[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11853-11855]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0027]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, PHMSA is
publishing this notice of special permit requests we have received from
several natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators, seeking
relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal
pipeline safety regulations. This notice seeks public comments on these
requests, including comments on any safety or environmental impacts. At
the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will evaluate the
requests and determine whether to grant or deny a special permit.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding these special permit requests by
April 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket numbers for the
specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following
ways:
     E-Gov Web Site: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Dana Register by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA has received requests for special
permits from pipeline operators who seek relief from compliance with
certain pipeline safety regulations. Each request includes a technical
analysis provided by the respective operator. Each request is filed at
http://www.Regulations.gov, and has been assigned a separate docket
number. We invite interested persons to participate by reviewing these
special permit requests at http://www.Regulations.gov, and by
submitting written comments, data or other views. Please include any
comments on potential environmental impacts that may result if these
special permits are granted or denied.
    Before acting on these special permit requests, PHMSA will evaluate
all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments
will be evaluated after this date if it is possible to do so without
incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each
relevant comment we receive in making our decision to grant or deny a
request.
    PHMSA has received the following special permit requests:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Docket No.                   Requester          Regulation(s)          Nature of special permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15733............  TransCanada           49 CFR 192.611(a)..  TCPL petitions PHMSA for
                                    Pipelines Limited                          modification of an existing
                                    (TCPL) (Operator of                        special permit, PHMSA-RSPA-2003-
                                    Portland Natural                           15733, issued to PNGTS on March
                                    Gas Transmission                           4, 2004. TCPL proposes
                                    System (PNGTS).                            modification of special permit
                                                                               conditions (1) through (6) with
                                                                               alternative special permit
                                                                               conditions. The special permit
                                                                               area of PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15733 is
                                                                               located in Coos County, New
                                                                               Hampshire and is a 24-inch
                                                                               mainline natural gas pipeline,
                                                                               595 feet in length. The first
                                                                               segment of the special permit
                                                                               area is located at Survey Station
                                                                               148+52 feet (Mile Post 2.81) to
                                                                               Survey Station 152+92 feet (Mile
                                                                               Post 2.90). The second special
                                                                               permit segment is located at
                                                                               Survey Station 174 + 25 feet
                                                                               (Mile Post 3.30) to Survey
                                                                               Station 175+80 feet (Mile Post
                                                                               3.33). Both special permit
                                                                               segments are located in Coos
                                                                               County, New Hampshire. Proposed
                                                                               new special permit segment 3 (new
                                                                               segment application on June 9,
                                                                               2010) is defined as the PNGTS 24-
                                                                               inch Mainline pipeline beginning
                                                                               at Survey Station 171+17 feet
                                                                               (Mile Post 3.24). The special
                                                                               permit segment extends for 308
                                                                               feet along the PNGTS 24-inch
                                                                               Mainline and concludes at Survey
                                                                               Station 174 + 25 feet (Mile Post
                                                                               3.30). The special permit segment
                                                                               3 is located in Coos County, New
                                                                               Hampshire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHMSA-2010-0148..................  TCPL (Operator of     49 CFR 192.611(a)..  To authorize TCPL to engage in an
                                    PNGTS).                                    alternative approach to conduct
                                                                               risk control activities based on
                                                                               Integrity Management Program
                                                                               principles rather than lowering
                                                                               the Maximum Allowable Operating
                                                                               Pressure (MAOP) or replacing the
                                                                               subject pipe segment. This
                                                                               application is for one segment of
                                                                               the PNGTS natural gas mainline in
                                                                               Coos County, New Hampshire. This
                                                                               segment has changed from a Class
                                                                               2 location (original Class 1
                                                                               location) to a Class 3 location
                                                                               due to construction of new single
                                                                               family homes within 660 feet of
                                                                               the pipeline. The pipeline is 24
                                                                               inches in diameter and has a MAOP
                                                                               of 1,440 psig. The segment that
                                                                               has changed class location is 114
                                                                               feet in length and is located
                                                                               from Survey Station 3705 + 59
                                                                               feet (Mile Post 70.18), to Survey
                                                                               Station 3706 + 73 feet (Mile Post
                                                                               70.20).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA-2010-0261..................  Buckeye Partners,     49 CFR               To authorize Buckeye a waiver from
                                    L.P. (Buckeye).       195.452(h)(4)        the Federal regulations to repair
                                                          (i)(D).              requirements for a dent on the
                                                                               top of pipe greater than 6% of
                                                                               the nominal pipe diameter. The
                                                                               8.2 percent deep dent (5.3 inches
                                                                               long by 7 inches wide at the
                                                                               12:45 o'clock position) is
                                                                               located 75 feet off the north
                                                                               bank of the Delaware River. The
                                                                               8.625-inch diameter pipe is
                                                                               installed in a 12-inch casing
                                                                               pipe. This request is for the
                                                                               2.64 miles long, 8-inch PY742PL
                                                                               pipeline that connects from the
                                                                               Paulsboro refinery in New Jersey
                                                                               to the Philadelphia Airport. The
                                                                               pipeline is operated to a MAOP of
                                                                               274 psig. This 8.625-inch
                                                                               diameter by 0.322-inch pipeline
                                                                               transports jet fuel.
PHMSA-2010-0262..................  Wyoming Interstate    49 CFR 192.11        To authorize WIC to operate 60.23
                                    Company (WIC).        (c)(1), 192.112(c)   miles of the 24-inch 123.9 miles
                                                          (2),                 Kanda Lateral at an alternate
                                                          192.620(a)(2)(ii).   MAOP. The request is to operate
                                                                               32.85 miles at 77.7% of specified
                                                                               maximum yield strength (SMYS) and
                                                                               to operate 27.38 miles at 75.2%
                                                                               SMYS. The entire length of the
                                                                               pipeline is in a Class 1 location
                                                                               with seven dwellings intended for
                                                                               human occupancy, located within
                                                                               660 feet of the existing pipeline
                                                                               route. Presently, 49 CFR Part 192
                                                                               limits this pipeline to an
                                                                               operating stress of 72% SMYS in
                                                                               Class 1 locations. The Kanda
                                                                               Lateral begins in Uintah County,
                                                                               Utah with a northerly route into
                                                                               Southwestern Wyoming and
                                                                               terminates in Sweetwater County,
                                                                               Wyoming. The pipeline was
                                                                               constructed and placed into
                                                                               service in 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA-2010-0041..................  Williams Gas          49 CFR 192.150.....  WGP has petitioned PHMSA for
                                    Pipeline (WGP),                            relief from the Federal pipeline
                                    owner and operator                         safety regulations in 49 CFR Sec.
                                    of the                                       192.150 for one 2,100-foot 30-
                                    Transcontinental                           inch segment of the Transco
                                    Gas Pipeline                               natural gas system where a
                                    (Transco).                                 portion of Mainline ``A'' is
                                                                               currently unable to pass internal
                                                                               inspection devices. This is due
                                                                               to WGP's inability to replace the
                                                                               2,100-foot 30-inch section of the
                                                                               Transco pipeline crossing the
                                                                               Brandywine Creek with 42-inch
                                                                               pipe. This 2,100-foot segment of
                                                                               30-inch pipeline is part of the
                                                                               Downingtown Replacement Project
                                                                               and is located from Mile Post
                                                                               1715.62 (Survey Station 2274 +
                                                                               55) to Mile Post 1716.03 (Survey
                                                                               Station 2296+06) in Chester
                                                                               County, Pennsylvania. The
                                                                               Downingtown Replacement Project
                                                                               included the replacement of a
                                                                               total of approximately 7.15 miles
                                                                               of 30-inch pipe with 42-inch pipe
                                                                               on the Transco Mainline ``A''
                                                                               from Mile Post 1715.09
                                                                               (Downingtown Meter Station) to
                                                                               Mile Post 1722.24 (Compressor
                                                                               Station 200) located in Chester
                                                                               County, Pennsylvania. WGP
                                                                               proposes to use alternative
                                                                               integrity management methods to
                                                                               provide a level of safety
                                                                               equivalent to those provided by
                                                                               Federal safety regulations for
                                                                               this 2,100-foot section of 30-
                                                                               inch pipeline, until it can be
                                                                               replaced with 42-inch pipe. To
                                                                               confirm the integrity of the 30-
                                                                               inch pipeline, WGP has
                                                                               hydrostatically retested the
                                                                               existing 30-inch pipeline from
                                                                               Mile Post 1715.62 to Mile Post
                                                                               1716.03 for eight hours at 910
                                                                               psig.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA-2010-0192..................  TCPL-American         49 CFR 192.611(a)..  To authorize TCPL-ANR to engage in
                                    Natural Resources                          an alternative approach to
                                    (ANR).                                     conduct risk control activities
                                                                               based on Integrity Management
                                                                               Program principles rather than
                                                                               lowering the MAOP or replacing
                                                                               the subject pipe segment. This
                                                                               application is for one segment of
                                                                               the TCPL-ANR Lateral Loop 2-716
                                                                               located in St. Martin Parish,
                                                                               Louisiana. This segment has
                                                                               changed from a Class 2 location
                                                                               (original Class 1 location) to a
                                                                               Class 3 location due to new
                                                                               single family dwellings built
                                                                               within 660 feet of the pipeline.
                                                                               The pipeline is 30 inches in
                                                                               diameter and has a MAOP of 1,050
                                                                               psig. The segment that has
                                                                               changed class location is 3,149
                                                                               feet in length and is located at
                                                                               Station 584 + 66 feet to Station
                                                                               616+15 feet in St. Martin Parish,
                                                                               Louisiana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118 (c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2011.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011-4708 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION,

 PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		August 8, 2006

SUBJECT:	Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (ABS):  EPA Response to Public Comments
on EPA’s Risk Assessment. PC Codes: 079010, 190116 and
098002.(active); 790102, 790116, 790101 (inert) Case No. 4006.  DP
Barcode: D323960

FROM:	Deborah Smegal, MPH, Toxicologist/Risk Assessor

		Ayaad Assaad, PhD.  Toxicologist

		Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P)

		And

		Talia Milano, Chemist

		Richard Petrie, Agronomist

		Cassi Walls, PhD, Chemist

		Najm Shamim, Ph.D. Chemist

		Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P)

THRU:		Michael S. Metzger, Branch Chief

		Whang Phang, Senior Scientist

		Reregistration Branch I

		Health Effects Division (HED), (7509P)

TO:		Heather Garvie, Chemical Review Manager, Reregistration Team 36

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

The following comments are submitted by the DBSA Steering
Committee/Joint Venture.

COMMENT 1.  Page 4 – Last Paragraph:  “Available acute toxicity data
show that alkylbenzene sulfonates are not highly acutely toxic
(Categories III-IV), are irritating to the eye and skin (categories I
and II, respectively), and they are weak-moderate skin sensitizers.”

Response:  DDBSA is not a skin sensitizer based on extensive human
exposures from laundry and dish detergents.  Further, the SIDS Dossier
for LAS provides three negative guinea pig studies, listed in the IUCLID
dossier (pages 268-269), and a report of 2 human HRIPT tests that were
negative, listed on pages 305-306.  Note also that the conclusion on
page 25, “LAS does not have significant skin sensitization
properties” was accepted in this review process.  The overwhelming
evidence from the available animal and human studies is that LAS (and
DDBSA) are not skin sensitizers.  The conclusion reached in the RED
review, therefore, should be changed.  For additional details, please
see our reply to the Response to Errors Only comments below and comments
provide by CLER.

EPA Response:  The risk assessment and toxicity memo were revised to
state that the alkylbenzene sulfonates are not dermal sensitizers.

COMMENT 2.  Page 12 – Physical and Chemical Properties

The following paragraph appears on Page 8:

Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (27176-87-0) and sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate (25155-30-0) have tolerance exemptions as specified in 40 CFR
180.940 (b) and (c). Both dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid and sodium
dodecylbenzene sulfonate have limitations for the ready-to-use end-use
concentration not to exceed 400 ppm and 430 ppm, respectively for food
processing equipment and utensils.  However, dodecylbenzene sulfonic
acid has a much lower limitation of 5.5 ppm for use on dairy processing
equipment.

The JV would like to raise two points regarding this information.
First, it is not clear to the JV why the distinction is made between
“food processing equipment” and “dairy processing equipment” in
the regulation since dairy equipment is, in fact, food processing
equipment.  Second, a concentration of 5.5 ppm is not considered to be
an adequate sanitizer concentration as the length of time for adequate
sanitization would be extensive, if even feasible.  Proper sanitization
of dairy equipment and other food processing equipment requires
approximately 200 to 400 ppm of DDBSA.  The JV agrees with the Agency
that the risk assessments should be performed on the higher
concentrations.

EPA Response:  No change to the risk assessment is necessary.  The
Agency intends to propose revisions to 40 CFR that reflect the higher
rate on diary processing equipment currently listed on the product
labels.

COMMENT 3.  Page 12 – Physical and Chemical Properties

Response:  Please see our reply to the Agency’s Response to Errors
Only Comments below regarding the molecular weight and molecular
formulae in Table 1.  Also, we have been informed by the LAS Producers
that the chemical structures as shown are incorrect – please see
comments from the LAS Producers group, CLER.

EPA Response:  The risk assessment was modified as recommended.  The
chemical structure was replaced as suggested.

COMMENT 4.  Table 13 (Page 36-38) – Short and Intermediate-Term
Inhalation Risks for Occupational Handlers

Response:  The use of high volume (e.g. 10,000 gallons/day) exposure to
cleaning solutions is inappropriate because these procedures are
performed with minimal human exposure.  For Cleaning in Place (CIP)
procedures, the following has been prepared to explain the procedures
and potential worker exposures.  As clearly shown, worker exposure to
more than a minimal volume of cleaning solution does not occur.
Further, when workers use concentrated solutions (prior to dilution),
PPE is always required.  The JV believes the other scenarios in Table 13
for which high volume exposure is assumed also use procedures that
provide for only minimal worker exposure.

Discussion of Exposure Potential to Workers during Cleaning in Place
(CIP) Operations-

Prepared by  F.A. Heitfeld (JohnsonDiversey)

Overview of CIP

Cleaning in Place (CIP) operations are common in large industrial
manufacturing facilities.  While associated with the food, beverage,
brewing, and dairy industries, CIP operations occur in a wide variety of
industrial applications including pharmaceuticals and in industrial
chemical production.  CIP applications often utilize multiple cleaners,
not all of which are EPA regulated pesticides.

