[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 841]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00073]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82425; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce the Intellicator
Analytic Tool

January 2, 2018.
    On September 20, 2017, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
introduce the Intellicator Analytic Tool. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 4, 2017.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81754 (Sept. 28,
2017), 82 FR 46319.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\
the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\5\ The Commission received three comment letters on the
proposed rule change and a response from the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82085, 82 FR 55459
(Nov. 21, 2017).
    \6\ See Letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Financial
Services Operations, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
November 8, 2017; Letter from Tyler Neville, Trader, dated November
21, 2017; Letter from Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal
Traders Group, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
December 19, 2017; and Letter from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice
President & Corporate Secretary, Nasdaq, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated December 22, 2017, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2017-74/phlx201774.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule
change (SR-PHLX-2017-74).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00073 Filed 1-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79056-79058]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31682]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63530; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-164]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Provide an Exemption from the Thirty-Day Written Notice Requirement of
Rule 7018(i)(3)

December 10, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 9, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by NASDAQ. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing to modify the thirty-day written notice
requirement applicable to a member firm seeking to withdraw as
Designated Liquidity Provider.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized.

7018. Nasdaq Market Center Order Execution and Routing

    (a)-(h) No change.
    (i) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following charges shall
apply to transactions in a Qualified Security by one of its Designated
Liquidity Providers:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge to Designated Liquidity Provider     $0.003 per share executed
 entering Order that executes in the         for securities priced at $1
 Nasdaq Market Center or attempts to         or more per share (For
 execute in the Nasdaq Market Center prior   securities priced at less
 to routing:.                                than $1 per share, the
                                             normal execution fee under
                                             7018(a) will apply).
Credit to Designated Liquidity Provider     $0.004 per share executed
 providing displayed liquidity through the   (or $0, in the case of
 Nasdaq Market Center:.                      executions against Quotes/
                                             Orders in the Nasdaq Market
                                             Center at less than $1.00
                                             per share), up to 10
                                             million shares average
                                             daily volume.
                                            Normal credits under 7018(a)
                                             apply to shares greater
                                             than 10 million average
                                             daily volume and
                                             nondisplayed liquidity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of this paragraph:
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (3) If a DLP does not meet the performance measurements for a given
month, fees and credits will revert to the normal schedule under
7018(a). If a DLP does not meet the stated performance measurements for
3 out of the past 4 months, the DLP is subject to forfeit of DLP status
for that instrument, at NASDAQ's discretion. A DLP must provide 30 days
written notice if it wishes to withdraw its registration in a Qualified
Security, unless it is also withdrawing as a market maker in the
Qualified Security.
    (j) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify the thirty-day written notice
requirement applicable to a member firm seeking to withdraw as
Designated Liquidity Provider (``DLP'') in a Qualified Security \3\ to
exempt member firms that are also withdrawing as a market maker in the
Qualified Security. NASDAQ recently amended Rule 7018(i) to include new
subparagraph (3), discussing DLP performance requirements and adopting
a 30 day written notice requirement of a member firm's desire to
withdraw as a DLP in a Qualified Security.\4\ Specifically, NASDAQ
described the consequences of failing to meet the DLP minimum
performance criteria described in Rule 7018(i)(2) and adopted a thirty-
day prior notice obligation on DLPs seeking to withdraw registration in
a Qualified Security. The thirty-day notice requirement was adopted to
ensure that NASDAQ has adequate time to assign a new DLP, thus avoiding
any disruption in market quality that may be caused by the absence of
an assigned DLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To be designated as a ``Qualified Security,'' Rule
7018(i)(1) requires that the security is an exchange-traded fund or
index-linked security listed on Nasdaq pursuant to Nasdaq Rules
5705, 5710, or 5720, and that it has at least one Designated
Liquidity Provider.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63040 (October 5, 2010),
75 FR 63238 (October 14, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-128).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ is proposing an exemption to the thirty-day written notice
requirement limited to member firms seeking to withdraw both as a DLP
and market maker in a Qualified Security. NASDAQ rules do not specify
or require a minimum time of prior notice of a member firm's desire to
withdraw as a market maker in a particular security.\5\ As such, a
member firm may withdraw from any given security the same day as notice
is provided to NASDAQ. A member firm is, however, restricted from
making a market in any security that it has withdrawn from for 20
days.\6\ To be a DLP, a member firm must be a registered market maker
in the Qualified Security.\7\ Therefore, if a member firm withdraws its
registration as a market maker in a Qualified Security, it is not
eligible to act as a DLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 4620(a).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Rule 7018(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ adopted the thirty-day written notice of withdrawal
requirement so that it would have adequate time to assign a new DLP as
a replacement of the withdrawing member firm. Typically, a member firm
would continue as a market maker in the security that it was
withdrawing its DLP designation, and thus was able to avail itself of
the benefits of making a market in the Qualified Security. NASDAQ
believes that, in cases of complete withdrawal from market making in a
Qualified Security, the thirty-day written notice of withdrawal
requirement should not apply, since the member firm is not seeking to
continue availing itself of the benefit of making a market in the
security, but rather is completely withdrawing from making a market in
the security. Such member firms have no intent to make markets in the
security and are precluded from becoming a market maker in the security
for 20 days. Accordingly, NASDAQ does not believe that compelling a
member firm to participate as a market maker and DLP in a security
during the thirty-day notice period is beneficial to the member firm or
the quality of the market in the Qualified Security.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, which requires that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with these
requirements because exempting member firms that are entirely
withdrawing as a market maker in a Qualified Security from the thirty-
day written notice requirement of Rule 7018(i)(3) eliminates an
inconsistency in the current rules concerning the notice a market maker
is required to provide NASDAQ when it determines to withdraw from
making a market in Qualified Securities. NASDAQ believes a member firm
should be able withdraw from making a market in any security under the
terms of Rule 4620(a) and not be subject to an additional notice
requirement that was designed to apply to member firms that would
continue to participate as a registered market maker in the security.
Further, NASDAQ does not believe that compelling a member firm wishing
to withdraw as a market maker in a Qualified Security to participate as
a market maker and DLP in that security during the thirty-day notice
period is beneficial to the member firm or the quality of the market in
the Qualified Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)\10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ has asked that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative
waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\12\ NASDAQ has
requested such waiver to quickly cure an unintended inconsistency in
the notice requirements for withdrawing as a market maker in certain
securities. Based on NASDAQ's representations that the proposed rule
change is non-controversial and that no novel issues are presented in
this proposed rule change, the Commission sees no reason to delay
implementation of the proposed rule change. The Commission believes it
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
to waive the 30-day operative delay, and hereby grants such waiver.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-164 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-164. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-164, and should be submitted on or before
January 7, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-31682 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57872-57874]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26518]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0687; FRL-9969-96]

