while a fireworks display is conducted. This
rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

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 proposes
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: 33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0563 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0563  Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, DE.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
of Indian River Bay within a 200-foot radius of a fireworks barge
located approximately at position 38-36.58 N., 075-09.00 W. near
Millsboro, Delaware.
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in
subpart C of this part apply to this safety zone created by this
section.
    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering this zone,
except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his
designated representative.
    (2) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through
the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following
operations:
    (i) Enforcing laws;
    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
    (iii) Emergency response vessels.
    (3) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone
without the permission of the Captain of the Port;
    (4) Each person and vessel in a safety zone shall obey any
direction or order of the Captain of the Port; and
    (5) No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on
board, any vessel in a safety zone without the permission of the
Captain of the Port.
    (c) Definitions. In this section--
    Captain of the Port means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Delaware Bay, or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his
behalf.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Delaware Bay, to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement agencies. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by
Federal, State, and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the
zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced on August
22 and September 26, 2015, from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m., unless
cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. Should inclement weather
require cancellation of the fireworks display on the above scheduled
dates, the safety zone will be enforced between 8:45 p.m. and 10:15
p.m. on August 23 and September 27, 2015, unless cancelled earlier by
the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: June 29, 2015.
B.A. Cooper,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2015-17482 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

	MEMORANDUM							DATE:  08/24/2011

	SUBJECT:	Non-target Organism and Endangered Species Screening Risk
Assessment for the Methyl Anthranilate (Benzoic Acid, 2-Amino, Methyl
Ester) Registration Review Preliminary Work Plan

		Chemical Class: 			Biochemical

		PC Code: 				128725

					CAS Number:		134-20-3

		Tolerance Exemptions: 	40 CFR 180.

FROM:	Russell S. Jones, Ph.D., Senior Biologist

	Biochemical Pesticides Branch

	Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division

TO:	Chris Pfeifer, Regulatory Action Leader

	Biochemical Pesticides Branch

	Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division

	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The bird repellent, Methyl Anthranilate, in a naturally occurring
flavoring substance in grapes.  The repellent action arises from the
stimulation of the trigemimal nerve in the head of a bird resulting in a
pain response (Kirifides et. al., 2004).

Based on the available data and information, the Agency does not foresee
the need for new data or for new risk assessments for this active
ingredient.  Non-target organism hazard and exposure information as well
as Agency risk assessments on Methyl Anthranilate were evaluated against
current safety standards established by the Agency’s scientific
policies and regulations and it was determined that there is no need to
conduct additional risk assessments.  The active ingredient is a
naturally occurring substance, has a non-toxic mode of action, and is of
low toxicity.  There is reasonable certainty of no harm to non-target
organisms when Methyl Anthranilate is applied in accordance with
EPA-approved product labeling.  A screening level assessment was
conducted to evaluate the existing non-target organism data base.

Toxic endpoints have not been identified for non-target mammals and
non-target birds on an acute and dietary basis in laboratory testing
(respective non-definitive endpoints of >5000 mg/kg and >500 mg/kg/day).
 The active ingredient is moderately toxic to slightly toxic to
freshwater fish on a acute basis (9.12 ppm to 42.56 ppm), and
practically non-toxic on a dietary basis (>1000 mg/kg in diet) in
laboratory testing.  It is slightly toxic to aquatic invertebrates (17.0
to 29.1 ppm).  Toxic endpoints have not been established for non-target
insects (honey bees).  Non-target terrestrial plants can tolerate
>40,000 ppm of Methyl Anthranilate before exhibiting any observable
foliar desiccation or necrosis (MRID 42740204).  Based on the highest
respective application rates for terrestrial and aquatic  use sites,
calculated Risk Quotients (RQs) are all <0.05 for all taxa.

Based on the fact that Methyl Anthranilate is relatively non-toxic to
non-target organisms and on its use pattern and use instructions, EPA
has determined that Methyl Anthranilate will have "No Effect" on any
currently listed threatened or endangered species or any designated
critical habitat.

		1.	Description of the Active Ingredient

			Common Name:	Methyl Anthranilate

			Chemical Name:	Benzoic Acid, 2-Amino, Methyl Ester

			Synonyms:		Anthranilic Acid, methyl ester

						Methyl-2-amonobenzoate

						Methyl o-aminobenzoate

						o-Carbomethoxyaniline

						Neroli Oil

						Nevoli Oil

			CAS Number:	134-20-3

			Empirical Formula:	C8H9NO2

						Figure 1.  Structure of Methyl Anthranilate

Methyl Anthranilate is a repellent used to repel pest birds from food
use and non-food use sites.  The active ingredient is employed in
pesticide products used on landfills, tailing ponds,
commercial/industrial water impoundments, temporary pools, decorative
fountains, non-fish bearing waters, electrical substations, farmsteads,
agricultural sites, structures, buildings, airports & other open areas;
ornamental trees & shrubs; turf; lakes, ponds, harbors, boat docks,
aquatic production sites (non-fish bearing waters such as hatcheries and
culture ponds), pome fruits, stone fruits, cereal grains, blueberries,
sunflowers, table grapes, and turf.

Methyl Anthranilate was classified as a Biochemical Pesticide Active
Ingredient by the OPP Biotechnology Work Group August 24, 1992 (EPA,
1992).

		2.	Registered End-Use Products and Maximum Use Rates

There are 7 currently registered End-Use Products (EPs) containing
Methyl Anthranilate as their active ingredient (see Appendix Table 1).

	3.	Ecological Hazards

Adequate non-target toxicology data/information are available to support
registration of Methyl Anthranilate.  All non-target organism toxicology
data requirements for Methyl Anthranilate have been satisfied.  No
additional data are required.

