Neurobehavioral Assessments Conducted in the New Zealand, Faroe Islands, and Seychelles Islands Studies of Methylmercury Neurotoxicity in Children David C. Bellinger Professor of Neurology Harvard Medical School March 2005 Report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Three major prospective studies, two of which are ongoing, have investigated potential neurotoxicity of low level, chronic methylmercury ( MeHg) exposure from seafood consumption: the New Zealand study, the Seychelles Child Development Study, and the Faroe Islands study. Among the epidemiological studies available, these are the ones identified by the National Research Council's Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury as the most rigorous owing, in particular, to their large sample sizes and their prospective designs, including contemporaneous measurement of biomarkers of prenatal MeHg exposure. All three studies have also undergone extensive peer review. In the following sections, background information about these studies is provided, including the methods used to sample the target population, levels of mercury exposure in the study samples, and the neurobehavioral tests administered.

In assembling the New Zealand sample, Kjellstrom et al. ( 1989) ascertained the fish consumption of 10,930 of 16,293 pregnant women in the study area. They identified 935 women who reportedly consumed fish at least 3 times per week. Hair samples were obtained from these women, and 73 were found to have a hair mercury ( Hg) level >= 6 µ g/ g ( or ppm). In this group, the mean was 8.3 ppm, with a range of 6 to 86, although only one woman had a level greater than 20 ppm. Each " high" Hg woman was matched to 3 controls, based on hair Hg, reported fish consumption, ethnic group, age, smoking, residence time in New Zealand, and child sex. One control was a woman who was reported eating fish 3 or more times per week but whose hair Hg level was < 6 ppm, thus controlling for potential confounding of hair Hg level and characteristics associated with frequent fish consumption. Although children were assessed at 4 and 6 years of age, only the data collected at the older age is considered in our analyses because, in general, the reliability and validity of neurodevelopmental testing increases with child age. Table 1 lists the tests administered to the 237 participating children at the 6 year evaluation, and indicates the general functional domain each is considered to assess.

The Faroe Islands investigators assembled a birth cohort of 1,353 newborns recruited from 3 hospitals over a 21 month period in 1986 1987. In 1,022 women (~ 75%), two biomarkers of prenatal MeHg were measured: cord blood Hg and maternal hair Hg at delivery. The mean concentration of Hg in cord blood for 917 children assessed at age 7 was 22.6 ppb ( inter quartile range: 13.1   40.5 ppb, full range 0.9   351 ppb). The mean concentration of Hg in maternal hair in this group of 917 was 4.2 ppm ( inter quartile range: 2.6 7.7 ppm, full range 0.2   39.1 ppm) ( Budtz Jorgensen et al. 2004). Neurodevelopmental assessments of the children have been conducted at ages 7 and 14 years, although only the 7 year results have been published ( Grandjean et al., 1997). Table 2 lists each test administered at this age and its corresponding general functional domain.

In assembling the Seychelles Child Development Study sample, investigators obtained hair samples from 779 pregnant women during the recruitment period ( representing an ascertainment rate of approximately 50%). After application of exclusion criteria, the study sample consisted of 740 newborns. Neurodevelopmental assessments were conducted when the children were 6.5, 19, 29, and 66 months, and at 9 years. Only data from the 9 year assessment are included in our analyses ( Myers et al., 2003). The mean maternal hair Hg level in the 643 children who participated in this assessment was 6.9 ppm ( SD 4.5) ( Myers et al., 2003). Table 3 lists the tests administered at this age. Several of the tests were included in the battery in order to increase the opportunities for direct comparison of the results of this study and those of the Faroe Islands study. These tests are identified by an asterisk.

These three populations were selected for study in large part because fish consumption was known to be high. Indeed, the levels of prenatal exposure to mercury reported for the study samples recruited were higher than those measured in the general U. S. population. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey ( NHANES) for 1999 2000, the mean hair Hg level in women 16 to 49 years of age was 0.47 ppm; the median was 0.19 ppm; the 75th percentile was 0.42 ppm, the 90th percentile was 1.11 ppm; and the 95th percentile was 1.73 ppm ( McDowell et al., 2004). The geometric mean blood Hg level ( NHANES, 1999 2000) was 1.02 ppb; the 75th percentile was 2.07 ppb; the 90th percentile was 4.84 ppb; and the 95th percentile was 7.13 ppb ( Schober et al., 2003). This blood Hg level cannot be directly compared to the cord blood Hg level reported in the Faroe Islands study, however, insofar as the ratio of maternal blood Hg: cord blood Hg appears not to 1: 1, as was formerly assumed. Stern and Smith ( 2003) suggested a point estimate of 1: 1.7, with 1: 3.5 as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. It is also important to note that subgroups of the U. S. population that are high fish consumers were not specifically targeted for sampling ( e. g., subsistence or sport fishermen). Even within the NHANES, 1999 2000 sample, however, blood Hg levels were strongly associated with level of reported fish consumption, with women eating more than 9 fish meals per month having blood Hg levels that were generally 5 to 6 times greater than the levels of women who reported not consuming any fish meals ( Mahaffey et al., 2004).

