and the impact of the estimates and assumptions on financial
condition or operating performance is material. If so, companies
should provide disclosure about those critical accounting estimates
or assumptions in their MD&A.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Financial Statements--
    Include in the listing application the following financial
statements
    A summary statement of earnings, prepared in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles, for the last five fiscal
years.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Item 301 of Regulation S-K and Item 3(A) of Form 20-F.
    Consolidated financial statements, prepared in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles, together with the report of
the company's independent public accountants.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Article 3 and Rule 2-02 of Regulation S-X and Item 8(A)
of Form 20-F.
    Latest available interim financial statements for the current
fiscal year, prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles. The interim statements shall include a report thereon by
the company's chief financial officer if such statements have not been
audited.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Article 3 and Rules 2-02 and 10-01 of Regulation S-X and
Item 8(A)(5) of Form 20-F, with the exception that such provisions do
not require that the company's chief financial officer provide a report
on the interim financial statements. However, the signature of the
principal financial officer is required by Forms S-1 and F-1 and also
by Form 10-Q, the form on which U.S. companies that are Exchange Act
registrants report their quarterly financial information.
    Pro forma or ``giving effect'' consolidated financial statements in
cases where there has been, or is contemplated, any major financing,
recapitalization, acquisition or reorganization.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Article 11 of Regulation S-X.
    Parent Company Statements--Statements of the parent company as a
separate corporate entity may also be required if such statements
appear essential or desirable. In general, parent company statements
are not required in cases where the subsidiaries are wholly owned and
do not have any substantial amount of funded debt outstanding.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Rules 5-04(c) and 12-04 of Regulation S-X.

V. Form of Transfer Agent Agreements
    As noted in Part I, above, the Exchange proposes to delete from the
Manual the forms of transfer agent and registrar agreements currently
set forth in Sections 906.01, 906.02 and 906.03 of the Manual. In both
of its revised listing agreements, the Exchange has included an
explicit agreement by the applicant issuer to abide by the transfer
agent and registrar requirements set forth in Section 601.00 of the
Manual et seq. The following sets forth the requirements currently
included in the forms of transfer agent and registrar agreements and
states where each requirement can be found in Section 601.00 of the
Manual et seq.
Transfer Agent Registrar Agreement--Type A
    1. That its capital, surplus (both capital and earned) and
undivided profits now aggregate more than $10,000,000, and so long as
it acts as a transfer agent or registrar, or both, for a single
security issue or security issues listed on the NYSE, it will continue
to have capital, surplus and undivided profits aggregating more than
$10,000,000.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(1) of the Manual.
    2. That it will comply with the rules and requirements of the NYSE,
as the same may from time to time be amended, in regard to the transfer
and registration of security issues listed on the NYSE.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(5) of the Manual.
    3. That it will notify the Exchange, 10 days after the close of
each calendar quarter, of the number of shares outstanding for each
security listed on the Exchange.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.00(B) of the Manual.
    4. That before ceasing to act as transfer agent or registrar, or
both, for any security issue or issues listed on the NYSE it will give
to the NYSE written notice of its intention to cease to act at least
five (5) business days before the date after which it will no longer
act as transfer agent or registrar, or both, provided, however, that no
such notice shall be required if (1) a transfer agent or registrar, or
both, approved by the NYSE, is to be substituted for the Agent or (2)
the Agent is prevented by law or by contract from continuing to act as
transfer agent or registrar, or both, for the length of time necessary
to give such notice.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.02 of the Manual.
    5. That the Agent's offices maintained for the purpose of transfer
activities will be staffed by experienced personnel qualified to handle
so-called ``legal terms'' and to advise on and handle other transfer
problems.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(6) of the Manual.
    6. That it will provide adequate facilities for the safekeeping of
securities in its possession or under its control with respect to which
it acts as transfer agent or registrar or both.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(7) of the Manual.
    7. That all securities sent to a transfer agent (i) by mail or a
commercial delivery service in each case on a same day or next day
delivery basis, (ii) by a clearing agency registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 17A of the Exchange
Act (a ``Clearing Agency''), (iii) clearly marked as a record date
transfer, and (iv) deposited into the mail or with the commercial
delivery service no later than the record date must, if the Clearing
Agency so directs in writing in the letter of transmittal, be recorded
by the transfer agent as having been received as of the record date so
as to establish the transferee's rights as of that date. For purposes
of this policy the term ``record date'' shall include any date as of
which the rights of a shareholder are established.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(3) of the Manual.
    8. That in the case of routine transfers, the Agent agrees that any
NYSE listed security received by the Agent for transfer, will be
transferred, registered and mailed to the transferee of such security,
within 48 hours (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excluded) from the
time of receipt of the securities by the transfer agent at its address
designated for registration of transfers.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(2) of the Manual.
    9. That it will maintain facilities to expedite transfers, where
requested, of NYSE listed security issues for which the Agent acts.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(8) of the Manual.
    10. That it will be totally responsible and liable for all
securities for which it acts as Agent from the time the securities are
delivered to or picked up by it, or by its designated Agent until such
securities are picked up by or delivered to the recipient pursuant to
instructions given to the Agent by the recipient.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(4) of the Manual.
    11. That in connection with any loss of any security for which the
Agent acts while such security is in the custody of the Agent or
arising in connection with any receipt, delivery or transportation of
any such security by or for the Agent, or any armored car service used
by the Agent, the Agent agrees that it will at all times maintain
insurance covering any such loss; that such insurance shall be in the
amount of not less than $25 million with respect to each such loss; and
that such insurance shall be payable prior to any other insurance
covering any such loss that may be maintained by and available to the
NYSE.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(1) of the Manual.
    12. That when acting both as transfer agent and registrar for a
single security issue, the Agent will assure that these functions are
maintained separate and distinct with appropriate internal accounting
controls, subject to an annual review by the Agent's independent
auditors. Such auditors will provide a report on an annual basis to the
Agent's Board of Directors with a copy to the NYSE setting forth the
results of their review. The independent auditor's review shall include
such tests of the transfer and registration systems and controls
including the period since the prior examination date as considered
necessary in the circumstances to establish that the control system is
basically adequate and that no material weakness in the internal
control exists. If applicable the auditor's report will comment upon
any material weaknesses found to exist and shall indicate any
corrective action taken or proposed.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(B) of the Manual.
    13. That if the auditor's report, as outlined in Section 12 above,
specifies any material weaknesses, the Agent hereby agrees to take
immediate corrective action. When such corrective steps have been
completed, the auditor will provide a subsequent letter indicating that
the material weaknesses have been corrected.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(B) of the Manual.
    14. That approval of an Agent to act pursuant to this agreement
will not be granted until such time as an

