Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES September 27, 2003 MEMORANDUM FROM: Kathryn Boyle, Chair Lower Toxicity Pesticide Chemical Focus Group Registration Division TO: Susan Lewis, Acting Chief Minor Use, Inerts, and Emergency Response Branch Registration Division SUBJECT: Recommendation for Tolerance Reassessment The attached science assessment discusses the toxicity of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate. Based on their long history of use as a food additive ( mold inhibitor), the evaluations by the Food and Drug Administration which resulted in unlimited GRAS ( generally recognized as safe) determinations, and their ready metabolism, a qualitative assessment was performed.

Based on its review and evaluation of the available information, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of potassium sorbate and sorbic acid from their uses as inert ingredients in pesticide products. The sorbic acid ( and potassium salt) exemption from the requirement of a tolerance as established in 40 CFR 180.1001 ( c) is reassessed. The entry in 40 CFR180.2 ( which counts as two tolerance exemptions) is also reassessed. Based on severe dermal irritation, the classification of sorbic acid as List 4B is confirmed. Based on its use in FIFRA 25( b) deregulated products as an active ingredient, potassium sorbate is reclassified as List 4A for harmonization. Page 2 of 14 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES September 24, 2003 Memorandum Subject: Sorbic Acid and Its Potassium Salt: Science Assessment Document for Tolerance Reassessment.

CAS No.: Sorbic Acid: 110 44 1 Potassium Sorbate: 590 00 1; 24634 61 5 Chemical Class: unsaturated aliphatic acid and its potassium salt 40 CFR: 180.1001 ( c)

From: Bentley C. Gregg, Risk Assessor Product Reregistration Branch Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Through: Linda Propst, Branch Chief Mark Perry, Team Leader Product Reregistration Branch Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

To: Lower Toxicity Pesticide Chemical Focus Group Kathryn Boyle, Chair Registration Division ( 7505C)

Background:

Attached is the Lower Toxicity Pesticide Chemical Focus Group's science assessment for sorbic acid and its potassium salt. This assessment summarizes available information on the uses, physical/ chemical properties, toxicological effects, exposure profile, and environmental fate and ecotoxicity of these substances. In performing this assessment, EPA has relied on peer reviewed evaluations performed by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), and the Food and Page 3 of 14 Agriculture Organization of the World Health Organization ( FAO/ WHO).

I. Executive Summary:

Sorbic acid is an unsaturated aliphatic acid, a straight chain of 6 carbons with double bonds at the 2 and 4 positions and a terminal carboxylic acid group ( i. e., at the 1 position). The potassium salt is formed by mixing sorbic acid with potassium hydroxide to form the potassium sorbate. Both sorbic acid and potassium sorbate have been classified by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA, 1975) as Generally Recognized as Safe ( GRAS). Innumerable tons of foodstuffs are saved from perishing each year because of the use of sorbic acid and/ or potassium sorbate as a preservative method. They protect the food products from attack by mold, yeast and bacteria. They inhibit mold from growing, although they do not kill already established mold.

Potassium sorbate is highly water soluble, and although sorbic acid is soluble in fats, oils, and some solvents, the acid has a water solubility of about 2000 mg/ L, so it is soluble in water at the concentrations likely to enter water, and it will exist in its dissociated state within the range of environmentally relevant pHs. Both sorbic acid and potassium sorbate are readily biodegraded and are predicted to be relatively non toxic to aquatic species.

Open literature studies and information from various internet websites show that there are a number of toxicological studies with sorbic acid, and some with potassium sorbate, with the data indicating that these two substances do not pose serious health effects from exposure. Sorbic acid is rapidly metabolized, with 85% of the radiolabeled dose found in the expired CO 2 in both the rat and mouse.

A WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives Committee has concluded that both sorbic acid and potassium sorbate are readily metabolized and that both rats and humans appear to utilize identical metabolic mechanisms; that they did not cause tumors when administered orally and produced no evidence of carcinogenic potential; that the level causing no toxicological effect in the rat was 50,000 ppm ( 5%) in the diet, which is equivalent to 2500 mg/ kg bw/ day; and the estimate of acceptable daily intake in humans was 0 to 25 mg/ kg bw, expressed in units as the sum of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate, as well as the calcium and potassium sorbates ( with the salts calculated as sorbic acid).

Based on available information on sorbic acid and its potassium salt, their expected use patterns, their GRAS status and safe history of use as food additives, and extensive uses as preservatives in commercially available, over the counter foods, the Lower Toxicity Pesticide Chemical Focus Group has determined that a screening level quantitative risk assessment is not required for these substances.

II. Use Information:

The pesticidal and non pesticidal uses of sorbic acid and its potassium salt are summarized Page 4 of 14 briefly below.

Table 1. Use Pattern ( pesticidal ingredient)

Chemical Name PC Code 40 CFR Use Pattern ( Pesticidal) Current Inert List " Sorbic acid ( and potassium salt)" acid: 875901 salt: 875902 180.1001 ( c) Preservative for formulations acid: 4B salt: 4B Potassium sorbate 075902 180.2

Sorbic acid also has an active ingredient PC Codes: 075901.

Use Pattern ( non pesticidal):

Sorbic acid is generally recognized as safe ( GRAS) by the U. S. FDA when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice ( 21 CFR 182.3089); therefore, the only limitation on its use is that the quantity not exceed the amount reasonably required to accomplish the desired preservative function. Sorbic acid is used for the following: as a mold and yeast inhibitor; as a fungistatic agent for foods, especially cheeses; to improve the characteristics of drying oils; in alkyd type coatings to improve gloss; and to improve the milling characteristics of cold rubber.

Potassium sorbate is also generally recognized as safe by FDA when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice, without any other specified limitation ( 21 CFR 182.3640), and is also listed as GRAS when migrating to food from paper and paperboard products used in food packaging ( 21 CFR 182.90). Potassium sorbate is used as a mold and yeast inhibitor. It is also used as a chemical preservative food additive and an antioxidant in food.

Innumerable tons of foodstuffs are saved from perishing each year because of the use of sorbic acid and/ or potassium sorbate as a preservative method. They protect the food products from attack by mold, yeast and bacteria. They inhibit mold from growing, although they do not kill already established mold.