Why did the test batteries used in the three studies differ so much? One reason appears to be differences in the criteria the three sets of investigators used to assemble their respective test batteries. For the New Zealand study, "  tests were selected in accordance with the recommendations by a WHO Expert Group on indicators of lead neurotoxicity in children ( specifically those considered " essential or highly recommended," supplemented with "  specific tests that are generally used in educational psychology in New Zealand" ( Kjellstrom et al., 1989, p. 20). For the Faroe Islands study, " The selection of neuropsychological tests  was based on consideration of the literature on neuropathological findings in Minamata Disease associated with fetal and early childhood exposure to methylmercury, the functional deficits seen in children with early life exposure to other neurotoxicants such as lead, and an interest in sampling specific types of cognitive processing capacities ( rather than obtaining non specific omnibus measures of ` general intelligence')" ( White et al., 1994). For the Seychelles Child Development Study, " A review of the literature concerning human fetal exposure to low concentrations of methylmercury revealed that adverse effects might occur in one or more of the following eight domains of developmental functioning: general cognitive, visual perceptual, speech language, visual memory, visual attention, neuromotorneurological social emotional, and learning achievement. Tests were then selected to adequately assess each of these domains" ( Davidson et al., 1995). Given these statements, it is not surprising that the assessments applied in the New Zealand study were primarily so called apical or omnibus tests ( e. g., the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised) that integrate performance over many domains or that test highly integrative functions such as academic achievement ( e. g., reading, mathematics). The approach used by the Seychelles investigators was similar, focusing on insuring valid assessment of broad domains of function, including intelligence and academic achievement. The approach of the Faroe Islands investigators was fundamentally different. They focused on assessment of specific cognitive functions that the literature on brain behavior relationships in MeHg poisoning cases identified as the areas in which subtle deficits would be most likely to occur as the result of low level MeHg exposure. Thus these investigators were interested in elucidating the neuropsychological mechanisms of MeHg neurotoxicity.

Despite the differences in assessment philosophy that motivated the test choices of the investigators who conducted the three studies, some overlap does exist in the specific instruments used. The New Zealand and Seychelles Islands studies both administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children ( WISC), an IQ test, although the older WISC R was used in New Zealand and the WISC III in the Seychelles. In the Faroe Islands study, three of the 13 subtests of the WISC R were administered, providing the only overlap between the tests administered in this study and in the New Zealand study. As noted, the battery of tests administered to the Seychellois children at the 9 year assessment was enriched with tests that were administered to the Faroese children at 7 years in order to enhance study comparability. Thus, the overlap is greater for these two studies than for other pairs. Nevertheless, for 2 of the 4 tests administered in both studies ( California Verbal Learning Test Children, Boston Naming Test, finger tapping, continuous performance test), comparability is less than it would appear. Different procedures were used in the two studies to assess finger tapping. Similarly, the Continuous Performance Tests ( CPT) used differed considerably. Each test assesses the broad domain of attention, but the one used in the Faroe Islands assesses primarily vigilance ( response to a target but not to non targets), while the one used in the Seychelles Islands assesses primarily response inhibition ( response to non targets but not to targets). These neuropsychological processes might be differentially vulnerable to MeHg. Moreover, likely differences in the psychometric characteristics of the two CPT tasks used would also reduce the validity of comparisons of findings in the two studies. The only test for which scores are available in all three studies is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, although a different version of this test ( was used in the Seychelles Islands ( WISC III) than in New Zealand or the Faroe Islands ( both WISC R). As part of the standardization of the WISC III, however, both versions were administered to approximately 200 children. The correlation between the Full Scale IQ scores on the two was 0.89, although children's scores averaged 5 points higher on the WISC R. Such an upward drift over time in the mean score on a test occurs with sufficient frequency to have been given a name, the " Flynn effect" ( Flynn, 1987). The WISC R and WISC III appear to measure the same constructs and generate scores with similar dispersion, providing little reason to believe that scores on one version of the WISC will be more sensitive to MeHg than are scores on the other version, or that features of the dose effect relationship will differ. In the Faroe Islands study, only three of the 13 subtests of the WISC were administered due to the investigators' conclusion that a MeHg associated deficit in an apical score such as Full Scale IQ provides relatively little insight into the specific nature of MeHg's neuropsychological effects on children. As described in a later section, it is possible, however, to estimate a Full Scale IQ score from scores on the subtests that were administered in the Faroe Islands study.