independent auditor has submitted a report covering the results of such
review to the Agent's Board of Directors and to the NYSE in a form
satisfactory to the NYSE.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(B) of the Manual.
    15. That the NYSE may at any time determine that the Agent is no
longer a qualified transfer agent or registrar, or both, of a security
issue or issues listed on the NYSE in the event the Agent fails to
comply with all or any part of the provisions of this Agreement.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(9) of the Manual.
    16. The Agent hereby appoints ------------ as its agent for service
of process in connection with matters arising out of or by reason of
Agent's acting as transfer agent or registrar or both, for NYSE listed
security issues. This appointment shall be limited to process served in
connection with the performance or failure to perform such services
including transportation and custody, shall not extend to matters
unrelated thereto or shall not be or be deemed to be a general
appointment as agent for service upon the Agent.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(15) of the Manual.
    17. For companies required to maintain eligibility for a security
in a direct registration system pursuant to Para. 501.00 of this
Manual: The Agent will at all times be eligible either for the direct
registration system operated by the Depository Trust Company or for
another direct registration system operated by a securities depository
that is registered as a clearing agency with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 17A(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(13) of the Manual.
Transfer Agent Registrar Agreement--Type B
    1. That its capital, surplus (both capital and earned) and
undivided profits now aggregate more than $2,000,000 and so long as it
acts as a transfer agent or registrar for security issues listed on the
NYSE, it will continue to have capital, surplus and undivided profits
aggregating more than $2,000,000.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(D) of the Manual.
    2. That it will comply with the rules and requirements of the NYSE,
as the same may from time to time be amended, in regard to the transfer
and registration of security issues listed on the NYSE.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(5) of the Manual.
    3. That it will notify the Exchange, 10 days after the close of
each calendar quarter, of the number of shares outstanding for each
security listed on the Exchange.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.00(B) of the Manual.
    4. That before ceasing to act in either capacity for any security
issue or issues listed on the NYSE it will give to the NYSE written
notice of its intention to cease to act at least five (5) business days
before the date after which it will no longer act as transfer agent, or
registrar provided, however, that no such notice shall be required if
(1) a co-transfer agent or registrar approved by the NYSE, is to be
substituted for the Agent or (2) the Agent is prevented by law or by
contract from continuing to act as co-transfer agent or registrar for
the length of time necessary to give such notice.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.02 of the Manual.
    5. That the Agent's offices maintained for the purpose of transfer
activities be staffed by experienced personnel qualified to handle so-
called ``legal items'' and to advise on and handle other transfer
problems.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(6) of the Manual.
    6. That it will provide adequate facilities for the safekeeping of
securities in its possession or under its control with respect to which
it acts as co-transfer agent or registrar.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(7) of the Manual.
    7. That, as co-transfer agent, it will be totally responsible and
liable for all securities for which it acts from the time the
securities are delivered to or picked up by it, or its designated
agent, until such securities are picked up by or delivered to the
recipient pursuant to instructions given to the Agent by the recipient.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(4) of the Manual.
    8. That all securities sent to a transfer agent (i) by mail or a
commercial delivery service in each case on a same day or next day
delivery basis, (ii) by a clearing agency registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 17A of the Exchange
Act (a ``Clearing Agency''), (iii) clearly marked as a record date
transfer, and (iv) deposited into the mail or with the commercial
delivery service no later than the record date must, if the Clearing
Agency so directs in writing in the letter of transmittal, be recorded
by the transfer agent as having been received as of the record date so
as to establish the transferee's rights as of that date. For purposes
of this policy the term ``record date'' shall include any date as of
which the rights of a shareholder are established.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(3) of the Manual.
    9. That in the case of routine transfers, the Agent agrees that any
NYSE listed security delivered to or picked up by the Agent for
transfer, will be transferred, registered and available for pick up at
its office within 48 hours (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excluded)
from the time of pick up by or delivery to the Agent.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(2) of the Manual.
    10. That it will maintain facilities to expedite transfers, where
requested, of NYSE listed security issues for which the Agent acts.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(8) of the Manual.
    11. That the NYSE may at any time determine that the Agent is no
longer a qualified transfer agent or registrar of security issues
listed on the NYSE in the event the Agent fails to comply with all or
any part of the provisions of this Agreement.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(9) of the Manual.
Agreement for Corporate Issuers To Act as Transfer Agent and Registrar
    1. That it presently meets the Exchange's applicable minimum
original or continued numerical standards for listing.
     The Exchange's minimum original and continued numerical
standards for listing are set forth in Sections 102.00 and 802.01A of
the Manual. For initial public offerings, the Exchange verifies these
standards via an underwriter's representation letter. For transfers or
continued listing issues, the Exchange verifies these standards via
shareholder lists obtained from the Company, Broadridge Financial
Solutions or the company's public filings. Because the Exchange can
independently confirm the minimum original and continued numerical
standards for listing, the

Exchange proposes to delete this requirement.
    2. That it will comply with the rules and requirements of the NYSE,
as the same may from time to time be amended, in regard to the transfer
and registration of security issues listed on the NYSE.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(5) of the Manual.
    3. That it will notify the NYSE 10 days after the close of each
calendar quarter of the number of shares outstanding for each security
listed on the Exchange for which it acts as transfer agent and
registrar.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.00(B) of the Manual.
    4. That before ceasing to act as transfer agent and registrar, it
will give to the NYSE written notice of its intention to cease to act
at least five (5) business days before the date after which it will no
longer act as transfer agent and registrar, provided, however, that no
such notice shall be required if (1) a transfer agent and registrar
approved by the NYSE is to be substituted for the Agent or (2) the
Agent is prevented by law or by contract from continuing to act as
transfer agent and registrar for the length of time necessary to give
such notice.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.02 of the Manual.
    5. That the Agent's offices maintained for the purpose of transfer
activities will be staffed by experienced personnel qualified to handle
so-called ``legal items'' and to advise on and handle other transfer
problems.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(6) of the Manual.
    6. That it will provide adequate facilities for the safekeeping of
securities in its possession or under its control with respect to which
it acts as transfer agent and registrar.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(7) of the Manual.
    7. That all securities sent to a transfer agent (i) by mail or a
commercial delivery service in each case on a same day or next day
delivery basis, (ii) by a clearing agency registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 17A of the Exchange
Act (a ``Clearing Agency''), (iii) clearly marked as a record date
transfer, and (iv) deposited into the mail or with the commercial
delivery service no later than the record date must, if the Clearing
Agency so directs in writing in the letter of transmittal, be recorded
by the transfer agent as having been received as of the record date so
as to establish the transferee's rights as of that date. For purposes
of this policy the term ``record date'' shall include any date as of
which the rights of a shareholder are established.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(3) of the Manual.
    8. That in the case of routine transfers, the Agent agrees that its
NYSE listed securities received by the Agent for transfer, will be
transferred, registered and mailed to the transferee of such security
within 48 hours (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excluded) from the
time of receipt of the securities by the transfer agent at its address
designated for registration of transfers.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(2) of the Manual.
    9. That it will maintain facilities to expedite transfers, where
requested, of its NYSE listed security issues.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(8) of the Manual.
    10. That it will be totally responsible and liable for all
securities for which it acts as Agent from the time the securities are
delivered to or picked up by it, or its designated agent, until such
securities are delivered to the recipient pursuant to instructions
given to the Agent by the recipient.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(4) of the Manual.
    11. That it will file an agreement with the Exchange indemnifying
purchasers of its NYSE listed securities from and against any and all
loss arising out of over/under issuance.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(B) of the Manual.
    12. That the Agent will assure that the transfer agent and
registrar functions are maintained separate and distinct with
appropriate internal controls, subject to an annual review by the
Agent's independent auditors. Such auditors will provide a letter on an
annual basis to the Agent's Board of Directors with a copy to the NYSE
setting forth the results of their review. The independent auditor's
review shall include tests of the transfer and registrations systems
and controls including the period since the prior examination date as
considered necessary in the circumstances to establish that the control
system is basically adequate and that no material weakness in the
internal control exists. If applicable, the auditor's review will
comment upon any inadequacies found to exist and shall indicate any
corrective action taken or proposed.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(B) of the Manual.
    13. That if the auditor's review, as outlined in Section 12 above,
specified any inadequacies, the Agent hereby agrees to take immediate
corrective action. When such corrective steps have been completed, the
auditors will provide a subsequent letter indicating that the
inadequacies have been corrected.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(B) of the Manual.
    14. That approval to act pursuant to this agreement will not be
granted until such time as an independent auditor has submitted a
letter covering the results of such review to the Agent's Board of
Directors and to the NYSE in a form satisfactory to the NYSE.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(B) of the Manual.
    15. That the NYSE may at any time determine that the Agent is no
longer a qualified transfer agent and registrar for its NYSE listed
security issues in the event the Agent fails to comply with all or any
part of the provisions of this Agreement.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(9) of the Manual.
    16. For companies required to maintain eligibility for a security
in a direct registration system pursuant to Para 501.00 of this Manual:
The Agent will at all times be eligible either for the direct
registration system operated by the Depository Trust Company or for
another direct registration system operated by a securities depository
that is registered as a clearing agency with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 17A(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
     The Exchange proposes to delete this requirement as it is
duplicative of Section 601.01(A)(13) of the Manual.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \25\ of
the Exchange Act in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) \26\ of the Exchange Act in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities,