III. Physical/ Chemical Properties:

The actual chemical name for the substance known by the common name Sorbic Acid is trans, trans 2,4 hexadienoic acid ( or E, E 2,4 hexadienoic acid). It is a straight chain ( aliphatic), unsaturated ( double bonds at the 2 and 4 positions) acid, with both the double bonds being in the trans configuration, and a terminal ( at the 1 position) carboxylic acid. Sorbic acid is produced by the trimerization of acetaldehyde and the catalytic air oxidation of the resulting 2,4 hexadienal.

Potassium sorbate is the potassium salt of sorbic acid. It is produced by mixing equimolar Page 5 of 14 amounts of sorbic acid and potassium hydroxide.

Sorbic acid has been characterized as an unsaturated fatty acid which has two double bonds in conjugation ( that is, two double bonds separated only by one single bond). Potassium sorbate is highly water soluble. Sorbic acid is highly soluble in fats, oils, and some solvents, and is soluble in water at 1900 mg/ L, so it is soluble at most concentrations likely to enter water. The acid it will exist in its dissociated state within the range of environmentally relevant pHs Table 2. Physical/ Chemical Properties ( from HSDB, unless specified).

Sorbic acid Potassium sorbate Molecular formula C 6 H 8 O 2 C 6 H 7 O 2 ° K Molecular weight 112.13 150.22 Melting point 134.5 ° C 270 ° C Solubility in water 1,910 mg/ L at 30 ° C 585,000 mg/ L at 25 ° C pH

Density/ Specific Gravity 1.204 @ 19 ° C / 4 ° C 1.363 @ 25 ° C / 20 ° C Vapor Density 3.87

Octanol/ Water Partition Coefficient log K ow = 1.33

Physical state colorless needles or white powder White crystals or powder Dissociation Constant 1.73 x 10 5 @ 25 ° C; pKa = 4.76 Estimated Vapor Pressure 9.9 x 10 3 mm Hg @ 25 ° C; 50 mm Hg @ 143 ° C

Henry's Law constant 5.0 x 10 8 atm m3/ mole

Soil Sorption Coefficient K oc = 130

Bioconcentration Factor 6.0

Environmental Biodegradation as a simple unsaturated fatty acid, sorbic acid should be readily biodegraded in the environment ( similar to the acid) Page 6 of 14 Environmental Abiotic Degradation sorbic acid is not expected to undergo hydrolysis in the environment due to a lack of hydrolyzable functional groups, but will directly photolyze rapidly due to reaction with hydroxyl radicles and ozone in the atmosphere ( similar to the acid)

IV. Hazard Assessment:

Toxicological Profile:

Table 3. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data on Sorbic Acid and Potassium Sorbate.

Sorbic Acid Potassium Sorbate Test Species Results Category Species Results Category Oral LD50 rat 7360 10,500 mg/ kg IV rat 4340  4920 mg/ kg III Dermal LD50 rabbit > 10,000 mg/ kg IV no data Inhalation LC50 no data no data Eye Irritation rabbit no data humans " can cause irritation" NA Dermal Irritation rabbit severe I humans " contact dermatitis" NA Dermal Sensitization no data no data Sorbic Acid. The acute oral LD 50 values for sorbic acid in the rat have been reported to be 7360, 7400, and 10,500 mg/ kg, and 3200 mg/ kg in the mouse. The acute dermal toxicity to the rabbit has been reported as > 1000 mg/ kg, from a limit dose test. Sorbic acid has exhibited severe irritation when administered to the skin of humans ( 150 mg for 1 hour) and severe irritation when administered to the skin of the rabbit ( 1 mg). In another study, sorbic acid was reported to be a primary irritant to human skin when applied at 0.15% concentration in water under conditions of a closed patch test, while, in another study, sorbic acid did not show any primary irritation or sensitization of guinea pig skin when two samples were applied at 0.1 molar concentration. In mutagenicity testing, sorbic acid was found to be negative in sister chromatid exchange studies with Chinese hamster cells from the lung, tested at doses up to 1050 µ g/ mL ( mg/ L). Page 7 of 14 The World Health Organization ( WHO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives monograph ( 1967) reported results from a study in which radiolabeled sorbic acid was administered to the rat and its subsequent metabolism was evaluated ( Fingerhut et al. 1962, as cited in WHO 1967). The monograph reported that 85% of the labeled carbon activity was found in the expired CO 2 , while 0.4% was found in the feces, 2% in the urine as urea and CO 2 , 3% in internal organs, 3% in the skeletal muscles, and 6.6% in the other parts of the carcass. No glycogen was formed from the sorbic acid. Most of the radiolabeled activity was found in the subcutaneous fat deposits and in the lipids of the organs. There was a linear relationship between dose and oxidation rate; the half life of the oxidation was reported to be 40 110 minutes in the dose range from 60 1200 mg/ kg body weight. The WHO monograph also reported a similar experiment on mice, also using radiolabeled sorbic acid ( Westöö, 1964, as cited in WHO 1967), and the results in the rat were confirmed in the mouse; in these mouse, 81% ± 10% of the sorbic acid was oxidized to CO 2 , with the dose given ranging from 40 3000 mg/ kg body weight. About 7% of the activity was excreted as sorbic acid, and 0.4% as trans, trans muconic acid.

The WHO monograph ( 1967) also described results from a long term feeding experiment in which groups of 100 rats ( 50 males and 50 females) were given 0 and 5% sorbic acid for the entire life span of the first generation. The average life span of the group fed sorbic acid was 811 days for the males and 789 days for the females, while the life span of the control group males was 709 days and 804 days for the females, with the monograph indicating " possibly suggesting protection by sorbic acid against lung infection." Autopsies were performed on all the rats of the first generation that died during the experiment, and there were no differences in the organ weight of the individual groups nor in the distribution of the causes of death. In each group ( 5% sorbic acid and controls), only 2 tumors were found. Animals of the second generation were sacrificed after 250 days of feeding sorbic acid, and examination of liver, kidney, heart, and testes showed no abnormalities.

