following parts of
                                                                                the state rules:
                                                                                the quench tower
                                                                                limit in R
                                                                                336.1331, Table 31,
                                                                                section C.8; the
                                                                                deletion of the
                                                                                limit in R 336.1331
                                                                                for coke oven coal
                                                                                preheater
                                                                                equipment; and R
                                                                                336.1355), 8
                                                                                (except section
                                                                                802), 9, 11, 12,
                                                                                13, and appendices
                                                                                A and D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.

                                EPA-Approved Michigan Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          Name of source                 Order No.        effective     EPA approval date         Comments
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Signal, Inc., Detroit Tar   4-1993..............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Plant, Wayne County.
American Colloid Plant...........  Permit 341-79.......     12/18/79  9/15/83, 48 FR 41403
American Colloid Plant...........  Permit 375-79.......     11/23/79  9/15/83, 48 FR 41403
Asphalt Products Company, Plant    5-1993..............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 5A, Wayne County.
Clark Oil and Refining             6-1981..............      6/24/82  12/13/82, 47 FR
 Corporation, Calhoun County.                                          55678.
Clawson Concrete Company, Plant    6-1993..............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 1, Wayne County.
Conoco, Inc., Berrien County.....  17-1981.............      9/28/81  2/17/82, 47 FR 6828.
Consumers Power Company, B. C.     6-1979..............     12/10/79  5/1/81, 46 FR 24560.
 Cobb Plant, Muskegon County.
Consumers Power Company, J.H.      12-1984.............      10/1/84  1/12/87, 52 FR 1183.
 Campbell Plant, Units 1 and 2,
 Ottawa County.
Continental Fibre Drum, Inc.,      14-1987.............      12/9/87  6/11/92, 57 FR 24752
 Midland County.
Cummings-Moore Graphite Company,   7-1993..............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Wayne County.
CWC Castings Division of Textron,  12-1979.............      2/15/80  5/16/84, 49 FR 20650
 Muskegon County.
Delray Connecting Railroad         8-1993..............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Company, Wayne County.
Detroit Edison Company, Boulevard  7-1981..............      4/28/81  5/4/82, 47 FR 19133.
 Heating Plant, Wayne County.
Detroit Edison Company, City of    4-1978..............     11/14/78  8/25/80, 45 FR 56344
 St. Clair, St. Clair County.
Detroit Edison Company, Monroe     9-1977..............       7/7/77  12/21/79, 44 FR
 County.                                                               75635 (correction:
                                                                       3/20/80, 45 FR
                                                                       17997).
Detroit Edison Company, River      9-1993..............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Rouge Power Plant, Wayne County.
Detroit Edison Company, Sibley     10-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Quarry, Wayne County.

Detroit Water and Sewerage         11-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Department, Wastewater Treatment
 Plant, Wayne County.
Diamond Crystal Salt Company, St.  13-1982.............       9/8/82  3/14/83, 48 FR 9256.
 Clair County.
Dow Chemical Company, Midland      12-1981.............      6/15/81  3/24/82, 47 FR 12625
 County.
Dow Chemical Company, West Side    19-1981.............      7/21/81  3/24/82, 47 FR 12625  Only sections A(3),
 and South Side Power Plants,                                                                B, C, D, and E.
 Midland County.
Dundee Cement Company, Monroe      8-1979..............     10/17/79  8/11/80, 45 FR 53137
 County.
Dundee Cement Company, Monroe      16-1980.............     11/19/80  12/3/81, 46 FR 58673
 County.
Eagle Ottawa Leather Company,      7-1994..............      7/13/94  10/23/95, 60 FR
 Ottawa County.                                                        54308.
Edward C. Levy Company, Detroit    15-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Lime Company, Wayne County.
Edward C. Levy Company, Plant      16-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 1, Wayne County.
Edward C. Levy Company, Plant      17-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 3, Wayne County.
Edward C. Levy Company, Plant      19-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 4 and 5, Wayne County.
Edward C. Levy Company, Plant      18-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 6, Wayne County.
Edward C. Levy Company, Scrap Up-  20-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Grade Facility, Wayne County.
Enamalum Corporation, Oakland      6-1994..............      6/27/94  2/21/96, 61 FR 6545.
 County.
Ferrous Processing and Trading     12-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Company, Wayne County.
Ford Motor Company, Rouge          13-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Industrial Complex, Wayne County.
Ford Motor Company, Utica Trim     39-1993.............     11/12/93  9/7/94, 59 FR 46182.
 Plant, Macomb County.
Ford Motor Company, Vulcan Forge,  14-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Wayne County.
General Motors Corporation,        18-1981.............      7/28/83  5/16/84, 49 FR 20649  Original order
 Warehousing and Distribution                                                                effective 12/1/81,
 Division, Genesee County.                                                                   as altered
                                                                                effective 7/28/83.
General Motors Corporation, Buick  10-1979.............       5/5/80  2/10/82, 47 FR 6013.
 Motor Division Complex, Flint,
 Genesee County.
General Motors Corporation, Buick  8-1982..............       4/2/84  8/22/88, 53 FR 31861  Original order
 Motor Division, Genesee County.                                                             effective 7/12/82,
                                                                                as altered
                                                                                effective 4/2/82.
General Motors Corporation,        12-1982.............      7/22/82  7/5/83, 48 FR 31022.
 Cadillac Motor Car Division,
 Wayne County.
General Motors Corporation,        8-1983..............       6/9/83  12/13/85, 50 FR       Supersedes paragraph
 Central Foundry Division,                                             50907.                7.F of order 6-
 Saginaw Malleable Iron Plant,                                                               1980.
 Saginaw County.
General Motors Corporation,        6-1980..............      7/30/82  8/15/83, 48 FR 36818  Paragraph 7.F
 Central Foundry Division,                                                                   superseded by order
 Saginaw Malleable Iron Plant,                                                               8-1983. Original
 Saginaw County.                                                                             order effective 6/3/
                                                                                80, as altered
                                                                                effective 7/30/82.
General Motors Corporation,        10-1982.............      7/12/82  7/5/83, 48 FR 31022.
 Chevrolet Flint Truck Assembly,
 Genesee County.
General Motors Corporation,        1-1980..............      4/16/80  2/10/82, 47 FR 6013.
 Chevrolet Motor Division,
 Saginaw Grey Iron Casting Plant
 and Nodular Iron Casting Plant,
 Saginaw County.
General Motors Corporation,        11-1982.............      7/22/82  7/5/83, 48 FR 31022.
 Fisher Body Division, Fleetwood,
 Wayne County.