and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the investor protection and
public interest goals of the Exchange Act because a listing applicant
will continue to undergo a rigorous application process, in which it
will continue to provide to the Exchange all information necessary for
the Exchange to make an informed decision about the issuer's
qualification for listing. In addition, the proposed revised listing
agreements provide that any listing applicant will agree to comply with
the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that: (i) The provisions the Exchange
proposes to include in new Section 107.00 and (ii) the proposal to
amend Section 802.01D to explicitly include a violation of the listing
agreement as a basis for delisting are consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The requirements included in
proposed Section 107.00 are all policies the Exchange has long applied
as part of its initial listing process and they are important in
insuring that only qualified companies are admitted to listing. The
proposed amendment to Section 802.01D simply makes explicit that it may
be appropriate in certain circumstances for the Exchange to utilize its
discretion under that rule to delist a company for a violation of its
listing agreement.
    The proposed changes to Sections 702.03, 702.04, 901, 902.01 and
903 of the Manual are consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest, as the proposed changes do not to weaken
regulatory requirements but instead simply streamline the Exchange's
listing application process and the organization of the Manual by
deleting from the Manual documents that will now be made available on
the Exchange's Web site.
    The proposed changes to Sections 104.00, 702.00 and 702.02 of the
Manual are consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, as the proposed changes do not to weaken regulatory
requirements, but instead simply provide a more helpful description of
the Exchange's confidential review of eligibility and overall listing
process. The indicative timeline proposed to be deleted from Section
702.02 is very approximate and does not necessarily bear any relation
to the listing experience of any individual company. The Exchange
believes these changes, as described in Part I above, will make the
relevant sections more informative for listing applicants and add
transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange's proposed changes to Sections 906.01, 906.02, 906.03,
601.01 and 601.03 of the Manual, deleting the requirements with respect
to transfer agent and registrar agreements, are consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, as a listing applicant
will continue to be required to explicitly agree in the revised listing
agreement that it will have a qualified transfer agent and registrar at
all times while listed on the Exchange.
    The proposed modifications to the listing application are
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because the Exchange is simply eliminating from the application
information requirements that are duplicative of disclosure
requirements under the Federal securities laws or where similar
disclosure provisions under the Federal securities laws provide
information sufficient for the Exchange to make informed determinations
about the suitability of issuers for listing.
    The proposed modifications to the domestic and foreign listing
agreements are consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because, as described in detail in Parts II and III of
the ``Purpose'' section of this filing, any requirements that are
eliminated are either: (i) Duplicative of provisions included elsewhere
in the Manual as listing rules; (ii) no longer applicable because the
SEC has previously approved the elimination of an identical listing
rule requirement; (iii) no longer relevant in light of changes to the
structure and practices in the securities markets; or (iv) proposed
additions to the Manual as listing rules.
    The Exchange's proposed changes to Sections 701.02, 702.06 and 703
of the Manual, as described in Part I above, are technical and
conforming changes that are non-substantive in nature.
    The Exchange's proposed deletion of Section 702.01 of the Manual in
its current form, as described more fully in Part I of the ``Purpose''
section of this filing, is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, as it simply eliminates a description which is
not accurate as it relates to the listing application process proposed
to be adopted pursuant to this filing.
    The proposed deletion of Section 702.05 of the Manual is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, because
market participants and investors no longer need to rely on the
publication of an issuer's listing application by the Exchange for
information about the issuer, as all disclosures material to an
investment in that issuer's securities must be included in such
issuer's SEC filings.
    The proposed deletions of Sections 904.01-904.03 of the Manual are
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as: (i) The Stock Distribution Schedule in Section 904.01 is obsolete
because the Exchange obtains the distribution information it needs from
the Company's transfer agent; (ii) the information required by Section
904.02 would be required to be included in the revised listing
application; and (iii) the ``Due Bill'' Form Letter included in Section
904.03 is no longer used, as investors have access to this information
in real time through online market data service providers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition. The proposed rule change does not
substantively alter the requirements for initial listing in any
material respect and therefore will not advantage the Exchange in
competing for new listings.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-33 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-NYSE-2013-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-33 and should be
submitted on or before June 7, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11759 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29616-29617]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0084; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
Model Year 2012 Jeep Wrangler Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
Manufactured for the Mexican Market Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
model year (MY) 2012 Jeep Wrangler multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs) that were manufactured for sale in the Mexican market and not
originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the
United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that
were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that
were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety
standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2012 Jeep Wrangler MPV)
and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless

NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a
motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in
the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same
model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is
capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Mesa Auto Wholesalers (Mesa), of Chandler, Arizona (Registered
Importer R-94-018) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
2012 Jeep Wrangler MPV's manufactured for the Mexican market are
eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which
Mesa believes are substantially similar are MY 2012 Jeep Wrangler MPV's
sold in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as
conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified MY 2012
Jeep Wrangler MPV's that were manufactured for the Mexican market to
their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be
substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    Mesa submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified MY 2012 Jeep Wrangler MPV's
manufactured for the Mexican market, as originally manufactured,
conform to many applicable FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S.-
certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to
conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non U.S.-certified MY
2012 Jeep Wrangler MPV's manufactured for the Mexican market, as
originally manufactured, conform to: Standard Nos. 102 Transmission
Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking
Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield
Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 113 Hood Latch
System, 114 Theft Protection, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118
Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof panel System, 124
Accelerator Control Systems, 126 Electronic Stability Control Systems,
135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 138 Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,
201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202a Head Restraints, 204
Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door
Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating Systems, 208 Occupant
Crash Protection, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 213 Child Restraint Systems, 214
Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone
Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, 301 Fuel System
Integrity, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the subject non-U.S certified
vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following
standards, in the manner indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: replacement of the
instrument cluster with U.S. model components that include a brake
warning indicator and vehicle speed markings such that the vehicle, as
modified, will fully comply with the standard.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: installation of the
required tire information placard printed in English.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield pillar to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-11144 Filed 5-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26379]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11761]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0811; FRL-9994-07-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Control of Air Pollution From Motor
Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. The revisions remove rules from the Texas SIP
that address vehicle anti-tampering requirements and the Low Income
Repair Assistance Program for certain participating counties.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2018-0811, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For additional information on how to submit
comments see the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is approving the Texas SIP submittal as a direct rule
without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant
adverse comments are received in response to this action no further
activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule that is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 28, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-11761 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60851-60852]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3335-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Maryland; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Maryland (FEMA-3335-EM), dated August 27,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 27, 2011, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5208 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Maryland resulting from Hurricane Irene beginning on
August 26, 2011, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
an emergency exists in the State of Maryland.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas
J. McCool, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    The counties of Baltimore, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne's,
Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester and Baltimore City for
emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program at 75 percent
Federal funding.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-25169 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