CIP systems automate the cleaning and sanitization process for
industrial process equipment, such as product lines, tanks, vessels,
etc.  Some of the advantages of these systems are:

CIP allows easy cleaning of process equipment that is not easily
accessible to its operators.

CIP eliminates the need to disassemble equipment for cleaning.

CIP prevents worker and environmental exposure to harmful production or
cleaning chemicals.

Automatic cleaning prevents contamination of the production process.

CIP systems provide more consistent and reproducible cleaning.

The cleaning process is automated possibly reducing staffing
requirements for the process line.

Production down time can be reduced.

Minimize the amount of cleaners and water used to clean.

CIP systems consist of the following major elements.

1.  PLC (Programmable Logic Controllers)- this is a programmable unit
that initiates and controls the CIP operations in a production facility.

2.  Chemical storage- This is the area where concentrated cleaners and
biocides are stored.  Typical storage containers range from Drums (30-55
gallon) and totes (220-330 gallon) up to storage tanks that are filled
from tank trucks or rail cars.  Some systems pump an aliquot of
concentrate into a separate tank (day tank) before use.  This prevents
contamination of the concentrate if the system malfunctions.  There is
no additional exposure since the transfer process is closed and pumping
is automatically controlled by the system.

Chemical Pump –Chemical pumps are normally PLC controlled via time or
conductivity.  The pump controls total flow through the CIP loops and
plays an important role in chemical dilution.  Time based dosing systems
add chemical based on the chemical pump’s capacity to pump x volume in
y amount of time.  Conductivity based systems add chemicals via a
conductivity probe which controls the chemical pump via a PLC.

Recirculation – CIP systems start with a cold water rinse.  The rinse
is designed to first verify all connections have been correctly made.
Second it removes loose and soluble soils.  There can be up to 3
individual rinse steps.  Rinses are bursts of limited amounts of water
to remove loose and soluble soils.  Next, water is added to the system
and re-circulation is established.  Once re-circulation is established,
the cleaner is added to the system.  When completed, heat is applied to
the solution, via a heat exchanger, to establish the correct cleaning
temperature – all controlled by the PLC.  The PLC recirculates the
solution for the predetermined amount of time.  The cleaning solution is
drained.  1-3 cold water burst rinses to remove cleaning solution.  The
sanitizer is circulated after all cleaning steps are completed.

Cleaning Circuits- Most CIP systems consist of a number of individual
circuits which typically correspond to a discrete section of the
production line (e.g. one tank and its associated piping or a single
transfer pipeline).  All circuits use a known volume of water.

The design of CIP systems are customized for each individual facility
based on the needs and requirements of the process.  The number of
circuits depends on the size of the production facility, how many
processing lines, tanks, fillers, etc being cleaned and the time
available each day for cleaning.  Large facilities, that cannot tolerate
being out of production for very long, may have two or more independent
CIP systems in use at one time.  Each CIP system would typically clean
one circuit at a time.

Circuits are often divided into two types:

1.  Line circuits- CIP circuits designed to clean the piping used in the
production process.  These circuits tend to use the most water.  This
can be between 100 and 1000 gallons depending on the length of piping
and its diameter.  Most common circuits are between 100 and 300 gallons.

2.  Tank circuits- CIP circuits designed to clean a tank and the process
piping to the tank.  Usually, these have a 1 tank per circuit limit.
Tank circuits typically require only 40-100 gallons to clean.  The
variable here is the size of the tank and the volume of its associated
piping.  The amount of CIP solution needed for the circuit must be
sufficient to fill the circuit piping and the bottom of the tank (to
maintain the prime for the pump) as well as to cover the walls of the
tank.  The tank itself is never filled completely with CIP cleaners.  It
is possible for a 20,000 gallon tank to be cleaned with only 50 gallons
of solution.

Tanks are cleaned by spraying the cleaning solution through “spray
balls” which are high technology sprinklers designed to spray all
interior surfaces of the tank.  Spray balls have various spray patterns
depending on the type of tank, i.e. horizontal versus vertical, tanks
with mixers, fixed blades, etc.  This operation is essentially enclosed;
however, some systems require that the tank be vented to prevent
implosion if the temperature of the cleaning liquid changes from hot to
cold.

The overall design of CIP systems can be broken down in to two main
types:

1.  Once through Systems called Single Use Systems- The cleaning
solution is sent through the system and then directly drains into the
facility waste water management system.

2.  Recirculation systems called Re-Use Systems- the cleaning solution
is re-used many times to clean multiple circuits before draining into
the facility waste water management system.  Re-Use systems typically
require less product than single use systems.

CIP Cleaning Cycles and the use of Biocides:

Biocide use is only a small part of the CIP process.  The standard
progression of cycles consists of the following:

1.  Rinse with water to remove soil from the process equipment.

2.  Detergent treatment to remove remaining soils (may be heated)

3.  Water rinse to remove detergent chemicals (may be heated).

4.  Acid wash or Acid rinse for hard water areas or high calcium foods
(may be heated)

5.  Water rinse to remove acid detergent

6.  Sanitizing with no rinse (usually at ambient temperatures)

Note: If using an acid sanitizer steps 4 and 5 may be eliminated or used
less frequently depending on scale formation.

Each plant/facility has its own customized program for cleaning and
sanitizing based on its unique requirements.  The actual duration of the
sanitizing cycle is short (1-2 minutes typical, 5 minutes maximum).

Worker Exposure to Chemicals during CIP Operations

CIP systems are designed to limit worker exposure to cleaning chemicals
while still insuring a high level of hygiene to critical industrial
processes.  The majority of CIP operations are automated and do not
require workers to come into contact with the cleaning chemicals.  There
is, however, some potential for worker contact in the following areas:

1.  Connection of Totes and Drums to the CIP system:   Many CIP systems
use concentrated cleaning products in totes or drums.  These have to be
manually installed into the system.  This operation is analogous to the
pump liquid use pattern.  Once the tote or drum is in place, the worker
opens the container and installs a pickup tube or probe that conveys the
concentrated product into the CIP system for dilution.  Totes either use
the probe or pick up tube or a connection to the tote outlet valve.
Once installed, the worker can leave the area.  Conversely, when the
drum or tote is empty, the probe or tube is withdrawn and transferred to
a fresh container.  Please note, that since many of these products are
corrosive, significant PPE (e.g. goggles, gloves) is required under OSHA
regulations.

In most plants, the use-period for a drum or tote ranges from 1 week to
1 month.  Thus, changeover operations occur on a regular, but infrequent
basis.

Possible areas of worker exposure include:

a.  Dermal exposure to drainage of concentrated product from the pick-up
tube as it is removed from the tote or drum.

b.  Dermal exposure to residual concentrated product on the outside of
the pick-up tube during transfer from the empty to the full tote or
drum.

c.  Inhalation exposure to vapors from volatile materials released
either from the open totes/drums or from the residual product associated
with the pickup tube.