A subsequent WHO monograph ( 1974) reported that sorbic acid did not act as an antimetabolite for the essential fatty acids in the rat, and the incorporation of sorbic acid in the diet of the rats did not cause a decrease in the efficiency of their utilization of calories. The sorbic acid was utilized as a source of calories, and was reported to be metabolized similarly to caproic acid. The monograph also reported the results of a multi generation feeding study in the rat. Both male and female rats were fed a diet containing either 0% or 10% sorbic acid for 120 days, and after 60 days, rats in each group were mated, and each group produced similar numbers of offspring. Then rats in the next generation ( F1) were fed control diet or that containing 10% sorbic acid, and mated after 70 days, and again, similar numbers of offspring were produced ( the F2 generation). It was reported that the females in the 10% sorbic acid group exhibited normal liver weights, relative to the controls, but that the males exhibited reduced growth.

In another study reviewed in the WHO ( 1974) monograph, groups of male and female mice were dosed by oral intubation, receiving 40 mg/ kg/ day of sorbic acid for two months. There were no differences observed in survival, weight gain, or food consumption between the treatment and control groups. At the end of this dosing period, food was restricted by 50% for 5 days, and in the group previously dosed with sorbic acid, the mortality and weight loss were less than in the Page 8 of 14 control group. In a similar oral intubation study at 80 mg/ kg/ day for three months, the growth in the sorbic acid dosed group was somewhat lower than the control group. The subsequent food restriction period in this part of the study was 90% food restriction for 18 days, with no difference in mortality of the mice between the controls and the group previously dosed with sorbic acid.

The later WHO monograph ( 1974) also described various short term feeding studies. In one study, rats fed sorbic acid in the diet at 1% or 2% for 80 days were found to have no adverse effects of growth nor any histological abnormalities in any of the internal organs examined, although the livers were slightly larger than in the control group. In another study, rats were fed 1% or 10% sorbic acid in the diet for four months, and the 1% group showed no effect on blood cholesterol levels, while there was an increase in cholesterol in the 10% group, as well as fat deposition in the internal organs. In addition, there was a decrease in the number of leucocytes and some impairment of cholinesterase activity after two months. Groups of male and female rats were administered diets of 0% or 10% sorbic acid for 120 days, and gross appearance, behavior, and food consumption were similar between groups, but some of the 10% sorbic acid dosed rats exhibited increased liver to body weight ratios. In another study, tests were conducted in two different laboratories with two different strains of rats fed diets containing 4% or 8% sorbic acid for 90 days, and there were no effects on the rate of weight gain, and the rats in the 4% group showed no abnormalities in renal, hepatic or other tissues. However, the rats in the 8% group showed a slight but statistically significant increase in relative liver weights, while the histopathological appearances of the livers were normal. In another feeding study, in the rabbit, a dosage of 3.3 g/ kg bw/ day of sorbic acid was tolerated without any adverse effects. In another study, groups of dogs received a diet of 50% cheddar cheese for 3 months, with one group receiving cheese with 4% sorbic acid added, a second group with 4% caproic acid added, and the control group without added preservative; the responses observed were similar among all three groups, and there were no histopathological differences observed in the tissues among any of the three groups of dogs.

Sorbic acid was administered to rats in the drinking water at " 10 mg/ 100 mL" ( i. e., 100 mg/ L) for 64 weeks, and the rats observed for tumors, and the WHO monograph ( 1973) reported the dosing failed to produce any tumors. In another study, groups of male and female mice were administered 40 mg/ kg/ day of sorbic acid in the diet ( total dosing period not reported), and there were no tumors observed in either the dosed or control group. In addition, the general condition, behavior, weight gain, and survival were similar among the mice in the dosed and control group, but the sorbic acid dosed group exhibited lower relative weights for the liver, kidney, and testes.

The WHO monograph ( 1973) also reported the results of long term dosing studies. Male and female rats received a diet containing sorbic acid at 40 mg/ kg/ day for 18 months. At the end of this dosing period, food was completely withheld from the rats for 13 days, and the test group showed higher survival than the control group. The blood pH, C reactive protein levels, and blood morphology were similar between the test group and the controls, and there were no significant differences in either the serum ceruloplasmin, serum complement, or phagocytic activity of the leucocytes. The WHO monograph reported that weight gain was not measured during the 18 month dosing period, nor were any results reported for tumors. In another study Page 9 of 14 reviewed, sorbic acid was fed to rats at 5% in the diet for 1000 days, over two generations, with no adverse effects of weight gain or reproduction, and " no ill effects were observed," and no sorbic acid was found in the urine of the dosed rats. Based on these various studies, the WHO Committee ( 1973) concluded the following: sorbic acid is readily metabolized; both rats and humans appear to utilize identical metabolic mechanisms for the oxidation of sorbate; sorbic acid did no cause tumors when administered orally and produced no evidence of carcinogenic potential; the level causing no toxicological effect in the rat was 50,000 ppm ( 5%) in the diet, which is equivalent to 2500 mg/ kg bw/ day; and the estimate of the acceptable daily intake in humans was 0 to 25 mg/ kg bw.

Additional more recent information is also presented in the HSDB of TOXNET regarding the studies to assess the effects of sorbic acid. Daily doses to the rat of about 50 mg/ kg in food for 30 days were reported to have " caused some reduced growth" ( only information reported in HSDB). No adverse effects were reported in the blood or internal organs of rats, guinea pigs, rabbits or dogs after " prolonged feeding" at 1 to 500 times the mount of sorbic acid used in foods. Sorbic acid fed to male and female mice at dietary levels of 0, 1, 5, or 10% for 80 weeks, and fed to male and female rats at 0, 1, 5, or 10% for 2 years, were reported to have caused no increases in the numbers of deaths or in the incidence of spontaneous histological lesions, including tumors. In another study, tumors were not observed in male or female rats fed a diet containing sorbic acid at 40 mg/ kg/ day for 18 months, or in male or female mice also administered 40 mg/ kg/ day for 17 months. It was also reported that in rats, the metabolism of sorbic acid is identical with that of normally occurring fatty acids, and that under normal conditions of ingestion, sorbic acid is completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water. This metabolism of sorbic acid is by the betaoxidation route to carbon dioxide, but that traces ( 0.1% of the dose) are converted into trans, trans muconic acid.