There are no concerns for any non-target organisms when Methyl
Anthranilate is applied in accordance with EPA-approved label use
directions.  Toxic endpoints have not been identified for non-target
mammals and non-target birds on an acute and dietary basis in laboratory
testing.  The active ingredient is moderately toxic to slightly toxic to
freshwater fish on a acute basis, and practically non-toxic on a dietary
basis in laboratory testing.  It is slightly toxic to aquatic
invertebrates.  Toxic endpoints have not been established for non-target
insects (honey bees).  Non-target terrestrial plants can tolerate
>40,000 ppm of Methyl Anthranilate before exhibiting any observable
foliar desiccation or necrosis (MRID 42740204).

A review of the ECOTOX database did not reveal any additional non-target
toxicity data or endpoints that were lower than those previously
evaluated by the Agency.

	4.  Environmental Fate and Ground Water Data

The need for environmental fate and groundwater data was not triggered
because results of the acute toxicity assessment did not trigger any
additional Tier I studies.  Some data, however, are available from
studies submitted in support of a Tolerance Exemption and from external
technical sources.  Residues of Methyl Anthranilate (MA) applied to food
crops are expected to dissipate to background levels before they are
distributed for consumption.

Methyl anthranilate is extremely volatile (vapor pressure of 2.7 x 10-2
mm Hg at 25oC) and will rapidly dissipate into the surrounding
atmosphere from foliar surfaces to which it has been applied, and is
expected to have an atmospheric half-life of 11 hours  (HSDB, 2004).
Based on its vapor pressure and low water solubility, MA is also
expected to volatilize rapidly from water surfaces (HSDB, 2004) in as
little as 16 days.

Data obtained from the technical literature suggest a range of
degradation rates depending upon environmental conditions.  Aronov and
Clark (1996) report that MA is not subject to hydrolysis under
laboratory conditions between pH 5 to pH 9 in aqueous phosphate buffers,
but is susceptible to degradation by UV light (up to 42% after 27 days
of illuminance at 1.25 mW cm-2, equivalent to natural sunlight at noon
at 40o north latitude).  Microbial activity was observed to be a
significant degradation pathway with 22% loss after nine days and 100%
loss after 20 days at optimal conditions of light and temperature (a
12:12 hr light:dark cycle and 23oC).  Laboratory studies (Askham, 1992)
with MA on glass slides demonstrated that MA was extremely photolabile
with 50% loss after two days of exposure to full sunlight and was
undetectable after four days exposure.

Avery et. al. (1995) reported residues on rice as 11.7 ppm immediately
following an application of ReJex-It AG-36 (14.5% a.i.) at 6.2 lb
a.i./A, which rapidly declined over the next 14 days with a half-life of
7 days (interpolated by reviewer based on study author data).  The
application rate used in this study is equivalent to the maximum
approved label application rate for food crops (see Appendix Table 1).

Based on data from empirical studies, MA residues will be low
immediately following application and will rapidly dissipate in
terrestrial environments under the combined influences of UV light and
microbial degradation (Aronov & Clark, 1996; Askham, 1992) .  Low
solubility in water coupled with rapid volatilization and microbial
degradation will result in minimal residues in aquatic habitats.

 	5.  Ecological Exposure and Risk Characterization

Methyl Anthranilate is a naturally-occurring substance in plants such as
corn, sunflowers, grapes (33 ppm) and cherries (35 ppm), as well as
cocoa and black tea (EPA, 1994).  Honey made from citrus floral sources
has been reported to contain from 3.60 to 5.04 mg/kg of MA (Ferreres et.
a., 1994; White & Bryant, 1996, unpublished study).   It is extremely
volatile and degrades rapidly into non-toxic components such as
anthranilic acid.  Numerous studies are available evaluating residues on
crops and aquatic environments following application of Methyl
Anthranilate at maximum label use rates for the respective use sites.

Terrestrial Residues:  Data from magnitude of the residue studies on
apples, corn (sweet), and sunflower, submitted in support of an
Experimental Use Permit in 2000 (66550-EUP-001; EPA, 2000) confirm the
rapid dissipation of MA.  Residues on whole apples treated with a single
foliar application of MA at 2.29 lbs a.i./A declined from 1.79 ppm at
1-hour posttreatment to <0.055 ppm (non-detectable) by 14 days
posttreatment (MRID 45065105).  Residues on sweet corn treated with a
single foliar application of MA at 0.573 lbs a.i./A were 1.65 ppm at
1-hour posttreatment.  Following a second treatment after a five-day
application interval, residues were 0.374 ppm 10-days after the second
application (MRID 45065103).  Residues on sunflowers treated with a
single foliar application of MA at 0.573 lbs a.i./A were 0.011 ppm at
1-hour posttreatment.  Following a second treatment after a five-day
application interval, residues were 0.233 ppm 10-days after the second
application (MRID 45065104).

Avery et. al. (1995) reported residues on rice as 11.7 ppm immediately
following an application of ReJex-It AG-36 (14.5% a.i.) at 6.2 lb
a.i./A, which rapidly declined over the next 14 days with a half-life of
7 days (interpolated by reviewer based on study author data).  The
application rate used in this study is equivalent to the maximum
approved label application rate for food crops (see Appendix Table 1).

The residue value reported by Avery et. al. (1995) was used to calculate
Risk Quotients (RQs) for mammals and birds following terrestrial
applications of methyl Anthranilate at the maximum label used rate.

Aquatic Residues:  Magnitude of the residue studies have been conducted
for both direct application and fogging applications of Methyl
Anthranilate products to aquatic sites.