In some respects, it is fortunate that Full Scale IQ is the single score that can be compared across the three studies and used as the basis for estimating the benefits of Hg reductions. It is a composite index that averages a child's performance across many functional domains, providing a good overall picture of cognitive health. Despite some debate over the usefulness and meaning of the concept of IQ, an extensive body of data documents the predictive validity of Full Scale IQ, as measured at school age, and late outcomes such as academic and occupational success ( Neisser et al., 1996). Finally, whereas the economic import of changes in children's scores on most neuropsychological tests are unknown, methods are readily available for valuing shifts in IQ and thus conducting a benefits analysis of interventions that shift the IQ distribution in a population.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that Full Scale IQ might not be the cognitive endpoint that is most sensitive to prenatal MeHg exposure. If it is not, a benefits analysis resting solely on IQ would underestimate the beneficial changes in cognition that would be expected to result from reductions in MeHg exposure. The three studies do, in fact, provide evidence that this might be the case. Significant inverse associations were found, in both the New Zealand and Faroe Islands studies, between prenatal mercury levels and cognitive endpoints other than IQ. If, as the Faroe Islands investigators surmise, the effects of MeHg are focal, affecting only specific cognitive functions, using Full Scale IQ as the primary endpoint in a benefits analysis might underestimate the costs. This is because performances on many diverse functions are aggregated in computing a Full Scale IQ score. If MeHg impairs performance on only certain of the functions, the magnitude of the change in Full Scale IQ score per unit change in the MeHg biomarker would be misleading as an index of the effects of MeHg, overestimating the impact on the functions that are insensitive to MeHg and underestimating the impact on the functions that are sensitive to MeHg. In someone with deficits that are severe but focal, therefore, Full Scale IQ would be misleading. Moreover, it is well known that cognitive well being might be severely compromised in an individual whose Full Scale IQ is average or even well above average. The criterion most frequently used to identify children with learning disabilities for the purposes of assignment to special education services is a discrepancy between IQ and achievement. Specifically, the child's achievement in reading, math, or other academic area is significantly lower than what would be expected, given his or her Full Scale IQ.

Even if it were true that IQ is the most sensitive cognitive endpoint with respect to prenatal MeHg exposure, a calculation of the benefits of a reduction in mercury exposure that is based solely on IQ changes will almost certainly underestimate those benefits. As noted, it is possible for an individual to have significant cognitive impairments that are not reflected in the Full Scale IQ score. For instance, two of the most sensitive endpoints in the Faroe Islands study were the Boston Naming Test ( BNT), which assesses word retrieval, and the California Verbal Learning Test Children ( CVLT C), which assesses the acquisition and retention of information presented verbally. Depending on the severity of the deficits, a child who has deficits in either of these skills could be at a considerable disadvantage in the classroom setting and at substantial educational risk. Neither of these abilities is directly assessed by the WISC R or WISC III, however, and so do not explicitly contribute to a child's IQ score. According to the manual for the CVLT C, the correlation between a child's scores on the WISC R subtest Vocabulary and on " List A, Trials 1 5," the primary CVLT C index of immediate free recall, was 0.33 for 5 8 year olds. The variance shared by these two tests, therefore, is only about 11%. This dissociation led the test developers to conclude that, "  the CVLT C evaluates, in large part, a domain of cognition different from verbal I. Q." ( Delis et al., 1994, p. 91). Unfortunately, the unavailability of the kind of detailed information that is available on the costs associated with IQ deficits would make it difficult to base a benefits calculation on tests such as the BNT and CVLT C, or even to include them along with IQ in such a calculation. The unavoidable implication, therefore, is that a calculation that does not include them will underestimate the benefits of MeHg reductions. As noted, the definition of a " learning disability" usually used to identify children in need of remedial services is academic achievement that is lower than that which would be expected on the basis of the child's IQ. If the costs of an exposure were calculated solely on the basis of reduced IQ, an exposure related increase in the prevalence of children with a learning disability would not add anything to the total costs. Nevertheless, in the absence of the data needed to calculate the benefits of increases in scores on tests such as the CVLT C or BNT, estimating the benefits solely on the basis of IQ remains the best option.

