[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69316-69318]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27633]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1202; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-38-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Formerly Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH, Formerly BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH)
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede existing airworthiness directive (AD)
2012-26-14 that applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD) BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan
engines. AD 2012-26-14 currently requires removal from service of the
high-pressure (HP) compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly before
exceeding certain thresholds. Since we issued AD 2012-26-14, RRD
developed a new silver-free nut that, if installed with a new HP
compressor stages 1 to 6 disc assembly, would correct the unsafe
condition identified in AD 2012-26-14. Therefore, we propose to
supersede AD 2012-26-14 to restrict the applicability to engines
exposed to silver plated nuts. Additionally, we are removing the
terminating action statement from AD 2012-26-14 based on a comment
received. This proposed AD would require removal from service of
certain HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies before
exceeding certain thresholds. We are proposing this AD to prevent
failure of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, which
could lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 21,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-
Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1200; fax: 49 0 33-7086-1212. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the MCAI, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1202;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-38-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 27, 2012, we issued AD-2012-26-14, Amendment 39-17309
(78 FR 2195, January 10, 2013) (``AD 2012-26-14'') for RRD BR700-715A1-
30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines. AD 2012-26-14
requires removal from service of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor
disc assembly before exceeding certain thresholds. AD 2012-26-14
resulted from a report of silver chloride-induced stress corrosion
cracking of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly,
identified during overhaul. We issued AD 2012-26-14 to prevent failure
of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, which could
lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. We
set a separate compliance standard for engines operated under the
Hawaiian Flight Mission. The different cycle limits are established
because the Hawaiian Flight Mission profile was sufficiently different
from the normal flight profile as to affect the cyclic loading on the
life limited parts.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2012-26-14, RRD released new part number (P/N)
components as a design fix for the issue described above.
    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on AD 2012-26-14. We
received two comments. The following presents the comments received,
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Comments

Request To Include HP Compressor P/Ns in the AD

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we include the P/Ns of the
affected HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc

assemblies in this AD. The commenter provided no justification for this
request.
    We partially agree. We agree with revising the Applicability
paragraph of this proposed AD because RRD developed new P/N silver-free
nuts, which, if installed with a new HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor
disc assembly, would correct the unsafe condition.
    We disagree with identifying specific HP compressor stages 1 to 6
rotor disc assemblies because this proposed AD applies to all HP
compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies that have had silver-
plated nuts installed. We revised the Applicability paragraph to
clarify that this proposed AD applies to all HP compressor stages 1 to
6 rotor disc assemblies that were installed using nuts, P/N AS44862 or
P/N AS64367.

Request To Clarify Parts Eligible for Installation

    SWA requested that we clarify paragraph (f) of AD 2012-26-14. The
commenter stated that it is unclear if reinstalling disc assemblies
having fewer cycles since new (CSN) than that required by paragraph (e)
of AD 2012-26-14, is acceptable.
    We agree. The intent of AD 2012-26-14 is to allow operation of the
disc assembly up to the CSN specified in paragraph (e) of AD 2012-26-
14. It is acceptable to reinstall disc assemblies that have fewer CSN
than specified in paragraph (e) of AD 2012-26-14. Therefore, we removed
the terminating action paragraph from this proposed AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and considered the comments received.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2012-26-
14. This proposed AD would change the Applicability paragraph to
specify the P/N nuts associated with reduced life and would also change
paragraph (f) by removing language concerning the terminating action.
This AD requires removal from service of certain HP compressor stages 1
to 6 rotor disc assemblies before exceeding certain thresholds.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 255 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 20 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per hour. Prorated parts life will cost about
$13,500 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,876,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2012-26-14, Amendment 39-17309 (78 FR 2195, January 10, 2013), and
adding the following new AD:

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2012-1202;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-38-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 21,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-26-14, Amendment 39-17309 (78 FR
2195, January 10, 2013).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines
with high-pressure (HP) compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc
assemblies that were ever installed using nuts, part number (P/N)
AS44862 or P/N AS64367.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of silver chloride-induced
stress corrosion cracking of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor
disc assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HP
compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, which could lead to an
uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For BR700-715A1-30 turbofan engines operated under the
Hawaiian Flight Mission only, remove the HP compressor stages 1 to 6
rotor disc assembly from service before exceeding 16,000 flight
cycles since new (CSN) or before further flight after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30
turbofan engines (all flight missions except Hawaiian Flight
Mission), remove the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly
from service before

exceeding 14,000 flight CSN or before further flight after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(f) Prohibition Statement

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an HP
compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disk assembly into an engine, or an
engine with an HP compressor stage 1 to 6 rotor disk assembly onto
an aircraft, if the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disk assembly
has ever been operated with nuts, P/N AS44862 or P/N AS64367, and
has more CSN than specified in the applicable portion of the
compliance section of this AD.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, flight cycles is defined as the
total flight CSN on the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc
assembly, without any pro-rated calculations applied for different
flight missions.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19, to make your
request.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Morlath,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012-0230,
dated October 30, 2012. You may examine this MCAI in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-1202-0003.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1200; fax: 49 0
33-7086-1212.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 8, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2013-27633 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53132-53133]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-13-003.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing in ER16-13--
Revisions to Att AE re Annual ARR Allocation to be effective 1/28/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1649-004.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Motion for Clarification or, in the Alternative,
Petition for Limited Waiver of the California Independent System
Operator Corporation.
    Filed Date: 8/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160803-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1791-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Filing of Revisions to
MISO-PJM JOA re CMP-ICP Baseline to be effective 7/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2019-001.
    Applicants: Five Points Solar Park LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Change of Proposed Effective Date
for Pending Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/9/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2322-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1518R11 Arkansas Electric
Cooperative Corp NITSA NOA to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2369-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Executed Engineering and
Procurement Agreement with FPL Energy Wyman LLC to be effective 7/25/
2016.
    Filed Date: 8/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160803-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2370-000.
    Applicants: Freepoint Energy Solutions LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be
effective 10/3/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160803-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2371-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation,
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 20160802_IA-Migration
compliance to be effective 4/16/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160803-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2372-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Master Joint Use
Pole Agreement to be effective 10/4/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2373-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-08-04_SA 2722 Notice of
Cancellation of Ameren-Dynegy CA (Baldwin) to be effective 8/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2374-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-08-04_Order 827 Compliance
(Attachment X) Filing to be effective 9/21/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2375-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: E&P Agreement for RE Mustang
Two LLC to be effective 8/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2376-000.
    Applicants: FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing, Submission of
Tariff Record, and Request for Waiver to be effective 8/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2377-000.
    Applicants: FPL Energy MH50, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing, Submission of
Tariff Record, and Request for Waiver to be effective 8/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 4, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19066 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10427-10428]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1015-000]