The exposure scenarios described above are NOT volume dependent.  Once
installation is completed, the worker can leave the area and conduct
other duties.  The actual amount of time involved in removing a spent
container and installing a new container is typically 5-10 minutes on a
weekly to monthly basis.  Thus, the actual volume of product pumped
through the system is irrelevant to the amount of worker exposure in
this case.

2.  Delivery of bulk concentrates to storage tanks within the facility:
Larger processing facilities may take delivery of cleaning chemicals in
bulk from either trucks or tank cars.  In these cases, the material is
pumped from the delivery vehicle into a storage tank in the facility.

Possible areas of worker exposure include:

a.  Dermal exposure to drainage of concentrated product from the hoses
used to transfer product from the delivery vehicle to the facility
storage tank.  If dry-break couplings are used, exposure should be
minimal.

b.  Inhalation exposure to vapors from volatile materials released if
product spills during transfer operations.

The exposure scenarios described above are also NOT volume dependent.
Exposure will likely occur once the product transfer is completed and
the hose is disconnected for storage.  If dry-break couplings are not
used, some product spillage may occur resulting in potential worker
exposure to the concentrate.  The amount of spillage (if any) will be
dependent on the size of the hose, but not on the amount of material
transferred to the facility.  Again, significant PPE is required under
OSHA regulations since many of these materials are corrosive.

3. Exposure to use-dilution product and vapors during CIP system
changeovers.  CIP systems require a positive disconnect from the
production line in food and beverage plants to prevent accidental
contamination of production product with CIP cleaning and sanitizing
solutions.  At the end of a CIP cycle, the system is shut-off, and a
worker must physically disconnect the piping connecting the CIP system
to the production line in order to prevent contamination of product with
CIP chemicals.  Potential exposure to the sanitizing solution may occur
if there is drainage of use-solution from the piping during this
operation.  It typically takes only 1-2 minutes to move a plumbing or
hose connection but may have to be repeated 5-10 times if multiple
circuits are involved.  Since CIP cleaning typically occurs once per
day, only one shift would be involved in this operation.

4.  Exposure to use-dilution vapors/mists during tank cleaning:  In some
systems, tank cleaning has the potential for limited worker exposure to
vapors or mists from use-dilutions of some cleaning products.  CIP
cleaning solutions (not biocides) are often prepared at elevated
temperatures.  To prevent tank implosions when a cold solution is
sprayed into a hot tank, some of the access ports are left open to allow
the air pressure inside the tank to equalize with the pressure outside
of the tank.  Large tanks are more vulnerable than smaller tanks.

A worker in the immediate vent area may be exposed to mists or splashing
from these vents from the diluted cleaning product.  Since CIP systems
are automated, workers are typically not in the area during tank
cleaning.  If a worker was present, exposure to the biocide solution is
expected to be brief- at most, exposure would only occur for the 1-2
minutes duration of a biocide CIP cycle.  Recently implemented best
practice includes the installation of a temporary tank door to minimize
escape of the CIP solution while allowing for adequate venting to
prevent tank collapse.  All facilities require respiratory protective
equipment if tank entry is necessary, as these are classified by OSHA as
confined spaces.

Recommendations:

1.  Worker exposure during CIP operations is limited.  One of the
advantages of these systems is to reduce worker contact with cleaning
chemicals by automating the dilution and cleaning processes.  The
Agency’s assumption that workers are exposed to the equivalent to the
exposure from manual pouring 10,000 gallons per day is unreasonable.

2.  Routine but occasional worker exposure to cleaning chemicals in CIP
systems should be presumed to occur during connection and/or
disconnection of the cleaning concentrate container to the CIP system.
Exposure to the use-dilution may occur when the CIP system is manually
disconnected from the production line.

a.  Worker exposure from both of these operations is NOT expected to be
volume dependent for routine CIP operations.

b.  Concentrate reservoirs (totes or drums) are replaced approximately
once a week to once a month in most systems.  This operation only takes
5-10 minutes.  Since most CIP biocidal concentrates are corrosive, PPE
is required under OSHA regulations.  Workers do not remain in the area
after the connections are made and the “pumping” occurs over a
period of days or weeks, and only when the CIP system is in operation.

c.  During the positive disconnect of the CIP system, some worker
exposure to the use-dilution of the biocide product.  While the CIP
system is turned off during the change-over, some drainage may occur.
Workers would be exposed to the product during the 1-2 minutes required
to move the pipe or hose connection.  This operation may have to be
repeated 5-10 times if multiple circuits are involved.  The frequency of
this operation is approximately once per day (< once per shift).

EPA Response:  The Agency modified the assessment and calculations so
that more appropriate unit exposure values were used for the assessment
of CIP systems.  The unit exposure value selected takes into account the
low potential for worker exposure as addressed by this comment.
However, the amount handled/treated parameter of 10,000 gallons/day was
still used because this numerical value represents size of the system
being treated.

COMMENT 5.  Table 13 (Page 37) – Shower Stalls and Toilets

Response:  According to the Agency’s Response to Errors Only Comments,
the Shower Stalls and Toilets scenario is developed from Product
Registration 3635-279.  A review of this label indicates that the
product is 15.52% DDBSA as stated by the Agency.  However, there are no
“Wiping” procedures on the label that use concentrated product
(1.49# a.i./gallon) and 1 liter (0.26 gallons/day).  That is, all wiping
procedures occur after dilution of the product to 1-2 oz/gal.

EPA Response:  The Agency agrees with this comment and has modified the
Occupational and Residential Exposure Chapter as well as the risk
assessment to reflect this dilution.

COMMENT 6.  Section 11.0 Deficiencies/Data Needs – Ecological Data
Gaps and

Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms

The Agency indicates that Acute Freshwater Fish and Acute Freshwater
Invertebrate studies are required.  The Agency indicates that an
environmental hazard statement for manufacturing use products is
required for fish and aquatic invertebrates.

Response:  This requirement is based on a lack of information for
toxicity of C12-C16 BSA to fish and an EC50 of < 1.0 ppm for C14/16 for
invertebrates.  According to CLER, benzene sulfonic acid, C10-C16 alkyl
derivatives (CAS RN 68584-22-5) contain less than 1% of the C15 or C16
homologues, the C14 component is a minor fraction of the composition (<
15%) and the average alkyl chain lengths for LAB sulfonic acids have the
same range (C11.3-C12.6) as LAS and likely have the same overall
weighted average chain length as LAS, C11.7.

Data from the LAS SIAR and/or the HPV submission for LAB, report at
least 16 fish studies and 17 freshwater aquatic invertebrate studies on
commercially relevant LAS and LAB (average alkyl chain length
approximately 11.7) that followed standardized (EPA and OECD guideline)
test methods.  The fish LC50 values ranged from 1.67 to 7.7 mg/L for LAS
and from 3 to 10 mg/L for the LAB sulfonic acids.  The invertebrate EC50
values range from 1.62 to 9.3 mg/L for LAS and from 2.9 to 12 mg/L for
LAB, including the C10-C16 benzene sulfonic acid and dodecylbenzene
sulfonic acid.

These data demonstrate that no environmental hazard statement is
required for DDBSA per se, because the EC50 values for fish and aquatic
invertebrates are all greater than 1 mg/L.  Further, these data indicate
that additional testing of DDBSA in aquatic species is unnecessary.  It
should be noted that the majority of the current labels from JV-Member
Companies include the statement, “This product is toxic to fish”
based on the mixture of DDBSA with phosphoric acid.