In a catfish toxicity study (Dorr et. al. 1998), a 40% liquid MA end-use
product (ReJex-iT AG 40; EPA Reg. No. 58035-7; not currently registered)
was applied directly to the surface of an aquaculture pond at an
exaggerated rate of 80 lb a.i./A water surface (10X the maximum label
rate for currently registered products).  The maximum concentration of
MA was 4.44 ppm at a depth of 24 inches following seven applications
over a two week period.  If mathematically adjusted to a 1X rate, the
calculated residues are estimated to be approximately 0.444 ppm.

A magnitude of the residue study (MRIDs 45210201, 45210202, & 45229701)
was conducted to determine the maximum amount of MA residues that would
occur in a pond following fogging applications using two different types
of foggers (thermal and ultra low volume) and a product that is no
longer registered for use (ReJex-iT TP-40; EPA Reg. No. 58035-7; 40%
a.i.).  The samples were not replicated which precluded statistical
analysis and an assessment of sample variability, and there were five
anomalously high MA residue measurements (5.97 ppm to 60.47 ppm) that
were well outside the range of the majority of samples (total = 26),
which were in the range of <0.016 ppm to 1.6 ppm.  In addition, the
unusually high values were well outside the values reported by Dorr et.
al. (1998), following direct spray application to pond.  Therefore,
these data are considered unreliable for purposes of non-target organism
risk assessment.  It was observed, however, that MA content of water
samples generally decreased with distance from the foggers.

Fog application rates are an order of magnitude below that of direct
spray applications (0.21 lb a.i/A vs. 8.0 lb a.i./A).  The Tier I Rice
Model equation (EPA, 2007) was used to estimate environmental
concentrations in water following a fog application at maximum label use
rates (0.21 lbs a.i./A or 0.24 kg a.i./ HA) and assuming a Koc of 250
for MA (HSDB, 2004):

	Cw =	mai/(0.00105 + (0.00013 * Kd))

	Where:  			Cw = water concentration [µg/L]

mai' = mass applied per unit area [kg/ha]

	Kd = water-sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg]  (and Kd  =
0.01Koc)

Koc = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [L/kg]

	Then:				Cw =	0.24/(0.00105 + (0.00013 * 2.5)) =  0.175 ppm

	This value is less that the calculated EEC of 0.444 ppm (estimated
using data from Dorr et.

	al., 	1998).  The conservative EEC of 0.444 ppm will be used to
evaluate risk to non-target aquatic organisms when Methyl Anthranilate
is applied at the maximum label use rates.

	6.  Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment

A qualitative risk assessment can be conducted with acute and dietary
mammal and avian toxicity data; aquatic organism LC50 and EC50 data; and
terrestrial plant and insect (honey bee) data from obtained from
guideline studies, non-guideline studies, and the open technical
literature  (Appendix Table 2), in conjunction with the label use
information for Methyl Anthranilate from the product labels (Appendix
Table 1).  Although none of the labels specified any limitation on the
number of applications, there is sufficient information to conduct a
qualitative endangered species risk assessment due to the minimal
toxicity of Methyl Anthranilate to non-target species and its rapid
biodegradation in the environment.    Toxic endpoints were not found for
mammals, birds, and terrestrial insects in laboratory testing (Appendix
Table 2).  Field testing on cherries, blueberries, grapes, and sweet
corn demonstrated that >40000 ppm of methyl anthranilate was required to
induce slight necrosis and desiccation of foliage (MRID 42740204).  The
product is considered slightly toxic for five of six fish species tested
(LD50 range:  16.23 to 42.56 ppm) and moderately toxic (LD50  =  9.12
ppm) to one fish species (Appendix Table 2).

Mammals:  Mammalian (rat) acute oral toxicity is >5000 mg/kg (Toxicity
Category IV; Appendix Table 2).  The subchronic (90-day) dietary No
Observable Effects Level (NOEL) was >500 ppm (Appendix Table 2).  The
non-definitive endpoints are respectively approximately 430X and 43X
greater than the observed maximum environmental concentrations of 11.7
ppm for MA residues (Avery et. al., 1995) on terrestrial foliage.  Based
on the data and the Guidance for Using Non-Definitive Endpoints in
Evaluating Risks to Listed and Non-listed Animal Species (EPA, 2010),
there are no concerns for non-target mammals.

Birds:  Avian acute oral toxicity >2250 mg/kg (Practically Non-toxic;
Appendix Table 2).  avian dietary toxicity was >5620 ppm (Practically
Non-toxic; Appendix Table 2).  The non-definitive endpoints are
respectively approximately 192X and 480X greater than the observed
maximum environmental concentrations of 11.7 ppm for MA residues (Avery
et. al., 1995) on terrestrial foliage.  Based on the data and the
Guidance for Using Non-Definitive Endpoints in Evaluating Risks to
Listed and Non-listed Animal Species (EPA, 2010), there are no concerns
for non-target birds.

Fish:  Freshwater fish 96-hr LC50s ranged from 9.12 ppm to 42.56 ppm
across five fish species, which are categorized as moderately toxic to
slightly toxic (Appendix Table 2).  Using the most conservative endpoint
for fish in laboratory testing (Bluegill sunfish; 9.12 ppm) and the
measured calculated maximum EEC of MA in water (0.44 ppm), the Risk
Quotient (RQ) was calculated as:

			RQ		=	0.44 ppm	=	0.019

				   			 9.12 ppm

The RQ is well below any Level of Concern (LOC) for non-target fish,
including threatened and endangered species.