General Motors Corporation,        9-1982..............      7/12/82  7/5/83, 48 FR 31022.
 Fisher Body Division, Flint No.
 1, Genesee County.
General Motors Corporation, GM     5-1983..............       5/5/83  12/13/84, 49 FR 5345
 Assembly Division, Washtenaw
 County.
General Motors Corporation, Hydra- 3-1982..............      6/24/82  3/4/83, 48 FR 9256..
 Matic Division, Washtenaw County.
General Motors Corporation,        4-1983..............       5/5/83  12/13/84, 49 FR 5345
 Oldsmobile Division, Ingham
 County.
Hayes-Albion Corporation Foundry,  2-1980..............       2/2/82  48 FR 41403.........  Original order
 Calhoun County.                                                                             effective 2/15/80,
                                                                                as altered
                                                                                effective 2/2/82.
J. H. Campbell Plant, Ottawa       5-1979..............       2/6/80  12/24/80, 45 FR       Original order
 County.                                                               85004 (correction:    effective 6/25/79,
                                                                       3/16/81 46 FR         as altered
                                                                       16895).               effective 2/6/80.
Keywell Corporation, Wayne County  31-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
Lansing Board of Water and Light.  4-1979..............      5/23/79  12/17/80, 45 FR       All except sections
                                                                       82926.                7 A, B, C1, D, E,
                                                                                F, and section 8.
Marathon Oil Company, Muskegon     16-1981.............      7/31/81  2/22/82, 47 FR 7661.
 County.
Marblehead Lime Company, Brennan   21-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Avenue Plant, Wayne County.
Marblehead Lime Company, River     22-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Rouge Plant, Wayne County.
McLouth Steel Company, Trenton     23-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Plant, Wayne County.
Michigan Foundation Company,       24-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Cement Plant, Wayne County.
Michigan Foundation Company,       25-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95.60 FR 3346..
 Sibley Quarry, Wayne County.
Monitor Sugar Company, Bay County  21-1981.............     10/29/81  5/19/82, 47 FR 21534
Morton International, Inc.,        26-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Morton Salt Division, Wayne
 County.
National Steel Corporation, Great  27-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Lakes Division, Wayne County.
National Steel Corporation,        28-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Transportation and Materials
 Handling Division, Wayne County.
New Haven Foundry, Inc., Macomb    12-1980.............      8/14/80  2/10/82, 47 FR 6013.
 County.
Northern Michigan Electric         16-1979.............      1/10/80  46 FR 34584.........
 Cooperative Advance Steam Plant,
 Charlevoix County.
Packaging Corporation of America,  23-1984.............       7/8/85  5/4/87, 52 FR 16246.
 Manistee County.
Peerless Metal Powders,            29-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Incorporated, Wayne County.
Rouge Steel Company, Wayne County  30-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
S. D. Warren Company, Muskegon...  9-1979..............     10/31/99  1/27/81, 46 FR 8476.
St. Marys Cement Company, Wayne    32-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 County.
Traverse City Board of Light and   23-1981.............       1/4/82  5/19/82, 47 FR 21534
 Power, Grand Traverse County.
Union Camp Corporation, Monroe     14-1979.............       1/3/80  5/14/81, 46 FR 26641
 County.
United States Gypsum Company,      33-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Wayne County.
VCF Films, Inc., Livingston        3-1993..............      6/21/93  9/7/94, 59 FR 46182.
 County.
Woodbridge Corporation, Washtenaw  40-1993.............     11/12/93  9/7/94, 59 FR 46182.
 County.
Wyandotte Municipal Power Plant,   34-1993.............     10/12/94  1/17/95, 60 FR 3346.
 Wayne County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) EPA approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions.

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable
  Name of nonregulatory SIP      geographic or                                  EPA approval
          provision              nonattainment       State submittal date           date            Comments
                                     area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation plan for the    Statewide.......  2/3/72                       5/31/72, 37 FR    Sections
 control of suspended                                                          10841.            include: Air
 particulates, sulfur oxides,                                                                    quality control
 carbon monoxide,                                                                                regions, legal
 hydrocarbons, nitrogen                                                                          authority, air
 oxides, and photochemical                                                                       quality data,
 oxidants in the state of                                                                        emission data,
 Michigan.                                                                                control
                                                                                strategy,
                                                                                control
                                                                                regulations,
                                                                                compliance
                                                                                plans and
                                                                                schedules,
                                                                                prevention of
                                                                                air pollution
                                                                                emergency
                                                                                episodes, air
                                                                                quality
                                                                                surveillance
                                                                                program,
                                                                                control of
                                                                                emission
                                                                                sources,
                                                                                organization
                                                                                and resources,
                                                                                and
                                                                                intergovernment
                                                                                al cooperation.
Reevaluation of control        Berrien and       3/3/72                       10/28/72, 37 FR
 strategies.                    Ingham Counties.                               23085.
Reasons and justifications...  Statewide.......  7/12/72                      10/28/72, 37 FR   Concerning
                                                                               23085.            general
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                control
                                                                                strategy for
                                                                                nitrogen
                                                                                dioxide,
                                                                                compliance
                                                                                schedules, and
                                                                                review of new
                                                                                sources and
                                                                                modifications.
Public availability of         Statewide.......  7/24/72                      10/28/72, 37 FR
 emissions data.                                                               23085.
Compliance schedules.........  Alpena, Baraga,   5/4/73, 9/19/73, 10/23/73,   8/5/74, 39 FR
                                Charlevoix,       and 12/13/73                 28155.
                                Huron, Ionia,
                                Marquette,
                                Midland,
                                Muskegon,
                                Oakland,
                                Otsego, and St.
                                Clair Counties.
Compliance schedules.........  Allegan, Eaton,   2/16/73 and 5/4/73           9/10/74, 39 FR
                                Emmet, Genesee,                                32606.
                                Huron, Ingham,
                                Macomb, Monroe,
                                Ottawa,
                                Saginaw, and
                                St. Clair
                                Counties.
Air quality maintenance area    Macomb,          6/27/74 and 10/18/74         6/2/75, 40 FR
 identifications for            Oakland, Wayne                                 23746.
 particulate matter.            and Monroe
                                Counties.
Carbon monoxide control        Saginaw area....  4/25/79                      5/6/80, 45 FR
 strategy.                                                                     29790.
Ozone attainment               Flint, Lansing    4/25/79, 7/25/79, 10/12/79,  6/2/80, 45 FR
 demonstrations and             and Grand         10/26/79, 11/8/79, 12/26/    37188.
 transportation control plans.  Rapids urban      79
                                areas.
Transportation control plans.  Detroit urban     4/25/79, 7/25/79, 10/12/79,  6/2/80, 45 FR
                                area.             10/26/79, 11/8/79, 12/26/    37188.
                                                  79
Ozone control strategy for     Marquette,        4/25/79, 7/25/79, 10/12/79,  6/2/80, 45 FR
 rural ozone nonattainment      Muskegon,         10/26/79, 11/8/79, 12/26/    37188.
 areas.                         Gratiot,          79
                                Midland,
                                Saginaw, Bay,
                                Tuscola, Huron,
                                Sanilac,
                                Ottawa, Ionia,
                                Shiawassee,
                                Lapeer,
                                Allegan, Barry,
                                Van Buren,
                                Kalamazoo,
                                Calhoun,
                                Jackson,
                                Berrien, Cass,
                                Branch,
                                Hillsdale, and
                                Lenawee
                                Counties.
Carbon monoxide and ozone      Detroit urban     4/25/79, 7/25/79, 10/12/79,  6/2/80, 45 FR
 demonstrations of attainment   area.             10/26/79, 11/8/79, 12/26/    37192.
 and I/M program.                                 79, 3/20/80, 5/12/80, and
                                                  5/21/80
Ambient air quality            Statewide.......  12/19/79                     3/4/81, 46 FR
 monitoring, data reporting,                                                   15138.
 and surveillance provisions.
Transportation control plan..  Niles...........  4/25/79, 10/26/79, 11/8/79,  4/17/81, 46 FR
                                                  12/26/79, 8/4/80, and 8/8/   22373.
                                                  80