Bacillus subtilis Strain BU1814; Exemption From the Requirement
of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain BU1814 in or on
all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and
good agricultural practices. BASF Corporation submitted a petition to
EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of Bacillus subtilis strain BU1814 under FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 8, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 6, 2018,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0687, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0687 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 6, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0687, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9555) (FRL-9956-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 6F8490) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., P.O. Box 13528,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide Bacillus subtilis strain
BU1814 in or on all food commodities. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner BASF Corporation,
which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no

comments received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and
to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue . . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)
requires that EPA consider ``available information concerning the
cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Bacillus
subtilis strain BU1814 and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human
risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk
assessment based on those data can be found within the document
entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations
for Bacillus subtilis strain BU1814.'' This document, as well as other
relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as
described under ADDRESSES. The available data indicate that Bacillus
subtilis strain BU1814 showed no toxicity, no pathogenicity, and no
infectivity via the acute oral, pulmonary, and intravenous routes of
exposure. Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
Bacillus subtilis strain BU1814. Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus
subtilis strain BU1814 in or on all food commodities when used in
accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required because EPA is establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical
limitation.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 27, 2017.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  180.1348 to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1348   Bacillus subtilis strain BU1814; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of Bacillus subtilis strain BU1814 in or on all food
commodities when used in

accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2017-26518 Filed 12-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49554-49555]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19670]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 12h-1(f);
    OMB Control No. 3235-0632, SEC File No. 270-570.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 12h-1(f) [17 CFR 240.12h-1(f)] provides an exemption from the
registration requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
compensatory employee stock options of issuers that are not required to
file periodic reports under the Exchange Act and that have 500 or more
option holders and more than $10 million in assets at its most recently
ended fiscal year. The information required under Rule 12h-1(f) is not
filed with the Commission. Rule 12h-1(f) permits issuers to provide the
required information (other than the issuer's books and records) to the
option holders and holders of share received on exercise of
compensatory employee stock options either by: (i) physical or
electronic delivery of the information; and (ii) notice to the option
holders and holders of shares received on exercise of compensatory
employee stock options of the availability of the information on a
password-protected Internet site. We estimate that it takes
approximately 2 burden hours per response to provide the information
required under Rule 12h-1(f) and that the information is filed by
approximately 40 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 2 hours per
response (0.5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual
reporting burden of 20 hours (0.5 hours per response x 40 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the performance of the
functions of the agency, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 8, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19670 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78029-78033]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2776; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Establishment of Restricted Areas; Chincoteague
Inlet, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action expands the restricted airspace at Chincoteague
Inlet, VA, to support the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Wallops Island Flight Facility (WFF) test
requirements. This action adds 3 new restricted areas, designated R-
6604C, R-6604D, and R-6604E. Additionally, a minor change is made to 2
points in the boundary of existing area R-6604A to match the updated 3-
nautical mile (NM) line from the shoreline of the United States (U.S.)
as provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it restructures the restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, VA to
enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential NASA testing
programs.

History

    On September 10, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice proposing to expand the restricted airspace at Chincoteague
Inlet, VA, to support NASA's WFF test requirements (80 FR 54444),
Docket No. FAA-2015-2776. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. Due to an error, a chart depicting the proposed areas was
not posted to the regulations.gov Web site for public viewing until
November 5, 2015 (10 days after the close of the comment period).
Consequently, on January 21, 2016, the FAA published a notice reopening
the comment period for 30 additional days (81 FR 3353), Docket No. FAA-
2015-2776, to provide the public the opportunity to view the chart and
submit comments.

Discussion of Comments

    A total of 17 comments were received, including 2 duplicate
submissions.