                                    PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

                                             TOXIC SUBSTANCES

June 28, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Environmental Effects Assessment of
beta-bromo-beta-nitrostyrene, 2-bromo-2-niroethenylbenzene
(Bromonitrostyrene) for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
Document

Case No.: 2065	DP Barcode: 336286

FROM:	David C. Bays, Microbiologist

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

TO:                             		Mark Hartman, Branch Chief

Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

ShaRon Carlisle, Chemical Review Manager

Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

THRU:	Rick Petrie, Team Leader, Team Three

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Norman Cook, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Chemical Name	                     PC Code                 CAS#
   	             Common Name

beta-bromo-beta-nitrostyrene       101401                7166-19-0
         Bromonitrostyrene

 2-bromo-2-nitroethenylbenzene

Environmental Effects Science Chapter and Assessment on
Bromonitrostyrene is submitted for Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED).

 ECOLOGICAL HAZARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RISK ASSESSMENT CHAPTER

beta-bromo-beta-nitrostyrene,

2-bromo-2-nitroethenylbenzene

(Bromonitrostyrene)

PC Code: 101401

CASE No.: 2065

05/14/2007

David C. Bays

Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Table of Contents

I.  Summary of
Uses…………………………………………………………
………………4

II.  Ecological Toxicity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.  Birds, Acute and Subacute
………………………………………………..…5

2.   Mammals, Acute and Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.   Non-target Insects,
Honeybees……………………………………………….6

            B.  Toxicity to Aquatic Animals
………..………………………………….………..6

1.  Freshwater Fish, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

2.  Freshwater Fish, Chronic
………………………….………………….…7

3.  Freshwater Invertebrates,
Acute………………….……………………...7

4.  Freshwater Invertebrates, Chronic
………………………………………8

5.  Estuarine and Marine Organisms
………………………………………..8

              C.  Toxicity to Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9

III.  Risk Assessment and Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

A.  Environmental Fate Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B.  Environmental Exposure Assessment
…………………………………………..11

C.  Endangered Species Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 18

IV.  Confirmatory Data Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 20

V.  Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms. . . .
. . . . . . .  . . . .. . . 20

VI.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . 20

I.  Summary of Uses

Bromonitrostyrene (BNS) is an antimicrobial agent inhibits the growth of
bacterial and fungi during the manufacture, storage and distribution of
adhesives, caulks, none-food contact paper coatings, sealants, inks,
dyes, textile lubricants, guar gums, fountain solutions, metalworking
fluids, surfactants, paints, latex emulsions, mineral slurries,
pigments, coatings and consumer household related products such as
dishwashing liquids, surface cleaners, laundry cleaners and polishes.
The following is an overview of BNS uses:

TYPE OF PESTICIDE

Fungicide, Slimicide, Molluscide, Mildewcide, Algaecide,
Microbiocide/Microbiostat

CURRENT USES

Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Premises and Equipment

Commercial Laundry

Materials Preservatives

Latex
Adhesives

Cleansers                                                     Gum
adhesives

Dispersed colors                                          Caulking
compounds

Polishes                                                        Sealants

Solutions (all or unspecified)                       Coatings

Emulsions (all or unspecified)                      Paper/paperboard
coatings

Liquid products (all or unspecified)             Leather and leather
stock

Inks
Metalworking cutting fluids

Dyes                                                              Oil
recovery drilling mud and packer fluid

Liquid detergents                                           Paints

Textiles and textile finishes                           Latex paints

Alum solutions                                               Paper and
paperboard products

Starch solutions                                             Wet
lap/sheet pulp

Printing pastes                                               Synthetic
polymers

Slurries

Industrial processes and Water Systems

Brewery pasteurizer water

Pulp and paper mill systems

Industrial disposal water

Cooling tower water

Evaporative condenser water

Secondary oil recovery injection water

Sewage systems

Ecological Toxicity Data

A.  Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

                              1.  Birds, Acute and Subacute

For indoor uses, an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade
of the active ingredient (TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of
these chemicals to birds.  The preferred test species is either mallard
duck (a waterfowl) or northern bobwhite quail Ian upland game bird).
Several avian acute toxicity studies were found in the Agency’s files
for this chemical.  Avian acute oral toxicity testing (850.2100/71-1),
preferably using the bobwhite quail, is required to support the
currently registered uses of these chemicals.

Avian dietary toxicity studies using the TGAI of these chemicals are not
required for indoor uses.

The results from the avian acute toxicity and dietary studies obtained
from the Agency’s files are summarized in the table below (Table 1).

Table 1

Test and Organism  	Results LC50 (mg/L) or LD50 (mg/kg)	Toxicity
Category	Comments	Reference

Eight day dietary LC50 Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos)	>5620

NOEC = 3160	Practically non-toxic	Core study	Grimes and Jaber, 1987

MRID# - 406413-04

Eight day dietary LC50 Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus)	>5620

NOEC  = 3160	Practically non-toxic	Core study	Grimes and Jaber, 1987

MRID# - 406413-05

Acute Oral Toxicity LD50 Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 	>500  Birds
regurgitated test substance after 15 minutes	Not given	Supplemental
Study

	Grimes and Jaber, 1987

MRID# - 406413-03

The results of the dietary avian studies indicate that BNS is
practically non-toxic to both mallard duck and bobwhite quail.  In the
acute oral study, the chemical did not cause any deaths, but the birds
regurgitated the test substance within 15 minutes.  Therefore the study
was considered supplemental and did not satisfy guideline requirements.
The dietary studies were considered to be core and met guideline
requirements at the time they were submitted to the Agency.

                           2.  Mammals

A summary of mammalian toxicity of BNS is presented in the “Evaluation
of Toxicity Database for Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document
Disciplinary Chapter”.

  3.  Non-target Insects, Honeybees

Honeybees should not be exposed to BNS because of the indoor use
patterns of this pesticide. Therefore the honeybee contact LD50 test
testing is not required.

 B.  Toxicity to Aquatic Animals

                                  1.  Freshwater Fish, Acute

Freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI are required to
establish the toxicity of  these chemicals to fish.  Data are generally
required for only one species.  Testing in two fish species is required
for stable chemicals with high volume effluents (e.g., including, but
not limited to, egg washing, fruit and vegetable rinses, swimming pools
or materials preservatives) and if the LC50 in the first species is
greater than (>) 1 ppm.  The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a
coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish (a warmwater fish), although other
test species identified in the OPPTS Guideline (i.e., OPPTS 850.1075
(e)(4)(i)(A)) may also be used.  Several freshwater fish acute toxicity
studies were identified from peer-reviewed literature (Table 2).
Several freshwater fish acute toxicity studies were found in the
Agency’s files (Table 3).    Freshwater fish acute toxicity testing
(850.1075/72-1) on one species, preferably the rainbow trout, is
required to support the currently registered uses of this chemical.