Provisions addressing          Statewide.......  4/25/79 and 10/12/79         6/5/81, 46 FR     Concerns permit
 sections 110(a)(2)(K),                                                        30082.            fees,
 126(a)(2), 127, and 128 of                                                                      interstate
 the Clean Air Act as amended                                                                    pollution,
 in 1977.                                                                                public
                                                                                notification,
                                                                                and state
                                                                                boards.
Section 121,                   Statewide.......  5/25/79                      11/27/81, 46 FR
 intergovernmental                                                             57893.
 consultation.
Total suspended particulate    Detroit area....  3/7/80 and 4/21/81           2/18/82, 47 FR
 studies.                                                                      7227.
Lead plan....................  Statewide.......  12/27/79 and 2/9/81          4/13/82, 47 FR
                                                                               15792.
Reduction in size of Detroit   Wayne, Oakland,   9/1/82                       7/7/83, 48 FR
 ozone area.                    Macomb,                                        31199.
                                Livingston,
                                Monroe, St.
                                Clair, and
                                Washtenaw
                                Counties.
Negative declarations........  Wayne, Oakland    10/10/83, 5/17/85, and 6/12/ 11/24/86, 51 FR   Includes large
                                and Macomb        85                           42221.            petroleum dry
                                Counties.                                                        cleaners, high-
                                                                                density
                                                                                polyethylene,
                                                                                polypropylene,
                                                                                and polystyrene
                                                                                resin
                                                                                manufacturers,
                                                                                and synthetic
                                                                                organic
                                                                                chemical
                                                                                manufacturing
                                                                                industry--oxida
                                                                                tion.
Information relating to order  Genesee County..  9/6/84                       8/22/88, 53 FR
 8-1982: letter dated 9/6/84                                                   31861.
 from Michigan Department of
 Natural Resources to EPA.
Information relating to order  Midland County..  12/17/87                     10/3/89, 54 FR
 14-1987: letter dated 12/17/                                                  40657.
 87 from Michigan Department
 of Natural Resources to EPA.
Appendices A and D of Wayne     Wayne County...  10/10/86                     5/13/93, 58 FR    Effective 11/18/
 County Air Pollution Control                                                  28359.            85.
 Ordinance.
Information supporting         Statewide.......  11/16/92, 10/25/93, and 2/7/ 3/8/94, 59 FR
 emissions statement program.                     94                           10752.
1990 base year emissions       Grand Rapids and  1/5/93                       7/26/94, 59 FR
 inventory.                     Muskegon areas.                                37944.
Section 182(f) NOX exemption.  Detroit-Ann       11/12/93                     8/10/94, 59 FR
                                Arbor area.                                    40826.
Negative declarations........  Livingston,       3/30/94                      9/7/94, 59 FR     Includes: Large
                                Macomb, Monroe,                                46182.            petroleum dry
                                Oakland, St.                                                     cleaners, SOCMI
                                Clair,                                                           air oxidation
                                Washtenaw,                                                       processes, high-
                                Wayne, Kent,                                                     density
                                Ottawa, and                                                      polyethylene
                                Muskegon                                                         and
                                Counties.                                                        polypropylene
                                                                                resin
                                                                                manufacturing
                                                                                and pneumatic
                                                                                rubber tire
                                                                                manufacturing.
I/M program..................  Grand Rapids and  11/12/93 and 7/19/94         10/11/94, 59 FR   Includes:
                                Muskegon areas.                                51379.            document
                                                                                entitled
                                                                                ``Motor Vehicle
                                                                                Emissions
                                                                                Inspection and
                                                                                Maintenance
                                                                                Program for
                                                                                Southeast
                                                                                Michigan, Grand
                                                                                Rapids MSA, and
                                                                                Muskegon MSA
                                                                                Moderate
                                                                                Nonattainment
                                                                                Areas,'' RFP,
                                                                                and
                                                                                supplemental
                                                                                materials.
1990 base year emissions       Detroit-Ann       11/12/93                     3/7/95, 60 FR
 inventory and 1-hour ozone     Arbor area                                     12459.
 maintenance plan.              (Livingston,
                                Macomb, Monroe,
                                Oakland, St.
                                Clair,
                                Washtenaw, and
                                Wayne Counties).
Section 182(f) NOX exemptions  Clinton, Ingham,  7/1/94 and 7/8/94            4/27/95, 60 FR
                                Eaton, and                                     20644.
                                Genesee
                                Counties.

Section 182(f) NOX exemptions  Kent, Ottawa,     7/13/94                      1/26/96, 61 FR
                                Muskegon,                                      2428.
                                Allegan, Barry,
                                Bay, Berrien,
                                Branch,
                                Calhoun, Cass,
                                Clinton, Eaton,
                                Gratiot,
                                Genesee,
                                Hillsdale,
                                Ingham, Ionia,
                                Jackson,
                                Kalamazoo,
                                Lenawee,
                                Midland,
                                Montcalm, St.
                                Joseph,
                                Saginaw,
                                Shiawassee, and
                                Van Buren
                                Counties.
1-hour ozone maintenance plan  Grand Rapids      3/9/95                       6/21/96, 61 FR
                                area.                                          31831.
PM-10 maintenance plan.......  Wayne County....  7/24/95                      8/5/96, 61 FR
                                                                               40516.
General conformity...........  Statewide.......  11/29/94                     12/18/96, 61 FR
                                                                               66607.
Transportation conformity....  Statewide.......  11/24/94                     12/18/96, 61 FR
                                                                               66609.
7.8 psi Reid vapor pressure    Wayne, Oakland,   5/16/96, 1/5/96, and 5/14/   5/5/97, 62 FR     Includes: letter
 gasoline-supplemental          Macomb,           96                           24341.            from Michigan
 materials.                     Washtenaw,                                                       Governor John
                                Livingston, St.                                                  Engler to
                                Clair, and                                                       Regional
                                Monroe Counties.                                                 Administrator
                                                                                Valdas Adamkus,
                                                                                dated 1/5/96,
                                                                                letter from
                                                                                Michigan
                                                                                Director of
                                                                                Environmental
                                                                                Quality Russell
                                                                                Harding to
                                                                                Regional
                                                                                Administrator
                                                                                Valdas Adamkus,
                                                                                dated 5/14/96,
                                                                                and state
                                                                                report entitled
                                                                                ``Evaluation of
                                                                                Air Quality
                                                                                Contingency
                                                                                Measures for
                                                                                Implementation
                                                                                in Southeast
                                                                                Michigan''.
Section 182(f) NOX exemption.   Muskegon County  11/22/95                     9/26/97, 62 FR
                                                                               50512.
Carbon monoxide maintenance    Detroit area      3/18/99                      6/30/99, 64 FR
 plan.                          (portions of                                   35017.
                                Wayne, Oakland,
                                and Macomb
                                Counties).
1-hour ozone maintenance plan  Muskegon County.  3/9/95                       8/30/00, 65 FR
                                                                               52651.
1-hour ozone maintenance plan  Allegan County..  9/1/00 and 10/13/00          11/24/00, 65 FR
                                                                               70490.
1-hour ozone maintenance plan  Genesee, Bay      5/9/00                       11/13/00, 65 FR
                                Midland, and                                   67629.
                                Saginaw
                                Counties.
1-hour ozone maintenance plan  Muskegon County.  3/22/01                      8/6/01, 66 FR     Revision to
 revision.                                                                     40895.            motor vehicle
                                                                                emission
                                                                                budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E6-14708 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8878-8879]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0096]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0042