Eight commenters expressed support for the proposal. Several of the
supporters wrote that restricted areas R-6604D and R-6604E abut, but do
not include, VOR Federal airway V-139, concluding, when those areas are
in use, air traffic can continue to flow unimpeded on the airway.
    FAA Response. VOR Federal airways, such as V-139 consist of that
airspace within 4-NM either side of the airway centerline. R-6604D and
R-6604E essentially abut the centerline of V-139, which means they
infringe upon the 4-NM width on the east side of the airway centerline.
Therefore, the airway would be unusable below 4,000 feet MSL when
either R-6604D or R-6604E is active. When the restricted areas are
active, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic must use the airway at or
above 4,000 feet MSL. Otherwise, they must be vectored to remain clear
of the active restricted areas or navigate by other airways. As an
alternative, pilots flying northeast- bound could use V-1 or V-139 to
the Cape Charles VORTAC (CCV), VA, then fly V-1 to the Waterloo VOR/DME
(ATR), DE, then V-308 to the Sea Isle VORTAC (SIE), NJ, then rejoin V-
139. This alternative would only add about 2-NM to the route of flight.
Conversely, southwest-bound traffic could fly V-139 to the Sea Isle
VORTAC, then follow the reverse of the routing shown above and rejoin
V-139 at the Cape Charles VORTAC. Air Traffic Control (ATC) will ensure
IFR traffic filed via V-139 is separated from active restricted
airspace by means of altitude assignment, route clearance, or radar
vectors.
    VFR pilots who elect to navigate via V-139 would have to fly above
the restricted areas at the appropriate VFR cruising altitude for the
direction of flight. VFR cruising altitudes are ``odd thousands plus
500 feet for northeast-bound traffic and even thousands plus 500 feet
for southwest-bound traffic. Therefore, for VFR traffic navigating on
V-139 (when the restricted areas are active), the lowest available
altitudes would be 5,500 feet MSL for northeast-bound traffic; and
4,500 feet MSL for southwest-bound traffic. VFR aircraft may also elect
to deviate around the restricted airspace or use the alternate routing
described above. ATC will continue to provide VFR flight advisories
throughout the airspace on a workload permitting basis. When the
restricted areas are not active, V-139 is fully available for air
traffic. These restricted areas are expected to receive limited usage
on an annual basis.
    Seven commenters stated additional concerns about the proposal,
which are discussed below.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) wrote that the
published feeder route from the Snow Hill VORTAC to the GOBYO initial
approach fix, serving the GPS approach to runway 32 at Ocean City
Municipal Airport, MD, (KOXB), would be unavailable during the time R-
6604D is activated. This would reduce the efficiency provided by the
feeder route increasing the likelihood of pilots flying longer
distances with increased fuel consumption and costs to the operator.
    FAA Response. ATC will offset this impact by either clearing the
aircraft to GOBYO at 4,000 feet MSL or above, or vectoring the aircraft
a short distance around the restricted areas.
    AOPA noted that the need to circumnavigate the restricted areas,
when active, would also affect pilots operating under VFR. When active,
the new restricted areas would render as unavailable key VFR landmarks,
such as U.S. Route 13, railroad tracks and the seashore, that are used
by VFR pilots who navigate without GPS or navigation aids and who fly
at lower altitudes. AOPA said that avoiding the restricted areas by
flying to the east, over open water, would be dangerous for single-
engine, shoreline-following pilots, and it would be time consuming for
those diverting around the complex to the west. AOPA requested that
stand-alone VFR waypoints be charted in the Chincoteague area to assist
pilots unfamiliar with the area to safely navigate around the
restricted areas.
    The FAA agrees and will develop charted VFR waypoints to assist VFR
aircraft in avoiding the restricted areas. When the restricted areas
are not in use, the above mentioned landmarks would remain available
for VFR navigation.
    AOPA advised that, since the new restricted areas are close to
numerous final approach courses of surrounding airports, they must be
depicted on applicable Instrument Approach Procedure Charts to increase
pilot awareness.
    The FAA agrees and is taking action to depict the new restricted
areas on applicable instrument procedure charts.
    AOPA noted that the proposed restricted areas would be activated
``By NOTAM,'' but the NPRM did not indicate how far in advance the
NOTAM should be issued. AOPA recommended at least 12 hours notice is
necessary to assist pilots in flight planning.
    NASA agreed to revise the time of designation for R-6604C, D and E
to read ``By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.''
    The Helicopter Association International (HAI) wrote that it was
unable to support the proposed changes. HAI said that the restricted
area expansion would impact both IFR and VFR operators. Helicopter
operators would be required to either fly further offshore for longer
periods to circumnavigate the area, or fly further west into a more
tightly congested corridor. HAI is concerned with the offshore option,
especially during winter when lower sea temperatures would greatly
reduce aircrew survivability times if an emergency resulted in a water
entry. Further, the increased minimum altitudes to overfly R-6604D and
R-6604E could force helicopter operators higher and subject them to
increased encounters with icing conditions.
    FAA Response. Helicopter operators would have the option to avoid
the restricted areas via the alternate routing discussed above or by
use of the VFR waypoints being developed for that purpose.
Additionally, the limited projected annual use of the areas described
previously should lessen the potential impacts on helicopter
operations. Further, NASA has agreed to promptly release the restricted
areas to ATC for active medevac or search and rescue helicopter
operations.
    One commenter contended that a requirement for restricted airspace
was not established and suggested the use of a less restrictive type of
special use airspace (SUA) such as a warning area. The commenter
believes that the proposal did not justify why SUA must be established
over land for this purpose and that establishing test airspace over
water adjacent to Wallops should be considered before establishing SUA
over land.
    FAA Response. NASA proposed the restricted area expansion to
accommodate a variety of test activities that pose a hazard to
nonparticipating aircraft. These activities include, but are not
limited to, high-risk test profiles by heavily modified test aircraft,
testing of emitters that could induce harmful electromagnetic
interference effects on nonparticipating aircraft, non-eye-safe laser
firings, and external stores separation testing. Warning areas may also
contain hazardous activities and they are established offshore.
However, while warning areas serve notice of the possible existence of
hazardous activities, they do not restrict access by nonparticipating
aircraft that elect to transit the airspace. There is an existing
warning area, W-386, located offshore near WFF, but this area is
delegated to the U.S. Navy which has its own requirements and
scheduling priorities. NASA does use the overwater SUA to the extent
possible, but some test