`

The results from freshwater fish acute toxicity studies obtained from
the Agency’s files are summarized in the table below (Table 2).

Table 2

Test and Organism 	Results LC50 (mg/L)	Toxicity Category	Comments
Reference

Acute Toxicity LC50 Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri)	96 hour LC50 =    27
ug a.i./l

NOEC = 13 ug a.i./l 	Very highly toxic	Core	Sousa, J. 1989

MRID# - 411648-02

Acute Toxicity LC50 Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)	96 hour LC50
= 17 ug/l

NOEC = 10 ug/l	Very highly toxic	Core	Bowman and Stuerman, 1990

MRID# - 416035-05

As shown in Table 2, the acute toxicity was 27 ug a.i./l for rainbow
trout and 17 ug/l for bluegill sunfish. This classified BNS as being
very highly toxic to both warmwater and coldwater fish species.

                             2.  Freshwater Fish, Chronic

Fish early life stage testing is required for the currently registered
once-through industrial water systems use of this chemical.

One study was submitted for this chemical (Table 3).

Table 3

Test and Organism	Results	Toxicity Category	Comments	Reference

Freshwater fish early life-stage toxicity test  Fathead Minnow

Pimephales   promelas)	MATC = >8.9 and >20 ug a.i./l

Geometric mean MATC =

13.3 ug a.i./l	None given	Core	Cohle, P. and Stratton J. 1992

MRID# - 423997-01

Based on the hatchability, survival, and growth data form this 35-day
fathead minnow early life stage study, the NOEC and LOEC were 8.9 and 20
ug a.i./l, respectively.

                             3.  Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAI is
required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to aquatic
invertebrates.  The preferred test species is Daphnia magna or Daphnia
pulex.   One study testing these organisms was found in the Agencies
files (Table 4).  Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity testing
(850.1010/72-2) is required for the currently registered uses of this
chemical.

Table 4

Test and Organism	Results 	Toxicity Category	Comments	Reference

Freshwater invertebrate flow through acute toxicity  Daphnia magna
48-hour EC50 = 24 ug a.i./l

NOEC = 14 ug a.i./l	Very highly toxic	Core	McNamara, P.C. 1989

MRID# - 411648-01

As shown in Table 4, this chemical is very highly toxic to aquatic
invertebrates.

                               4.  Freshwater Invertebrates, Chronic

Chronic aquatic invertebrate testing is not required for the currently
registered uses of this chemical.

                               5.  Estuarine and Marine Organisms

Acute toxicity testing with estuarine and marine organisms using the
TGAI is conditionally required for the wood preservative uses of this
chemical.  Several studies on marine/estuarine invertebrates were found
in the Agency’s files (Table 5).

Table 5

Test and Organism	Results	Toxicity Category	Comments	Reference

Estuarine Invertebrate Flow-through Acute Toxicity: Eastern Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica)	 96-hour EC50 = 73 ug a.i./l

NOEC = 3.2 ug a.i./l	Very highly toxic	Supplemental

No raw data was included	Dionne, E. 1989

MRID# -  411813-03

Estuarine Acute Flow-through Toxicity Study   Sheepshead Minnow
(Cyprinodon   variegatus) 	 96-hour LC50 = 57 ug a.i./l

NOEC = 20 ug a.i./l	Very highly toxic	Core	Sousa, J.V.  1989

MRID# - 411813-01

Estuarine Acute flow-through Toxicity Study Sheepshead Minnow
(Cyprinodon variegates)	96-hour LC50 = 146 ppb a.i.

NOEC = 84 ppb a.i.	Very highly toxic	Core	Durprenant, D.C. 1987

MRID# - 406413-07

Estuarine Acute Toxicity to Mysid Shrimp

Flow-through

(Mysidopsis bahia) 	96-hour LC50 = 51 ug a.i./l

NOEC = 33 ug a.i./l	Very highly toxic	Core	Hoberg, J.R.  1989

MRID# - 411813-02

Estuarine Acute Toxicity to Mysid Shrimp

Flow-through

(Mysidopsis bahia)	96-hour LC50 = 0.12 ppm a.i.

NOEC = 0.031 ppm a.i.	Highly toxic	Supplemental

	Surprenant, D.C. 1987

MRID# -

406413-08

As shown in Table 5 this chemical is very highly toxic to mysid shrimp,
sheepshead minnow and eastern oyster.  The sheepshead minnow studies and
one of the mysid shrimp studies were core.  The other two studies (mysid
shrimp and eastern oyster) were supplemental.

Toxicity to Plants

Plant testing is required for the registered uses of this chemical.
Seedling emergence–dose response using rice (Oryza sativa) (850.4225)
and Aquatic plant growth (algal and aquatic plant toxicity) – Tier II
(850.4400/850.5400).  No studies were submitted for determining toxicity
to plant species.

III.	 Risk Assessment and Characterization

Exposure and Risk to Nontarget Terrestrial Animals and Aquatic Organisms

Risk characterization integrates the results of the exposure and
ecotoxicity data to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological
effects.  The means of this integration is called the quotient method.
Risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by
acute and chronic ecotoxicity values (RQ =   EXPOSURE/TOXICITY).

RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of concern (LOCs).  These LOCs are
used by OPP to analyze potential risk to nontarget organisms and the
need to consider regulatory action.  The criteria indicate that a
pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects on
nontarget organisms.  LOCs currently address the following risk
presumption categories: (1) acute -- potential for acute risk to
non-target organisms which may warrant regulatory action in addition to
restricted use classification, (2) acute restricted use -- the potential
for acute risk to non-target organisms, but may be mitigated through
restricted use classification, (3) acute endangered species - endangered
species may be adversely affected by use, (4) chronic risk - the
potential for chronic risk may warrant regulatory action, endangered
species may potentially be affected through chronic exposure, (5)
non-endangered plant risk – potential for effects in non-target
plants, and (6) endangered plant risk – potential for effects in
endangered plants.   Currently, the Agency does not perform assessments
for chronic risk to plants, acute or chronic risks to nontarget insects,
or chronic risk from granular/bait formulations to birds or mammals.

The ecotoxicity test values (measurement endpoints) used in the acute
and chronic risk quotients are derived from required studies.  Examples
of ecotoxicity values derived from short-term laboratory studies that
assess acute effects are: (1) LC50 (fish and birds), (2) LD50 (birds and
mammals), (3) EC50 (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates) and (4)
EC25 (terrestrial plants).  Examples of toxicity test effect levels
derived from the results of long-term laboratory studies that assess
chronic effects are: (1) LOAEC (birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates),
and (2) NOAEC (birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates). For birds and
mammals, the NOAEC generally is used as the ecotoxicity test value in
assessing chronic effects, although other values may be used when
justified. However, the NOAEC is used if the measurement endpoint is
production of offspring or survival.  Risk presumptions and the
corresponding RQs and LOCs are tabulated below.