Aquatic Invertebrates:  Aquatic Invertebrate EC50s for daphnids ranged
from 17.0 to 29.1  ppm which is categorized as moderately to slightly
toxic (Appendix Table 2).  Using the most conservative endpoint for
aquatic invertebrates (17.0 ppm) in laboratory testing and the maximum
estimated environmental concentration (EEC) of MA in water following a
direct spray application to water  (0.44 ppm), the RQ was calculated as:

			RQ		=	0.44 ppm	=	0.048			   								17.0 ppm

The RQ is  below any LOC for non-target aquatic invertebrates, including
threatened and endangered species.

Plants:  Methyl anthranilate is a naturally-occurring substance found in
many plant species such as corn, sunflowers, grapes (33 ppm) and
cherries (35 ppm).  It is extremely volatile and degrades rapidly into
non-toxic components such as anthranilic acid.  MA has no known toxic
effects when applied exogenously to plants at the proposed rates of
application.  Reports of leaf desiccation in some studies were later
attributed to the presence of certain surfactants in the end-use
products and were not caused by MA (Askham, 1992; MRID 42740204).   In a
field study using leaves of blueberries, cherries, and grapes, it was
demonstrated that non-target terrestrial plants can tolerate >40,000 ppm
of Methyl Anthranilate before exhibiting any observable, but minor
foliar desiccation or necrosis (MRID 42740204).  Minor foliar
desiccation or necrosis was observed at 80000 ppm, but no plant
mortality was reported (Askham, 1992; MRID 42740204).  .

Using the most conservative non-definitive endpoint for plants (40000
ppm) and the maximum observable residues on plants following a foliar
spray application at the maximum label use rate (11.7 ppm; Avery et.
al., 1995), the RQ was calculated as:

			RQ		=	 11.7 ppm	=	0.002			   								40000 ppm

The RQ is well below any LOC for non-target plants, including threatened
and endangered species.

Insects:  Non-target insect contact toxicity LD50 for insects (honey
bee) was >25 ug/bee (see Appendix Table 2), which is categorized as
practically non-toxic.  No toxic effects were observed at the highest
rate used in laboratory testing.   Methyl anthranilate is a
naturally-occurring substance found in many plant species such as corn,
sunflowers, grapes (33 ppm) and cherries (35 ppm) to which pollinators
and other insects are exposed on a regular basis (EPA, 1994).
Endogneous levels of MA reported for grapes and cherries are higher than
residues measured on foliage (11.7 ppm) following a single application
of MA at maximum label use rates (Avery et. al., 1995).  Honey made from
citrus floral sources has been reported to contain from 3.60 to 5.04
mg/kg of MA (Ferreres et. a., 1994; White & Bryant, 1996, unpublished
study)  indicating regualr dietary and contact exposure to
naturally-occurring MA by pollinators.   Based on these data, the Agency
has no concerns to non-target insects.

CONCLUSIONS:  There are no concerns for any non-target organism when
Methyl Anthranilate is applied in accordance with EPA-approved product
labeling.

Based on the fact that Methyl Anthranilate has minimal toxicity to
non-target organisms and on its use pattern and use instructions, EPA
has determined that Methyl Anthranilate will have "No Effect" on any
currently listed threatened or endangered species or any designated
critical habitat.

	REFERENCES

Aronov, E. V. and L. Clark.  1996.  Degradation studies of the
non-lethal bird repellent, methyl anthranilate.  Pesticide Science 47:
355-362.

Askham, L. R. and J. K. Fellman.  1989.  Use of DMA to reduce robin
depredation on cherries.  Proceedings of the Great Plains Wildlands
Damage Control Workshop 9:  116-119.

Askham, L. R.  1992.  Efficacy of methyl anthranilate as a bird
repellent on cherries, blueberries and grapes.  Proceedings of the
Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference.  J. E. Borrecco & R. E. Marsh,
Eds.  Published at University of California, Davis.  1992, pp. 137-141.

Avery, M. L.  1989.  Experimental evaluation of partial repellent
treatment for reducing bird damage to crops.  Journal of Applied Ecology
26:  433-439.

Avery, M. L., D. G. Decker, J. S. Humphrey, S. Aronov, S. D. Lindscombe,
and M. O. Way.  1995.  Methyl anthranilate as a rice seed treatment to
deter birds.  Journal of Wildlife management 59(1):  50-56.

Dorr, B., L. Clark, J. E. Glahn, I. Mezine.  1998.  Evaluation of a
methyl anthranilate-based bird repellent.  Toxicity to channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus and effect on Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
feeding behavior.  Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 29(4):
451-462.

EPA.  1992.  Classification of Methyl Anthranilate (Chem. No. 128725) as
a Conventional Chemical or as a Biochemical Pesticide.  Memorandum from
J. T. McClintock to D. B. Peacock.

EPA.  1994.  SAB review of the product chemistry, toxicology, summary
information, and toxicology and residue chemistry waivers submitted for
the registration of technical methyl anthranilate and an end-use
product, “Bird Shield Repellent.”  Product chemistry (Case# 008125;
Chemical # 128725; Submission # S455617; DP barcode D197915).
Memorandum from S. K. Reilly to R. Forrest, dated 11/17/1994.

EPA.  2000.  Experimental use permit for Bird Shield Repellent (EPA Reg.
No.  6550-EUP-001) containing 26.4% methyl anthranilate as its active
ingredient in or on corn sunflowers, and apples (chemical no. 128725):
Evaluation of residue chemistry and analytical method.  MRIDs 450651-01,
-02, -03, -04, and -05; Case no. 066100; Submission no. S580610; DP
barcode D266613.  Memorandum from F. Toghrol to J. Downing, dated
08/16/2000.