operations require overland airspace in close proximity to an airfield.
NASA's restricted area proposal was designed for this specific purpose.
    During the design of the proposal, other types of SUA were
considered but deemed insufficient for ensuring safety during NASA's
flight test operations. Use of nearby existing restricted areas were
not an option due to technical requirements (co-use airspace versus
exclusive-use airspace; travel distance to the SUA) as well as the
dynamic nature of NASA's flight test program. For example, the vast
majority of the Patuxent River Naval Air Station's restricted areas are
not exclusive use. The parts of the Patuxent River restricted area
complex that could be scheduled as exclusive use are in high demand and
used for priority Department of Defense requirements. It would be
highly unlikely that NASA would be granted access to this airspace,
especially given the dynamic operations schedule.
    In this case, the FAA has determined that the restricted area
expansion is the appropriate SUA designation to contain NASA's
hazardous activities in order to ensure segregation of those activities
from nonparticipating aircraft.
    Several commenters pointed out that this is very busy airspace used
by commercial and private flights. They contended that there is
sufficient airspace for testing in other parts of the country.
    FAA Response. NASA operates a wide variety of highly modified
aircraft at WFF in support of various test missions. The configuration
of each aircraft changes often as dictated by the specific test program
and the engineering and physical modification work that takes place at
WFF. Further, in addition to facilities supporting aircraft operations,
the infrastructure in place at WFF includes the communications,
telemetry, radar tracking, and flight path guidance necessary to
fulfill NASA's testing commitments. It would be impractical and not
cost effective to relocate infrastructure and testing operations to
another location. In addition, at other locations, NASA testing would
be competing for access to airspace and that would adversely impact
NASA test programs. The design and projected use of the expanded
restricted areas should minimize the impacts on other users of the
National Airspace System.
    One commenter expressed concern about pilots being able to reliably
and quickly determine the activity status of the restricted areas from
air traffic control.
    FAA Response. In the NPRM, Patuxent River Approach Control was
proposed as the controlling agency for R-6604C, D and E. The FAA has
since decided that Washington ARTCC, which is the controlling agency
for the existing R-6604A and B, should also be the controlling agency
for the new restricted areas. The controlling agency typically
coordinates SUA status with the using agency and is the primary source
for pilots to determine activity status of the airspace at any given
time. The ``Special Use Airspace Tabulation'' on the Washington
Sectional Aeronautical Chart currently lists Washington ARTCC as the
controlling agency for R-6604A and B. The tabulation also includes area
altitudes, time of use and contact frequencies. The tabulation will be
updated to include information for R-6604C, D and E. In addition, the
requirement that R-6604C, D and E must be activated by a NOTAM issued
at least 12 hours in advance should assist pilots in flight planning.

Other Impacts

    The FAA identified several other potential impacts. First, when R-
6604E is active, it would encroach into the protected airspace for the
RNAV (GPS) approach to runway 21 at Accomack County Airport, Melfa, VA,
(KMFV). There are several options to address this issue: ATC can
provide radar vectors to runway 21; the aircraft could be cleared for
the VOR/DME RWY 3 or the LOC RWY 3 approach with a circle to land
runway 21; or ATC can temporarily recall a portion of R-6604E to
restrict NASA aircraft to a minimum altitude of 2,500 feet MSL or
above, allowing aircraft on the approach to fly underneath. Once the
traffic on approach is clear, the airspace would be returned to the
user. This latter provision would be included in the Letter of
Procedure between the FAA and NASA that governs use of the restricted
areas.
    Second, the protected airspace for the missed approach procedure
for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 approach at Accomack County Airport would be
impacted when R-6604E is active.
    FAA plans to amend the missed approach procedure for the RNAV (GPS)
RWY 3 approach. In the interim, the VOR/DME RWY 3 approach is
available. The missed approach for that procedure does not conflict
with the restricted area. Also, as described above, ATC can restrict
aircraft operating in R-6604E to a minimum altitude that permits IFR
traffic to fly the approach beneath.
    Third, Midway Airport (VG56), a private-use airport near Bloxom,
VA, would be impacted by the expansion. Midway is located below R-
6604E. The VFR traffic patterns and access to and from the airport
would be affected unless operations are coordinated. NASA has agreed to
establish a Letter of Agreement with airport operators to minimize
impact to the private airports south of the WFF.

Differences From the NPRM

    The time of designation for R-6604C, D and E was proposed in the
NPRM as ``By NOTAM.'' In response to comments received, the time of
designation is changed to read ``By NOTAM at least 12 hours in
advance.''
    The controlling agency for R-6604C, D and E was proposed as
Patuxent River Approach Control. The FAA determined that Washington
ARTCC will be the controlling agency for all R-6604 subareas (A through
E).

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 by establishing 3 new restricted
areas, designated R-6604C, R-6604D and R-6604E, at NASA's WFF in
Virginia. The new areas abut the existing restricted areas (R-6604A and
R-6604B) and will be used to contain a variety of test activities
deemed to pose a hazard to nonparticipating aircraft. The following is
a general description of the areas.
    R-6604C overlies the WFF airfield and is contained entirely within
the WFF property boundary. It extends from the surface up to 3,500 feet
mean sea level (MSL). Expected usage will be approximately 1.5 hours
per day (in 45-minute periods) on approximately 120 days per year,
totaling approximately 180 hours per year.
    R-6604D is extends from 100 feet above ground level (AGL) up to
3,500 feet MSL. It is located between the western boundary of R-6604B
and the centerline of VOR Federal airway V-139, extending approximately
15-NM to the northeast of the R-6604A/R-6604B northern boundary.
Expected usage will also be approximately 1.5 hours per day (in 45-
minute periods) on approximately 120 days per year, totaling
approximately 180 hours per year.
    R-6604E extends from 700 feet AGL up to 3,500 feet MSL. It is
located between the western boundaries of R-6604A and R-6604B and the
centerline of VOR Federal airway V-139. Expected usage will be
approximately 1.5 hours per day (in 45-minute periods) on approximately
40 days per year, totaling approximately 60 hours per year.
    All 3 areas would be activated by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to be
issued at least 12 hours in advance. Specific times of designation were
not assigned