Cove Mountain Solar 2, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Cove Mountain Solar 2, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability, is March 9, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 18, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03570 Filed 2-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

			OFFICE OF  PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,  AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

March 7, 2007

MEMORANDUM:

Subject:	Transmittal of Octhilinone (OIT) RED Ecological Hazard and
Environmental Risk Assessment Chapter – Case Number 2475

		DP Barcode:

		PC Code:  099901

From:		Richard C. Petrie, Agronomist/Team 3 Leader

		OPP/AD/RASSB

		Antimicrobial Division (7510P)

Thru:		Norm Cook.

		Chief, RASSB

		Antimicrobial Division (7510P)

To:		Mark Hartman, Chief

		RMB II

		Antimicrobial Division (7510P)

	Attached is the ecological hazard and environmental risk assessment RED
chapter for octhilinone (OIT).

ECOLOGICAL HAZARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RISK ASSESSMENT CHAPTER

Octhilinone (OIT)

PC Code 099901

CASE No.: 2475

04/05/07

Richard C. Petrie, Agronomist – Team 3 Leader

Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Table of Contents

												        pg

Executive Summary
………………………………………………………………
……………… 1

Data Gaps
………………………………………………………………
………………………… 1

Label Hazard Statements/Use
Recommendations…………………………………………………
2

1.  Ecological Toxicity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

A.  Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

1.  Birds, Acute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.  Birds, Subacute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.  Mammals, Acute and Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

B.  Toxicity to Aquatic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1.  Freshwater Fish, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

2.  Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

3.  Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

4.  Aquatic Organisms, Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

C.  Toxicity to Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

II.  Risk Assessment and Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

A.  Environmental Fate Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .12

B.  Environmental Exposure And Ecological Risk Assessment. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .12

C.  Endangered Species Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .15

III.  Confirmatory Data Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 16

IV.  Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms. . .
. . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .17

V.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . 18

LIST OF TABLES

																			    pg

Table 1 – Acute Oral Toxicity of Octhilinone to Birds. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Table 2 – Subacute Oral Toxicity of Octhilinone to Birds. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 3 – Acute Toxicity of Octhilinone to Freshwater Fish. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 4 – Acute Toxicity of Octhilinone to Freshwater Invertebrates. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 5 – Acute Toxicity of Octhilinone to Estuarine and Marine
Organisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Table 6 – Chronic Toxicity of Octhilinone to Freshwater Organisms. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 7 – Toxicity of Octhilinone to Aquatic Plants. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Table 8 -  Octhilinone “Down-the-Drain” Model
Results…………………………………….13

Table 9 -  Octhilinone Risk
Quotients………………………………………………………
…13

Table 10 -  Risk Presumption
Categories……………………………………………………
…14

	Ecological Hazard and Environment Risk Assessment

For Octhilinone (OIT)

Executive Summary:

		Octhilinone (OIT) is currently registered as an industrial mildewcide
and microbiocide.   Uses as a mildewcide, fungicide and bacteriocide are
mostly during the manufacturing processes, and include:  fabrics and
textiles (furniture, auto upholstery, footwear, carpet, carpet backing,
tents, awnings, canvas, linens, wall and window coverings, dust towels,
bedding, mattresses, pet bedding, synthetic brooms, mops, air filter
media), coatings (walls, paints, plasters, stuccos), sealants (grouts,
caulks, joint cements), adhesives (wallpaper pastes, gelatin and starch
based), rubber and plastics (latex, acrylic, styrene, butadiene,
polyvinyl chloride, polymethane, vinyl, foams), leather preservation
(wet processes), metalworking fluid preservation, hydraulic fluid
preservation, industrial process and water systems including air washer
water and flow-thru cooling towers, and wood preservation as an
antisapstain drench to debarked logs.

	The Octhilinone industry task force has officially withdrawn the
once-through cooling tower use from their labels and has clarified that
the antifouling use on label 48302-12 is not an octhilinone label but a
DCOIT [4,5-Dichloro2-octyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone] label.  The octhilinone
task force is retaining the antisapstain wood preservation use on label
73612-1.  The antisapstain wood treatment use is a use having high
potential for environmental exposure thus requiring an ecological risk
assessment.  Octhilinone is stable and persistent in water under abiotic
conditions with a half life of > 30 days.  It is tightly bound to soil
particles and is microbially degraded in soil within 120 days.
Octhilinone is not expected to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.  An
antisapstain wood treatment risk assessment was not possible.
Outstanding data required to conduct modeling include those studies
listed below.  Due to persistence in soil and water, a Tier I
“Down–the-Drain” model assessment was conducted to simulate
industrial process waste water releases.