EPA.  2007.  Guidance for Tier I Estimation of Aqueous Pesticide
Concentrations in Rice

Paddies.  Memorandum from S. Bradbury to EFED/OPP, dated 05/08/2007.

EPA.  2010.  Guidance for Using Non-Definitive Endpoints in Evaluating
Risks to Listed and Non-listed Animal Species.  Memorandum from D. J.
Brady (Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division) to
Environmental Fate and Effects Division Scientists, dated 08/03/2010.

Ferreres, F., J. M. Giner, and F. A. Tomas-Barberan.  1994.  A
comparative study of hesperetin and methyl anthranilate as markers of
floral origin of citrus honey.  Journal of the Science of Food and
Agricultural Science 65(3):  371-372.

Harpaz, S. and L. Clark.  2006.  Effects of addition of a bird repellent
to fish diets on their growth and bioaccumulation.  Aquaculture Research
 37:  132-138.

Hazardous Substances Data Base (HSDB).  2004.  National Library of
Medicine/TOXNET (05/25/2004 update).

  HYPERLINK
"http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+10
08"
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+100
8

Kirifides, M. L., M. P. Kurnellas, L. Clark, and B. P. Bryant.  Calcium
responses of chicken trigeminal nerve ganglion neurons to methyl
anthranilate and capsaicin.  Journal of Experimental Biology 207:
715-722.

White, J. W. and V. M. Bryant  1996.  Assessing citrus honey quality:
Pollen and methyl anthranilate content. (Unpublished study).
HYPERLINK
"http://www.honey.com/white/pdf/white199-assessing-citrus-honey-quality.
pdf"
http://www.honey.com/white/pdf/white199-assessing-citrus-honey-quality.p
df

	cc:	C. Pfeifer, R.S. Jones, BPPD Subject File/IHAD

	R. S. Jones, Ph.D., Sr. Scientist, FT, OPY:  08/24/2011

APPENDIX

Appendix Table 1.  Currently registered products and maximum label use
rates for each product label.  Highest use rates are boldfaced.

Product 	EPA Reg. No.	Methyl Anthranilate Percentage	Maximum Use Rate
per Acre per Application 	Application Intervals

Avian ControlTM	33162-1	20.00%	Ground:  8 lb a.i./A surface water 1	1 -
4 days

	Fog:  0.21 lbs a.i./A 2	1 - 4 days

ReJex-It Fog ForceTM	58037-7	40.00%	Ground:  8 lb a.i./A surface water 1
1 - 4 days

	Outdoor Fog:  0.21 lbs a.i./A 2, 3	1 - 4 days

ReJex-It AG-36TM	58035-9	14.50%	Ground:  6.18  lb a.i./A 4	Not specified

	Aerial:   6.18  lb a.i./A 5	Not specified

	Aerial:  6.18  lb a.i./A 6	22 days

	Ground:  0.07 lb a.i./A 7	4 days

ReJex-It Fog Force AR-20TM	58035-15	20.00%	Outdoor Fog:  0.21 lb a.i./A
2, 7	1 - 4 days

Bird Shield Repellent	66550-1	20.00%	Ground/aerial:  0.28 – 5.73 lb
a.i./A 8	Not specified

	Aerial:  0.28 lb a.i./A 9	Not specified

	Ground:   2.29 lb a.i./A 10	Not specified

	Ground:  4.58 lb a.i./A 7	7 – 14 days

	Ground:  0.07 lb a.i./gal	Spot spray

	Ground:  0.12 lbs a.i./gal  1	Added to pool

Liquid Fence Goose Repellent	72041-2	20.72%	Ground:  0.5 gal/40K sq ft 7
Not specified

Avex	83359-4	26.40%	Ground/aerial:  5.73 lb a.i./A 8	Not specified

	Aerial:  0.28 lb a.i./A 9	Not specified

	Ground:  2.29 lb a.i./A 10	Not specified

	Ground:  2.29 – 4.58 lb a.i./A 7	7 – 14 days

	Ground:  0.07 lb a.i./gal	Spot spray

	Ground:  0.12 lbs a.i./gal  1	Added to pool

1	Ground application to landfills, tailing ponds, commercial/industrial
water impoundments, temporary pools, decorative fountains, non-fish
bearing waters.

2	Electrical substations, farmsteads, agricultural sites, structures,
buildings, airports & other open areas; ornamental trees & shrubs; turf;
lakes, ponds, harbors, boat docks, aquatic production sites (non-fish
bearing waters such as hatcheries and culture ponds)

3	Tree fruits & cereal grains

4	Apples, stonefruits, blueberries, & grapes

5	Cereal Grains

6	Sunflowers

7	Turf

8	Pome fruit, stone fruit

9	Sunflower, blueberries

10	Table grapes

Appendix Table 2.  Summary of Non-Target Organism Data

Study Type/OCSPP Guideline

LD50/LC50/EC50 Results

Toxicity Category	MRID

 Acute Oral Toxicity

/OCSPP 870.1100  	>5000 mg/kg (rat)	Tox Category IV	42608702

 90-day  Feeding (rat)

/OCSPP 870.	>500 mg/kg/day	No effects on growth or survival	42151904

 Avian Acute Oral Toxicity

/OCSPP 850.2100  	>2036 ppm

(Bobwhite quail)

Practically non-toxic 	42966902

	>2250 ppm

(Bobwhite quail)