for R-6604C, D and E due to the variable nature of test programs.
    In addition to the above, 2 points in the boundary of R-6604A that
intersect a line 3-NM from the shoreline of the U.S. are adjusted to
reflect NOAA's updated calculation of the U.S. shoreline. The rest of
the R-6604A description is unchanged.
    The configuration of the restricted areas was designed to allow for
activation of only that portion of the complex required for the
specific test profile being conducted. As is the current practice with
R-6604A and R-6604B, when the new restricted areas are not required by
the using agency, the airspace will be returned to the controlling
agency for access by other aviation users.
    Note that the existing areas (R-6604A and R-6604B) will continue to
be used, as in the past, for missile and rocket launches, aircraft
systems development, expendable launch vehicles, lasers, RPV, and other
test programs.
    The FAA is taking this action because the existing restricted
airspace is too small to fully contain hazardous test profiles
conducted by NASA's WFF.
    Operational Note: Considering their location, it is important that
the new areas be depicted on both the IFR en route chart (L-36) and the
VFR chart covering the affected area before they are activated for use.
Due to aeronautical chart publication cycles, the publication dates for
the applicable IFR and VFR charts are not the same. The effective date
of this rule is January 5, 2017, to ensure the airspace will also be
depicted on the IFR en route chart, which publishes on that date.
However, the new areas will not be available for use or activation by
NASA until they also appear on the next edition of the Washington
Sectional Aeronautical Chart, which publishes on February 2, 2017.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has conducted an environmental review for this rulemaking
in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures, the National Environmental Policy Act, and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. FAA's environmental
impact review included an independent evaluation and adoption of NASA's
Final Environmental Assessment for the Establishment of Restricted Area
Airspace (R-6604C/D/E) at Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight
Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia, dated October 2016 (hereinafter
``the FEA''), for which the FAA was a cooperating agency, and which
included the environmental analysis of the expanded restricted airspace
at Chincoteague Inlet, VA, to support NASA's Wallops Island Flight
Facility (WFF) test requirements consisting of the addition of three
new restricted areas, designated R-6604C, R-6604D, and R-6604E, and a
minor change to two points in the boundary of existing area R-6604A to
match the updated 3-nautical mile (NM) line from the shoreline of the
U.S. as provided by NOAA, and as described above. Based on its
environmental review, the FAA has determined that the action that is
the subject of this rule does not present the potential for significant
impacts to the human environment. The FAA's Adoption EA and FONSI-ROD
are included in the docket for this rulemaking. The FEA is available at
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/Establishment_R-6604CDE_DEA.html.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.66  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.66 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-6604A Chincoteague Inlet, VA [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries and inserting the following in
its place:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 37[deg]55'25'' N., long.
75[deg]24'54'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]51'31'' N., long.75[deg]17'16'' W.;
then along a line 3-NM from and parallel to the shoreline to lat.
37[deg]39'20'' N., long. 75[deg]31'19'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]47'00'' N.,
long. 75[deg]31'18'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]51'00'' N., long.
75[deg]29'36'' W.; to the point of beginning.

R-6604C Chincoteague Inlet, VA [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 37[deg]56'57'' N., long.
75[deg]28'37'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]56'54'' N., long. 75[deg]26'56'' W.;
to lat. 37[deg]56'23'' N., long. 75[deg]26'46'' W.; to lat.
37[deg]56'45'' N., long. 75[deg]27'29'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]55'15'' N.,
long. 75[deg]28'23'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]55'15'' N., long.
75[deg]28'39'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]56'32'' N., long. 75[deg]29'18'' W.;
to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 3,500 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Washington ARTCC.
    Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Wallops Island, VA.

R-6604D Chincoteague Inlet, VA [New] Boundaries

    Beginning at lat. 38[deg]01'42'' N., long. 75[deg]29'28'' W.; to
lat. 38[deg]07'12'' N., long. 75[deg]14'48'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]04'36''
N., long. 75[deg]08'07'' W.; thence along a line 3-NM from and parallel
to the shoreline to lat. 37[deg]51'31'' N., long. 75[deg]17'16'' W.; to
lat. 37[deg]56'45'' N., long. 75[deg]27'29'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]53'55''
N., long. 75[deg]29'11'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]55'40'' N., long.
75[deg]33'27'' W.; to the point of beginning; excluding R-6604C.
    Designated altitudes. 100 feet AGL to 3,500 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Washington ARTCC.
    Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Wallops Island, VA.

R-6604E Chincoteague Inlet, VA [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 37[deg]55'40'' N., long.
75[deg]33'27'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]53'55'' N., long. 75[deg]29'11'' W.;
to lat. 37[deg]50'24'' N., long. 75[deg]31'19'' W.; to lat.
37[deg]39'20'' N., long. 75[deg]31'19'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]38'57'' N.,
long. 75[deg]31'31'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]46'55'' N., long.
75[deg]39'13'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 700 feet AGL to 3,500 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Washington ARTCC.
    Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Wallops Island, VA.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 1, 2016.
Leslie M. Swann,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-26760 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 23915]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EG06-43-000, et al.]

Wind Capital Holdings, LLC, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate
Filings

April 17, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Wind Capital Holdings, LLC

[Docket No. EG06-43-000]

    Take notice that on April 4, 2006, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC filed
with the Commission a Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status pursuant to sections 366.1 and 366.7 of the
Commission's regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 25, 2006.

2. Cow Branch Wind Energy, LLC

[Docket No. EG06-44-000]

    Take notice that on April 4, 2006, Cow Branch Wind Energy, LLC
filed with the Commission a Notice of Self Certification of Exempt
Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to sections 366.1 and 366.7 of the
Commission's regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 25, 2006.

3. OGE Energy Corp.

[Docket No. PH06-41-000]

    Take notice that on April 6, 2006, OGE Energy Corp. filed a
Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.1(c) and 366.3(c)
of the Commission's regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 27, 2006.

4. Scottish Power plc, Scottish Power UK Group Limited, Scottish Power
UK Holdings Limited, and PPM Energy, Inc.

[Docket No. PH06-42-000]

    Take notice that on April 3, 2006, Scottish Power plc, Scottish
Power UK Group Limited, Scottish Power UK Holdings Limited and PPM
Energy, Inc. filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(a)
and 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 24, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6169 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

September 27, 2006

Memorandum

SUBJECT:	Antimycin A:  Health Effects Division (HED) Considerations for
the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document.  Phase I.