Table 14. Risk Presumption Categories

Risk Presumption for Terrestrial Animals

LOC

  Acute: Potential for acute risk for all non-target organisms

>0.5

  Acute Restricted Use: Potential for acute risk for all non-target
organisms, but may be mitigated through restricted use classification

>0.2

  Acute Endangered Species: endangered species may be adversely affected
by use

>0.1

  Chronic Risk: potential for chronic risk may warrant regulatory action

>1

Risk Presumption for Aquatic Organisms

LOC

  Acute: Potential for acute risk for all non-target organisms

>0.5

  Acute Restricted Use: Potential for acute risk for all non-target
organisms, but may be mitigated through restricted use classification

>0.1

  Acute Endangered Species: endangered species may be adversely affected
by use

>0.05

  Chronic Risk: potential for chronic risk may warrant regulatory action

>1

Risk Presumption for Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants

LOC

  Potential for risk for all non-endangered and endangered plants

>1

A.	Environmental Fate Assessment Summary (excerpted from the
Environmental Fate Science Chapter of this RED document)

	The Agency has reviewed various environmental fate studies and reports
submitted for BNS.  The data indicate that BNS is likely to degrade
rapidly through hydrolysis and photodegradation after being introduced
into the environment. BNS is not likely to bioaccumulate in fish.  BNS
was slightly mobile to moderately mobile in soil.  It is not expected to
contaminate surface and ground water due to rapid degradation by
hydrolysis and photolysis.  Further information on the environmental
fate of BNS may be found in the Environmental Fate Chapter of this RED
document.

B.	Environmental Exposure and Ecological Risk Assessment

Freshwater and estuarine/marine aquatic organisms, and plants could
potentially be exposed to BNS discharged into the aquatic environment.
The Agency conducted modeling in 2007 to estimate the exposure and
environment risk resulting from such discharges of BNS from the
once-through cooling tower use.

Tier I 2005 Probabilistic Dilution Modeling for once-through cooling
tower use

This model presents an environmental exposure assessment for releases of
bromonitrostyrene (BNS) used for control of mollusks and bacterial,
algal, and fungal slimes in once-through cooling water systems.  EPA
used the Probabilistic Distribution Model (version 4) to estimate the
number and percentage of days per year that BNS concentrations exceed
ecotoxicity benchmarks of concern.  Analyses were performed for six BNS
treatment scenarios derived from product label information.  The
approach used for this assessment is based on the methodology EPA
developed in support of Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk
Assessment Chapter for Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride (ADBAC)
(Petrie and Montague, 2006).  Components of the methodology described in
this section include the probabilistic distribution model (PDM), BNS
application rates, environmental exposure concentrations of concern
(COCs), model facilities and flow data, and modeling scenarios.

PDM is a screening-level exposure assessment tool developed by EPA to
model chemical releases from point sources to flowing surface waters.
For this analysis, the Agency used the PDM component within EPA’s
Exposure and Fate Assessment Screening Tool Version 2.0 (E-FAST2).

PDM uses detailed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream flow data and
facility-specific data from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits to model chemical releases from actual
facilities.  For a modeling period of a given number of days, PDM
calculates probability distribution of the chemical concentration in the
receiving stream, and then estimates the number of days during which the
in-stream chemical concentration is expected to exceed a COC.  PDM
counts a day as having an exceedence of a COC if the COC is exceeded for
any part of a 24-hour day.  As a screening-level model, PDM outputs do
not include the duration, location, or aerial extent of exceedences.

Inputs to PDM include facility NPDES number, pretreatment release (i.e.,
loading rate), post-treatment release, number of release days, and COCs.

EPA developed six modeling scenarios by combining assumptions about the
treatment type (i.e., target organism, initial vs. maintenance
treatment), application dose, and application frequency.  The six
scenarios are shown in Table 6.  Scenarios 1 and 2 are for initial and
maintenance control, respectively, of mollusks based on the maximum
label application rate (84 ppm).  Scenario 2 is intended to simulate
maintenance treatment for four hours every other day.  Because PDM
cannot be run for alternating days, Scenario 2 includes treatment for
two hours every day.

Scenarios 3 through 6 are for control of bacterial, algal, and fungal
slimes using the continuous method (Scenarios 3 and 4) and intermittent
method (Scenarios 5 and 6).  The initial treatment scenarios (i.e.,
Scenarios 3 and 5) include the maximum label application rate, 36 ppm.
The maintenance treatment scenarios (i.e., Scenarios 4 and 6) use the
midpoint (i.e., 16 ppm) of the range of application rates specified on
the label (i.e., 4 to 36 ppm).

The number of release days assumed for all scenarios was 250.  This
approach assumes that BNS is not applied on weekends and holidays.

PDM was run once for each combination of facility and scenario.  The
numbers of days exceeding each COC were copied electronically from the
PDM output files into Microsoft ® Excel workbooks where averages and
standard deviations were calculated for each scenario.  In addition, we
calculated the percent of days per year above COCs.  Because the number
of release days per year was 250 for all scenarios, the highest possible
percent of days per year above COCs was 68 percent.  We also calculated
the percent of days during the release period above COCs (maximum 100
percent).  Standard deviations also were calculated for all average
percent of day’s calculations.

Table 6

Modeling Scenarios for Bromonitrostyrene

Treatment in Once-through Cooling Water Systems

Scenario Number	Target Organisms	Initial/

Maintenance Treatment	Continuous/

Intermittent Method	Application Dose (ppm)	Application Frequency	Release
Days per Year

1	Mollusks	Initial	Intermittent	84 ppm	4 hrs/day	250

2	Mollusks	Maintenance	Intermittent	84 ppm	2 hrs/day	250

3	BFAa	Initial	Continuous	36 ppm	24 hrs/day	250

4	BFA	Maintenance	Continuous	16 ppm	24 hrs/day	250

5	BFA	Initial 	Intermittent	36 ppm	15 min /day	250

6	BFA	Maintenance	Intermittent	16 ppm	15 min/day	250

a BFA = Bacteria, fungi, and algae

Table 7 - Table of COC's

Taxa	LC50/EC50/NOEC

Eastern oyster NOEC	3.2 ppb

Freshwater fish – Bluegill LC50	17 ppb

Freshwater fish – Fathead minnow  LOEC	20 ppb

Freshwater invertebrate –

Daphnia EC50	24 ppb

Freshwater fish –

Rainbow  LC50	27 ppb

Mysid shrimp - NOEC	33 ppb

Marine fish – Sheepshead minnow LC50	57 ppb

Marine invertebrate – Mysid shrimp LC50	120 ppb

Marine fish - Sheepshead minnow LC50	146 ppb

Green algae	No data

Results for Scenarios 1 through 6 are presented in Tables 4 through 9,
respectively.  Each table shows the average numbers of days when
downstream concentrations of BNS were predicted to exceed each of the
nine COCs.  The average numbers of days were calculated from the
modeling results for the 30 individual facilities.  Because the numbers
of days with

exceedences varied among the facilities, standard deviations are
presented with each of the averages.

Tables 4 through 9 also present the averages and standard deviations of
the percentage of days per year and the percentage of the 250 release
days with exceedences of the COCs.  Figure 1 compares the percentages of
release days with exceedences for the six scenarios.

All six treatment scenarios resulted in exceedence of the lowest COC
(3.2 µg/L) on at least 53 percent of the days when BNS is applied.
Scenario 3, in which BNS is added continuously for initial control of
bacterial, algal, and fungal slimes, resulted in the highest number of
exceedences.  In particular, the average percentage of release day with
downstream BNS concentrations above COCs with Scenario 3 ranged from 73
percent for the highest COC (146 µg/L) to 99 percent for the lowest
COC.  The second highest number of exceedences occurred with the
continuous maintenance treatment scenario for bacterial, algal, and
fungal slimes (i.e., Scenario 4).