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an

Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of
information: 1625-0042, Requirements for Lightering of Oil and
Hazardous Material Cargoes, and Advance Notice of Transfer; without
change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2023-0096] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2023-0096], and
must be received by April 11, 2023.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Requirements for Lightering of Oil and Hazardous Material
Cargoes, and Advance Notice of Transfer.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0042.
    Summary: The information for this report allows the U.S. Coast
Guard to provide timely response to an emergency and minimize the
environmental damage from an oil or hazardous material spill. The
information also allows the Coast Guard to control the location and
procedures for lightering activities. It also provides advance notice
of transfers at certain facilities.
    Need: 46 U.S.C. 3715 authorizes the Coast Guard to establish
lightering regulations. Title 33 CFR 156.200 to 156.330 and 156.400 to
156.430 prescribes the Coast Guard regulations for lightering,
including pre-arrival notice, reporting of incidents and operating
conditions. 46 U.S.C. 70011 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe
advance notice of transfer regulations. Title 33 CFR 156.118 prescribe
the regulations.
    Forms: CG-4020, 4 Hour Advance Notice of Transfer.
    Respondents: Owners, masters and agents of lightering vessels, and
facility representatives.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 985
hours to 899 hours a year, due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: February 2, 2023.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2023-02922 Filed 2-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65845-65847]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0026]

Regulations Containing Procedures for Handling of Retaliation
Complaints; Revision of Approved Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Approval

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend and revise the collection of information currently approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for handling of retaliation
complaints filed with OSHA under various whistleblower protection
statutes and the procedural regulations described in this notice. These
regulations contain procedures employees must use to file a complaint
with OSHA alleging that their employer violated a whistleblower
protection provision contained in certain statutes that generally
prohibit retaliatory action by employers against employees who engage
in activities protected by the statutes. This collection of information
includes revisions to the electronic form for employees to submit
retaliation complaints to OSHA.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
January 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2012-0026, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Due to
security procedures, there may be delays in receiving materials that
are sent by regular mail. For more information about security
procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery,
hand delivery, and messenger or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office
are 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2012-0026) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
such as social security numbers and dates of birth, are placed in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments
see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact the Directorate
of Whistleblower Protection Programs at the below phone number to
obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Rosa, Acting Director,
Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, OSHA, U.S. Department
of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (e.g., an employee filing a retaliation
complaint) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and
continuing collection of information in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures
that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and
costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate.
    The agency is responsible for investigating alleged violations of
whistleblower provisions contained in a number of statutes. These
whistleblower provisions generally prohibit retaliation by employers
against employees who report alleged violations of certain laws or
regulations. Accordingly, these provisions prohibit an employer from
discharging or taking any other retaliatory action against an employee
because the employee engages in any of the protected activities
specified by the whistleblower provisions of the statutes. These
statutes are covered under the following regulations: 29 CFR part 24,
Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints under the
Employee Protection Provisions of Six Environmental Statutes and
Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as Amended (29
CFR part 24 covers the: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i);
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; Toxic Substances
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2622; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6971;
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7622; Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42
U.S.C. 5851; and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9610); 29 CFR part 1977, Discrimination
Against Employees Exercising Rights under the Williams-Steiger
Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 CFR part 1977 covers the:
Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 660; Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act, 15 U.S.C. 2651; and International Safe
Container Act, 46 U.S.C. 80507); 29 CFR part 1978, Procedures for the
Handling of Retaliation Complaints under the Employee Protection
Provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; 29 CFR
part 1979, Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints Under the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century; 29 CFR part 1980, Procedures for Handling of Discrimination
Complaints Under Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud
Accountability Act of 2002 (Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002); 29 CFR part 1981, Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination
Complaints under Section 6 of the Pipeline Safety and Improvement Act
of 2002; 29 CFR part 1982, Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation
Complaints Under the National Transit Systems Security Act and the
Federal Railroad Safety Act; 29 CFR part 1983, Procedures for the
Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 219 of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008; 29 CFR part 1984, Procedures
for Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the
Affordable Care Act; 29 CFR part 1985, Procedures for Handling
Retaliation Complaints Under the Employee Protection Provision of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010; 29 CFR part 1986, Procedures
for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under the Employee
Protection Provision of the Seaman's Protection Act (SPA), as Amended;
and 29 CFR part 1987, Procedures for Handling Retaliation Complaints
Under Section 402 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and 29 CFR
part 1988 Procedures for Handling Retaliation Complaints Under Section
31307 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century.
    In addition, OSHA investigates complaints of retaliation filed
under the recently-enacted whistleblower provision Section 7623 of the
Taxpayer First Act. Collection of information contained in future
regulations promulgated by the agency with respect to a whistleblower
provision of any other Federal law, except those that are assigned to
another DOL agency, will be added to this information collection.
    OSHA's whistleblower regulations specify the procedures that an
employee must use to file a complaint alleging that their employer
violated a whistleblower provision for which the agency has
investigative responsibility. Any employee who believes that such a
violation occurred may file a complaint, or have the complaint filed on
their behalf. Two of these regulations, 29 CFR parts 1979 and 1981,
state that complaints must be filed in writing and should include a
full statement of the

acts and omissions, with pertinent dates, that the employee believes
constitute the violation. The other regulations, 29 CFR parts 24, 1977,
1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1986, 1987, and 1988 require no
particular form of filing for complaints. However, it is OSHA's policy
to accept complaints in any form (i.e., orally or in writing) under all
statutes. This policy helps ensure that employees of all circumstances
and education levels will have equal access to the complaint filing
process.
    The agency currently utilizes the OSHA Online Whistleblower
Complaint Form, which includes interactive features to aid employees
seeking to understand the process and requirements for filing a
retaliation complaint with OSHA. The web-based form enables employees
to submit whistleblower complaints directly to OSHA 24-hours a day. The
electronic form also provides information about employee protections
enforced by other agencies, in order to better direct complainants to
the proper investigative agencies.
    OSHA proposes to revise this ICR to include revisions to the
electronic complaint form to make the following changes and technical
updates. On the landing page, before the electronic complaint form, the
user will have the opportunity to click a hyperlink which will direct
them to a map that identifies the OSHA regions and their respective
contact information. Once in the electronic form, ``pop-ups'' will
appear whenever the user attempts to click away from a required field
without making an entry. Lastly, the character count for two optional
text boxes will increase from 500 to 1,000 characters. This allows the
users to explain their case to OSHA. A mark-up of the proposed changes
to the form is available in the docket.

II. Special Issues for Comment

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

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB approve the proposed extension and
revision of the collection of information contained in OSHA's statutory
authorities and the regulations containing procedures for handling
retaliation complaints at 29 CFR parts 24, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981,
1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988.\1\ Specifically, this
revision contains a revised information collection instrument, a form,
which employees may use to file complaints. In addition, OSHA is
requesting an adjustment increase in burden hours from 7,566 burden
hours to 10,126 burden hours (a total increase of 2,560 hours). The
updated data shows an increase in the annual number of complaints
filed. The agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to
this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Several of these regulations use the term ``discrimination''
or ``discrimination complaints'' titles. These terms are synonymous
with ``retaliation'' and ``retaliation complaints,'' respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Regulations Containing Procedures for Handling Retaliation
Complaints.
    OMB Number: 1218-0236.
    Affected Public: Individuals.
    Number of Respondents: 10,126.
    Frequency of Response: Once per complaint.
    Average Time per Response: 1 hour.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 10,126.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

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

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0026). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>). Comments and
submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal
information such as social security numbers and dates of birth.
Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through this website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is
available at the website's ``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for information about materials not available through the
website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket
submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 22, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-25832 Filed 11-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


 1 of 18 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Date: March 29, 2006 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Response to Error Comments on the Alkylbenzene Sulfonates ( ABS) Preliminary Risk Assessment. PC Code: 079010, 190116 and 098002. Case No. 4006. DP Barcode: 323960 FROM: Deborah Smegal, MPH, Toxicologist/ Risk Assessor Ayaad Assaad, PhD. Toxicologist Health Effects Division ( HED) ( 7509C)

And Talia Milano, Chemist Robert Quick, Chemist Richard Petrie, Agronomist Cassi Walls, PhD, Chemist Najm Shamim, Ph. D. Chemist Antimicrobials Division ( AD) ( 7510C)

And Kerry Leifer, Chemist Registration Division ( RD)

THRU: Phang Whang, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch I Health Effects Division ( HED), ( 7509C)

TO: Heather Garvie, Chemical Review Manager, Reregistration Team 36 Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C) 2 of 18 Comments from Microcide ® , Inc. Dated February 26, 2006.