The Faroe Islands investigators identified a concern about a portion of the data they collected on the WISC R subtest, Similarities. After data collection had begun, a decision was made that, for logistical reasons, the technician would administer this subtest rather than the psychologist. Whereas the association between cord blood Hg and Similarities score was not significant in data for the cohort as a whole, it was significant when the analysis was limited to the data collected by the psychologist. This suggests that in the cohort as a whole the Similarities data are " noisy," and that this noise would carry over into the estimates of the children's Full Scale IQ. This would, possibly, result in an attenuation of the association between prenatal Hg and estimated Full Scale IQ. One option for addressing this would be to estimate the Full Scale IQ scores of the Faroese children on the basis of the Block Design and Digit Span scores alone. This ad hoc solution would be unsatisfactory insofar as it was developed only after the results of data analyses were known. Another solution would be to include in the analyses only those children to whom the psychologist administered the Similarities subtest. This would be unsatisfactory because it would result in a greatly diminished sample size.

Because only 3 WISC R subtests were administered in the Faroe Islands study ( Similarities, Block Design, and Digit Span), it is necessary to consider whether a valid Full Scale IQ can be estimated from them and compared to the IQ scores measured in the New Zealand and Seychelles Islands studies. The WISC R includes 10 core subtests and 3 supplementary subtests. Similarities and Block Design are core subtests, and Digit Span a supplementary subtest. The WISC R was standardized on a nationallyrepresentative sample of U. S. children ages 6 to 16 years. Based on subtest scores, Sattler ( 1988) identified the pair, triad, quartet, etc. of subtests that provides the most valid estimate of Full Scale IQ. Only the 10 core subtests were considered in this exercise. Of the 45 possible combinations of 2 core subtests ( i. e., 10 subtests taken 2 at a time), the combination of Similarities and Block Design, the two core subtests administered in the Faroe Islands study, ranked 3rd in the magnitude of the validity coefficient ( 0.885). The top ranked combination was Vocabulary and Block Design ( 0.906). The combination ranked 2nd was Information and Block Design ( 0.888). It is reasonable to expect that taking into account Digit Span scores, the supplementary subtest administered, will increase the validity coefficient. The results of this exercise engenders confidence that combining the scores of the Faroese children on Similarities, Block Design and Digit Span will provide valid estimates of their Full Scale IQ scores that can be compared to the Full Scale IQ scores for the New Zealand and Seychellois children.

The magnitude of the changes in neurobehavioral test scores associated with increases in neurotoxicant biomarker levels tend to be small. In the case of lead and children's IQ scores, for instance, most estimates cluster around the figure of a 2 to 3 point IQ deficit for each increase of 10 µ g/ dL ( IPCS, 1995). Whether such a change has any practical import for a child or for the population has been a topic of spirited debate. Some have argued that it is not, that it is " within the noise" because it is smaller than the typical standard error of measurement ( SEM) for Full Scale IQ ( e. g., the average SEM for the WISC III Full Scale IQ is 3.2). Others have argued that this statistic is irrelevant with respect to the issue of shifts in the mean score for a population ( Bellinger, 2004). In many respects, the issues surrounding the public health implications of neurotoxicantassociated shifts in a test score are identical to those germane to other topics in environmental, nutritional, and chronic disease epidemiology. Rose and Day ( 1990), for instance, showed that the correlation is very high ( approximately 0.9) between the mean values of a health indicator within a population ( e. g., systolic blood pressure, body mass index) and the percentage of members in the population with values on the indicator that meet diagnostic criteria for the corresponding disease ( e. g., hypertension, obesity). Moreover, the slope of the relationship between mean value and percent meeting disease criteria is quite steep, suggesting that a small difference between two populations in mean value can reflect substantial differences between populations in the prevalence of cases of disease. For instance, based on the observed relationship, Rose estimated that a reduction of 1 mmHg in mean systolic blood pressure in a population would be associated with a reduction of about 1% in the prevalence of hypertension. If the baseline prevalence of hypertension in the population had been 15%, a reduction in the mean systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, which could well be within the SEM for an individual, would result in a new population prevalence of 10%, a reduction of 33%. On the basis of such reasoning, Rose ( 1981) argued that equal benefits would be expected to result from a " high risk" strategy involving the administration of anti hypertensive drugs to everyone with a diastolic blood pressure > 105 mmHg and a " population" strategy involving an intervention that produced a downward shift of 2 3 mmHg in the mean blood pressure in the population. This is illustration of what he termed, " the prevention paradox," namely that " A preventive measure which brings much benefit in the population offers little to each participating individual" ( Rose, 1985). Although Rose's developed his principles on the basis of cross sectional data comparing different population, recent prospective studies, including a randomized trial, have confirmed, within a given population, that small shifts in the central tendency of the distribution of a health indicator is associated with substantial changes in the tails of the distribution, specifically in terms of the proportion the population with values of the indicator in the range within which individuals become " cases" of disease.