As shown in Figure 1 the initial control scenarios (i.e., Scenarios 1,
3, and 5) resulted in more exceedences of the COC than the associated
maintenance scenarios (i.e., Scenarios 2, 4, and 6, respectively).  This
reason for this result is that the maintenance scenarios included lower
BNS treatment doses or lower daily treatment durations or frequencies
than the corresponding initial control scenarios.

Table 8

Number and percent of Days with Downstream Bromonitrostyrene
Concentrations Exceeding COCs – Scenario 1

COC

(µg/L)	Number of Days With Exceedences	Percent of Days with Exceedences
per Year	Percent of Release Days with Exceedences

	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded
Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation

3.2	230	47	63%	13%	92%	19%

17	203	76	56%	21%	81%	30%

20	199	80	54%	22%	79%	32%

24	194	84	53%	23%	78%	33%

27	192	86	53%	24%	77%	34%

33	188	89	51%	24%	75%	36%

57	177	92	49%	25%	71%	37%

120	159	94	43%	26%	63%	38%

146	153	94	42%	26%	61%	37%

Scenario 1: Initial treatment of mollusks with 84 ppm 4, hrs/day for 250
days

Table 9

Number and percent of Days with Downstream Bromonitrostyrene
Concentrations Exceeding COCs – Scenario 2

COC

(µg/L)	Number of Days With Exceedences	Percent of Days with Exceedences
per Year	Percent of Release Days with Exceedences

	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded
Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation

3.2	221	61	60%	17%	88%	24%

17	187	89	51%	24%	75%	36%

20	184	90	50%	25%	74%	36%

24	181	91	49%	25%	72%	37%

27	178	92	49%	25%	71%	37%

33	174	93	48%	26%	69%	37%

57	161	94	44%	26%	64%	38%

120	137	93	38%	25%	55%	37%

146	130	92	36%	25%	52%	37%

Scenario 2: Maintenance treatment of mollusks with 84 ppm, 2 hrs/day for
250 days

Table 10

Number and percent of Days with Downstream Bromonitrostyrene
Concentrations Exceeding COCs – Scenario 3

COC

(µg/L)	Number of Days With Exceedences	Percent of Days with Exceedences
per Year	Percent of Release Days with Exceedences

	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded
Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation

3.2	241	27	66%	7%	96%	11%

17	224	60	61%	16%	90%	24%

20	222	62	61%	17%	89%	25%

24	219	65	60%	18%	88%	26%

27	217	66	60%	18%	87%	27%

33	214	69	59%	19%	86%	27%

57	202	80	55%	22%	81%	32%

120	187	89	51%	24%	75%	36%

146	183	90	50%	25%	73%	36%

Scenario 3: Initial Treatment of Bacteria, fungi, and algae with 36 ppm,
continuously for 250 days

Table 11

Number and percent of Days with Downstream Bromonitrostyrene
Concentrations Exceeding COCs – Scenario 4

COC

(µg/L)	Number of Days With Exceedences	Percent of Days with Exceedences
per Year	Percent of Release Days with Exceedences

	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded
Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation

3.2	232	44	64%	12%	93%	18%

17	206	73	57%	20%	83%	29%

20	202	76	55%	21%	81%	31%

24	198	81	54%	22%	79%	32%

27	195	83	53%	23%	78%	33%

33	190	88	52%	24%	76%	35%

57	180	92	49%	25%	72%	37%

120	163	94	45%	26%	65%	38%

146	157	94	43%	26%	63%	38%

Scenario 4: Maintenance Treatment of Bacteria, fungi, and algae with 16
ppm, continuously for 250 days

Table 12

Number and percent of Days with Downstream Bromonitrostyrene
Concentrations Exceeding COCs – Scenario 5

COC

(µg/L)	Number of Days With Exceedences	Percent of Days with Exceedences
per Year	Percent of Release Days with Exceedences

	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded
Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation

3.2	159	94	43%	26%	63%	38%

17	101	85	28%	23%	40%	34%

20	95	83	26%	23%	38%	33%

24	88	81	24%	22%	35%	32%

27	84	79	23%	22%	33%	32%

33	76	76	21%	21%	30%	30%

57	55	66	15%	18%	22%	26%

120	29	38	8%	11%	11%	15%

146	23	31	6%	9%	9%	13%

Scenario 5: Initial treatment of bacteria, fungi, and algae with 36 ppm,
15 minutes/day for 250 days

Table 13

Number and percent of Days with Downstream Bromonitrostyrene
Concentrations Exceeding COCs – Scenario 6

COC

(µg/L)	Number of Days With Exceedences	Percent of Days with Exceedences
per Year	Percent of Release Days with Exceedences

	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded
Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation

3.2	133	92	36%	25%	53%	37%

17	70	73	19%	20%	28%	29%

20	64	71	18%	19%	26%	28%

24	57	67	16%	18%	23%	27%

27	53	64	15%	18%	21%	26%

33	46	59	12%	16%	18%	24%

57	26	36	7%	10%	11%	14%

120	10	15	3%	4%	4%	6%

146	8	12	2%	3%	3%	5%

Scenario 6: Maintenance treatment of bacteria, fungi, and algae with 16
ppm, 15 minutes/day for 250 days

Figure 1:  Average Percent of Release Days with Downstream

Bromonitrostyrene Concentration Above COCs

Conclusions:

Once-through Cooling Tower Use

Based on the scenarios included in this analysis, the intermittent
treatment method for bacterial, algal, and fungal slimes resulted in
fewer COC exceedences than the continuous treatment method.  Scenarios 5
and 6 simulate the intermittent application method for control of
bacterial, algal, and fungal slimes.  These scenarios use the same
treatment dosages (i.e., 36 ppm for initial control and 16 ppm for
maintenance) as Scenarios 3 and 5, but the treatment duration is 15
minutes per day instead of 24 hours per day.  Tables 6 through 9 and
Figure 1 show that Scenarios 5 and 6 resulted in the fewest exceedences.
 For example, with initial control using the intermittent treatment
method (i.e., Scenario 5) the highest COC (146 µg/L) was exceeded 63
percent of the 250 release days on average, and the lowest COC (3.2
µg/L) was exceeded on nine percent of the 250 release days on average.

Variables such as stream flow rate and BNS dissipation, degradation, and
1/2 life were not considered in this Tier I model but should be
considered in higher tier modeling.  Field monitoring is suggested in
the absence of higher Tier modeling.  Risk mitigation recommendations
should be based on dosing method and application rate instead of
facility size, however, risk mitigation is not recommended at this time.

Maximum Expected Environmental Concentrations:	  The treatment scenario
that resulted in the maximum expected environmental concentrations was
#3 (continuous treatment using 36 ppm of BNS 24 hours/day 250 days a
year).  The number of days that exceeded the LOCs ranged from 183 to 241
(Table 10) for all the aquatic species.

Maximum Ecotoxicity Values:  Eastern oyster has an NOEC of 3.2 ppb;
freshwater fish LC50s ranged from 17 to 27 ppb; freshwater invertebrate
EC50 was 24 ppb; sheepshead minnow LC50 was 57 ppb; mysid shrimp LC50
was 120 ppb; and sheepshead minnow LC50 was 146 ppb. Freshwater fish
(fathead minnow) chronic LOEC was 20 ppb.

Acute Freshwater Fish LOC’s:  Bluegill sunfish ranged from 70 to 224
days exceedence (See Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13).  Rainbow trout
ranged from 53 to 217 days exceedence (See Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and
13).  All of the modeled scenarios exceeded the LOC’s

Acute Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate LOC’s:  Daphnid ranged from 53
to 219 days exceedence (See Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13).  All of
the modeled scenarios exceeded the LOC’s.