Comment 1a. The use of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate ( CAS # 25155 30 0) has 6.54% less dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid ( CAS # 27176 87 0 and CAS # 68584 22 5). This needs to be compensated in calculating levels of inhalation and/ or contact risk posed by the active moiety of SDBS, since under acidic condition the acid form rather than the salt form is present. The calculations are as follows: ( Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate mol wt: 348.59 and sodium mol wt 23). Therefore, the percent of dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid = 348.49 23=( 325.49/ 348.49) x 100= 93.4% in acidic products.

Response: The assessment reflects all three registered chemicals, and thus the Agency does not believe that this adjustment is necessary.

Comment 1b ( This is also listed as Comment 1 on registrant submission). The percentage of alkylbenzene sulfonates in various products can range from 0.036% to 25.6%. The endpoint used in this document was developed from a study that only used 13% active ingredient. ( Inhalation study NOAEL= 1 mg/ m3 detergent dust combined with up to 0.1 mg/ m3 enzyme dust equivalent to approximately 0.14 mg/ kg/ day ( a) ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) purity= 13% active ingredient from page 4: Table 1 Residential Inert Assessment.

For the dose calculations, the default inhalation absorption rate was 100%. Therefore, the statement that " The values presented in this assessment are considered to be underestimations of the potential risks that arise from exposure to alkylbenzene sulfonates" appears to be general " one size fits all" type statement and be not applied to products which have significantly lower use concentration of the active ingredient.

Response: The Agency has removed the statement " The values in this assessment are considered to be underestimations of the potential risks that arise from exposure to alkylbenzene sulfonate."

Comment 2. Since " Quantification of dermal risk is not required because: 1) the alkylbenzene sulfonates are surfactants that are dermal irritants at concentrations generally greater than 20% solution and 2) no systemic toxicity was seen following repeated dermal applications to rabbits at 200 mg/ kg/ day ( with an end use product), and 3) no developmental toxicity concerns were seen following repeated dermal applications to pregnant mice, rats or rabbits."

Therefore, the ready to use product Reg # 71094 2 with only 0.036% active ingredient has been determined to be toxicologically safe by dermal and inhalation studies and do not warrant respective dermal handling labels as suggested in the report.

Response. The Agency has estimated risks of concern for both 71094 1 and 71094 2 products as shown on Table 8 of the " Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment of Alkylbenzene Sulfonates for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document". The 3 of 18 total inhalation MOE is 90 for cleaning and sanitizing with the same product 71094 2 using the sponge/ mesh/ wiping and immersion/ flooding methods, and also inhalation for product 71094 1, there are inhalation risks of concern of 93 and 90 for wiping and immersion/ flooding or wiping and low pressure spray.

Comment 3. Toxicity of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate ( EPA DATA). No adverse observed effect level ( NOAEL). Chronic dietary= 50 mg/ kg/ day lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL)= 114 350 mg/ kg/ day.

Inhalation study shows that NOAEL = 1 mg/ m3 = equivalent to approximately 0.14 mg/ kg/ day of 13% active ingredient. This means that the average 70 kg person will have no effect at 0.14 x 70= 9.8 mg of ai/ day. Thus if the concentration of active ingredient is lower than 13% the inhalation potential will be proportionately lower. Thus with 0.036% concentration the inhalation potential will be 0.14 x ( 0.036/ 13)= 0.00038 mg/ kg/ day for use solutions of Reg # 71094 1 and Reg # 71094 2. Even if the use level is calculated for both cleaning and sanitizing which comes to about ( 0.00038 x 2 cleaning + 0.00038 sanitizing) = 0.0011 mg/ kg/ day. This is lower than the inhalation NOAEL of 0.14 mg/ kg/ day.

Note: when cleaning concentration is higher and the sanitizing concentration is lower, the higher cleaning concentration is diluted by subsequent use of the lower sanitizing concentration. The effect is not additive and the lower concentration should be used for any residual calculations.

Response: The Agency risk estimates account for the amount of active ingredient in the registered products, and this is reflected in the Margin of Exposure ( MOE) values presented on Tables 7 and 8 of the risk assessment. The inhalation endpoint is based on a NOAEL of 1 mg/ m3 for detergent that contains 13% C12 linear alkylbenzene sulfonate. The Agency disagrees with the calculations presented by the commentor.

Comment 4. There are certain anomalies in Table 8. Two products Reg # 71094 1 and Reg # 71094 2 with the same use level of 0.036% sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate show different inhalation MOE values.

Response: The Agency disagrees with this comment. The Agency records show that the Reg # 71094 2 contains 0.036% as a ready to use product ( 0.003 lb ai/ gal), while Reg# 71094 1 contains 3.6% as a water soluble packet ( there are two application rates of 0.00603 or 0.00302 lb ai/ gal, since the cleaning and sanitizing steps on the label recommend two different dilutions). 4 of 18 Comments from Scientific & Regulatory Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Chemical Systems of Florida, Dated March 6, 2006.

The SRC Scientific and Regulatory Consultants, Inc. comments are in relation to the Agency review on the fruit and vegetable wash for these chemicals. The letter points out that:

1) The label for Reg. # 71695 1 allows a fruit and vegetable wash with a solution made by mixing 1 ounce of CS 100 Sanitizer to 5 gallons of water. The label further instructs a user to never exceed a rate of 2 ounces of CS 100 to 5 gallons of water. In either instance a potable water rinse is required.

The letter goes on to state: " To determine the level of DDBSA in these solutions you must first consider the dilution rate and the amount of DDBSA in CS 100 Acid which is 17.46%. Therefore the maximum amount of DDBSA in a 2 oz to 5 gallon dilution of CS 100 Acid is determined as follows:

2 oz/ 5 gal x gal/ 128 oz x 17.46% DDBSA = 0.0546% DDBSA The dietary risk assessment document asserts that the solution will contain 0.31% DDBSA. Instead the solution contains 0.31% CS 100 Acid Sanitizer. Based on the label declaration of 17.46% DDBSA, the solution contains 0.0546% DDBSA. This is well below the 0.2% level permitted in 21 CFR 173.315 without a potable water rinse.

Further, using the maximum DDBSA level of 0.0546 in the residue calculation on page 8, the potential residue ( without rinsing) from CS 100 Acid Sanitizer is 11.6 ppm. Using EPA's assumptions, this number was determined as noted below.

0.023 g/ cm2 x 12.56 cm2 x 0.000546 ( 0.0546%) DDBSA = 0.000158 g or 0.0158 mg DDBSA 0.0158 mg DDBSA/ 0.00136 kg blueberries = 11.6 mg/ kg or ppm When correctly calculated, the labeled use rate for CS 100 Acid Sanitizer presents an acceptable dietary risk. We estimate that for children, which was noted as a concern, the cPAD for 1 2 year olds is 89.5 and 64.6 for 3 5 years old.