Practically non-toxic 	43610701

 Avian Dietary Toxicity

/OCSPP 850.	>5620 ppm

(Mallard duck)	Practically non-toxic	42608808

	>2200

(White crowned sparrow)	Practically non-toxic	42966903

	>5259 ppm

(Mallard duck)	Practically non-toxic	44741501

Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity, 96 hr

/OCSPP 850.1075  	9.12 ppm 1, 2

(Bluegill sunfish)	Moderately toxic	42718202

	42.56 ppm

NOEC = 33.6 ppm

 (bluegill)	Slightly toxic	43610702

	22.91 ppm 1

(Rainbow trout)	Slightly toxic	42966901

	25.40 ppm 2

(Rainbow trout)	Slightly toxic	43610703

	16.23 ppm 1

(Channel catfish)	Slightly toxic	42699803

	32.25 ppm 1

(Atlantic salmon)	Slightly toxic	42995101

Freshwater Fish Dietary Toxicity, 12-hr

/Non-Guideline	>1000 mg/kg

(striped bass & African cichlid)	No effects on growth or survival

	Harpaz & Clark, 2006

Aquatic Freshwater Invertebrate Toxicity, 48-hr /OCSPP 850.1010

17.0 mg/L 	Slightly toxic	41895207

29.1 mg/L 	Slightly toxic	42718203

Non-target Plants

	>40000 ppm on blueberries, cherries, grapes, and raspberries3
Practically non-toxic	42740204

Non-target Insects (Honey Bee Contact Toxicity, 48-hr)/OCSPP 850.3020
>25 ng/bee

Practically non-toxic	41623704

1	Static conditions

2	Flow-through conditions

3	Based on visual observations of foliar necrosis/desiccation

Appendix Table 3.  Maximum N-6-BA residues following a single
application, or two consecutive applications at the maximum label use
rates. 1

Environmental Matrix	Residues (ppm) following  single application at
0.039lb a.i./A 2	Residues (ppm) following  two applications at 0.041 lb
a.i./A with a 3-day interval 3	Residues (ppm) following  two
applications at 0.165 lb a.i./A with a 7-day interval 3

Short Grass

	Tall Grass

	Broadleaf Plants/Small Insects

	Fruits/Pods/Seedlings/Large insects

	1	Dietary-based Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) calculated
using T-REX model (EPA, 2005).

2	Promalin Plant Growth Regulator (EPA Reg. No. 73049-1)

3	Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60)

Appendix Table 4.  Maximum N-6-BA residues in aquatic environments
following a single application, or two consecutive airblast applications
at the maximum label use rates (airblast/orchard application method). 1

Environmental Matrix	Residues (ppb) following  single application at
0.039lb a.i./A 2	Residues (ppb) following  two applications at 0.041 lb
a.i./A with a 3-day interval 3	Residues (ppb) following  two
applications at 0.165 lb a.i./A with a 7-day interval 3

Peak GEEC

	Maximum 4-Day Avg. GEEC

	Maximum 21-Day Avg. GEEC

	Maximum 60-Day Avg. GEEC

	Maximum 90-Day Avg. GEEC

	1	Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) calculated using GENEEC2
model (EPA, 2001).

2	Promalin Plant Growth Regulator (EPA Reg. No. 73049-1)

3	Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60)

Methyl Anthranilate

PC Code:  128725

Non-Target Organism Hazard Assessment and Endangered Species Screening
Risk Assessment for Registration Review Preliminary Work Plan

 PAGE

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  8

OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION


[Federal Register: June 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 33814-33818]
[DOCID:fr13jn08-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0046; FRL-8367-3]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0046 and the pesticide petition number (PP)
of interest, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0046 the
assigned docket ID number and the pesticide petition number of
interest. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential

Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Docket ID Numbers

    When submitting comments, please use the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest, as shown in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 PP Number                        Docket ID Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7206                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0042
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E7350                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0458
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 0F1234                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0405
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6F7098                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0405
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6F7105                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7190                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0366
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8F7322                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0352
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8F7334                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0386
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8F7342                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0461
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7190                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0366
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7306                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0384
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7307                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0385
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6E7093                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0105
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7206                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0042
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E7329                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0407
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of pesticide petitions
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this notice contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the

pesticide petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on
these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the
petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Tolerance