It is also important to recognize that a shift in the mean value of a response parameter in a population does not mean that the response parameter of each individual within the population shifted by the same amount. The mean shift is a point estimate, the weighted average of the shifts among individuals who vary in their sensitivity to MeHg. The shift might be considerably greater than the point estimate among individuals who are particularly sensitive to MeHg and considerably less among individuals who are not.

With respect to neurotoxicant exposures, this phenomenon has been explored most with regard to lead exposure in children. Needleman et al. ( 1982) showed that whereas the median verbal IQ scores of " high" lead and " low" lead children differed only modestly, the frequency of low scores ( i. e., < 80) in the high group was double that in the low lead group.

NOTE: This report has been peer reviewed in accordance with EPA guidelines. Peer review comments and responses are presented elsewhere ( U. S. EPA 2005). References Bellinger DC. ( 2004). What is an adverse effect? A possible resolution of clinical and epidemiological perspectives on neurobehavioral toxicity. Environmental Research, 95, 394 405.

Budtz Jorgensen E, Grandjean P, Jorgensen PJ, Weihe P, Keiding N. ( 2004). Association between mercury concentrations in blood and hair in methylmercury exposed subjects at different ages. Environmental Research; 95( 3): 385 93.

Davidson PW, Myers GJ, Cox C, et al. ( 1995). Neurodevelopmental test selection, administration, and performance in the main Seychelles Child Development Study. Neurotoxicology 16: 665 676.

Davidson PW, Myers GJ, Cox C, Axtell C, Shamlaye C, Sloane Reeves J, Cernichiari E, Needham L, Choi A, Wang Y, Berlin M, Clarkson TW ( 1998). Effects of prenatal and postnatal methylmercury exposure from fish consumption on neurodevelopment: outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles Child Development Study. Journal of the American Medical Association Aug 26; 280( 8): 701 7.

Delis DC, Kramer JH, Kaplan E, Ober BA. CVLT C. California Verbal Learning Test. Children's version. Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation, 1994.

Flynn JR. ( 1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin 101: 171 191.

Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F., Araki S., Yokoyama K., et al. ( 1997). Cognitive deficit in 7 year old children with prenatal exposure to methylmercury. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 19, 417 428.

International Programme on Chemical Safety. ( 1995). Environmental Health Criteria 165: Inorganic Lead. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Kjellstrom T, Kennedy P, Wallis S, Stewart A, Friberg L, Lind B, et al. ( 1989). Physical and mental development of children with prenatal exposure to mercury from fish. National Swedish Environmental Protection Board Report No. 3642.

Mahaffey KR, Clickner RP, Bodurow CC. ( 2004). Blood organic mercury and dietary mercury intake: National Health and nutrition examination survey, 1999 and 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112( 5), 562 570. McDowell MA, Dillon CF, Osterloh J, Bolger PM, Pellizzari E, Fernando R, Montes de Oca R, Schober SE, Sinks T, Jones RL, Mahaffey KR. ( 2004). Hair mercury levels in U. S. children and women of childbearing age: reference range data from NHANES 1999 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives Aug; 112( 11): 1165 71.

Myers GJ, Davidson PW, Cox C, Shamlaye CF, Palumbo D, Cernichiari E, et al. ( 2003). Prenatal methylmercury exposure from ocean fish consumption in the Seychelles child. Lancet, 361, 1686 1692.

Needleman HL, Leviton A, and Bellinger D. ( 1982). Lead associated intellectual deficits. New England Journal of Medicine 306, 367.

Neisser U, Boodoo G, Bouchard TJ, et al. ( 1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist 51: 77 101.

Rose G. ( 1985). Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology 14, 32 38.

Rose G. ( 1981). Strategy of prevention: Lessons from cardiovascular disease. British Medical Journal 282, 1847 1851.

Rose G, and Day S. ( 1990). The population mean predicts the number of deviant individuals. British Medical Journal 301, 1031 1034.