EPA Response:  The Agency has revised the ecological data gaps and label
hazard statement.

COMMENT 7.  Section 11.0 Deficiencies/Data Needs –
Residential/Occupational Data Gaps

The Agency indicates a need for worker exposure studies that evaluate
inhalation exposure for indoor uses.

Response:  The industry has several task forces generating data
pertinent to this request that should provide improved values for these
assessments.

EPA Response:  No change necessary.  Once the task forces submit these
data, and they are reviewed by the Agency, the values will be considered
for refining the assessment.

COMMENTS: ALKYLBENZENE SULFONATES (ABS) TOXICOLOGY CHAPTER

FOR THE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION (RED) DOCUMENT.  PC CODE:
079010, 190116 AND 098002.  CASE NO.  4006. DP BARCODE: D327886

The Agency has changed the section on Page 10 related to the inhalation
studies in monkeys to read as follows:  “In this published study, the
detergent was dried and micronized to make it respirable.  However, it
should be noticed that most uses of this detergent are in liquid form.
It is a common misconception that the small particle size used in an
animal study (MMAD of 1-3 um in acute studies, 1-4 um in multiple
exposure studies) has no relevance to the large particle size that comes
from medium to coarse powdered material or a liquid-powder mix during
use.  Detergents are typically mixed with large quantities of water
before use.  When the aqueous mix is used, droplets rapidly shrink as
they fall due to water evaporation.  The degree of shrinkage depends on
temperature, relative humidity, particle size, and the length of time
that the droplets are suspended in the air.  Since humans are capable of
inhaling particles >100 um, it is reasonable to expect a significant
portion of these particles to be inhaled.  While most large particles
are captured in the nose, some are capable of reaching the lungs.  Large
particles have the potential to do considerable local damage if they are
respirable because of the volume of material they contain.”

Response:  Please see detailed comment in our reply to the Agency’s
Response to Errors Only Comments below and in the previous comments
provide by S. Little to H. Garvey on May 30, 2006.

In addition, the summary of the study should include reference to the
lung lesions in groups 2, 8 (LOAEL selected by the Agency), 9, 10, 11,
and 12 that included chronic bronchiolitis characterized by infiltration
of mononuclear macrophages and lymphocytes, bronchiolar fibrosis,
nonsuppurative alveolitis, hypertrophy and hyperplasia of the
bronchiolar epithelium (including squamous metaplasia).  Further, the
summary should conclude that the lung lesions were considered to be a
response to irritation from the dust and/or related to the enzyme added.
 It is reasonable to conclude that the body weight change in the 10
mg/m3 (+ enzyme) used by the Agency to select the LOAEL was a result of
the lung lesions and not chemical toxicity.  Based on all of the above
information, the selection of the NOAEL for this study should be
considered highly conservative.

EPA Response:  The Agency revised the summary of the inhalation monkey
study.

COMMENTS: OCCUPATIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF
ALKYLBENZENE SULFONATES (ABS) FOR THE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY
DECISION DOCUMENT (RED).  CASE NO.  4006. DP BARCODE: D327732

Page 6 – Data Limitations and Uncertainties – First Bullet:  “Most
of the CMA data are of poor quality; therefore, AD requests that
confirmatory monitoring data be generated to support the values used in
these assessments.”

Response:  The industry has several task forces generating data
pertinent to this request that should provide improved values for these
assessments.  Further, DDBSA-specific monitoring would be extremely
difficult because of the extensive use of DDBSA in laundry and dish
detergents.

EPA Response:  No change necessary.

COMMENTS: PRODUCT CHEMISTRY SCIENCE CHAPTER FOR DODECYLBENZENE SULFONIC
ACID, C10-C16 DERIVATIVES AND SODIUM SALT.  CASE NO.  4006. DP BARCODE:
D327731

The Agency changed the water solubility from the original draft version
for C10-C12 DDBSA (CAS RN 68584-22-5) to 400 grams/liter but did not
similarly change the water solubility of C12 DDBSA (CAS RN 27176-87-0),
retaining the value of 0.7 mg/L.

EPA Response:  The document has been revised.

COMMENTS: RESPONSE TO ERROR COMMENTS ON THE ALKYLBENZENE SULFONATES
(ABS) PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT.  PC CODE: 079010, 190116 AND 098002.
CASE NO.  4006. DP BARCODE: D323960

1.  Following is the argument offered by EPA’s reviewing toxicologist
in response to our Errors Only Comment that it is inappropriate to
conclude that DDBSA is a mild to moderate skin sensitizer:

The Agency has provided the citation that supports the “weak-moderate
skin sensitizer” classification.  Nusair TL, PJ Danneman, J Stotte,
PHS Bay (1988) Consumer Products: Risk Assessment Process for Contact
Sensitization, Toxicologist 8:258.  This study conducted two experiments
in guinea Pigs.  In the first experiment, they applied a paste of LAS to
the skin of guinea pigs at induction at concentrations of 2-100% and
then challenged them at concentrations of 1-2%.  In the second
experiment, a prototype liquid laundry detergent (10% LAS) was applied
to the skin of guinea pigs, and induced sensitization at a challenge
concentration of 1% (0.1% as LAS).  From both experiments, They
concluded that LAS is weak to moderate sensitizer (Toxicity Category
III).  In addition, there was evidence of sensitization in the monkey
inhalation study, which supports the Agency’s classification.

The data cited in the above paragraph for guinea pig studies are
actually included on page 486 in the following citation and the stated
Toxicologist citation does not appear to cite the specific data
(although the Robinson et al. reference below cross references the
Toxicologist abstract):

Robinson, M.K., Stotts, J., Danneman, P.J., Nusair, J.L. and Bay, P.H.S.
(1989).  A risk assessment process for allergic contact sensitization.
Fd. Chem. Toxic.  27:479-489.

In reaching the conclusion that DDBSA is a weak sensitizer from this
information, however, EPA’s reviewing toxicologist has overlooked the
paragraph that follows the information from the guinea pig studies.
This paragraph is reproduced below:

Human sensitization testing was conducted with LAS alone (on 2294
subjects) and LAS in various product formulations (on 17,887 subjects)
at LAS concentrations ranging from 0.001 to 0.113% (Fig. 4).  The HRIP
tests of LAS solutions covered 17 commercial batches of LAS, and over
100 commercial batches of LAS were used in the products tested in the
HRIPTs.  None of the test subjects (more than 20,000) showed evidence of
a skin sensitization reaction (Nusair et al., 1988).  As a result,
provocative use testing was unnecessary.  Extended product use testing
showed no evidence of sensitization or any other skin reactions (Fig.
4).  Of 79 consumers with skin problems alleged to be associated with
the use of LAS-containing products, and who were patch tested with
solutions of the LAS-containing products, none gave a positive patch
test result.