    1. PP 7E7206. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0042). Bayer Crop Science, 2 T. W.
Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes to establish
a tolerance for residues of the inert safener cyprosulfamide (parent)
in or on food commodities field corn grain at 0.01 parts per million
(ppm); sweet corn kernels at 0.01 ppm; sweet corn (k+cwhr) at 0.01 ppm;
pop corn grain at 0.01 ppm; and parent cyprosulfamide and its
metabolites AE 0001789-sulfonamide-alanine, AE 0001789-sulfonamide-
lactate, and AE 0001789-N-cyclopropyl-4-sulfamoylbenzamide in or on
food commodities field corn forage at 0.15 ppm; sweet corn forage at
0.40 ppm; field corn stover at 0.60 ppm; sweet corn stover at 0.60 ppm;
and popcorn stover at 0.60 ppm. For the following animal tissues parent
cyprosulfamide is proposed based on the tissue to feed ratio from the
feeding study, applied to a new diet calculated from the proposed
tolerances from the residue studies in or on food commodities milk at
0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle,
liver at 0.02 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.05 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm;
goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, liver at 0.02 ppm; goat, kidney at 0.05
ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, liver at 0.02
ppm; hog, kidney at 0.05 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at
0.01 ppm; horse, liver at 0.02 ppm; horse, kidney at 0.05 ppm; sheep,
meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.02 ppm;
sheep, kidney at 0.05 ppm. An adequate liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) analytical method is
available for AE 0001789 to enforce the tolerances. The residues of
cyprosulfamide and its metabolites AE 0001789-
cyclopropylsulfamoylbenzamide (M02, AE 0852999), AE 0001789-
sulfonamide-alanine (M11, AE 2300003), and AE 0001789-sulfonamide-
lactate (M10, AE 2300002) are quantitated by high performance liquid
chromatography/triple stage quadruple mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS)
(Method UB-008-P06-01). The individual analyte residues are reported in
AE 0001789 molar equivalents and summed to give a total cyprosulfamide
residue. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for each analyte
in all matrices. Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 8E7350. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0458). Interregional Research
Project No. 4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540,
proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the fungicide
fenamidone, 4H-imidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-(methylthio)-5-
phenyl-3-(phenylamino)-, (S)-, in or on food commodities: Vegetables,
root, except sugarbeet, subgroup 1B, except radish at 0.2 ppm; turnip,
leaves at 55 ppm; coriander, leaves at 60 ppm; okra at 3.5 ppm; and a
tolerance with regional registration for grape at 1.0 ppm. Residues are
quantified by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with LC/MS/
MS. The method LOQ are 0.02 ppm or lower for fenamidone, and its
metabolites, RPA 412636, RPA 412708, and RPA 410193 in test raw
agricultural commodities and processed fractions. Contact: Susan
Stanton,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. and 4. PP 0F1234 and 6F7098. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0405). BASF
Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes
to establish a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pendimethalin,
N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine, and its 3, 5-
dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (CL 202347)] in or on food commodities
crayfish at 0.05 ppm; cotton gin byproducts at 3.0 ppm; and rice
processing fractions at 0.1 ppm. The analytical method in plants is
aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation
by gas chromatography (GC). The method has a LOQ of 0.05 ppm for
pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite. Contact: James Tompkins,
(703) 305-5697<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 6F7105. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0214). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes to establish a
tolerance for residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid,
[2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,
methyl ester and its metabolite methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-
3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate (BF 500-3); expressed as parent in or on
the food commodities borage at 0.45 ppm; castor oil plant at 0.45 ppm;
Chinese tallowtree at 0.45 ppm; crambe at 0.45 ppm; cuphea at 0.45 ppm;
echium at 0.45 ppm; euphorbia at 0.45 ppm; evening primrose at 0.45
ppm; flax seed at 0.45 ppm; gold of pleasure at 0.45 ppm; hare's ear
mustard at 0.45 ppm; jojoba at 0.45 ppm; lesquerella at 0.45 ppm;
lunaria at 0.45 ppm; meadowfoam at 0.45 ppm; niger seed at 0.45 ppm;
milkweed at 0.45 ppm; mustard seed at 0.45 ppm; oil radish at 0.45 ppm;
poppy seed at 0.45 ppm; rapeseed at 0.45 ppm; rose hip at 0.45 ppm;
safflower at 0.45 ppm; sesame at 0.45 ppm; stokes aster at 0.45 ppm;
sunflower at 0.45 ppm; sweet rocket at 0.45 ppm; tallowwood at 0.45
ppm; tea oil plant at 0.45 ppm; and vernonia at 0.45 ppm. In plants,
the method of analysis is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column
clean up and quantitation by LC/MS/MS. In animals, the method of
analysis involves base hydrolysis, organic extraction, column clean up
and quantitation by LC/MS/MS or derivatization (methylation) followed
by quantitation by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
Contact: John Bazuin,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 7F7190. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0366). Nichino America, Inc., 4550
New Linden Hill Rd., Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pyraflufen-ethyl
[ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetate] and its acid metabolite, E-1 [2-chloro-5-
(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-
fluorophenoxyacetic acid], expressed in terms of the parent, in or on
food commodities grass, forage, group 17 at 1.0 ppm; grass, hay, group
17 at 1.4 ppm; milk at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm;
goat, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm;
and sheep, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm. Aqueous organic solvent
extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by gas chromatography is
used to measure and evaluate the chemical residues. Contact: James M.
Stone,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. PP 8F7322. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0352). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, proposes
to establish a tolerance for residues of the herbicide combined
residues of BAS 800 H (N'-[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-(3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)benzoyl]-N-isopropyl-N-
methylsulfamide) plus metabolite M800H11 (N-[2-chloro-5-(2,6-dioxo-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-fluorobenzoyl]-N'-
isopropylsulfamide) and plus metabolite M800H35 (N-[4-chloro-2-fluor-5-
([(isopropylamino)sulfonyl]amino carbonyl)phenyl]urea) in or on food

commodities legume vegetables (group 06), citrus fruits (group 10),
pome fruits (group 11), stone fruits (group 12), tree nuts (group 14),
pistachio, cereal grains (group 15), undelinted cotton seed, cotton gin
by products, and grape at 0.03 ppm; foliage of legume vegetables (group
07), forage, fodder and straw of cereal grains (group 16), and sorghum
stover at 0.1 ppm; almond hulls at 0.2 ppm; and sunflower seed at 0.7
ppm. Independently validated analytical methods have been submitted for
analyzing residues of parent BAS 800 H plus metabolites M800H11 and
M800H35 with appropriate sensitivity in all the crop and processed
commodities for legume vegetables (group 06), foliage of legume
vegetables (group 07), citrus fruits (group 10), pome fruits (group
11), stone fruits (group 12), tree nuts (group14), cereal grains (group
15), pistachio, forage, fodder, and straw of cereal grains (group 16),
cotton, sunflower and grape and in animal liver and kidney matrices
which tolerances are being requested. Contact: Kathryn Montague, (703)
305-1243<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. PP 8F7334. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0386). Gowan Company, 370 South Main
St., Yuma, AZ 85364, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of
the herbicide triallate in or on food commodity Bermuda grass hay at
0.2 ppm. Residues of triallate and its metabolite TCPSA in Bermuda
grass forage, hay, straw and seed screenings were quantitated using a
GC/MS analytical method. The LOQ was 0.02 ppm for triallate and 0.05
ppm for TCPSA. Contact: Vickie Walters,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. PP 8F7342. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-00461). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., 410 Swing Rd., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the fungicide mandipropamid,
benzeneacetamide, 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)
phenyl]ethyl-alpha-(2-propynyloxy)] in or on food commodity hops at 50
ppm. Analytical method RAM 415-01 was developed for determination of
mandipropamid residues in crops. This method involves extraction of
mandipropamid residues from crop samples by homogenization with
acetonitrile:water (80:20 v/v). Extracts are centrifuged and aliquots
diluted with water prior to being cleaned up using polymeric solid-
phase extraction cartridges. Residues of mandipropamid are quantified
using high performance liquid chromatography with LC-MS/MS. This method
has been successfully validated at an independent facility and
therefore is suitable for use as the enforcement method for the
determination of residues of mandipropamid in crops. Contact: Rosemary
Kearns,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amendment to Existing Tolerance