Based on this calculation we believe that this may obviate the need to conduct any further dietary risk assessments." 5 of 18 EPA Response to the SRC comments:

1. The SRC calculations assume that the 0.2% number in the CFR 173.315 Regulation refers to the percentage of formulation used in the fruit and vegetable wash.

We have assumed that the 0.2% stated in the Regulation refers to the % of active ingredient used in the wash solution.

The 21 CFR 173.315 Regulation reads:

§ 173.315 Chemicals used in washing or to assist in the peeling of fruits and vegetables.

Under ( a)( 2) the Regulation reads: " Substances identified in this subparagraph and subject to such limitations as are provided:"

Further, under ( a)( 2) the Regulation reads: " Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate ( alkyl group predominantly C12 and not less than 95% C10 to C16).

The Regulation does not indicate that the percentages stated are for the formulation; instead the Regulation uses the words, " Chemical" and " Substance". Consequently we have considered the 0.2% " Limitations" refers to the active chemical ingredient and not to the percent formulation in the wash solution.

Also, if the Regulation refers to the percentage formulation in the wash solution, there could be a wide range of % active ingredient in the wash solutions that are made up.

We will continue to consider that the 0.2% use solution in 21 CFR 173.315 refers to the percentage active ingredient in the wash solution. We will revise our calculations if the registrant( s) can provide written confirmation from the Food & Drug Administration that the 0.2% in the Regulation refers to the percentage of formulation in the wash solution. The Regulation, as written, appears to refer to percent active ingredient in the wash solution.

Using the assumption that the 0.2% refers to percent formulation in the wash solution, the registrant( s) have calculated an acceptable dietary risk.

The SRC letter also refers to the labeling that bears a potable water rinse after the fruit and vegetable wash. We acknowledge that a potable water rinse after treatment will remove a portion of the residue after the wash treatment. However, there are no residue data to show the reduction in residue level that would occur from the potable water rinse. The reduction in residue level that would occur after a potable water rinse would vary widely between various commodities such as e. g. apples, peaches, strawberries, broccoli and lettuce. In the absence of residue data to show residue reduction resulting from a potable water rinse, we cannot make a prediction on the percentage residue reduction that 6 of 18 will occur.

Further EPA/ AD/ RASSB Considerations:

AD has considered the use of blueberries as a conservative approach to the calculation of dietary risk for the fruit and vegetable wash. Considering the wide range of commodities that can be washed and on their different morphologies, the use of blueberries is very conservative.

We have slightly revised the commodity selection and instead of using blueberries as a representative crop for all fruits and vegetables, we have decided to use Concord grapes.

Using Concord grapes, we have revised our dietary risk calculations. This revision will be reflected in and updated version of the preliminary dietary risk assessment. Our calculations follow.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WASH The label, CS 100 Acid Anionic Sanitizer, EPA Reg. # 71695 1, bears a use for washing fruits and vegetables.

The FDA Regulation, 21 CFR 173.315, permits this use provided that the wash solution does not contain dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid at a level greater than 0.2%. No potable water rinse is required by the Regulation. We presume that the use limitation is for the parent chemical because the Regulation makes no mention of formulations. The use limitation states, " Not to exceed 0.2% in wash water. May be used in washing or to assist in the lye peeling of fruits and vegetables". Note: If the use limitation were intended to apply to a formulation, there would be a broad range of application rates depending on the concentration of the chemical in the formulation.

The label bears a use that provides for a fruit and vegetable wash with a solution containing 0.16 % dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, without a potable water rinse.

The label also bears a use a use that provides for a fruit and vegetable wash with a solution containing 0.31% dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, with a potable water rinse.

There are no data to show that the level of residues on fruits and vegetables would be reduced to the level that would have occurred from a 0.2% wash. However, AD concludes that dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid residues would be significantly reduced by the potable water rinse and would be less than residues resulting from the 0.2% wash.

There are no residue data to show the level of dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid that will result on fruits and vegetables from the 0.2% wash solution with a potable water rinse. Lacking residue data to show the level of residues expected on fruits and vegetables, we have calculated the level of residues on fruits and vegetables using the following model. 7 of 18 Dodecylbenzene sulfonate Fruit and Vegetable Wash Dietary Residue Calculations:

Calculation for percent dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the wash water:

The maximum use rate is 2000 ppm of dodecylbenzene sulfonate ( 0.2% x 10,000) for fruit and vegetables.

We will use the surface area and weight of Thompson Seedless grapes to calculate residues in fruits and vegetables. This is a small grape which accounts for half of the table grapes grown in California and is used to make over 90% of the grapes grown in the United States. We are not using a larger fruit or vegetable in our modeling because there are commodities that have large surface area weight relationships. The use of grapes in our model appears to provide a reasonable worst case situation for residues in fruits and vegetables.

Grape specifications: Diameter of one grape = 16 mm ( Source: University of California Cooperative Extension, Tulare County http:// cetulare. ucdavis. edu/ pubgrape/ tb195. htm Mass of one grape = 4.0 gm or 0.0040 kg ( Source: University of California Cooperative Extension, Tulare County http:// cetulare. ucdavis. edu/ pubgrape/ tb195. htm )

Surface area of one grape = 15.88 cm2 Based on surface area of a sphere where A = 4 r2 ( where r = 8 mm) A = 4 x 3.14 x ( 8 mm) 2 A = 803.8 mm2 A = 8.04 cm2 Amount of Residue on Grapes: Assume the film thickness of the solution on the surface of the berry is 0.0023 g/ cm2 ( Source: Proctor and Gamble exposure assessment for ingestion of dishwashing product residues  based on the amt of rinse water in contact with dishware surfaces http:// www. scienceinthebox. com/ en_ UK/ safety/ ingestionfromsurface_ en. html)

0.0023 g/ cm2 x 8.04 cm2 x 0.002 ( 0.2%) dodecylbenzene sulfonate = 0.0000369 gm or 0.037 mg dodecylbenzenesulfonate 0.037 mg dodecylbenzene sulfonate/ 0.004 kg grape = 9.25 mg/ kg or ppm DIETARY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WASH 8 of 18 This part of the non cancer dietary risk assessment was carried out by Cassi Walls ( RASSB/ AD). It was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEMFDIC   ) , Version 2.03 which uses food consumption data from the USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. This assessment is Tier 1, conservative ( assumes 100% crop treatment) and uses the deterministic approach. As input parameters for modeling analyses, the level of 9.25 ppm was used based on the modeling discussed above.

Dietary Risk for Fruit and Vegetable Wash USE DAILY DIETARY DOSE ( mg/ kg bw/ day) % aPAD % cPAD Fruit and Vegetable Wash 0.0979 ( U. S. Pop.) 0.2793 ( child 1 6) 0.3558 ( child 1 2) 0.2573 ( child 3 5) No Effects No Effects No Effects No Effects 19.6% 55.9% 71.2% 51.5%

Dietary risks were calculated in the above table for the U. S. general population and for those groups exposed to the highest risk. The chronic analyses were below the Agency's level of concern for all of the Population Subgroups using the Agency DEEM. The most highly exposed group was children 1 2 years old with 71.2% of the cPAD).