While the concentrations tested in the human studies are lower than
those in the guinea pig studies, the concentrations in the human tests
are representative of the potential exposure concentrations in the
scenarios used in EPA’s risk assessments.  Most importantly, it is
standard practice within EPA to utilize human patch test data in
reaching conclusions on skin sensitization potential when there is
disparity between the human and animal data.  Further, the sheer volume
of human tests must be considered highly significant in showing that
these types of surfactants are not skin sensitizers.  Based on
information previously provided (Memo from J. Van Miller to H. Garvey of
April 11, 2006), the cited ‘sensitization in the monkey inhalation
study’ is readily ascribed to the known effects of the enzymes in the
dust used in the study.  As stated in the comment on the Preliminary
Risk Assessment above, the overwhelming evidence from the available
animal and human studies is that LAS (and DDBSA) are not skin
sensitizers.  The conclusion reached in the RED review, therefore,
should be changed.

2.  The following response was made to our Errors Only Comment regarding
the fact that the NOAEC from the inhalation study with monkeys (MRID
43498403) should be considered a conservative estimate:

However, it should be noted that most uses of this detergent are in
liquid form.  It is a common misconception that the small particle size
used in an animal/rodent study (MMAD of 1-3 um in acute studies, 1-4 um
in multiple exposure studies) has no relevance to the large particle
size that comes from medium to coarse powdered material, or a
liquid-powder mix during use.  Detergents are typically mixed with large
quantities of water before use.  When the aqueous mix is used, droplets
rapidly shrink as they fall due to water evaporation.  The degree of
shrinkage depends on temperature, relative humidity, particle size, and
the length of time that the droplets are suspended in the air.  Since
humans are capable of inhaling particles >100 um, it is reasonable to
expect a significant portion of these particles to be inhaled.  While
most large particles are captured in the nose, some are capable of
reaching the lungs.  Large particles have the potential to do
considerable local damage if they are respirable because of the volume
of material they contain.  Furthermore, the Agency inhalation guidelines
recommend testing in rats.  Rats have tortuous nasal turbinates that are
extremely efficient at removing particles from inhaled air, hence most
particles larger than 1-2 um are captured in the rodent nose.

Response:  The reviewer’s comments regarding “common
misconception” of inhalable particle size and the statement that
humans can inhale particles >100 µm are confusing.  It is a well
established toxicological principle that particles of greater than 10
µm are not inhaled at any significant concentration in the lungs of
humans (see for example Figure 5 in the paper by Raabe – previously
provided).  Indeed, EPA’s own documents on determination of RfD, rely
on this principle (see for example Figure 3.3, page 3-10 – previously
provided).  This figure shows that with mouth breathing, pulmonary
deposition fraction drops to 0 (zero) with aerosols having an
aerodynamic diameter of approximately 10 µm.  Also, Figure 3.3
demonstrates that aerosols >20 µm can not reach the tracheobronchial or
pulmonary regions because they deposit in the mouth or larynx before
reaching the lungs.  Aerosols >100 µm have a sedimentation velocity
(>25 cm/sec) too great to stay airborne long enough to be available for
inhalation by humans.  Although our original comment was simply made to
ensure it was clear that the dust in the monkey study was produced to
enhance the total inhaled dose (thus making the exposure highly
conservative), and EPA has subsequently removed its reference to the
estimates being “underestimates of risk”, it is very important that
the Agency carefully reviews its procedures for risk assessment when
using non-standard and/or reinterpreted basic and long-accepted
toxicologic principles.  Further, it is not clear why the reviewer
refers to “rat” nasal turbinates when the study was conducted in
monkeys.  And lastly, if there is a foundation for the discussion of
liquid detergent drop sizes shrinking, it should be clearly provided if
it impacts the risk assessment.  In reality, exposure to aerosols of
DDBSA would not be a significant concern, the surfactancy of the DDBSA
would limit volatility, and drop size of any potential aerosol would be
large and would not be suspended for extended periods of time.   This
is supported by the data on particle sizes from aerosol spray products
included in the LAS SIAR (pp. 19-20).  The study data reported could be
considered a worst case for generation of respirable particles and yet
the results indicate the fraction under 10 microns is less than 0.1% of
the total volume sprayed and the maximum concentration in air is only
0.13 to 0.72 mg/m3.

EPA Response:  The Agency has revised the risk assessment and toxicity
chapter to state that the alkylbenzene sulfonates are not dermal
sensitizers.  In addition, the discussion of the inhalation monkey study
was revised.

3.  The molecular weight of 298.44 represents the mass of C16 moiety and
not C10 moiety (16 x 12 + 1 x 26 + 16 x 3 + 1 x 32) = C16H26O3S =
298.44.

Response:  The chemical formula for the C16 moiety of DDBSA is C22H38O3S
with MW=382.6 [Note that the formula in the Agency’s comment excludes
the benzene ring].  However, based on recent information received from
the LAS Producers, the mean chain length distribution for DDBSA is
approximately 11.7 and therefore, the Agency may wish to use the C12
moiety as the most representative:  C18H30O3S of MW = 326.5.

EPA Response:  The document was revised.

Comments from the Council for LAB/LAS Environmental Research (CLER) and
the European Centre on Studies on LAB/LAS (ECOSOL).

EPA Response:  The structures were replaced in the risk assessment.

 EPA Response:  The document was revised as appropriate.

EPA Response:  The document was modified to state that the alkylbenzene
sulfonates are not dermal sensitizers.

EPA Response:  No change was made.  The Agency consulted a group of
senior toxicologists on the Health Effects Division (HED) Toxicity
Advisory Clinic (TAC) in selecting a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day for use in
risk assessment based on a weight of evidence evaluation from several
studies.

EPA Response:  At this time, the product concentration value based on
the Procter & Gamble 2001 citation can not be used by the Agency since
the study is unpublished.  The Agency can not conduct an assessment
based on data from unpublished resources.  It would be necessary for the
Procter & Gamble data to be submitted and reviewed by the Agency before
they are utilized.  Therefore, the inhalation exposure assessment of the
pet products remains unchanged.

EPA Response:  Deterministic exposure assessments, as conducted for LAS,
are not a function of probability.  This assessment evaluates carpet
cleaner users only therefore the argument that ingestion resulting from
the daily use of utensils/dishware washed in hand dishwashing detergents
is more likely to occur than ingestion from hard surface/carpet cleaners
is not applicable to this assessment.  Furthermore, since exposure is a
function of the method of application and use sites (i.e., dishware
versus hard/carpeted surface), different methodologies must be used
utilized for different exposure scenarios.  The statement that the
Agency’s MOEs are 1000-fold too conservative must be justified with
actual calculations for the appropriate exposure scenario.  The dishware
and carpet cleaner scenarios can not be considered equivalent especially
considering that the residue that is anticipated to remain on
utensils/dishware is expected to be significantly less than what will be
found on hard surfaces/carpets due to the fact that the
utensils/dishware are rinsed with water prior to use whereas floors and
carpets are not.

It should be noted that AD has reassessed the hard surface/carpet
cleaner scenarios using the standard methodology that is used for
assessing active ingredients in cleaning products.  The PiRAT model does
not have specific parameters for the hard surface/carpet cleaner
scenarios and was initially used to establish a conservative estimate of
exposure when LAS is used as an inert.

EPA Response:  The Agency disagrees with this comment.  As previously
stated, deterministic exposure assessments are a function of the method
of application and use site and are not based on the probability of
occurrence.  Also, the residues that are anticipated to remain on
utensils/dishware are significantly less than what is expected to be
found on hard surfaces/carpets that are cleaned with LAS products
because once the utensils are cleaned with dishwashing detergents, they
are rinsed with water prior to use, whereas floors and carpets are not.