In another study reviewed in TOXNET, mice were fed a diet containing 15% sorbic acid for 88 weeks, and developed a high incidence of hepatoma. The glutathione levels in the livers of the mice administered at 15% were found to be decreased to 40% of the amount reported in the controls after a 3 month feeding period, with the decreased level continuing until the end of the experiment after 12 months, with a close correlation observed between the extent of the depletion of the glutathione levels in the livers and the concentrations of sorbic acid in the diet. It was also reported that in this same strain of mice fed a diet containing 15% sorbic acid for up to 6 months, the acidic fraction of an ether extract was found to exhibit a slight mutagenic activity in an Ames test ( with Salmonella typhimurium TA 98 in the presence of a liver 9000 g supernatant); therefore, it had been inferred that the hepatomas which developed in the mice dosed at 15% may have been induced by both the chronic depletion of the hepatic glutathione and by the gradual production of these promutagens in the mice intestine which were then absorbed and metabolically activated by the liver. ( Since its use in food is as a preservative, sorbic acid at 15% of the total diet would appear to represent an unusually elevated level for human dietary ingestion, since TOXNET indicates that the highest level of potassium sorbate is in regular cheese, at 0.3%, except for the single exception of dipping the sausage casings in a 2.5% solution, before stuffing with meat.) Page 10 of 14 Potassium Sorbate. The acute oral LD 50 values for potassium sorbate have been reported to be 4340 mg/ kg and 4920 mg/ kg in the rat, and 3800 mg/ kg in the mouse. Potassium sorbate has been reported to cause aged, contact dermatitis and can cause eye irritation. Two mutagenicity tests have been reported with potassium sorbate; it did induce chromosomal aberrations in cultured Chinese hamster fibroblast cells ( at doses up to 4 g/ L for 48 hours), but the results from sister chromatid exchange studies with Chinese hamster cells from the lung were found to be not conclusive ( at doses up to 10 g/ L).

The World Health Organization ( WHO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives monograph ( 1967) reported results from a feeding study in which groups of male and female rats were fed potassium sorbate ( solid or mixed isomers) at levels of 0, 1, 2, 5, or 10% in the diet for 3 months. The body weight gain in the group fed 10% potassium sorbate was initially depressed, and was also to a lesser degree in the group fed 5%; however, there were no data reported for food consumption during this initial feeding period. At the conclusion of the entire 3 month dosing period, the overall body weights of the rats receiving this highest dose of potassium sorbate ( 10%) were " slightly depressed," but data also indicated that food consumption was lower in this group; thus, it was also observed that food efficiency ( reported as weight gain per gram of food ingested) for this 10% group was similar to that in the controls. The relative liver weights were the same in all dosing groups, but the kidney weights were greater in the 10% group, and to a lesser extent in the 5% group, which was " probably due to the high potassium load." Gross pathological examinations revealed no abnormalities, even in the highest dose group.

The WHO monograph ( 1967) also reported a study in which dogs were administered 1 or 2% potassium sorbate ( as solid or mixed isomers) in the diet for 3 months. There were no differences between either of the dosed groups and the controls for weight gain, and gross examination on autopsy showed no indications of any deleterious effects attributable to the sorbates. Based on these results, the WHO Committee concluded that 10% potassium sorbate, and even somewhat lower levels, result in a very high intake of potassium, with the consumption of food at 15 grams/ rat/ day resulting in a daily intake of 12 meq of potassium for the 10% dose group, whereas the normal daily intake of potassium for the mature rat is 1.5 meq of potassium. The WHO Committee report concluded with an Evaluation that the level causing no toxicological effect in the rat was 50,000 ppm in the diet, which is equivalent 2,500 mg/ kg body weight/ day, and that the Estimate of acceptable daily intakes for man would be as follows: Unconditional Acceptance: 0 to 12.5 mg/ kg body weight; and Conditional Acceptance: 12.5 to 25 mg/ kg bodyweight in units as the sum of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate, as well as the calcium and potassium sorbates ( calculated as sorbic acid).

In a subsequent WHO monograph ( 1973), results were reported concerning a study in which potassium sorbate was administered in either the drinking water, at 0.3%, or in the diet, at 0.1%, for 100 weeks. Survival and general conditions of the rats were satisfactory. No special features were seen at 65 weeks in laparotomy ( surgical incision into the abdominal wall), nor at 100 weeks, when all the animals had died. In the carcinogenicity aspect of this study, it was reported that these dosing regimes failed to produce any tumors. Based on these various studies, the WHO Committee ( 1973) concluded the following: sorbic acid is readily metabolized; both rats Page 11 of 14 and humans appear to utilize identical metabolic mechanisms for the oxidation of sorbate; longterm feeding studies suggest that the same no effect level applies to the salts as to the free acid; potassium sorbate did no cause tumors when administered orally and produced no evidence of carcinogenic potential; the level causing no toxicological effect in the rat was 50,000 ppm ( 5%) in the diet, which is equivalent to 2500 mg/ kg bw/ day; and the estimate of acceptable daily intake in humans was 0 to 25 mg/ kg bw, reported in units as the sum of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate, as well as calcium and sodium sorbate ( these salts expressed as sorbic acid).

Risk Characterization: Taking into consideration all available information on sorbic acid and its potassium salt, including their designations by FDA as GRAS, the information compiled on them in WHO/ FAO monographs and TOXNET, as well as their presence as preservatives in foods, it is concluded that the uses of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate as inert ingredients in pesticide products are unlikely to pose a significant hazard to the general public or any population subgroup. Sorbic acid and potassium sorbate are readily metabolized, and in long term feeding studies, showed no adverse effects and produced no evidence of carcinogenic potential, with no toxicological effects observed in the rat at 50,000 ppm ( 5%) in the diet, which is equivalent to 2500 mg/ kg bw/ day, so the WHO estimate of acceptable daily intake in humans was 0 to 25 mg/ kg bw, reported in units as the sum of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate, as well as calcium and sodium sorbate ( these salts expressed as sorbic acid). As a result, OPP is recommending a qualitative approach to assessing human health risks from exposure to sorbic acid and its potassium salt.