Data Gaps:

	Confirmatory Data Required For Risk Assessment:

    Freshwater diatom (850.5400),

    Blue-green cyanobacteria (850.5400),

    Marine diatom (850.5400),

    Freshwater floating macrophyte duckweed (850.4400),

    Freshwater rooted macrophyte rice seedling emergence (850.4225),

    Freshwater rooted macrophyte rice vegetative vigor (850.4250),

    Wood leaching study (AWPA Method E11-06, Standard Method of
Determining         the Leachability of Wood Preservatives Immersed in
Water, AWPA, 2006),

8.)    Environmental runoff monitoring study instead of Tier I
antisapstain                                   model.

9.)     Residues in honey/beeswax and toxicity of treated wood residues
to bees -                         combination of Guidelines 860.1500 and
850.3030 (“Honey Bee Toxicity of                      Residues on
Foliage.”.  A combined study which addresses honey/beeswax residues
      and acute toxicity of treated wood residues to bees is required if
bee hives are to be           constructed of treated wood, or if an
antimicrobial product is intended for
application to a bee hive; unless product labeling prohibits such uses.)

10.)   Soil Koc study (835.1220)

Label Hazard Statements/Use Recommendations

Octhilinone 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."

Antisapstain labels must state:  "Treated lumber must be stored under
cover, indoors, or at least 100 feet from any pond, lake, stream,
wetland, or river to prevent possible runoff of the product into the
waterway.  Treated lumber stored within 100 feet of a pond, lake,
stream, wetland, or river must be either covered with plastic or
surrounded by a berm to prevent surface water runoff into the nearby
waterway.  If a berm or curb is used around the site, it should consist
of impermeable material (clay, asphalt, concrete) and be of sufficient
height to prevent runoff during heavy rainfall events.”

The honey bee residue and toxicity test can be waived provided the label
is amended to prohibit the use of treated wood for beehive construction,
with a statement such as, “Wood treated with octhilinone shall not be
used in the construction of beehives.”

1.	Ecological Toxicity Data

	The toxicity endpoints presented below are based on the results of
ecotoxicity studies submitted to EPA to meet the Agency’s data
requirements for the uses of octhilinone.

	A.	Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

(1)	Birds, Acute

	In order to establish the toxicity of octhilinone to avian species, the
Agency requires an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade
active ingredient (TGAI).  The preferred-test species is either mallard
duck (a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail (an upland game bird).  The results
of five acute oral toxicity studies, submitted for octhilinone, are
provided in the following table (Table 1).

Table 1.  Acute Oral Toxicity of Octhilinone to Birds

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/kg)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Octhilinone 98.5%	LD50 = 660

NOAEL = ND

(a.i.)

	Slightly toxic	Yes

- 21-day test duration

- 19 weeks of age	416080-01

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Octhilinone

95.9%	LD50 = 384

NOAEL = 171

(a.i.)	Moderately toxic	Yes

- 14-day test duration

- 21 weeks of age	448590-01

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Octhilinone

88.7%	LD50 = 346

(a.i.)	Moderately toxic	Yes

	00026809

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Octhilinone

RH-893

(% purity unknown)	LD50 = 565 (M) and 498 (F) 	Slightly

toxic	No

	86-870001877

(Ecotox data)

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)	Octhilinone

RH-893

(% purity unknown)	LD50  > 1000	Slightly

toxic	No

	86-870001877

(Ecotox data)

	Three acceptable acute oral toxicity studies on the Bobwhite quail
(416080-01, 448590-01, 00026809) indicate that octhilinone is moderately
to slightly toxic on an acute oral basis. The guideline requirement
OPPTS 850.2100/(71-1) is satisfied.

(2)	Birds, Subacute

	A subacute dietary study using the TGAI may be required on a
case-by-case basis depending on the results of lower-tier ecological
studies and pertinent environmental fate characteristics in order to
establish the toxicity of a chemical to avian species.  This testing was
required for octhilinone.  The preferred-test species is either the
mallard duck or bobwhite quail.  The results of five subacute dietary
toxicity studies, submitted for octhilinone, are provided in the
following table (Table 2).

Table 2.  Subacute Oral Toxicity of Octhilinone to Birds

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/kg)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Octhilinone

98.5%	LC50 (diet) = >3267

NOAEC = 1288

(a.i.)	Slightly toxic	Yes

-	8-day test duration

-	11 weeks of age	416080-02

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Octhilinone

96%	LC50 (diet) = 2542

NOAEC = 310

(a.i.)	Slightly toxic	No

- 12-day test duration

- 10 days of age

-  control mortality        20%

-  inadequate housing	439357-01

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Octhilinone

88.7%	LC50 (diet) >5620

(a.i.)	Relatively nontoxic	Yes

-  8-day test duration	00026808

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)	Octhilinone

98.5%	LC50 (diet) = 1215

NOAEC = ND

(a.i.)	Slightly toxic	Yes

-  8-day test duration

-  5 days of age	416080-03

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)	Octhilinone

88.7%	LC50 (diet) = >5620

(a.i.)	Relatively nontoxic	Yes

	00026807

	The results from four acceptable studies (416080-02, 00026808,
416080–03, and 00026807) indicate that octhilinone is slightly to
relatively non-toxic to avian species through subacute dietary exposure.
These studies fulfill guideline requirements OPPTS 850.2100/ (71-2a –
Bobwhite quail and 71-2b – Mallard duck).

 (3)	Mammals, Acute and Chronic Toxicity

Wild mammal testing is not required by the Agency.  In most cases, rat
and mice toxicity values obtained from studies conducted to support data
requirements for human health risk assessments are substituted for wild
mammal testing.  Refer to the human toxicology chapter of this RED for
the mammalian toxicity data summary.