EPA Response:  No change was made.  The dietary risks are below the
Agency’s level of concern.

EPA Response:  The Agency agrees that the vapor pressure of LAS is low.
However the CMA data utilized in this assessment is based on exposure to
the aerosol particles, not the gas.  Therefore the inhalation assessment
for occupational handlers remains unchanged.

EPA Response:  The risk assessment and ecological chapter were revised
to remove the hazard statement for fish and aquatic invertebrates.

EPA Response:  The risk assessment and ecological chapter were revised
to remove the hazard statement for fish and aquatic invertebrates.

  Modified from http://www.dpandp-sale.demon.co.uk/cleaning.html

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 1, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-21422

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of MN AIRLINES, LLC dba SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES (SUN COUNTRY)
filed 6/3/05 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) the terminal point Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, and the terminal
point Puerto Vallarta, Mexico; (2) the terminal point Dallas/Ft. Worth,
Texas, and the terminal point San Jose del Cabo, Mexico; and (3) the
terminal point Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, and the terminal point Cozumel,
Mexico.  Sun Country proposes to operate this service on a year-round
basis, beginning May 1, 2006.

The Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport filed an answer in support of
Sun Country’s application.

Applicant rep: John S. Fredericksen<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Thuy
H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted Dallas/Ft. Worth-San Jose del Cabo exemption authority
(subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Dismissed the Dallas/Ft. Worth-Cozumel and Dallas/Ft. Worth-Puerto
Vallarta requests (see remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken: August 1, 2005 through August
1, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

   	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Regarding the issue of the start-up deadline, we have
determined that, in the circumstances presented, including Sun
Country’s proposed May 1, 2006, start-up date and the fact that no
party opposed the request, we will require Sun Country to institute the
proposed service no later than May 1, 2006.

Remarks:  The requested route authority for the Dallas/Ft. Worth-Cozumel
and Dallas/Ft. Worth-Puerto Vallarta markets is unavailable.  Under the
U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement, up to a total of two U.S. carriers may
be designated to provide direct-carrier (own-aircraft) services in a
given city-pair market.  American Airlines, Inc., and Grand Holdings,
Inc., d/b/a Champion Air already hold authority to serve the Dallas/Ft.
Worth-Cozumel and Dallas/Ft. Worth-Puerto Vallarta markets.  Thus, no
additional authority is available at this time.

________________________________________________________________________
____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or dismissed, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28823-28824]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12204]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form N-8B-4; SEC File No. 270-180; OMB Control No. 3235-0247.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') requests for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form N-8B-4 (17 CFR 274.14) is the form used by face-amount
certificate companies to comply with the filing and disclosure
requirements imposed by Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8(b)). Form N-8B-4 requires disclosure about the
face-amount certificate company's organization, controlling persons,
business, policies, securities, investment adviser, depositary,
management personnel, compensation, and financial statements. The
Commission uses the information provided in the collection of
information to determine compliance with Section 8(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940.
    Based on the Commission's industry statistics, the Commission
estimates that there would be approximately one annual filing on Form
N-8B-4. The Commission estimates that each registrant filing a Form N-
8b-4 would spend 171 hours in preparing and filing the form and that
the total annual time burden for all Form N-8B-4 filings would be 171
hours. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the PRA, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a
representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms.
    The information provided on Form N-8B-4 is mandatory. The
information provided on Form N-8B-4 will not be kept confidential. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 13, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12204 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12311-12313]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03977]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0075; FRL-9378-8]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to
consider and review the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)
Tier 1 Screening Assays and Battery Performance.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 21-24, 2013, from approximately
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted
by May 7, 2013 and requests for oral comments be submitted by May 14,
2013. However, written comments and requests to make oral comments may
be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting
written comments after May 7, 2013 should contact the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before March 8,
2013.
    Webcast. This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the FIFRA
SAP's Web site, http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap for information on how
to access the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary
public process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise
resulting in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0075, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    If your comments contain any information that you consider to be
CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before
submitting your comments.
    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for
special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins Jr., DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 I. General Information

 A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

 C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0075 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES, no later than May 7,
2013, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review
the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of
the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after May 7, 2013
should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring 25
copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages that each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their
request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than May 14, 2013, in order to be included on the meeting agenda.
Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of
the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of FIFRA
SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting by
interested persons who have not previously requested time. The request
should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the
organization (if any) the individual will

represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g.,
overhead projector, 35 mm projector). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 25 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP
at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.
    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP
for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of
candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the
stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for
service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or
organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as
prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated
for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following
areas: Regulatory toxicology/risk assessment, ecotoxicology (fish and
amphibian toxicology), comparative endocrinology, reproductive
physiology, developmental biology/toxicology, thyroid physiology, in
vitro models, toxicological pathology, amphibian histopathology,
morphometrics, quantitative ecology/biostatistics, and systems biology.
Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional
qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of
providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting.
Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address,
and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before March 8, 2013. The
Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this
meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final
selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary
function of the Agency.
    The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the
function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's
charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to
serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to
a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal
department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during
the selection process include availability of the potential panel
member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any
conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality,
independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of
bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack
of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in
disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a
candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified
candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection
decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the
candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and
achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on
the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed
to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates
selecting approximately 10 ad hoc scientists.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634,
Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5
CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective
candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit
confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among
other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and
bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will
evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether
there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of
impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the
documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer
review) before the candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA
SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates
will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the
discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In
addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting
minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting
will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Docket or at http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is
structured to provide scientific advice, information and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in
1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent
panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA
Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA established a Science
Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to
the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the SAP.
As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations
and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of
analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP are scientists
who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and
experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.

 B. Public Meeting

    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), section
408(p) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), section 1457, the EPA is
required to screen all pesticide chemicals (active and inert
ingredients) and those drinking water contaminants to which a
``substantial population'' is exposed for the potential to interact
with the endocrine system. As recommended by a Federal Advisory
Committee, (Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory
Committee, EDSTAC), the EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
(EDSP) established a two tiered screening and testing program to
address the potential of chemicals to perturb the estrogen, androgen or
thyroid (E,A or T) systems and elicit adverse human and ecological
health outcomes. In 1999, following the EDSTAC recommendations, a joint
subcommittee of the Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) and FIFRA SAP
recommended to the Agency, after review of the initial set of Tier 1
data, to subject that data to external scientific peer review for
consideration to further optimize the Tier 1 screening battery.
    Tier 1 screening was recommended to include a diverse yet
complementary suite of in vitro and in vivo assays covering multiple
hormonal modes of action (MoA) across various taxa. To maximize
sensitivity and reliability (i.e., minimizing false negatives) for
determining the potential of a chemical to interact with E, A, or T,
the suite of assays was to be conducted as a battery.