    1. PP 7F7190. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0366). Nichino America, Inc., 4550
New Linden Hill Rd., Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808, proposes to amend
the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.585 by revising existing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide pyraflufen-ethyl [ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-
5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetate] and
its acid metabolite, E-1 [2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-
methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid], expressed in terms
of the parent, in or on food commodities soybeans, seed to 0.05 ppm;
soybeans, hay to 0.1 ppm; wheat, forage to 0.02 ppm; and wheat, hay to
0.01 ppm. Aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and
quantitation by gas chromatography is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical residues. Contact: James M. Stone,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 7F7306. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0384). Monsanto Company (a member of
the Acetochlor Registration Partnership, ARP), 1300 I Street NW, Suite
450 East, Washington DC 20005, proposes to amend the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.470 for residues of the herbicide acetochlor (2-chloro-2'-
methyl-6'-ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide) and its metabolites
containing either the 2-ethyl-6-methylaniline (EMA) or the 2-(1-
hydroxyethyl)-6-methyl-aniline (HEMA) moiety, to be expressed as
acetochlor equivalents, in or on the food commodities when present
therein as a result of the application of acetochlor to soil or growing
crops: corn, field, forage at 4.5 ppm and corn, field, stover at 3.0
ppm. An adequate enforcement method for residues of acetochlor in crops
has been approved. Acetochlor and its metabolites are hydrolyzed to
either EMA or HEMA, which are determined by high performance liquid
chromatography-oxidative coulometric electrochemical detector (HPLC-
OCED) and expressed as acetochlor equivalents. Contact: Vickie Walters,
(703) 305-5704<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 7F7307. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0385). E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, DuPont Crop Protection, Laurel Run Plaza, P.O. Box 80038,
Wilmington, DE 19880-0038, proposes to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.364 by establishing tolerances for the combined residues of the
herbicide glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] and its metabolite N-
acetylglyphosate [N-acetyl-N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] resulting from
the application of glyphosate, the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate,
the ethanolamine salt of glyphosate, the ammonium salt of glyphosate,
and the potassium salt of glyphosate to OptimumTM GATTM field corn, in
or on the food commodities: Field corn, grain; field corn, forage;
field corn, stover; and field corn, aspirated grain fractions at levels
already established for glyphosate alone. An analytical method was
developed, and validated, for the determination of glyphosate and
degradate residues in transgenic crop and crop fraction matrices. The
analytes examined included glyphosate and N-acetylglyphosate since N-
acetylglyphosate is a metabolite associated with transgenic crops
containing the glyphosate N-acetyltransferase (gat) enzyme. The method
target LOQ in each matrix examined was 0.050 mg/kg (ppm). The method
was validated at 0.050 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) and 0.50 mg/kg or
higher fortification level using a LC/MS/MS system operating with an
electrospray interface (ESI) in positive ion mode detection. An
analytical method was developed, and validated, for the determination
of N-acetylglyphosate, glyphosate, AMPA, and N-acetyl AMPA in animal
matrices including milk, eggs, muscle, kidney, liver, and fat. The
method target LOQ in glyphosate equivalents for each analyte was 0.025
mg/kg in egg, milk, and muscle matrices and 0.050 mg/kg in kidney,
liver, and fat matrices. The method was validated at the respective LOQ
and 10xLOQ level for each matrix using a LC/MS/MS system operating with
an electrospray interface (ESI) in positive or negative ion mode
detection. Contact: Vickie Walters,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
New Exemption from Tolerance

    1. PP 6E7093. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0105). Huntsman Corporation, 8600
Gosling Rd., The Woodlands, TX 77381, proposes to amend 40 CFR 180 by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40
CFR 180.910, 40 CFR 180.920, and 40 CFR 180.930 for residues of
morpholine 4-C6-12 Acyl derivatives (CAS Reg. No. 887947-29-7) when
used as a pesticide inert ingredient as a solvent in pesticide
formulations applied to growing food crops, post harvest applications,
and to animals. Because this petition is a request for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical method is required.
Contact: Karen

Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 7E7206. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0042). Bayer Crop Science, 2 T. W.
Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
inert safener cyprosulfamide (parent) in or on food commodities sorghum
grain and plants grown from cyprosulfamide treated seeds. Because this
petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance, no analytical method is required. Contact: Karen Samek,
(703) 347-8825<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 8E7329. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0407). SciReg, Inc., 12733
Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, proposes to amend 40 CFR part
180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of ammonium chloride (CAS Reg. No.
12125-02-9) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient as a carrier/
nutrient in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest to all food
commodities. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical method is required.
Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 5, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-13344 Filed 6-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S