These residue calculations provide an acceptable dietary risk of concern for population subgroups for this chemical. 9 of 18 Commenter Name: DDBSA Joint Venture Error Only Comments: DDBSA DRAFT Preliminary Risk Assessment [ NOTE: Comments in Tables 2 7 ( individual reports) are not repeated in Table 1 ( Preliminary Risk Assessment) when the data from the individual reports have been directly transferred to the Preliminary Risk Assessment ( i. e. the comments on the individual reports apply to the Preliminary Risk Assessment as well)]

Table 1: Preliminary Risk Assessment Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response 1.0 Page 4, Para 2 The first sentence should read "  there are currently in twenty three products used  " This change was made.

Page 4, Para 2 The listing of the concentrations of a. i. in products should more clearly state that these are not all " use concentrations" This is not an error. In estimating exposure and risk, the Agency considered the use directions of the product labels that account for dilution to evaluate the resulting use concentrations. 1.0   Hazard Page 4, Para 1 and elsewhere According to the Soap and Detergent Association review of data for linear alkylbenzene sulfonates ( including DDBSA) for the High Production Volume Chemical Challenge submission, these chemicals are not skin sensitizers; it is not clear why the Agency has so listed. There are reports of animal and human testing in the literature that are negative. Further, based on the extensive use of DDBSA in laundry and dish detergents, it is highly unlikely that DDBSA could be a " weak moderate skin sensitizer" as there would be extensive reports of such findings. 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). 10 of 18 Table 1: Preliminary Risk Assessment Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response In addition, there was evidence of sensitization in the monkey inhalation study, which supports the Agency's classification. 1.0   Dermal Exposure Page 5 The second sentence under ( 1) needs to be rewritten: " will determine and be used." This change was made.

1.0   Inhalation Exposure Page 5 and elsewhere The NOAEL set by the Agency from the dust study with monkeys is very conservative. The body weight effects at 10 mg/ m3 are reasonably concluded to be the result of the irritation in the lungs ( i. e. stress). The manuscript states that the dust was dried and " micronized" to make it respirable. Without such treatment, the majority of the dust from detergents is not likely to be respirable. The authors of the study concluded that lesions in the lungs were the result of irritation of the dust. These lesions likely result from the other components of the detergent and the enzyme. The detergent was also composed of sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium sulfate, and sodium silicate all of which may be irritating to the lungs. The TLV STEL for the enzymes ( subtilopeptidases) in their crystalline form is 0.00006 mg/ m3 or 150 fold lower than the concentration in the LOAEL concentration ( 10 mg/ m3 + 0.01 mg/ m3 enzyme).

Further, the calculated exposure value of 0.14 mg/ kg/ day is well below the oral exposure NOAEL of 50 mg/ kg/ day which, itself, is very conservative [ based on minimal effects at doses more than 2X higher]. This is not an error comment. The text was modified to state that the dust was dried and " micronized" to make it respirable, and to present the composition of the detergent.

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. 11 of 18 Table 1: Preliminary Risk Assessment Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response By contrast, human noses are far less efficient at removing particles. Rats are also obligate nose breathers while humans are not, so whatever protection the nose provides is bypassed when humans breathe through their mouths.

It is not surprising to see a NOAEL from an inhalation study that's much lower than a NOAEL from a feeding study for the same chemical for the following reasons:

By Inhalation Route: 1. The lung has a large surface area   > 100 m2, which makes absorption rapid and efficient. 2. The lung receives 100% of the cardiac output. 3. The alveolar capillary membrane that separates blood from air is very thin ( 0.5 um). 4. Rapid blood passage through lung capillaries ( 0.75 sec), which enhances absorption and toxicity.

By Oral Route: 1. Alteration of toxic chemicals by stomach acid occurs. 2. Absorption is slow through the gastro intestinal tract. 3. Cardiac output to GI tract is only 21%, about 1/ 5 of that to the lung. 4. Portal circulation is considered the first pass of toxic chemicals through the liver, which is responsible for detoxification of the chemical. Risk from fruit and vegetable wash Page 6 and elsewhere Please note that the DDBSA Joint Venture does not support this use and none of its Member Companies have this use on their labels. There are labels that support this use and need to be included in the assessment.

Occupational Exposure and Risk Page 9, Table 13 on p. 36 and elsewhere The Joint Venture believes that most of the scenarios presenting MOEs < 100 have highly exaggerated exposure estimates. In many cases, e. g. CIP, there is virtually no human exposure to the full volume of solution so the assumption of exposure to 10,000 gallons is This is not an error comment, but an opinion and includes additional information regarding the scenarios assessed. The Agency asks that the registrants to provide details ( description, quantities handled, etc) about the different activities, such as CIP ( Cleaning in Place) so that the 12 of 18 Table 1: Preliminary Risk Assessment Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response unrealistic. The concentrate is typically hooked up directly to the system which prepares the usedilution automatically and is then automatically circulated through the plant. Some operations are vented ( large tanks) but workers are usually not in the area during these operations. For large volume cleaning, the disinfectant is usually sprayed on the surfaces after cleaning.

In the " shower stall" scenario, the concentration used appears to be approximately 18% DDBSA. The label for EPA Reg # 71094 1 ( not a Joint Venture Member Company Label) indicates a use concentration of 2% product containing 3.6% DDBSA or a concentration of only 720 ppm ( 0.072%).

For toilet bowl cleaning, the volume used is much larger than that used in reality.

For wiping, the volume used is excessive ( up to 16 gallons/ day). assessment can be further refined.

The label, # 71094 1 does not have shower stall listed as a use site and is correctly referenced in the Occupational and Residential ( ORE) Chapter to have 3.6% DDBSA. Likewise the label that does have a shower stall application, the registration number is, 3635 279 and the % value of sulfonate in this product is only 15.52%. ( see Table 5 in the ORE chapter)

For both the toilet bowl cleaning and the wiping, the quantity handled that was used was 0.26 gallons ( which is 1 liter). The Agency does not believe that this value is excessive. See Section 5.1 and Table 7 of the ORE chapter.

Table 1 Page 12 The molecular weight listed for Benzene Sulfonic Acid, C10 C16 alkyl derivatives is for the C10 alkyl moiety. It would be more appropriate to provide a M. W. for the average chain length. No change. 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 3.0 Environmental Fate Page 13, Para 5, Last sentence The statement that low vapor pressure indicates " this chemical is likely to vaporize [ presumably meaning evaporate] easily" is contradictive. No volatilization of DDBSA would be expected based on the very low vapor pressure. The Agency agrees, and any references to vaporization has been corrected to say, " not likely to be volatile."

Page 16, Para 4, last sentence " parental" should be " parents" This change was made.

Page 16, Para 5 " literate" should be " literature" This change was made.

Page 21, Para 1, Line 6 It appears that " sits on" should be " sites of" This change was made.

6.2.1 Page 21 Alternate chemical nomenclature is used in this section than elsewhere. Suggest changing to The nomenclature was modified to be consistent with the rest of the document. 13 of 18 Table 1: Preliminary Risk Assessment Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response " dodecylbenzene sulfonate" for consistency. Food Processing Equipment Page 22, first line Last line Last word should be " estimate" not " estimates"

the sentence should be changed to read ".. results in maximum milk residues " The appropriate changes were made.

Table 10 Page 30, Footnote a " hard surfaces" should be " hard surface" This change was made.

Table 12 Page 33 Footnote c The wording in this footnote is confusing and should be clarified   also, a ")" is missing adding to the wording difficulty The footnote was modified to improve clarity.

Table 13 & 14 Pages 35  37 For clarity, the DDBSA Joint Venture Member companies do not support Registration #' s 71094 1 and 71094 2 that comprise several of the applications for which the MOE < 100. No change necessary.