If the results of the Tier 1 battery indicated the potential for a
chemical to interact with the endocrine system as determined through a
weight of evidence (WoE) analysis, various Tier 2 tests were to be
considered for determining dose-response relationships and any
potential adverse effects for risk assessment. The EDSP is mandated
under FFDCA to use ``validated'' assays to screen for endocrine
disrupting chemicals. Validation principles established by the
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and
Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative
Methods (ICCVAM) were followed to develop, standardize, and validate
many of the initially proposed Tier 1 in vitro and in vivo screening
assays as well as more novel screening assays that emerged after the
EDSTAC final report in 1998. Subsequent to the validation process, an
independent peer review of individual Tier 1 screening assays was
conducted. Based on results of the validation process, comments from
peer review, and recommendations from EDSTAC, the EDSP proposed a
battery of screening assays that was founded on the strengths of one or
more assays complimenting the limitations of other assays in the
battery. Moreover, it was expected that the result(s) of each assay
would not be considered in isolation but be inclusive of the results of
all assays in the battery to support a WoE analysis. The FIFRA SAP
reviewed the proposed Tier 1 screening battery and recommended a
battery of 11 assays to EPA which the Panel indicated ``* * * as an
appropriate starting point to detect endocrine disrupting chemicals
based on the current state of the science.'' In addition, however, the
SAP also expected the Agency to continue ``* * * to develop, refine,
and review the battery.'' Notably, this latter statement concurs with a
recommendation from the initial joint SAB/SAP who indicated EPA should
review the initial data ``* * * with an eye towards revising the
process and eliminating those methods that don't work.''
    This FIFRA SAP review will be focused on a subset of the initial
Tier 1 screening data received by the Agency in response to test orders
issued for the first list of chemicals in 2009. The SAP review will
involve the performance of the 11 Tier 1 screening assays and
performance of the assays as a battery that was designed to detect the
potential of a test chemical to interact with the E, A or T hormonal
pathways. The SAP will be asked to comment on factors that may impact
interpretation of the assay/battery results (e.g., variability) as well
as suggestions for increasing the efficiency of the Tier 1 screening
approach. To illustrate assay/battery performances, case examples of
Tier 1 data from the initial list of chemicals will be used. It should
be noted that there will be a separate SAP meeting scheduled in the
summer of 2013 to discuss the decision logic in a WoE approach to
identify candidate chemicals for Tier 2 testing using EDSP Tier 1
screening results, other scientifically relevant information (OSRI),
and health and ecological effects data from 40 CFR part 158 studies.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc
members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by
approximately early May 2013. In addition, the Agency may provide
additional background documents as the materials become available. You
may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other
related documents that might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.
    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting.
The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be
obtained from the OPP Docket or at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, and Endocrine
disruptors.

    Dated: February 13, 2013.
Steven M. Knott,
Acting, Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-03977 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43099-43100]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15316]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-651, OMB Control No. 3235-0702]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request: Extension: Rule 18a-3

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 18a-
3 (17 CFR 240.18a-3), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 18a-3 establishes minimum margin requirements for nonbank
security-based swap dealers (``SBSDs'') and nonbank major security-
based swap participants (``MSBSPs'') for non-cleared security-based
swaps. Under paragraph (e) of Rule 18a-3 nonbank SBSDs are required to
monitor the risk of each account that holds non-cleared security based
swaps for a counterparty and to establish, maintain, and document
procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts as part
of its risk management control system required under Exchange Act Rule
15c3-4. In addition, paragraph (d)(2) of Rule 18a-3 provides that a
nonbank SBSD seeking approval to use a model to calculate initial
margin will be subject to an application process consistent with
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1e and paragraph (d) of Exchange Act Rule 18a-1,
as applicable, governing the use of internal models to compute net
capital.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While Rule 18a-3 contains requirements that apply to both
nonbank SBSDs and MSBSPs, the particular requirements that
constitute a collection of information relate only to nonbank SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual hour burden associated with Rule 18a-3 is
approximately 2,243 hours calculated as follows:
    The Commission staff estimates that there are 7 nonbank SBSDs that
are subject to Rule 18a-3. The staff further estimates that each would
spend an average of approximately 210 hours establishing and
documenting their Rule 18a-3 counterparty risk monitoring procedures,
for a one-time industry-wide hour burden of approximately 1,470
recordkeeping hours or 490 hours per year when annualized over three
years.\2\ In addition, the staff estimates that each nonbank SBSD would
spend an average of approximately 60 hours per year reviewing risks
associated with its counterparties, for an annual industry-wide burden
of approximately 420 recordkeeping hours.\3\ Taken together, the annual
industry-wide hour burden is approximately 910 hours.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 7 nonbank SBSDs x 210 hours = 1,470 hours. These amounts are
annualized over three years resulting in 70 (210 hours/3 years)
hours per nonbank SBSD per year and an industry wide annual burden
of 490 recordkeeping hours.
    \3\ 7 nonbank SBSDs x 60 hours = 420 hours.
    \4\ 490 hours + 420 hours = 910 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates it will take a nonbank SBSD approximately
50 hours to prepare and submit an application to the Commission to seek
authorization to use an internal model to calculate initial margin. The
staff estimates that five non-bank SBSDs have sought Commission
approval to use an internal model to calculate initial margin,
resulting in a total industry-wide one-time hour burden of
approximately 250 hours or approximately 83 hours per year when
annualized over three years.\5\ The Commission also estimates that each
nonbank SBSD will spend approximately 250 hours per year reviewing,
updating, and back testing their initial margin model, resulting in a
total industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 1,250
recordkeeping hours.\6\ Taken together, the Commission estimates an
annual industry-wide hour burden of approximately 1,333 hours.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 nonbank SBSDs x 50 hours = 250 hours. These amounts are
annualized over three years resulting in 16.67 (50 hours/3 years)
hours per nonbank SBSD per year and an industry wide annual burden
of 83.33 recordkeeping hours, rounded down to 83 hours.
    \6\ 5 nonbank SBSDs x 250 hours = 1,250 hours.
    \7\ (250 hours/3 years) + 1,250 hours = 1,333.33 hours, rounded
down to 1,333 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual hour burden associated with Rule 18a-3 is thus
approximately 2,243 hours (910 hours + 1,333 hours).
    The total annual cost burden associated with Rule 18a-3 is
approximately $3,333 calculated as follows:
    The 7 respondents subject to the collection of information may
incur start-up costs in order to comply with this collection of
information. These costs may vary depending on the size and complexity
of the nonbank SBSD. In addition, the start-up costs may be less for
the 2 nonbank SBSD respondents also registered as broker-dealers
because these firms may already be subject to similar requirements with
respect to other margin rules. For the remaining 5 nonbank SBSDs,
because these written procedures may be novel undertakings for these
firms, the Commission staff assumes these nonbank SBSDs will have their
written risk analysis methodology reviewed by outside counsel.
Therefore, the staff estimates that these 5 nonbank SBSDs will engage
an outside counsel to review their written risk analysis methodology,
at a rate of approximately $400 per hour for 5 hours (i.e., $2,000 in
legal costs). This will result in a one-time industry-wide external
recordkeeping cost of approximately $10,000, or

approximately $3,333 \8\ annualized over 3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 5 nonbank SBSDs x $400/hour x 5 hours = $10,000. This amount
annualized is $3,333.33 per nonbank SBSD, rounded down to $3,333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent by August 18, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 13, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15316 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P