Special Considerations for Infants and Children: At this time, there is no concern for sorbic acid or potassium sorbate to have potential sensitivity to infants and children. A safety factor analysis has not been used to assess the risk. For the same reasons, the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

V. Exposure Assessment:

Exposure to both sorbic acid and its potassium salt, potassium sorbate, may occur through their FDA approved GRAS uses as food additives for preservative purposes. Based on the extensive use of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate in many types of foods ( approved FDA uses), the potential exposures to these substances as a result of use in pesticide products are expected to be minimal. Therefore, a screening level quantitative exposure assessment has not been conducted.

VI. Environmental Fate/ Ecotoxicity/ Drinking Water Considerations:

HSDB in TOXNET discusses the environmental fate of sorbic acid. In addition, information from HSDB has been supplemented with predictive modeling, based on structure activity relationships. Potassium sorbate is highly water soluble, and thus readily dissociates into its anion ( the dissociated sorbic acid) and its cation ( the potassium ion). Thus, the environmental Page 12 of 14 fate and effects of potassium sorbate are closely related to sorbic acid and the free potassium ion.

Based on their low K oc ( i. e., less than 10 L/ g) and low K ow ( i. e., about 1.3 for sorbic acid and 2.2 for the sorbate salts) values, sorbic acid and its salts are classified as highly mobile in soil ( McCall et al. [ undated]). Volatilization from moist soil surfaces would not be expected to be an important fate process, based on the low Henry's Law constant values for both the acid and its salts, but sorbic acid has the potential to volatilize from dry soil surfaces, based on its vapor pressure of about 1 x 10 2 mm Hg, but the volatility of the dissociated acid ( anion) would be minimal. As a simple unsaturated aliphatic ( fatty) acid, sorbic acid would be expected to be readily biodegraded in the environment, and has been observed to degrade in soil suspension. Overall half lives in acclimated systems would range from hours to days for primary degradation, and days to weeks for ultimate degradation ( mineralization), based on the ready biodegradability model ( Meylan and Howard, 2000). Due to the lack of hydrolyzable functional groups, abiotic degradation of sorbic acid in the soil would not be expected to be an important fate process.

Sorbic acid is soluble in water at about 2000 mg/ L, and its anion ( dissociated acid) and the potassium ion are miscible in water. Based on their K oc and K ow values, sorbic acid and the sorbate salts would not be expected to adsorb to suspended solids or sediments in water. Volatilization from water would not be expected to be an major fate process for sorbic acid, based on its Henry's Law constant. The dissociation constant for sorbic acid ( pKa of 4.76) suggests that in the range of environmentally relevant pHs, it would exist in a dissociated state ( as its cation [ the hydrogen ion] and its anion [ the negatively charged, dissociated sorbate moiety]). Based on its low K ow and low estimated Bioconcentration Factor values, there is a low potential for bioconcentration in aquatic animals. Sorbic acid in water is expected to be very readily biodegraded, by both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, while its abiotic degradation in water would be a very minor pathway of breakdown.

If any sorbic acid should enter the atmospheric compartment of the environment, it is expected to exist solely as a vapor. Vapor phase sorbic acid would be readily degraded in the atmosphere by reactions with either or both photochemically produced hydroxyl radicles and ozone, with estimated half life values on the order of hours, both with hydroxyl radicles and with the vapor phase reaction between sorbic acid and ozone.

Sorbic acid is relatively non toxic in tests with various aquatic species ( TOXNET, HSDB). The LC 50 values to the golden orfe ( Lueciscus idus) range from 1,000 to 1,500 mg/ L. The estimated toxicity from the ECOSAR model ( Meylan and Howard, 1998) indicates acute toxicity to fish is likely above the solubility of sorbic acid and as the anion, at concentrations approaching kilo grams per liter. Daphnia magna and green algae are among the most sensitive species based on predictive modeling for chronic endpoints, with the estimated adverse effects concentrations ranging from an estimated 80 to 90 mg/ L for sorbic acid to low grams/ liter for sorbic acid as a anion.

VII. Cumulative Exposure: Page 13 of 14 Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether sorbic acid or its potassium salt have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to sorbic acid or its potassium salt and any other substances, and sorbic acid or its potassium salt do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that sorbic acid or its potassium salt has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

References:

Food and Drug Administration ( FDA). 1975. Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Sorbic Acid And Its Salts As Food Ingredients. Bureau of Foods, U. S. FDA, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington, D. C. Prepared by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Bethesda MD. Performing Organization Report No. SCOGS 57. 17 pp.

McCall, P. J., D. A. Laskowski, R. L. Swann, and H. J. Dishburger. [ Undated.] " Measurements of Sorption Coefficients of Organic Chemicals on their use in Environmental Fate Analysis." Agricultural Products Department, Dow AgroChemicals USA, Midland, MI. P104 ( 89 109).

Meylan, W. and P. Howard. 1998. ECOSAR Class Program, Version 0.99d. Syracuse Research Corporation, Syracuse, N. Y. For: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, D. C.

Meylan, W. and P. Howard. 2000. Estimation Program Interface, Version 3.10. Syracuse Research Corporation, Syracuse, N. Y. For: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, D. C.

TOXNET. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, U. S. National Library of Medicine, Specialized Information Services. Databases: Hazardous Substances Data Bank ( HSDB) and Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System ( CCRIS). Sorbic Acid ( CAS Registry Number 110 44 1). Available at Page 14 of 14 http:// www. toxnet. nlm. nih. gov.

TOXNET. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, U. S. National Library of Medicine, Specialized Information Services. Databases: Hazardous Substances Data Bank ( HSDB). Potassium Sorbate ( CAS Registry Number 590 00 1). Available at http:// www. toxnet. nlm. nih. gov.