Ecological Risk Characterization Page 40, Para 1 Again, there is reference to " vaporization" although the vapor pressure of DDBSA is very low. The Agency agrees, and any references to vaporization has been corrected to say, " not likely to be volatile." Residential/ Occupational Data Gaps Page 41 The request for additional data for dermal exposure studies is inconsistent with the Agency's conclusions regarding lack of need for dermal assessment ( see page 34 for example). The Task Force also believes that more realistic exposure estimates will show that the scenarios outlined in this assessment are extreme and unrealistic and that specific information on DDBSA inhalation is unnecessary. This comment is not an " error correction comment" but an opinion regarding the need for monitoring.

Error Only Comments: DDBSA DRAFT Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment Table 2: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response Executive Summary Page 4, Para 1 The Agency concludes that, due to concentration of DDBSA in the dust used in the inhalation study with monkeys being only 13%, the conclusions are ` underestimates' of risk. As noted in the Preliminary Risk Assessment comments, The Agency has removed the statement " The values in this assessment are considered to be underestimations of the potential risks that arise 14 of 18 the study intentionally enhanced absorption of the dust and the results were consistent with and concluded to be due to irritation of the lungs. In addition, the Agency has corrected for the concentration of DDBSA in the dust even though it was concluded by the authors that the primary effects were the result of irritation from the dust and not a result of specific chemical toxicity. Therefore, the assumption of underestimating risk is in error. Further, the extensive use of DDBSA in laundry detergents without significant hazard to humans clearly supports the conclusion that the estimates from this study are highly conservative not " underestimates" of toxicity and risk. from exposure to alkylbenzene sulfonate." However, the inhalation toxicity endpoint only represents 13% active ingredient, and was not adjusted. In comparison, all the exposure estimates are presented on an active ingredient basis. Thus, the Agency believes that the inhalation risks are underestimated.

Data Limitations  Page 5, 1st Bullet AD is requesting monitoring data for DDBSA   the Agency should consider that only 0.1% of the total DDBSA production is used in the registered antimicrobial products. Therefore, monitoring data would be of no value since the potential exposure from laundry and dish detergents would confound the interpretation of any positive findings. This comment is not an " error correction comment" but an opinion regarding the need for monitoring.

Table 5 Page 16, 1st Row Change " 2o oz/ gal" to " 2 oz/ gal" This revision was made PHED Page 33 It should be noted that many activities associated with cleaning equipment etc. in food processing facilities/ plants are performed virtually " hands free" with solutions pumped from truck to tank without exposure to workers. Therefore, the use of PHED data is often inappropriate for these procedures. The Agency acknowledges this comment, but is required to use the best available data, which include CMA and PHED unit exposure values. This is not an error comment, but an opinion regarding the methodology of the assessment. The Agency asks the registrants to provide details ( description, quantities handled, etc) about the different activities, such as CIP ( Cleaning in Place) so that the assessment can be further refined.

Error Only Comments: DDBSA DRAFT 15 of 18 Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter Table 3: Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response 21/ 28 Day   Page 9, Para 1 The word " were" should be " was" This change was made. 90 Day Inhalation Page 9, Para 2 The summary should include a statement that the detergent was " dried and micronized to make it respirable" to avoid misunderstanding of potential exposure to laundry detergent. This change was made.

Page 9, Para 3 Period missing following 3rd sentence.

The summary 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). In addition, 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. This is not an " error' comment. However, the Agency will revise the text to mention the lung lesions in a future version, and consider additional characterization of the inhalation monkey study.

Page 11 There are several places on this page where " mg" is typed as " mi" or " ma" This change was made.

Carcinogenicity  Rat Page 15, Para 1 " LD" in the last line should be " LD50" and " SIDDBS" should be " SDDBS" This change was made.

Error Only Comments: DDBSA DRAFT Dietary Exposure ( memo from R. Quick dated 2/ 8/ 06) 16 of 18 Table 4: Dietary Exposure Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response Food Contact Surfaces Page 4 The EPA default value for product use is 1 mg product/ cm2 cleaned. The DDBSA Joint Venture believes that this value is 2 3 orders of magnitude too high and data currently being generated by industry will so indicate. The Agency realizes that the default value of 1 mg product/ cm2 may be too high and that its use may result in a calculation of residues in high DDBSA residues in food. However, there are no actual residue data available to use in estimating residues of DDBSA resulting in food from this use. When data being generated by industry are submitted, the Agency will be able to provide a better estimate of residues likely to result in food from contact on DDBSAtreated food contact surfaces. Fruit and Vegetable Wash Page 7 Please note that the DDBSA Joint Venture does not support this use and does not have any Member Company that has this use on their labels. There are labels that state this use and need to be included in the assessment. Consequently, the Agency must consider DDBSA residues on fruit and vegetables that will result from the registered use. This dietary risk assessment is not intended to imply that the Joint Venture is responsible for responding to the fruit and vegetable wash considerations. Issues that must be resolved Page 9, Para 1 The second sentence needs to be reworded.

It is not clear what the " Issue" is in these citations. This should be clarified. This text was modified to improve the clarity. The issues are as follows: 1. Under 40 CFR 180.940 ( b), dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid solutions containing up to 5.5 ppm can be used on dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils. Under 40 CFR 180.940 ( c), dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid solutions containing up to 400 ppm can be used on food processing equipment and utensils. The registrant and user may have difficulty in distinguishing between food processing equipment and dairy processing equipment. Would some users consider that food processing equipment includes dairy processing equipment? Some labels bear use directions with a treatment rate of greater than 5.5 ppm for dairy processing equipment.

2. Also, the 40 CFR 940 citations do not specifically state that the solutions may be used on food contact articles including dishes, pots and pans, glasses etc. However, there are many labels registered for use on these sites.

Error Only Comments: DDBSA DRAFT Inert Ingredient Dietary Risk ( memo from L. Keifer dated 2/ 9/ 06) 17 of 18 Table 5: Inert Ingredient Dietary Risk Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response Use of Model in Inert Risk Assessment Page 8 A " Figure 1" is referenced but no figure is included in the document; Tables should be aligned so they can be read. This change was made.

Error Only Comments: DDBSA DRAFT Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment Table 6: Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Response Confirmatory Data Required Page 13 The Agency is requiring acute toxicity studies with fish and invertebrates based on apparent differences in toxicity by alkyl chain length. The Joint Venture believes that this variability in toxicity is not due to chain length, but rather the techniques used in the studies to introduce the test chemical. DDBSA, like other surfactants, are toxic to aquatic organisms due to the mechanical effects of the surfactant and not chemical toxicity per se. The method of testing often impacts the bioavailability of these chemicals. Therefore, the Joint Venture believes these additional tests are unnecessary.

A more detailed response to these data requirements will be provided during the Public Comment period. This comment is not an " error correction comment" but an opinion regarding the need for guideline studies.

Error Only Comments: DDBSA DRAFT Product Chemistry Table 7: Product Chemistry Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Comments Chemical Overview Page 1 " Benzene Sulfonic Acid" is incorrect. Should be " Dodecylbenzene Sulfonic Acid" This change was made.

Water Solubility Page 1 The Agency used EPISUITE to determine water solubility. EPISUITE does not adequately estimate water solubility of surfactant molecules. The HPV Chemical Challenge submission for LAB indicates values up to 400 grams/ liter and also discusses cloud points typical of surfactant molecules. Information from Confidential The document was modified as appropriate. 18 of 18 Table 7: Product Chemistry Header Page #, Paragraph Comments EPA Comments Statements of Formulations, available to the Agency, will indicate that the solubility of DDBSA in water is very high and the free acid may actually be miscible with water.