		Barcode: DP# 310734

FROM:	Deborah Smegal, MPH, Toxicologist/Risk Assessor

		Re-Registration Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P)

THRU:		Michael Metzger, Branch Chief

		And

		Christine Olinger, Senior Scientist

		Reregistration Branch I

		Health Effects Division (HED), (7509P)

TO:		Lance Wormell, Chemical Review Manager

Reregistration Branch 2

Special Review and Reregistration Division (SRRD) (7508P)

Background:

with certain species being more sensitive to the compound than others.
Unlike other registered piscicides, fish are reportedly not able to
detect and thus avoid antimycin A in treatment areas.  Antimycin A is
used in fish management because low treatment concentrations are
required to achieve management objectives and the compound is reported
to degrade rapidly making it possible to restock treated areas within a
short time after treatment.  The chemical structure of antimycin A is
shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:  Chemical Structure of Antimycin A

There is currently one active Antimycin A registration (Section 3).
There is currently no emergency exemption (Section 18) use or special
local need (Section 24c) use.  No tolerance exists for commodities
treated with antimycin A although food fish (aquaculture) ponds can be
treated with antimycin A to remove undesirable scaled fish.  Because
treatments generally occur before stocking with fingerling catfish and
roughly 9 months elapse before those fish are ready for harvest, the
potential for antimycin residues in harvested fish is considered
unlikely.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

	HED believes that there are insufficient data available at this time to
conduct a quantitative human health risk assessment for Antimycin A.
Currently, HED lacks reliable information on the hazard of Antimycin A
with regard to developmental, reproductive, neurological, dermal,
inhalation and chronic toxicity.  However, Antimycin A is a restricted
use pesticide used only by trained and/or certified applicators that is
used in quantities of less than 100 lbs per year in the U.S.   There is
currently only one registered product that is used at low application
rates resulting in water concentrations of less than 25 ppb, and
according to SRRD the Agency will require additional label language to
preclude human exposure.

	Based on discussions with the SRRD risk management team, in lieu of
calling in additional data to perform a risk assessment, the SRRD
intends to implement mitigation measures though product labels, a use
manual, and proper training to address the following issues identified
below.  If the following mitigation measures are not adopted, HED will
require the submission of data to support a human health risk
assessment.

For the stream/lake use, mitigation measures are necessary to prevent
food exposure, drinking water, swimming and/or recreational exposures
(i.e. the dead fish must not be eaten; drinking water must be treated
with a deactivation agent; the area must be posted to keep swimmers out
of the area; hikers must be warned not to consume fish, drink the water
or swim in the treated areas).

For the catfish farm use, mitigation measures must be put in place to
prevent food exposure (i.e. a 12 month, or greater, harvest prohibition
following application)

.

	HED believes that improvements in label language, in addition to other
measures required by SRRD as part of the Re-Registration Eligibility
Decision (RED), will ensure there will be negligible human exposure from
food, swimming and drinking water, and minimal exposure to workers with
the addition of PPE.  Thus, HED believes the resulting risks would also
be negligible when the product is used by trained applicators according
to the label instructions.

USE INFORMATION

 and rivers.  Deeper water bodies may require the use of a pump
mechanism (to ensure adequate mixing throughout the water column) where
Antimycin A is dispensed through a perforated hose stretching the length
of the water column or is delivered through the propeller wash.

.

There are two broad uses for Antimycin A as a piscicide:  Complete kill
and selective kill. In a complete kill, the water body is treated at 5
to 25 ppb of Antimycin A to eliminate all fish in the treatment area.  A
common objective of a complete kill is to eliminate invasive or
non-native species in an area to restore threatened or indigenous
species.

In a selective kill, the water body is treated at 0.5 to 1.0 ppb of
Antimycin A to eliminate only small, scaled fish.  A common objective of
a selective kill is to eliminate smaller fish to free up food and other
resources for larger fish.  Selective kills at higher concentrations are
also used in catfish farming to eliminate scaled fish that commonly
reduce the catfish yields of commercial catfish farmers.  According to
the Fintrol® label, scaled fish in catfish farms succumb to treatment
at 5 to 10 ppb of Antimycin A whereas catfish generally tolerate up to
20 ppb.

According to the Fintrol® label, in complete and selective kills, dead
fish may be collected and disposed of or left to biodegrade.  Areas
downstream of the treatment area may or may not be neutralized with an
oxidizing agent such as potassium permanganate to intentionally
inactivate Antimycin A.

Detoxification:

.  Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent commonly used to
purify drinking water and kill pond algae.  According to the product
label, water may be considered detoxified when fingerling rainbow trout
or fingerling bluegills survive for at least 48 hours in livecars placed
100 yards downstream from the site of potassium permanganate
introduction.

Usage and Use Rates:

According to the registrant, less than 100 lbs. of Antimycin A are used
annually in the US.  EPA’s Screening Level Usage Analysis returned no
data on agricultural or non-agricultural uses of Antimycin A.  Antimycin
A is available as a soluble concentrate/liquid.  Retreatment and reentry
intervals are not specified on the current label.

3.0	HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION tc \l1 "HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION

.    Table 1 presents the acute toxicity data for Antimycin A.

Table 1.  Summary of AcuteToxicity Data for Antimycin A

Test

Species

Results

Reference

Oral LD50

Rat	Toxicity Category I

(technical)	1993 EPA Review

D189202

286 mg/kg (males)

361 mg/kg/ (females)

316 mg/kg  (combined)

 (Toxicity Category II) for 23%

MRID 45937201 (Acceptable)

Dermal LD50

Ratt	>5000 mg/kg

(Toxicity Category IV) for 23%	MRID 46762604 (Acceptable)

 Inhalation LC50

Rat	<0.166 mg/L

(Toxicity Category II)

(technical)	1993 EPA Review

D189202

>2.59 mg/L

MMAD-2.8 um; GSD-4.1

 (Toxicity Category IV) for 23%	MRID 46762605

(Acceptable)

Dermal Irritation

Rabbit	Not a dermal irritant	MRID 46762602

(Acceptable

Eye Irritation	Rabbit	Irritation resolved within 48 hours for a 0.5%
solution	1993 EPA Review

D189202

Opacity: Non washed; at 1 hr, 2/3 scattered diffuse areas of opacity,
1/3 easily discernible translucent areas of opacity.  At 24 hrs, 1/3
scattered diffuse areas of opacity.  Form 48 to 72 hrs, 2/3 scattered
diffuse areas of opacity.  Washed:  at 1 hr, 1/3 scattered diffuse areas
of opacity, 2/3 easily discernible translucent areas of opacity, 1/3
scattered diffuse areas of opacity.

(Toxicity Category II) for 23%	MRID 46762603

(Acceptable)

(a) Contains 23% Antimycin A

	The toxicological database is inadequate to conduct a quantitative risk
assessment.  The Agency lacks information regarding developmental,
reproductive, neurological, dermal, inhalation and chronic toxicity of
Antimycin A.  Only one oral subchronic toxicity study is available which
is discussed below.