B.	Toxicity to Aquatic Animals

	The Agency requested that aquatic toxicity studies be conducted with
octhilinone since, under typical use conditions, it is introduced into
the aquatic environment.

(1)	Freshwater Fish, Acute

	In order to establish the acute toxicity of octhilinone to freshwater
fish, the Agency requires freshwater fish toxicity studies using the
TGAI.  The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a coldwater fish)
and bluegill sunfish (a warmwater fish).  The results of 9 freshwater
fish acute studies submitted for octhilinone, 3 coldwater and 6
warmwater, are presented in Table 3.

 Table 3.  Acute Toxicity of Octhilinone to Freshwater Fish

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	Octhilinone

98.5%	LC50 = 0.047

NOAEC = 0.023

(a.i.)	Very highly toxic	Yes

-	96-hr test duration

-	flow-through test system	416080-05

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	Octhilinone

96%	LC50 = 0.05

LOEC = 0.05

NOEC = < 0.05

(a.i.)	Very highly toxic	No

-	96-hr test duration

-	static renewal test system

-  toxic effects and

    death at all

    treatment levels

-  small aquaria	439357-02

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ,formerly Salmo gairdneri)
Octhilinone

90%	LC50 = 0.0655

(a.i.)	Very Highly toxic	No

-  96-hr test duration

-  static test system	00026805

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)	Octhilinone

98.5%	LC50 = 0.18

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	Yes

-  96-hr

-  flow-through test system	416080-04

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)	Octhilinone 96%	LC50 = 0.16

NOAEC = 0.07

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	Yes

-	96-hr test duration

-	static renewal test system		439357-03

Bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus)	Octhilinone

90%	LC50 = 0.196

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	No

-  96-hr test duration

-  static test system	00026805

Redear

(Lepomis macrochirus)	Octhilinone

90%	LC50 = 0.203

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	No

-  96-hr test duration

-  static test system	00026805

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)	Octhilinone

90%	LC50 = 0.140

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	No

-  96-hr test duration

-  static test system	00026805

Golden shiner

(Notemigonus crysoleucas)	Octhilinone

90%	LC50 = 0.154

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	No

-  96-hr test duration

-  static test system	00026805

	Freshwater acute toxicity tests indicate that octhilinone is very
highly toxic to the coldwater fish Rainbow trout and highly toxic to the
warmwater fish Bluegill sunfish on an acute basis.  Study 416080-05
fulfills the guideline requirement for the coldwater species and studies
439357-03 and 416080-04 fulfill the guideline requirement for a
warmwater fish species under OPPTS 850.1075 (72-1a&b).  Because acute
toxicity to fish is <1.0 mg/L the environmental hazard section of
octhilinone labels must state: “This pesticide is toxic to fish.”

	(2)	Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

	The Agency requires a freshwater aquatic invertebrate study using the
TGAI to establish the acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates.  The
preferred test species is Daphnia magna.  The results of three studies
submitted for octhilinone are provided in the following table (Table 4).

	Table 4.  Acute Toxicity of Octhilinone to Freshwater Invertebrates

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	Octhilinone

98.5%	EC50 = 0.32

NOAEC = 0.21 (a.i.)	Highly toxic	Yes

-	48-hr test duration

-	flow-through test system 	416080-06

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	Octhilinone

96%	EC50 = 0.107

NOAEC = 0.055

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	No

-	48-hr test duration

-	static test system

-  total hardness

    above guideline

-  small test aquaria	439357-04

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	Octhilinone

88.7%	LC50 = 0.18

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	Yes

-  48-hr test                duration

-  static test system	00026806

(Ecotox data No. 86-870001884)

	The results of two core studies (416080-06 and 00026806) indicate that
octhilinone is highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates.  These studies
fulfill guideline requirement OPPTS 850.1010 (72.2a).  Because the acute
aquatic invertebrate toxicity value is < 1.0 mg/L, the environmental
hazard section of octhilinone labels must state:  “This pesticide is
toxic to aquatic invertebrates.”

(3)	Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Acute

	Acute toxicity testing with estuarine and marine organisms using the
TGAI is required when the end-use product is intended for direct
application to the marine/estuarine environment or effluent containing
the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment.  The
preferred fish test species is the sheepshead minnow.  The preferred
invertebrate test species are Mysid shrimp and Eastern oyster.  This
testing is required for octhilinone based on the chemical’s potential
to reach estuarine and marine environments.  The results of three
toxicity studies submitted for octhilinone are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.  Acute Toxicity of Octhilinone to Estuarine and Marine
Organisms

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)	Octhilinone

98.5%	LC50 = 0.16

NOAEC = 0.0.054

(a.i.)	Highly toxic	Yes

-	96-hr test duration

-	flow-through test system 	416080-07

Mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia)	Octhilinone

98.5%	LC50 = 0.071

NOAEC = <0.034

(a.i.)	Very highly toxic	Yes

-	96-hr test duration

-	flow-through test system 	416080-08

Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)	Octhilinone

98.5% 	LC50   >0.057

EC50  <0.013

NOAEC< 0.003	Very highly toxic	Yes

-	96-hr test duration

-	flow-through test system	417007-01

	The results of the three core studies indicate that octhilinone is
highly toxic to estuarine/marine fish and very highly toxic to the
estuarine/marine invertebrates shrimp and oysters on an acute basis.
The sheepshead minnow study (416080-07) fulfills the guideline
requirement OPPTS 850.1075/(72-3a) for an acute estuarine/marine fish
study.  The Mysid shrimp study (416080-08) fulfills the guideline
requirement OPPTS 850.1035/(72-3c) for an estuarine/marine shrimp study.
The Eastern oyster study (417007-01) fulfills the guideline requirement
OPPTS 850.1025/(72-3b) for an acute estuarine/marine mollusk study.
Because estuarine/marine aquatic fish, mollusk, and shrimp acute
toxicity values are < 1.0 mg/L, the environmental hazard section of
octhilinone labels must state:  “This pesticide is toxic to oysters
and shrimp.”