Sattler JM. ( 1998). Assessment of Children, 3rd Edition. San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher.

Schober SE, Sinks TH, Jones RL, Bolger PM, McDowell M, Osterloh J, et al. ( 2003). Blood mercury levels in US children and women of childbearing age, 1999 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289( 13), 1667 1674.

Stern AH, Smith AE. ( 2003). An assessment of the cord blood: maternal blood methylmercury ratio: Implications for risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 1465 1470.

U. S. EPA ( 2005). Documentation of Peer Review for EPA's Estimation of an Integrated Dose Response Function for Intelligence Quotient ( IQ) and Prenatal Exposure to Mercury. National Center for Environmental Economics, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Wechsler D. ( 1991). WISC III Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.

White RF, Debes F, Dahl R, Grandjean P ( 1994). Developmental and field testing of a neuropsychological test battery to assess the effects of methylmercury in the Faroe Islands. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Assessment of Environmental Pollution and Health Effects from Methylmercury ( pp. 127 140). University of Kumamoto, Kumamoto, Japan. Table 1 Neurobehavioral Tests Administered at the 6 Year Evaluations in the New Zealand Study Test Primary Domain Assessed Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised General intelligence McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities General development Test of Language Development General verbal skills Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Receptive language Clay Reading Diagnostic Survey Reading Burt Word Recognition Test Single word reading Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test General math skills Everts Behavioural Rating Scale Behavior disorders Table 2 Neurobehavioral Tests Administered at the 7 Year Evaluations in the Faroe Islands Study Test Primary Domain Assessed Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised ( selected subtests) Digit span Similarities Block Design Short term memory Abstract verbal reasoning Constructional praxis Bender Gestalt Test Visual motor integration California Verbal Learning Test Children Verbal learning and memory Boston Naming Test Confrontational naming Tactual Performance Test Nonverbal memory Neurobehavioral Evaluation System ( NES) ( selected tests) Finger tapping Hand eye coordination Continuous performance test Motor speed Hand eye coordination Vigilance Profile of Mood States Mood Child Behavior Checklist ( selected items) Behavior disorders Table 3 Neurobehavioral Tests Administered at the 9 Year Evaluations in the Seychelles Islands Study Test Primary Domain Assessed Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition General intelligence California Verbal Learning Test Children* Verbal learning and memory Boston Naming Test* Confrontational naming Finger tapping* a Motor speed Continuous performance test* a Vigilance Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration Visual motor integration Bruininks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency ( selected subtests) Gross and fine motor skills Grooved Pegboard Manual dexterity Trail Making Test Visual tracking and executive function Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement ( selected subtests) Letter Word Identification Applied Math Single word reading Quantitative problem solving Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning Design Memory subtest Visual memory Haptic Discrimination Test Cross modal integration Child Behavior Checklist Behavioral disorders Connors' Hyperactivity Index ADHD screener   tests presumably added to the battery in order to increase the comparability of the data collected in the Faroe Islands study at age 7 years and in the Seychelles Islands study at age 9 years a. Although the batteries used in both the Faroe Islands and Seychelles Islands studies included a finger tapping task and a continuous performance test, the specific procedures used in the two studies were not the same, reducing the comparability of the scores obtained.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75442-75444]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039]