	Subhronic Toxicity.  In a subchronic study, rats exposed to the end use
product containing Antimycin A (23% ai) exhibited an increased incidence
of diarrhea or soft feces at the lowest dose tested of 0.5 mg/kg/day.  A
NOAEL was not established.  A detailed summary of the study is provided
below.

	90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rat.  In a subchronic oral toxicity study
(MRID 45533301, 46762601), Fintrol® Concentrate (23% a.i., Batch #
1977) was administered to 10 Sprague-Dawley rats/sex/dose in the diet at
active ingredient dose levels of 0, 0.5, 5 and 10 mg/kg/day from Day 0
until Day 41 and  0, 0.5, 10 and 20 mg/kg/day from Day 42 until study
termination.

	The following parameters were examined: clinical signs, body weight,
food consumption, functional observational battery, hematology, clinical
chemistry, gross lesions, selected organ weights, and histopathology of
selected tissues and organs.

	No adverse neurological effects were observed in any groups as assessed
by the functional observational battery (FOB) conducted at 3 months.
Also, survival,  gross lesions, and microscopic pathology findings were
not affected by treatment with the test material and no eye
abnormalities were observed during ophthalmoscopic examinations.

	No treatment-related hematology findings were observed except for
neutrophils in the Group IV females.  The neutrophil in the females was
significantly higher (145%)  than that of the control group.  But this
finding was not corroborated by gross or microscopic pathology and was
not considered toxicologically significant.

	No treatment-related clinical chemistry findings were observed except
for two parameters.  Total protein in the Group III males and Group IV
females and calcium in the Group IV females  were significantly less
(15-18%)  than those of the control group.  But these findings were not
corroborated by gross or microscopic pathology and was not considered
toxicologically significant.

	In Group II (0.5 mg/kg) animals, diarrhea in one male on days 31 and 32
and soft feces in 3 females on eight days (Days 33, 40, 41, 86-90) were
observed.  In both Groups III and IV (5 and 10 mg/kg) animals,
increasing incidence of diarrhea or soft feces were observed when
compared to the control or Group II animals.

	Group IV male and female rats gained 21% less weight than the control
animals, however, no treatment-related effects were observed on absolute
body weights and food consumption at all doses.  Increased incidence of
diarrhea and soft stool was considered as treatment related effects due
to Antimycin effect on the intestinal flora leading to  diarrhea and
soft feces.

	The LOAEL was 0.5 mg/kg/day based on occurrence of increased incidence
of diarrhea or soft feces.  The NOAEL was not established.

	This study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirements (OPPTS 870.3100a; OECD 408) for a subchronic oral
toxicity study in the rat.  Although there was a change in dosage from 5
and 10 to 10 and 20 mg/kg on day 42 onward, the effect of the chemical
on the intestinal flora occurred prior to the changes in dosages.

4.0  EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION

	There are insufficient data available at this time to conduct a
quantitative human health risk assessment for Antimycin A.  Currently,
HED lacks reliable information on the hazard of Antimycin A with regard
to developmental, reproductive, neurological, dermal, inhalation and
chronic toxicity.  However, Antimycin A is a restricted use pesticide
used only by trained and/or certified applicators that is used in
quantities of less than 100 lbs per year in the U.S.   There is
currently only one registered product that is used at low application
rates resulting in water concentrations of less than 25 ppb, and SRRD
will require additional label language to preclude human exposure.

Based on its use pattern there are potential exposures for workers
during application, children or adult recreational users of treated
lakes/streams via swimming, anglers harvesting fish after treatment, and
dietary exposures from the catfish farm use, and potential drinking
water exposures from the treatment of lakes/streams/reservoirs that
could be used as a drinking water source.  Each is briefly discussed
below.

.  Currently, the label indicates that one container of product can be
applied in five gallons of water, which is equivalent to a solution
strength of 2900 ppm.  The aerosol exposures could also be reduced by
specifying the application of coarse spray droplets.

 in animals was transient.

	Residential/Recreational Exposure.  HED believes that exposure to
Antimycin A can be prevented through improved label language.   The
label needs to clearly state that dead fish must not be eaten, drinking
water must be treated with a deactivation agent; the area must be posted
to keep swimmers out of the area; hikers/fisherman must be warned not to
consume fish, drink the water or swim in the treated areas for a period
of time (time to be specified later but at least 1 week after treatment
and possibly longer).

	Dietary.   No tolerance exists for commodities treated with antimycin A
although food fish (aquaculture) ponds can be treated with antimycin A
to remove undesirable scaled fish.  Because treatments generally occur
before stocking with fingerling catfish and roughly 9 months elapse
before those fish are ready for harvest, the potential for antimycin
residues in harvested fish is considered unlikely.  Residues in catfish
are expected to be low based on the low application rate (less than 25
ppb) and label restrictions not to harvest fish for 1 yr following
treatment.  Based on discussions with the risk management team, SRRD
also intends to improve the label language regarding timeframe required
for sport fishing in water bodies treated with Antimycin A.

	Estimates of Water Concentrations for Drinking Water.  The Agency
estimated drinking water concentrations from the use of Antimycin A.
Details of this assessment are provided in the Environmental Fate and
Effects Division (EFED) memo from D. Young, June 21, 2006, D310732.  A
brief summary is provided in this section.   When antimycin is applied
to a water body (whether a lake, pond, or stream) the most conservative
acute concentration that could be used for drinking water assessments is
the application concentration.  The maximum application concentration is
ambiguous but is “roughly” 25 ppb.  However, because of the
significant uncertainties regarding the persistence and sorption
properties of Antimycin A, temporal concentrations trends and chronic
concentrations prediction are also full of uncertainty.  With this
regard, ranges of estimates of chronic concentrations can be made by
using the full range of possible degradation rates.  The Agency (EFED)
provided a range of chronic concentrations that may result following a
25 ppb application of Antimycin to a water body and shows that chronic
concentrations vary considerably depending on the half life assumed for
Antimycin A, with a value of 4.6 ppb the most conservative based on the
longest reported half life (47 days).  A chronic concentration of 0.0013
ppb was estimated based on a half-life of 20 minutes.