World Health Organization ( WHO). 1967. Toxicological Evaluation of Some Antimicrobials, Antioxidants, Emulsifiers, Stabilizers, Flour Treatment Agents, Acids and Bases. 034. Sorbic Acid. International Programme on Chemical Safety, Food and Agriculture Organization Nutrition Meetings Report Series No. 40A, B, C. 3 pp. Available at http:// www. inchem. org/ documents/ jecfa/ jecmono/ 40abcj14. htm World Health Organization ( WHO). 1967. Toxicological Evaluation of Some Antimicrobials, Antioxidants, Emulsifiers, Stabilizers, Flour Treatment Agents, Acids and Bases. 036. Sorbate, Potassium. International Programme on Chemical Safety, Food and Agriculture Organization Nutrition Meetings Report Series No. 40A, B, C. 4 pp. Available at http:// www. inchem. org/ documents/ jecfa/ jecmono/ 40abcj15. htm World Health Organization ( WHO). 1973. Toxicological Evaluation of Some Food Additives Including Anticaking Agents, Antimicrobials, Antioxidants, Emulsifiers, Stabilizers, and Thickening Agents. 274. Sorbic Acid and its Calcium, Potassium and Sodium Salts. International Programme on Chemical Safety, Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO) and WHO. WHO Food Additives Series No. 5. 7 pp. Available at http:// www. inchem. org/ documents/ jecfa/ jecmono/ v05je18. htm


Cover Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey Endpoint Version Declining Baseline May 22, 2012

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this survey --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this survey we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about your experiences.  We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is managed.  We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether you would vote for different plans.  Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your answers will help inform policymakers.  All information and responses will be kept confidential.  Background information in this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed, shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC.

The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes.  Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay.   The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies: The freshwater lakes and rivers of the Watershed support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing. The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.  Bay waters are salty and support different types of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed.  People also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.

1. Over the last five years have you done any of the following activities in lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay tidal waters Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing □ □ Fishing □ □ Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking □ □ Viewing nature, including bird watching □ □ Biking or walking on trails along the water

□ □ Other _______________________ □ □

2. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities?  Please check one statement in each column that best describes your experience.

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay tidal waters I have never visited □ □ I have not visited in the last 5 years □ □ Once over the last 5 years □ □ A few times over the last 5 years □ □ About once a year □ □ 2 to 10 times a year □ □ More than 10 times a year □ □

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the water in lakes, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.  Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

   *    Nutrients.  Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems.  But too much can lead to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure, and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

   *    Sediment.   Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment.  Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals.  Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

For the following questions, check the box next to your answer.

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware of the negative effects that too much sediment or nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?        □	Yes □	No

4. Have you previously heard of the sources of excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?          □	Yes        □	No

        Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the  Chesapeake Bay Watershed Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  As a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality    * Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land     * Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities     * Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm water runoff     * Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements    * Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water     * More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them    * Smaller, less frequent algae blooms     * More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements    * Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment     * More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen    * More enjoyable  boating and swimming     * More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality

5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in  -  -  - the Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column)

Lakes and Rivers Chesapeake Bay Better than they were 10 years ago □ □ About the same as they were 10 years ago □ □ Worse than they were 10 years ago □ □ Don't know □ □

6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling a number.

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree Don't Know  I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers. 1 2 3 4 5 DK  I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay. 1 2 3 4 5 DK  Some decrease in environmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities.  State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

For the Chesapeake Bay, environmental goals are based measurements of water quality and aquatic life:

Water Clarity     * Measured by how far one can see into the water    * People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water    * Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

Blue Crab     * A key ecological species and popular shellfish for recreational fishermen

Oysters    * Their shells form reefs that provide habitat for other aquatic life    * As "filter feeders" they clean the waters of the Bay

7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any environmental goals for water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay or for any Chesapeake Bay species?        □	Yes       □	No

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay  State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but additional actions are being considered.  Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future under different pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025 for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with no further action*    Water Clarity   How many feet you can see down into the water.

Average of visibility of 3 feet

Average visibility of 1.5 feet 50% Decrease Blue Crabs

Goal is 415 million crabs  250  million crabs    235  million crabs  6% Decrease Oysters                Goal is 35,000 tons  3,300  tons  2,700  tons  18% Decrease All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners. Environmental Quality in Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:    * Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.      * Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish.

Lake Condition Water Color Water Clarity Most Common Types of fish 1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly rough fish  2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish  3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish  4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass 5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly Bass and some walleye 6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout 7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and trout

8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home? (please circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don't Know

Lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Some important things to note:

   * Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect freshwater bodies of the watershed.      * Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly moving.      * Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of the water and change the ecological conditions.

The table below shows the current condition and conditions in 2025 that scientists predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.

The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed.  This is an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with no additional actions* Average Condition of <State> Lakes in the Watershed 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.

Pollution Reduction Programs for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay.  Any program would be phased in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.

Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of the program. For example,    # Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

   # Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a smaller effect on water clarity than programs focused on reducing nutrients and sediment.

9. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard of programs to reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?             □	  Yes          □	  No

                   Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

The changes required under pollution reduction programs would result in higher costs for your household.

Costs to Your Household Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive. For example:

   * Higher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for households in the Watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

   * Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households both outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live.  This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently increase the cost of living for your household.

Deciding Future Actions

Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction programs.

In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different programs that provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household different amounts.

You will be asked three questions.  In each question you will need to choose the program you like best from the following alternatives:

   * The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions or costs to your household.

   * The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.

An Example Question is on the next page to show you what the questions will look like.

An Example Question

Conditions in 2025

Current  Conditions

No Further Action .2 Program A .05 Program B  Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters Water Clarity Average visibility of 3 feet

Average visibility of 1.5 feet

50% Decrease

Average visibility of 4 feet

33% increase

Average visibility of 3 feet

67% increase   Blue Crab 250 million crabs

 235  million crabs  6% decrease

 300  million crabs  20% increase

 275  million crabs 10 % increase

Oysters 3,300 tons

 2,700  tons  18% decrease

 3,960  tons  20 % increase

 4,950  tons  50% increase  Lakes Lake Condition Average of 3 in  your state

2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish

4 Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$150 per year or $12.50 per month

$200 per year or $16.67 per month

Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B If you want Program B, mark this box  If you want Program A, mark this box  If you do not want A or B, mark this box

Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations.  We urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented.  Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very important for decision makers in state and federal governments.