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.: Application for Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Intertek
Testing Services NA, Inc. for expansion of its recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the
Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before November 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3653,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2007-0039). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before November 15, 2016 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655,
Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing
notice that Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA), is applying for
expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. ITSNA requests the
addition of twenty-three (23) test standards to its NRTL scope of
recognition.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL,
including ITSNA, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    ITSNA currently has fourteen (14) facilities (sites) recognized by
OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters
located at: Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., 545 East Algonquin
Road, Suite F, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005. A complete list of
ITSNA's scope of recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/its.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    ITSNA submitted an application, dated April 21, 2015 (OSHA-2007-
0039-0022), to expand its recognition to include twenty-three (23)
additional test standards. OSHA staff performed detailed analysis of
the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA
did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in ITSNA's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in
                    ITSNA's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 5C.............................  Standard for Surface Raceways and
                                     Fittings for Use with Data, Signal
                                     and Control Circuits.
UL 50E............................  Enclosures for Electrical Equipment,
                                     Environmental Considerations.
UL 565............................  Standard for Liquid-Level Gauges for
                                     Anhydrous Ammonia and LP-Gas.
UL 60745-2-1......................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric
                                     Tools--Safety--Part 2-1: Particular
                                     Requirements for Drills and Impact
                                     Drills.
UL 60745-2-14.....................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric
                                     Tools--Safety--Part 2-14:
                                     Particular Requirements for
                                     Planers.
UL 60745-2-17.....................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric
                                     Tools--Safety--Part 2-17:
                                     Particular Requirements for Routers
                                     and Trimmers.
UL 60745-2-3......................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric
                                     Tools--Safety--Part 2-3: Particular
                                     Requirements for Grinders,
                                     Polishers and Disk-Type Sanders.
UL 962A...........................  Standard for Furniture Power
                                     Distribution Units.
UL 1769...........................  Standard for Cylinder Valves.
UL 2061...........................  Standard for Adapters and Cylinder
                                     Connection Devices for Portable LP-
                                     Gas Cylinder Assemblies.
UL 2108...........................  Standard for Low-Voltage Lighting
                                     Systems.
UL 2238...........................  Standard for Cable Assemblies and
                                     Fittings for Industrial Control and
                                     Signal Distribution.
UL 2305...........................  Standard for Display Units,
                                     Fabrication and Installation.
UL 2438...........................  Standard for Outdoor Seasonal-Use
                                     Cord-Connected Wiring Devices.
UL 5085-2.........................  Low Voltage Transformers--Part 2:
                                     General Purpose Transformers.
UL 61010-031......................  Safety-Requirements for Electrical
                                     Equipment for Measurement, Control
                                     and Laboratory Use--Part 031:
                                     Safety requirements for hand-held
                                     probe assemblies for electrical
                                     measurement and test.
UL 61010-2-030....................  Safety requirements for electrical
                                     equipment for measurement, control
                                     and laboratory use--Part 2-030:
                                     Particular requirements for testing
                                     and measuring circuits.
UL 60730-2-2......................  Standard for Automatic Electrical
                                     Controls for Household and Similar
                                     Use; Part 2: Particular
                                     Requirements for Thermal Motor
                                     Protectors.
UL 60745-2-5......................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric
                                     Tools--Safety--Part 2-5: Particular
                                     Requirements for Circular Saws.
UL 60745-2-21.....................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric
                                     Tools--Safety--Part 2-21:
                                     Particular Requirements for Drain
                                     Cleaners.
UL 60950-23.......................  Information Technology Equipment--
                                     Safety--Part 23: Large Data Storage
                                     Equipment.
UL 62368-1........................  Audio/video, information and
                                     communication technology equipment--
                                     Part 1: Safety requirements.

UL 1691...........................  Single Pole Locking-Type Separable
                                     Connectors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    ITSNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its
scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and
pertinent documentation, indicate that ITSNA can meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include
the addition of these twenty-three test standards for NRTL testing and
certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not
constitute an interim or temporary approval of ITSNA's application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether ITSNA meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health whether to grant ITSNA's application for expansion of
its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final
decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the
Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 25, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2016-26203 Filed 10-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: March 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 14519-14521]
[DOCID:fr22mr06-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253; FRL-7768-9]

Propylene Oxide; Notice of Receipt of Request to Terminate Bird
Seed Uses on Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of a request by the registrant to voluntarily
terminate the use of the pesticide propylene oxide (PPO) on bird seed
products. The request would terminate non-food PPO use as an
insecticidal fumigant for the control of stored product insects in bird
seed. The request would terminate bird seed use for all PPO product(s)
registered in the U.S. EPA intends to grant this request at the close
of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives
substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its
further review of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws their
request within this period. Upon acceptance of this request, any sale,
distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be
permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with
the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docketidentification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
    Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA.
    Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253. The docket
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
     Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0253. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public 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 captured automatically and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/.

     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bartow, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.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 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. Background on the Receipt of Requests to Amend Registrations to
Delete Uses