For human drinking water, Antimycin may move downstream from the point
of application (outflow from a lake or a stream) and could enter a
drinking water reservoir.  Because of the uncertainties surrounding the
degradation of Antimycin and the great variability in potential travel
times from the point of application to a reservoir, only first
approximations of Antimycin concentrations in human drinking water can
be made.  The worst possible case would be the concentration of
Antimycin at the point of application—an acute concentration of
“roughly” 25 ppb.  The worst possible case for a chronic
concentration would be the concentration derived using the longest
reported aquatic half life—“roughly” 4.6 ppb, depending on actual
application rate.  These “rough” estimates of 25 ppb and 4.6 ppb
chronic are the EFED-recommended acute and chronic concentrations for
use in human drinking water exposure assessments.

The above recommended concentrations apply to both surface water and
groundwater. While applications of Antimycin are made only to surface
waters, it is possible that Antimycin could migrate to groundwater
(e.g., by leaching beneath a pond or stream); however, the resulting
groundwater concentrations would be no higher than the source surface
water concentration.  Thus, the above recommendations are also
conservative estimates of groundwater concentrations.

	Based on discussions with the risk management team, the Agency intends
to require that drinking water must be treated with a deactivation agent
to preclude human exposure to Antimycin A.

5.0	DATA NEEDS:

	Environmental fate data gaps have been identified, and efforts are
underway by the U. S. Geological Survey, the EPA Office of Research and
Development and the Office of Pesticide Programs’ Biologic and
Economic Assessment Division laboratories to address some of the
uncertainties regarding analytical method development and potential
routes of degradation.

.

	(2)  Although hydrolysis data are available on Antimycin, there is
considerable variability in the data and degradation half-lives range
from 30 minutes to 47 days.  Additional information on Antimycin A
degradation would be helpful.

	(3) Additionally, while there are anecdotal data suggesting that
Antimycin A is inactivated through the use of an oxidant, e.g. potassium
permanganate, there are no data to identify the reaction products.
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

6.0  RECOMMENDED LABEL REVISIONS:

The label should more clearly state the maximum application rates, as
the current label provides “rough estimates”.

Disposal methods for unused pesticide need to be clearly stated.

The label should restrict aerial applications.

.   Mitigation measures are necessary to prevent food exposure, drinking
water, swimming and/or recreational exposures.  The label needs to
clearly state that dead fish must not be eaten, drinking water must be
treated with a deactivation agent; the area must be posted to keep
swimmers out of the area; hikers/fisherman must be warned not to consume
fish, drink the water or swim in the treated areas.

	For workers proper personal protective equipment (PPE) should be
required to prevent dermal exposure.  For example, additional label
language should specify that workers wear long-sleeved shirt and long
pants to preclude dermal exposure during application.   It is
recommended that the applicators should be certified.

	Retreatment and reentry intervals are not specified on the current
label.  The language for re-entry of treated areas or fishing of treated
lakes/streams needs to be improved to more clearly specify a time limit
(time to be specified later but at least 1 week after treatment and
possibly longer),  or concentration level (< 1 ppb) in addition to the
current criteria of survival of sensitive species for 48 hours.

	The label should be improved to provide more guidance on when the
deactivation agent is required.

	Catfish farm use.   Mitigation measures must be put in place to prevent
food exposure (i.e. a 12 month, or greater, harvest prohibition
following application).  The use rate should be reduced to 10 ppb as a
maximum concentration since catfish are sensitive to 20 ppb, and this
use is meant to control undesirable scaled fish.

7.0  REFERENCES:

Kuhn, J (2001)   Fintrol Concentrate (Antimycin): 90-day oral toxicity
study in rat (diet). Stillmeadow, Inc.,  Sugar Land, TX.  Laboratory
Study No. 6024-00, August 28, 2001.  Submitted by Aquabiotics Corp. MRID
45533301.  Unpublished.

USEPA 2005.  Antimycin A Use Closure Memo.  Case No. 4121.  Memo from
L.Wormell (SRRD) to Antimycin A RED Team.  October 26, 2005.

USEPA 2006.  Antimycin A Drinking Water Characterization  Memo from D.
Young Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), to L. Wormell/T.
Myers (SRRD) and C. Olinger (HED).  June 21, 2006, D310732

 PAGE  10

BR:should be Streptomyces mold

BR: Again, throughout the document it needs to be clear if the
discussion is about ppb/mg/l of Fintrol or antimycin A, since Fintrol is
not 100% antimycin A.

BR: Overall, a) and c) recommendations are geing followed in most areas
now where Fintrol is being applied.

BR: Also lakes and reservoirs.

BR: Although Fintrol is more effective in warm water, the statement as
written is misleading for all applications.  However, it is true for
applications to standing bodies of water with identical pH’s.

BR: Is antimycin A/Fintrol broken down by oxidation or hydrolysis?
Should it be both?  The other EPA documents use hydrolysis.

BR: Up to 4 ppm is often required to neutralize, with the amount to be
determined by bioassay.

BR:  If Fintrol is 23% ai antimycin, that should be stated at the start
of each document, and after that, Fintrol should be used for all
references to applications.

BR: Although antimycin A may not be an eye irritant, Fintrol is.

BR: I agree that the label should define a specific concentration for
tank mixes for backpack sprayers.  This would also help field
applications, since high concentrations in tank mixes often do not
result in good distribution within the target area.

BR: Although antimycin may not be an eye irritant, Fintrol causes eye
irritation.  The label should state that Fintrol causes severe eye
irritation, and add that applicators should not wear contact lenses,
since the lens can hold Fintrol against the eye.  Fintrol can melt a
soft contact lens onto the cornea of applicators if eye protection is
not used.

BR: Should read, “Fintrol will dissipate due to natural oxidation,
hydrolysis, dilution, or application of potassium permanganate.”

BR: being developed in 2006 by USGS, Lacrosse.

BR: These seem to be ok, with many already used.