Consider the Outcomes and the Costs

Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household. Ask yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household.

Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other environmental problems you care about.

 You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year from now on.

Only you know what is best for you and your household, so please only think of your household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or PROGRAM B.

1. Suppose you could choose from the following three options.   Mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025

Current  Conditions

No Further Action .2 Program A .05 Program B  Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters Water Clarity Average visibility of 3 feet

Average visibility of 1.5 feet

50% Decrease

Average visibility of 5 feet

83% increase

Average visibility of 4 feet

50% increase   Blue Crab 250 million crabs

 235  million crabs  6% Decrease

 280  million crabs  12% increase

 312  million crabs 25 % increase

Oysters 3,300 tons

 2,700  tons  18% Decrease

 5,250  tons  50% increase

 4,300  tons  23% increase  Lakes Lake Condition Average of 3 in  your state

2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish

4 Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$180 per year or $15 per month

$250 per year or $20.83 per month

Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

As you vote on the next questions please remember...

   * On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of program options. These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas.         * Consider each question separately, imagining that the options are the only ones available to choose from.

   * The next two questions cannot be compared to each other, or to the question you just answered.            * Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.

2. Now suppose a different set of options were available.  Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025

Current  Conditions

No Further Action .2 Program A .05 Program B  Bay Tidal Waters Water Clarity Average visibility of 3 feet

Average visibility of 1.5 feet

50% Decrease

Average visibility of 4 feet

33% increase

Average visibility of 5 feet

No Change   Blue Crab 250 million crabs

 235  million crabs  6% Decrease

 250  million crabs  No Change

 280  million crabs 12% increase

Oysters 3,300 tons

 2,700  tons  18% Decrease

 4,300  tons  30% increase

 5,250  tons  59% increase  Lakes Lake Conditions Average of 3 in  your state

2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish

4 Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly Bass

5 Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$60 per year or $5 per month

$40 per year or $20.83 per month

Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

3. Now suppose a different set of options were available, instead of those in the previous question.  Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025

Current  Conditions

No Further Action .2 Program A .05 Program B  Bay Tidal Waters Water Clarity Average visibility of 3 feet

Average visibility of 1.5 feet

50% Decrease

Average visibility of 5 feet

83% increase

Average visibility of 4 feet

33% increase   Blue Crab 250 million crabs

 235  million crabs  6% Decrease

 280  million crabs  12% increase

 312  million crabs 25% increase

Oysters 3,300 tons

 2,700  tons  18% Decrease

 5,250  tons  50% increase

 3,300  tons  no change  Lakes Lake Condition Average of 3 in  your state

2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish

5 Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye

3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$60 per year or $3.33 per month

$180 per year or $15 per month

Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

12. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one.)

Considered Only the Lakes

Considered Lakes and Bay Waters Equally

Considered Only the Bay Waters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Using each of the numbers 1 through 4, rank the following in order of importance when you were choosing between programs.  (1 = Most Important, 5 = Least Important)

______ Clarity   ______ Striped Bass   ______ Blue Crab   ______ Lake Category ______ Cost of the program

16. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about which program to vote for? (Please choose one.)           oo Recreation on the Bay       oo Recreation in Lakes       oo Preserving the environment for future generations       oo Availability and/or price of seafood       oo Value of property near the Bay       oo Value of property near Lakes       oo The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future       oo The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future       oo Other __________________

17. Thinking about how you voted among programs, please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.  (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree   My choices would have been different if the economy in my area were better.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   It is important to improve waters in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, no matter how high the costs.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I do not think I should have to contribute any amount to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I am concerned that the programs would hurt the economy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   It was difficult to understand the descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I believe the programs will improve the environment as described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Some of the programs cost too much compared to what they would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   The changes offered by the programs happen too far into the future for me to really care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   The survey provided me with the information I needed to make a choice between the options shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. If you voted for NO FURTHER ACTION in any of the choices you were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements.  If not, skip to the next question. (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

                                                                 Strongly Agree   Nothing can be done to improve the quality of the Bay and freshwater lakes.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I would not vote for any program even if there were no costs to my household.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION because the costs were too high compared to the environmental improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION because I am against  more government requirements and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. If you voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices you were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements.  If not, skip this question. (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree   I voted for a program because I thought it would also lead to better water quality closer to my home.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I voted for a program more for future generations than for myself.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I voted for the program because I may visit the Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the watershed in the next few years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I voted for a program because I believe it is our responsibility to preserve wildlife and habitat in the Bay and Lakes.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   I voted for a program so others could enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Questions about you and your household

Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes.  The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual.  Your answers will not be saved or stored in a way that can be associated with your name or address.  You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey.   20. Are you male or female? Male Female              17. What is your age?  _________ years old

18. What is your current marital status?       Single, never married       Married or living with a long-term partner       Separated or divorced       Widowed            17. How many children under age 18 are living at your home? ____________ children

18. What was your total pre-tax household income, including all earners in your household, in 2011?       Under $25,000       $25,000 - $34,999       $35,000 - $49,999       $50,000 - $74,999       $75,000 - $99,999       $100,000-$199,999       $200,000 or more            17. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?        No high school diploma       High school diploma or GED       Some college credit or college degree       Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate or professional degree                 17. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?       Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan       Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan       Rented       Other: ____________________________________________________

17. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to all that apply.)       Agriculture       Commercial fishing       Tour guide for fishing       No one in my family has worked in these industries

   Thank you very much for your help.