    Aquatic Organisms, Chronic

	Chronic toxicity testing (fish early life stage and aquatic
invertebrate life cycle) is required for pesticides when certain
conditions of use and environmental fate apply.  The preferred
freshwater fish test species is the fathead minnow.  The preferred
freshwater invertebrate is Daphnia magna. This testing is required for
octhilinone.  The results of two toxicity studies submitted for
octhilinone are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.  Chronic Toxicity of Octhilinone to Freshwater Organisms

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)	Octhilinone

98.5%	LOAEC = ND

NOAEC = ND

MATC  >8.5 and < 0 .018; 0.012  geo. Mean

 (a.i.)

	No

-	35-day test duration

-	early-life stage

-  flow-through test    system                 -  relative S.D. for
fish weight in         one  control            replicate
 unacceptable          (53%)	419093-01

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)	Octhilinone

98.5%	NOAEC = 0.074

(a.i.)	No

-  21-day test             duration

-  life-cycle

-  flow-through test     system

-   MATC could           not be                    determined

-   raw data missing	419094-01

The fathead minnow study (419093-01) does not fulfill the guideline
requirement for a fish early life stage toxicity test (72-4a/OPPTS
850.1400) due to missing raw data. The study on the waterflea
(419094-01) also does not fulfill the guideline requirement for a
chronic aquatic invertebrate because the maximum allowable toxicant
concentration (MATC) could not be determined (>0.074 mg/L).   Additional
chronic aquatic toxicity studies are not required to be repeated at this
time, but are held in reserve pending results of the Tier I risk
assessment for the treated lumber antisapstain use.

Toxicity to Plants

	Non-target plant phytotoxicity testing is required for pesticides when
certain conditions of use and environmental fate apply.  Octhilinone use
as an antisapstain wood treatment may result in chemical leachate from
treated wood into the aquatic environment.  Aquatic plant toxicity data
are necessary for a non-target plant risk assessment.  Testing is
conducted with one species of aquatic vascular plant (Lemna gibba) and
four species of algae:  (1) freshwater green alga, Selenastrum
capricornutum, (2) marine diatom, Skeletonema costatum, (3) freshwater
diatom, Navicula pelliculosa, and (4)  bluegreen cyanobacteria, Anabaena
flos-aquae.  The rooted aquatic macrophyte rice (Oryza sativa) is also
tested in seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests.

	A freshwater algal growth study, that evaluated the toxicity of
octhilinone to green algae, was reviewed. Results of this study are
presented in Table 7.

Table 7.  Toxicity of Octhilinone to Aquatic Plants

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Green alga (Selenastrum capricornutum)	Octhilinone

99.2%	EC50 (120-hour, cell density) = 0.015)

NOEC (120-hour cell density) = <0.011	YES

-	growth inhibition

-	120-hr test duration

-	static test system

	440710-01

	Study 440710-01 is classified as acceptable and partially fulfills the
guideline requirements for a green algae toxicity test. (850.5400,
123-2).  Plants are the most sensitive species to octhilinone.

The following confirmatory studies are required to conduct a Tier I risk
assessment for the treated lumber antisapstain use:

Three additional algal toxicity tests under 850.5400:

	freshwater diatom (Navicula pelliculosa),

	blue-green cyanobacteria (Anabeana flow-aquae),

	marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum).

Non-target aquatic macrophyte toxicity tests:

	floating freshwater aquatic macrophyte duckweed (Lemna gibba) –
850.4400,

	rooted freshwater macrophyte rice (Oryza sativa) – 850.4225 and
850.4250

		(2 tests - seedling emergence and vegetative vigor).

II		Risk Assessment and Characterization

	Octhilinone uses are classified as “indoor” with the exception of
the antisapstain wood treatment use.  An ecological risk assessment is
not typically conducted for “indoor” uses, however, due to the
persistence of OIT in soil and water, a Tier I “Down-the-Drain”
assessment was conducted to simulate industrial process waste water
releases.  A Tier I treated lumber antisapstain risk assessment cannot
be done until after receipt of a wood leaching study, soil Koc values,
and outstanding ecotoxicity data.

     Environmental Fate Assessment Summary

		Octhilinone is stable and persistent in water under abiotic conditions
with a half 	life of > 30 days.  A soil migration study showed that it
is not likely to migrate from the 	soil surface and does not show a
tendency to run-off with water. The estimated KOC of 	2120 indicates it
is likely to bind with soils strongly. With little tendency to migrate
and 	strong soil binding, it remains on the surface soils which may
result in contamination of 	surface water. Its degradation pathway
appears to be through microbial biodegradation in 	surface soils under
aerobic and anaerobic condition within120 days.  It is not likely to
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.  The Agency has used the “Down-
the-Drain” model 	to estimate the EECs for this chemical from
industrial waste water discharges.

	See the Environmental Fate Science Chapter for additional details.

B.	Environmental Exposure and Ecological Risk Assessment

Antisapstain Wood Treatment Use:

A Tier I ecological risk assessment for the antisapstain wood treatment
use of octhilinone 	was not conducted due to missing data endpoints (see
Section III below).  Chronic fish 	and aquatic invertebrate studies have
been triggered due to the high toxicity of 	octhilinone to aquatic
organisms however these studies are held in reserve pending the 	results
of the Tier I antisapstain risk assessment. Outstanding plant toxicity
studies must 	be submitted as confirmatory studies prior to conducting
the Tier I antisapstain risk 	assessment (see Section III below).