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from registrant
ABERCO, Inc. to voluntarily terminate bird seed uses of 47870-1, 47870-
2, and 47870-3 PPO product registrations. PPO is an insecticidal
fumigant used on several food items such as processed spices, cocoa
(beans and powder), and in-shell and processed nutmeats (except
peanuts). PPO also has nonfood uses for bird seeds, cosmetic articles,
gums, ores, packaging, pigments, pharmaceutical materials, and
discarded nut shells prior to disposal. In a letter dated January 26,
2006, ABERCO, Inc. requested EPA to terminate PPO's use on bird seed
for pesticide product registrations identified in this notice (Table
1). Specifically, ABERCO, Inc. requests that the nonfood use of PPO as
an insecticidal fumigant for the control of stored product insects in
bird seed be terminated. ABERCO, Inc. requests provisions for sale,
distribution, and use of existing stocks, as EPA defined that term in a
document published on June 26, 1991 at 56 Fed. Reg. 29362, as follows:
    1. Registrants may sell and distribute existing stocks for one year
from the date of this letter making the use termination request, and
    2. The product may be sold, distributed, and used by people other
than the registrant until their stocks have been exhausted, provided
that such sale, distribution, and use complies with the EPA-approved
label and labeling of the product. There will be no more PPO pesticide
products registered in the United States for bird seed use.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant
to terminate bird seed uses of PPO product registrations. The affected
products and the registrant making the requests are identified in Table
1 of this unit.
    Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any
time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to
terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA
requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation,
EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for
voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section
6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period
on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor
agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
     1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
     2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the
pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
     The PPO registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day
comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the
proposed requests.
    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of
publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are
substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an
order will be issued amending the affected registrations.

Table 1.-- PPO Product Registrations with Pending Requests for Amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.             Product name           Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
47870-1                           Propylene Oxide     ABERCO, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
47870-2                           Propylene Oxide     ABERCO, Inc.
                                   Technical
------------------------------------------------------------------------
47870-3                           Propoxide 892       ABERCO, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request and Considerations for
Reregistration of PPO

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before April 21, 2006. This
written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to
the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If
the products(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action,
the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any
earlier cancellation action are controlling.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action.
     In any order issued in response to this request for amendment(s)
to terminate bird seed use, the Agency proposes to include the
following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the
products identified or referenced in Table 1:
    1. The registrant may sell and distribute existing stocks for one
year from the date of this letter making the use termination request,
and
    2. The product may be sold, distributed, and used by people other
than the registrant until their stocks have been exhausted, provided
that such sale, distribution, and use complies with the EPA-approved
label and labeling of the product.
    If the request for voluntary termination is granted as discussed
above, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will allow
persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use
existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are exhausted,
provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously
approved lable on, or that accompanied, the cancelled product. The
order will specifically prohibit any use of existing stocks that is non
consistent with such previously approved labeling. If, as the Agency
currently intends, the final cancellation order contains the existing
stocks provision just described, the order will be sent only to the
affected registrants of the cancelled products. If the Agency
determines that the final cancellation order should contain existing
stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the Agency
will publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 9, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 06-2713 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20218]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign
Utility Company Status

Old Mill Solar, L.L.C.....................  EG15-36-000
Joliet Battery Storage LLC................  EG15-38-000
West Chicago Battery Storage LLC..........  EG15-39-000
Baffin Wind LLC...........................  EG15-40-000
RE Barren Ridge 1 LLC.....................  EG15-41-000
RE Tranquillity LLC.......................  EG15-42-000
RE Roserock LLC...........................  EG15-43-000
Malaga Power, LLC.........................  EG15-44-000
Goshen Wind, LP...........................  FC15-5-000

    Take notice that during the month of March 2015, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08554 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 76799-76800]
[DOCID:fr28de05-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR06-1-000]

State of Alaska, Complainants v. TAPS Carriers, Respondents;
Notice of Complaint

December 19, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 14, 2005, the State of Alaska filed a
formal complaint against the TAPS Carriers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1 et
seq. (1994), and 18 CFR 385.206(a), 385.207, 385.211 and 385.214 (2003)
alleging that the TAPS Carriers impermissibly included imprudently
incurred costs in their 2004, 2005 and 2006 interstate tariffs, that
those rates constitute unjust discrimination under the Interstate
Commerce Act, and that those rates are inconsistent with the terms of
the TAPS Interstate Settlement Agreement and are otherwise unlawful.
    The State of Alaska states that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the TAPS Carriers.
    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 and 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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on January 3, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7919 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 197)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62750]
[DOCID:fr13oc10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1137]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2010-24144 beginning on page 59181 in the
issue of Monday, September 27, 2010, make the following corrections:

Sec. 67.4  [Corrected]

    1. On page 59182, in Sec.  67.4, the table which begins three lines
from the bottom of the page is corrected to have a centered heading
above the first row of the table, which should read ``Putnam County,
New York (All Jurisdictions)''.
    2. On page 59183, in Sec.  67.4, the table on that page is
corrected to have a centered heading above the row of that table whose
first column entry reads ``East Branch Tunungwant Creek.'', which
should read ``McKean County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)''.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-24144 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D