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the materials to this address. 1.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34683-34684]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-945-000.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Amended
Seminole Electric 9214212 to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-946-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Texas Gas GMS Live Tariff
Record Filing to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-947-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--Replacement Shippers--Jun 2022 to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-948-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various
Releases eff 6-1-22 to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-949-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: PCB Adjustment Period
Extension through 2024 to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-950-000.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Quarterly Fuel Adjustment
Filing to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-951-000.
    Applicants: East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ECGS 2022-05-31 NAESB 3.2
Catch-Up Filing to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-952-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20220531 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-953-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Adjustment Effective July
1, 2022 to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-954-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various
Releases 6-1-22 to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-955-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various
Releases eff 6-1-2022 to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5240.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-956-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 5-31-22 Fuel Tracker to be
effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5251.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-957-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Northern to
Emera to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5269.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-958-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (SRP Jun-Aug 2022) to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5275.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-959-000.
    Applicants: MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-conforming TSA No. 5229
Amendment 20 to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220601-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-913-006.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Natural's Petition to Amend S&A of
Settlement and Shorten the Comment Period to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1187-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Refund Report: EGTS--Report of Refunds to be effective
N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220531-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: June 1, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12240 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60221-60223]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23699]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73258; File No. SR-CME-2014-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Settlement Procedures Regarding a CME Cleared OTC FX Spot, Forward and
Swap Contract

September 30, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 22, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the proposal
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
\4\ thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME is filing proposed rule changes that are limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the
proposed rule change

contains amendments to certain aspects of CME's settlement procedures
for one of CME's Cleared Over-the-Counter Foreign Exchange Spot,
Forward and Swap Contracts.

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

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

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

    CME is registered as a DCO with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission and offers clearing services for many different futures and
swaps products. The proposed rule change that is the subject of this
filing is limited to CME's business as a DCO offering clearing services
for CFTC-regulated swaps products. CME currently offers clearing
services for cleared-only OTC FX contracts on a number of different
currency pairs. These CME Cleared OTC FX Spot, Forward and Swap
Contracts are non-deliverable foreign currency forward contracts and,
as such, are considered to be ``swaps'' under applicable regulatory
definitions.\5\ CME proposes to make amendments to one of these
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and
Exchange Commission Joint Final Rule Defining ``Swap,'' ``Security-
Based Swap,'' and ``Security-Based Swap Agreement;'' Mixed Swaps;
Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping; Final Rule, 77 FR
48207, 48255 (Aug. 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments would affect CME Rule 279H.02.A (``Day of
Cash Settlement'') of Chapter 279H--Cleared OTC U.S. Dollar/Indian
Rupee (USD/INR) Spot, Forwards and Swaps (Commodity Code: USDINR). More
specifically, CME is proposing to update Rule 279H.02.A with this
filing to reflect the amended time that the Reserve Bank of India will
publish the spot exchange rate. There is currently no open interest in
this contract.
    The changes that are described in this filing are limited to CME's
business as a DCO clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the CFTC and do not materially impact CME's security-based swap
clearing business in any way. The changes will be effective on filing.
CME notes that it has also certified the proposed rule change that is
the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''), in a separate filing, CME
Submission No. 14-388. The text of the CME proposed rule amendments is
attached, with additions underlined and deletions in brackets.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act.\6\ CME is updating its rules to reflect new practices by the
Reserve Bank of India, that is, changes to when the relevant spot
exchange rate is published. Conforming to these changes will benefit
market participants clearing OTC FX swaps contracts with CME and, as
such, should be seen to be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed changes are limited in their effect to
products offered under CME's authority to act as a DCO. The products
that are the subject of this filing are under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, the proposed CME changes are limited
to CME's activities as a DCO clearing swaps that are not security-based
swaps, futures that are not security futures and forwards that are not
security forwards. CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect
to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number
of the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market
transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the
prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors
and the public interest.
    Because the proposed changes are limited in their effect to OTC FX
products offered under CME's authority to act as a DCO, the proposed
changes are properly classified as effecting a change in an existing
service of CME that:
    (a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect
to products that are not securities, including futures that are not
security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed
swaps, and forwards that are not security forwards; and
    (b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to
securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
    As such, the changes are therefore consistent with the requirements
of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \8\ and are properly filed under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \10\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The amendments would
update CME rules to reflect the amended time when the Reserve Bank of
India publishes the relevant spot exchange rate. Therefore, the changes
merely conform CME's contracts and practices to relevant international
standards. Further, the changes are limited to CME's derivatives
clearing business and, as such, do not affect the security-based swap
clearing activities of CME in any way and therefore would not impose
any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CME-2014-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2014-38. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    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-CME-2014-38
and should be submitted on or before October 27, 2014.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23699 Filed 10-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 40172-40173]
[DOCID:fr23jy07-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0057]

Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Standard; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
its Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Standard (29 CFR 1915.501-
1915.509).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
September 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0057,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0057). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Standard specifies a number of collections of information
(paperwork) requirements. In general, the Standard requires employers
to develop a written fire safety plan and written statements or
policies that contain information about fire watches and fire response
duties and responsibilities. The Standard also requires the employer to
obtain medical exams for certain employees and to develop training
programs and to train employees exposed to fire hazards. Additionally,
the Standard requires employers to create and maintain records to
certify that employees have been made aware of the details of the fire
safety plan and that employees have been trained as required by the
Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Fire Protection in
Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.501-1915.509). The Agency is
requesting to reduce its current burden hour estimate associated with
this Standard from 5,344 to 4,635 hours for a total reduction of 709
hours. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to
this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR
1915.501-.509).
    OMB Number: 1218-0248.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 317.
    Frequency: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for an
employer to post the fire safety plan or to place it in an area
accessible to

employees to 12 hours for new firms to develop a written fire safety
plan.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,635.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0057). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access

the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 16, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-14110 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66869-66870]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27941]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0850; Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-17]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Portsmouth, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Portsmouth,
OH. Decommissioning of the Portsmouth non-directional beacon (NDB) at
the Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, Portsmouth, OH, has made this
action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before December 12,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0850/Airspace Docket No. 11-
AGL-17, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-(800) 647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0850/
Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-17.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures
at Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, Portsmouth, OH. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the
Portsmouth NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Geographical
coordinates would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety
and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under 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
will only affect 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.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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
would modify controlled airspace at Greater Portsmouth Regional
Airport, Portsmouth, OH.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Portsmouth, OH [Amended]

Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, OH
    (Lat. 38[deg]50'26'' N., long. 82[deg]50'50'' W.)
Portsmouth, Southern Ohio Medical Center Helipad, OH
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 38[deg]45'05'' N., long. 83[deg]00'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, and
within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving Southern Ohio
Medical Center Helipad.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on September 29, 2011.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-27941 Filed 10-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P