An antisapstain environmental risk assessment was not conducted.  Soil
Koc and 	wood leaching rate data are required prior to the conduct of
the Tier I 	environmental risk assessment.  Surface water monitoring
data to obtain expected 	environmental concentrations (EECs) may be
submitted in lieu of the antisapstain 	model.

Industrial Process Waste Water Releases:

The high stability of octhilinone in water, and it’s long aerobic and
anaerobic ½ lives 	have triggered Tier I “Down-the-Drain” modeling
and risk assessment.  The EPA/Office 	of Water “Down-the-Drain”
model was utilized to provide expected environmental 	concentrations
(EEC’s) for octhilinone that may be flushed down-the-drain following
use 	following industrial applications. The “Down-the-Drain” model
has uncertainties as 	follows:  the model does not address the
possibility of degradation of the parent, does not 	estimate the
concentration of any degradates, and does not address actions to be
taken to 	avoid contamination of POWTs when a chemical remains in water
and does not 	biodegrade.

Table 8 – Octhilinone “Down –the –Drain” Model Results

Surface Water Conc.	Equation	 Results

CSM  - chronic	 HR  x  [1/QH ]  x (1-WWT) x CFI

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

SDFM

	6 x 10-3 µg/L

CSH  - acute	  HR  x [1/QH]  x (1-WWT) x CFI

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

		SDFL 			7.8 x 10-2 µg/L

The “down-the-drain” model provides the following EEC’s:

		acute – 	0.006 ppb  (0.000006 ppm)

		chronic - 	0.080 ppb  (0.00008 ppm)

These expected environmental concentrations (EEC’s) are worst-case
estimates assuming 100% of octhilinone produced for antimicrobial use is
discharged down the drain.  A worst-case scenario was used as a Tier I
assessment to generate risk quotients.  The model does not account for
formulation dilution of active ingredient or for reduced efficacy
following use

	Table 9 – Octhilinone Risk Quotients

      Species                                     Toxicity Value  (ppm)
              RQ

Rainbow trout	0.05 LC50	0.0016

Daphnia magna acute

                           chronic	0.18 EC50

0.07  NOAEC	0.0004

0.00009

Sheepshead minnow	0.16 LC50	0.0005

Mysid shrimp	0.07 EC50	0.0014

Eastern oyster	>0.06 EC50	0.0013

Green algae	0.02 EC50	0.0040

	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 but risk may be mitigated by
refined risk assessment or regulatory restrictions, (4) chronic risk -
the potential for chronic risk may warrant refined risk assessment
and/or regulatory action, (5) non-endangered plant risk – potential
for effects in non-target plants, and (6) endangered plant risk –
potential for effects in endangered plants.   Currently, EFED 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 10. 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

	“Down-the-Drain” Model Conclusions for Industrial Waste Water

No acute, chronic, or endangered species LOCs are exceeded for aquatic
animals and green algae, however, the risk assessment is incomplete due
to missing non-target plant ecotoxicity endpoints.  Plants are the most
sensitive species tested, therefore, the full compliment of plant
toxicity tests are required to evaluate toxicity to other non-target
plant groups.   Terrestrial animals are not expected to be exposed to
residues greater than those predicted by the “down-the-drain” model.

      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 anadromous 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).  Because OIT is persistent in water and soil, a Tier I
screening level assessment was conducted for OIT industrial waste water
discharges.  No acute, chronic, or endangered species LOCs are exceeded
for aquatic animals and green algae, however, the risk assessment is
incomplete due to missing non-target plant ecotoxicity endpoints.  The
green algae is the most sensitive species, therefore, the full
compliment of plant toxicity tests are required to confirm that green
algae is the most sensitive non-target plant species.   Terrestrial
animals are not expected to be exposed to residues greater than those
predicted by the “down-the-drain” model.  A No Effect determination
is made for terrestrial and aquatic animal species from “indoor” OIT
uses.  The Agency defers making an endangered species determination for
terrestrial and aquatic plants from “indoor” uses of OIT until after
receipt of outstanding data.

	A Tier I screening model to assess potential exposure from antisapstain
wood preservation uses of octhilinone was not conducted due to the lack
of data for octhilinone wood leaching rate and soil Koc’s.  An
environmental monitoring study of runoff from antisapstain treatment
facilities is suggested to address the potential risks and to provide
EECs for a risk assessment as an alternative to the antisapstain Tier I
model.  The Agency defers making a determination for the antisapstain
use of ochtilinone until additional data and modeling refinements are
available. At that time, the environmental exposure assessment of the
antisapstain use of octhilinone will be revised, and the risks to Listed
Species will be considered.

III.	Confirmatory Data Required  For Risk Assessment:

1.)    Freshwater diatom (850.5400) using Navicula pelliculosa,

2.)    Blue-green cyanobacteria (850.5400) using Anabaena flow-aquae,

3.)    Marine diatom (850.5400) using Skeletonema costatum,

4.)    Freshwater floating macrophyte duckweed (850.4400) using Lemna
gibba,

5.)    Freshwater rooted macrophyte rice seedling emergence (850.4225)
using Oryza                sativa,

6.)    Freshwater rooted macrophyte rice vegetative vigor (850.4250)
using Oryza sativa,

7.)    Wood leaching study (AWPA Method E11-06, Standard Method of
Determining               the Leachability of Wood Preservatives
Immersed in Water, AWPA, 2006),

8.)    Environmental runoff monitoring study instead of Tier I
antisapstain model,

9.)    Residues in honey/beeswax and toxicity of treated wood residues
to bees -                         combination of Guidelines 860.1500 and
850.3030 (“Honey Bee Toxicity of                      Residues on
Foliage.”.  A combined study which addresses honey/beeswax residues
      and acute toxicity of treated wood residues to bees is required if
bee hives are to be           constructed of treated wood, or if an
antimicrobial product is intended for
application to a bee hive; unless product labeling prohibits such uses.)