Acute Aquatic Estuarine/Marine Species:  The Eastern oyster ranged from
133 to 241 days exceedence (See Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13).  The
mysid shrimp ranged from 46 to 214 days exceedence (See Tables 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13).  The Sheepshead minnow ranged from 8 to 202 days
exceedence (See Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13).  All the modeled
scenarios exceeded the LOC’s.

Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Studies:  Chronic fish study using the Fathead
minnow ranged from 64 to 224 days exceedence (See Table 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, and 13).  All of the modeled scenarios exceeded the LOC’s.

Plant Toxicity Studies:  No studies were available.

Avian and Mammalian Species:  The avian testing demonstrated no
toxicity.  No risk to avian species is expected from the use of BNS.

C.      Endangered Species Considerations

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2),
requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and andronomus listed species, or
the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) for listed wildlife
and freshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that may
affect listed species or their designated habitat.  Each federal agency
is required under the Act to insure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat.  To jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species means "to engage in an action that reasonably would
be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the
wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the
species." 50 C.F.R. ( 402.02.

To facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act subsection (a)(2) the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a
proposed registration action may directly or indirectly reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed
species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of any listed species (U.S. EPA 2004).  After the Agency(s
screening-level risk assessment is performed, if any of the Agency(s
Listed Species LOC Criteria are exceeded for either direct or indirect
effects, a determination is made to identify if any listed or candidate
species may co-occur in the area of the proposed pesticide use.  If
determined that listed or candidate species may be present in the
proposed use areas, further biological assessment is undertaken.  The
extent to which listed species may be at risk then determines the need
for the development of a more comprehensive consultation package as
required by the Endangered Species Act.

For certain use categories, the Agency assumes there will be minimal
environmental exposure, and only a minimal toxicity data set is required
(Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of
Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Endangered and
Threatened Species Effects Determinations, 1/23/04, Appendix A, Section
IIB, pg.81).  Chemicals in these categories therefore do not undergo a
full screening-level risk assessment.  Materials preservative uses (in
inks, dyes, textiles, adhesives, caulks, sealants, paper, paints,
polymers) are considered to fall under a No Effect determination (NE)
because:

The amount that will actually reach the environment is very small based
on usage data and use patterns (no homeowner/residential use for
bathrooms) and containment methods (retaining ponds, recirculation, low
residual upon release).

Breakdown in the environment and via sewage treatment is rapid and well
documented in the literature (See Environmental Fate Chapter for more
detail).  The agency requires the following label statement:  "Do not
discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds,
estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the
requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and the permitting authorities are notified in writing
prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product
to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment
plant authority.  For guidance contact your State Water Board or
Regional Office of the EPA."  There was no information in the Sewage
Treatability Database on BNS.

	BNS uses that have potential for environmental exposure via
down-the-drain or runoff to surface waters include industrial processes
and water system wastes.  Industrial disposal water, sewage systems, and
once-through cooling tower water uses may generate waste water residues
that may reach the environment.  The once-thru cooling tower use is
considered to be representative of a worst-case example (highest
potential for impacting the environment), and therefore, this site was
modeled.

The “best case” once-through cooling tower scenario using 1/2 the
maximum recommended label dosage intermittently applied in a low water
flow resulted in LOC exceedances for all aquatic organisms used in the
model, including freshwater fish, green alga, freshwater invertebrates,
and marine invertebrates.  The agency is not aware of any endangered or
threatened green algae.  Because BNS is rapidly degraded through
hydrolysis and photodegradation, impacts to aquatic organisms may be
less than modeled.  The once-through cooling tower model does not
account for degradation and therefore, further assessment is required
prior to making an agency endangered species determination.

		This preliminary analysis indicates that there is a potential for BNS
industrial water waste discharges to overlap with listed species and
that a more refined assessment is warranted, to include direct, indirect
and habitat effects.  The more refined assessment should involve clear
delineation of the action area associated with proposed use of BNS and
best available information on the temporal and spatial co-location of
listed species with respect to the action area.  This analysis has not
been conducted for this assessment.  An endangered species effect
determination will not be made at this time.

IV.	Confirmatory Data Required

1.   Non-target Plant Phytotoxicity Studies are Required:  850.4225
(seedling

emergence using rice), 850.4400 (Lemna gibba), 850.5400 (Algal toxicity,
3 species:  blue-green cyanobacteria  Anabeana flos-aquae, freshwater
diatom Navicula pelliculosa, marine diatom Skeletonema costatum).

           2.  Monitoring and/or Tier II modeling of once-through
cooling tower effluents to

      establish EEC's for risk assessment, and to evaluate degradation
and decline of BNS (and major transformation products) residues in
effluent and receiving surface waters.

V.  Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms and
Use                              Recommendations

BNS labels must state:

"This pesticide is toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, oysters, and
shrimp".

"Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams,
ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the
requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and the permitting authorities are notified in writing
prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product
to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment
plant authority.  For guidance contact your State Water Board or
Regional Office of the EPA."

REFERENCES

Petrie, R. and Montague, K. (2006) Ecological Hazard and Environmental
Risk Assessment Chapter, Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride
(ADBAC), PC Code: 069105, Case No: 0350, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Antimicrobial division, August 2,
2006.

MRID# 406413-03:  Grimes, J. and Jaber, M. (1987) GIV2-0820:  An acute
oral toxicity study with the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos).
Wildlife International.

MRID# 406413-04:  Grimes, J. and Jaber, M. (1987) GIV2-0820:  A dietary
LC50 study with the mallard.  Wildlife International.

MRID# 406413-05:  Grimes, J. and jabber, M. (1987) GIV2-0820:  A dietary
LC50 study with the bobwhite.  Wildlife International.

MRID# 406413-08:  Surprenant, D.C. (1987) Acute Toxicity of GIV2-0820 to
Mysid Shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) Under flow-through conditions.
Springborn Laboratories, Inc.

MRID# 411648-01:  McNamara, P.C. (1989) Acute toxicity of GIV2-0820 to
daphnids (Daphnia magna) during a 48-hour flow-through acute exposure.
Springborn Life Sciences, Inc.

MRID# 411648-02:  Sousa, J. (1989) Acute Toxicity of GIV2-0820 to
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) under flow-through conditions.
Springborn Life Sciences, Inc.

MRID# 411813-01:  Sousa, J.V. (1989) Acute toxicity of GIV2-0820 to
sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) under flow-through conditions.
 Springborn Life Sciences, Inc.

MRID# 411813-02:  Hoberg, J.R. (1989) Acute toxicity of GIV2-0820 to
mysid shrimp(Mysidopsis bahia) under flow-through conditions.
Springborn Life Sciences, Inc.

MRID# 411813-03:  Dionne, E. (1989) Acute toxicity of GIV2-0820 to
eastern oysters under flow-through conditions.  Springborn Life
Sciences, Inc.

MRID# 416035-05:  Bowman, J. and Stuerman, L. (1990) Acute flow-through
toxicity of GIV2-0820 to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).  ABC
Laboratories, Inc.

MRID# 423997-01:  Cohle, P. and Stratton, J. (1992) Early Life-Stage
Toxicity of BNS to Fathead Minnows in a flow-through system ABC
Laboratories.

APPENDIX

PDM4 Modeling Results for Bromonitrostyrene

in Once-Through Industrial Water Systems