10.)  Soil Koc study (835.1220).

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

Octhilinone 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."

Antisapstain labels must state:

"Treated lumber must be stored under cover, indoors, or at least 100
feet from any pond, lake, stream, wetland, or river to prevent possible
runoff of the product into the waterway.  Treated lumber stored within
100 feet of a pond, lake, stream, wetland, or river must be either
covered with plastic or surrounded by a berm to prevent surface water
runoff into the nearby waterway.  If a berm or curb is used around the
site, it should consist of impermeable material (clay, asphalt,
concrete) and be of sufficient height to prevent runoff during heavy
rainfall events.”

	Optional:

“Wood treated with octhilinone shall not be used in the construction
of beehives.”

 V.  REFERENCES

00026805.  1979. Bioassay Report:  Acute Toxicity of RH-893 Technical to
Five Species of Freshwater Fishes.  Unpublished data. Conducted by
Bionomics, Inc. for Rohm and Haas Company.

00026806.  1979. Acute Toxicity of RH-893 Technical to the Water Flea
(Daphnia magna).  Lab Report No. BW-79-7-503. Unpublished data.
Conducted by Bionomics, Inc. for Rohm and Haas Company.

00026807.  1979. Eight-day Dietary LC50 – Mallard Duck RH-893
Technical (79P-251) Final Report.  Unpublished data. Conducted by
Wildlife International. Ltd. for Rohm and Haas Company.

00026808.  1979. Eight-day Dietary LC50 – Bobwhite Quail RH-893
Technical (79P-253) Final Report.  Unpublished data. Conducted by
Wildlife International. Ltd. for Rohm and Haas Company.

00026809.  1979. Acute Oral LD50 – Bobwhite Quail RH-893 Technical
(79P-252) Final Report.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Wildlife
International. Ltd. for Rohm and Haas Company.

86-870001877.  Gough, B.J. and T.E. Shellenberger.  1971.  Acute
Toxicological Evaluation of Fungicide with Wildlife. Final Report.
Unpublished Data. Conducted by Gulf South Research Institute for Rohm
and Haas Company.

AWPA.  2006.  Book of Standards.  American Wood Preservers’
Association, Birmingham, Alabama.

MRID 416080-01.  Pedersen, C.A.. 1990.  Octhilinone – 21-Day Acute
Oral LD50  Study in Bobwhite Quail. Rohm and Haas Report No. 90RC-0020.
Unpublished data. Conducted by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. for Rohm and
Haas Company.

MRID 416080-02.  Pedersen, C.A.. 1990.  Octhilinone – 8-Day Acute
Dietary LC50 Study in Bobwhite Quail. Rohm and Haas Report No.
90RC-0021.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. for
Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 416080-03.  Pedersen, C.A.. 1990.  Octhilinone – 8-Day Acute
Dietary LC50 Study in Mallard Ducklings. Rohm and Haas Report No.
90RC-0022.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. for
Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 416080-04.  Sousa, J.V. 1990.  Octhilinone – Acute Toxicity to
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Under Flow-Through Conditions. Lab Report
No. 90-7-3375.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Springborn Laboratories
for Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 416080-05.  Sousa, J.V. 1990.  Octhilinone – Acute Toxicity to
Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Under Flow-Through Conditions. Lab
Report No. 90-7-3367.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Springborn
Laboratories for Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 416080-06.  McNamara, P.C. 1990.  Octhilinone – Acute Toxicity to
Daphnids (Daphnia magna) During a 48-Hour Flow-Through Exposure. Lab
Report No. 90-6-3350.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Springborn
Laboratories for Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 416080-07.  Sousa, J.V. 1990.  Octhilinone – Acute Toxicity to
Sheepshead Minnow (Cypridon variegatus) Under Flow-Through Conditions.
Lab Report No. 90-7-3375.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Springborn
Laboratories for Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 416080-08.  Sousa, J.V. 1990.  Octhilinone – Acute Toxicity to
Mysid Shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) Under Flow-Through Conditions. Lab
Report No. 90-7-3383.  Unpublished data. Conducted by Springborn
Laboratories for Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 417007-01.  Dionne, E.  1990.  Mollusc 96-Hour Flow-Through Shell
Deposition Study.

Unpublished data. Conducted by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for Rohm
and Haas Company.

MRID 419093-01.  Sousa, J.V. 1991. Octhilinone – Toxicity Test with
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Embryos and Larvae. Lab. Report No.
90-10-3525.  Unpublished data. Prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc.
for Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 419094-01.  McNamara, P.C. 1991. Octhilinone – The Chronic
Toxicity to Daphnia magna Under Flow-Through Conditions. Lab Report No.
90-09-3473.  Unpublished data. Prepared by Springborn Laboratories for
Rohm and Haas Company.

MRID 439357-01.  Wyness, L.E. 1995.  N-Octylisothiazolone (OIT):
Subacute Dietary Toxicity LC50 to Bobwhite Quail. Lab Project No.
1154/45. Unpublished data. Conducted by Corning Hazleton (Europe) for
Thor Americas, Inc.

MRID 439357-02.  Wyness, L.E.  1995. N-Octylisothiazolone (OIT):  Acute
Toxicity to (Oncorhynchus mykiss).  Lab Project No. 1154/47.
Unpublished data. Conducted by Corning Hazleton (Europe) for Thor
Chemicals Ltd. (UK).

MRID 439357-03.  Wyness, L.E.  1995. N-Octylisothiazolone (OIT):  Acute
Toxicity to (Lepomis macrochirus).  Lab Project No. 1154/46.
Unpublished data. Conducted by Corning Hazleton (Europe) for Thor
Chemicals Ltd. (UK).

MRID 439357-04.  Wyness, L.E.  1995. N-Octylisothiazolone (OIT):  Acute
Toxicity to (Daphnia magna).  Lab Project No. 1154/48.  Unpublished
data. Conducted by Corning Hazleton (Europe) for Thor Chemicals Ltd.
(UK).

MRID 439357-04.  Wyness, L.E.  1995. N-Octylisothiazolone (OIT):
Reproduction Test with (Daphnia magna).  Lab Project No. 1154/48.
Unpublished data. Conducted by Corning Hazleton (Europe) for Thor
Chemicals Ltd. (UK).

MRID 440710-01.  Hoberg, J.R.  1996.  Octhilinone – Acute Toxicity to
the Freshwater Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum. Lab Report No.
95-12-6255.  Unpublished data.  Conducted by Springborn Laboratories,
Inc.

MRID 448590-01.  Rodgers, M.  1999.  Acticide OIT:  Acute Oral Toxicity
(LD50) to Bobwhite Quail. Lab Project No. THR 053. Unpublished data.
Conducted by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. For Thor Chemie
GmbH/Acti-Chem Specialties, Inc.

MRID#: 447232-01. Hydrolytic Stability Study of Octhilinone (
14C)-Acticie OIT), 1999, by Dr. T. Lucas Submitted by:  Acti-Chem
Specialties Inc., 56 Quarry Rd., Trumbull, CT: 06611-4816. Performing
Laboratory: Covance Laboratories GmbH, Kesselfeld 29, D-48163 Munster,
Germany. Laboratory Report #: 1509-1154-069

Rohm& Haas Technical Reports on Environmental Fate Studies. Reports#s:
23-71-4, 23-72-3, 3923-74-38,  3923-75-3, and 3923-75-11

EPI SUITE (Version 3.12)

 PAGE   i

 PAGE   1

	D R A F T


[Federal Register: July 5, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 39114]
[DOCID:fr05jy11-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1991-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Illinois; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1991-DR), dated June 7, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 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: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of June 7, 2011.

    Wabash County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
Public Assistance).

    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. 2011-16790 Filed 7-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67059-67060]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28098]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1012; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace and Amendment of Class D and
Class E Airspace; Olympia, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface and modifies Class E airspace designated as
an extension at Olympia Regional Airport (formerly Olympia Airport).
This action removes the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status for
Class E airspace designated as an extension, and updates the airport
name and geographic coordinates in the associated Class D and E
airspace areas to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes
are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport
within the National Airspace System. Also, an editorial change is made
to the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Malgarini, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface and modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension at
Olympia Regional Airport (formerly Olympia Airport). This action
removes the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status for Class E
airspace designated as an extension, and updates the airport name and
geographic coordinates in the associated Class D and E airspace areas
to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes are necessary
to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 1201; January 10, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1012 to
modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E
airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Olympia Regional Airport
(formerly Olympia Airport), WA; remove the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)
part-time status for Class E airspace designated as an extension; and
update the airport name and geographic coordinates in the associated
Class D and E airspace areas to match the FAA's aeronautical database.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated
August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Olympia Regional Airport to contain IFR departure
and arrival aircraft below 1,200 and 1,500 feet above the surface,
respectively. This airspace duplicates the larger Seattle Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, but ensures
no future changes at Seattle inadvertently impact aircraft operations
at Olympia Regional Airport.
    The FAA also modifies the Class E airspace designated as an
extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Olympia Regional
Airport, Olympia, WA, by removing the segments north (within 1.8 miles
each side of the Olympia VORTAC 010[deg] radial extending from the 4-
mile radius of the airport to 4.8 miles north of the VORTAC) and south
(within 3.5 miles each side of the Olympia VORTAC 195[deg] radial
extending from the 4-mile radius of Olympia Airport to 9.2 miles south
of the VORTAC) of the airport, and establishing a 2-mile wide segment
extending to approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the airport.
    Also, this action also eliminates the following language from the
legal description of Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D or Class E surface area at the airport, ``This Class E airspace
is effective

during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice
to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.''
    Finally, this action updates the airport name from Olympia Airport
to Olympia Regional Airport, updates the geographic coordinates of the
airport to match the FAA's aeronautical database, and replaces the
outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement
in the associated Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions. This
airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D Olympia, WA [Amended]

Olympia Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'10'' N, long. 122[deg]54'09'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Olympia Regional Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM OR E2 Olympia, WA [Amended]

Olympia Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'10'' N, long. 122[deg]54'09'' W)

    That airspace within a 4-mile radius of Olympia Regional
Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM OR E4 Olympia, WA [Amended]

Olympia Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'10'' N, long. 122[deg]54'09'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within the area
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 46[deg]57'14'' N, long.
122[deg]48'28'' W; to lat. 46[deg]56'44'' N, long. 122[deg]47'08''
W; to lat. 46[deg]55'28'' N, long. 122[deg]47'10'' W; to lat.
46[deg]54'42'' N, long. 122[deg]47'45'' W; to lat. 46[deg]55'28'' N,
long. 122[deg]49'51'' W; thence counter-clockwise along the 4-mile
radius of the airport to the point of beginning.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Olympia, WA [New]

Olympia Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'10'' N, long. 122[deg]54'09'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Olympia Regional Airport from the
airport 211[deg] bearing clockwise to the airport 088[deg] bearing,
and within an 8.2-mile radius of the airport from the airport
088[deg] bearing clockwise to the airport 122[deg] bearing, and
within a 12.4-mile radius of the airport from the airport 122[deg]
bearing clockwise to the airport 211[deg] bearing, and within 1 mile
each side of the 011[deg] bearing from the airport extending to 11.6
miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 14, 2018.
Byron Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-28098 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P