EPA ICR No. 1365.09; OMB Control No. 2070-0091

Attachment E

Worksheet A-1: Annual Recordkeeping Burden, by School Type and Asbestos Type

Worksheet A-2:  Annual Recordkeeping Cost, by School Type and Asbestos Type

Worksheet A-1.  Annual Recordkeeping Burden, by School Type and Asbestos Type

Year

ACM Type	Previous Year

Removals

School

Counts	Public Primary	Public Secondary	Private

Total

Hours

Annual

Total Hours

No. of

 Schools	Hours/

School	No. of

 Schools 	Hours/

School	No. of

Schools	Hours/

School

17	SM & TSI	323	10,786	5,151	35	3,036	58	2,598	35	447,303

TSI	101	3,392	1,620	35	955	58	817	35	140,685

NFACM	424	106,319	59,412	15	23,099	28	23,808	15	      1,895,522 2,483,510

18	SM & TSI	323	10,464	4,997	35	2,946	58	2,520	35	433,963

TSI	101	3,290	1,571	35	926	58	792	35	136,413

NFACM	424	106,744	59,615	15	23,218	28	23,911	15	1,902,994	2,473,370

19	SM & TSI	323	10,141	4,843	35	2,855	58	2,442	35	420,565

TSI	101	3,189	1,523	35	898	58	768	35	132,269

NFACM	424	107,167	59,817	15	23,337	28	24,013	15	1,910.886	2,463,720

20	SM & TSI	323	9,819	4,689	35	2,764	58	2,365	35	407,202

TSI	101	3,087	1,474	35	869	58	744	35	128,032

NFACM	424	112,094	61,344	15	24,586	28	26,164	15	2,001,028	2,536,262

21	SM & TSI	323	9,496	4,535	35	2,673	58	2,287	35	393,804

TSI	101	2,986	1,426	35	841	58	719	35	123,853

NFACM	424	112,518	61,546	15	24,705	28	26,267	15	2,008,935	2,526,592

22	SM & TSI	1,055	8,441	4,031	35	2,376	58	2,033	35	350,048

TSI	332	2,654	1,268	35	747	58	639	35	110,071

NFACM	1,387	113,905	62,208	15	25,096	28	26,601	15	2,034,823	2,494,942

23	SM & TSI	1,055	7,385	3,527	35	2,079	58	1,779	35	306,292

TSI	332	2,322	1,110	35	653	58	559	35	96,289

NFACM	1,387	122,949	63,631	15	27,916	28	31,402	15	2,207,143	2,609,724

24	SM & TSI	1,055	6,330	3,023	35	1,782	58	1,525	35	262,536

TSI	332	1,991	952	35	559	58	479	35	82,507

NFACM	1,387	124,336	64,293	15	28,307	28	31,736	15	2,233,031	2,578,074

25	SM & TSI	1,055	5,275	2,519	35	1,485	58	1,271	35	218,780

TSI	332	1,658	794	35	465	58	399	35	68,725

NFACM	1,387	125,723	64,955	15	28,698	28	32,070	15	2,258,919	2,546,424

26	SM & TSI	1,055	4,220	2,016	35	1,188	58	1,016	35	175,024

TSI	332	1,327	634	35	374	58	320	35	55,082

NFACM

15

28

15

27	SM & TSI	1,055	3,165	1,512	35	891	58	762	35	131,268

TSI	332	995	475	35	280	58	240	35	41,265

NFACM	1,387

	15

28

15

28	SM & TSI	1,055	2,110	1,008	35	594	58	508	35	87,512

TSI	332	664	317	35	187	58	160	35	27,541

NFACM	1,387

	15

28

15

29	SM & TSI	1,055	1,055	504	35	297	58	254	35	43,756

TSI	332	332	158	35	93	58	80	35	13,724

NFACM	1,387

	15

28

15

30

	SM & TSI	1,055	0	0	35	0	58	0	35	0

TSI	332	0	0	35	0	58	0	35	0

NFACM	1,387

	15

28

15

Total Hours for Years 23 - 25

7,734,222

	Average Hours Per Year for Years 23-25

2,578,074

SM = surfacing material; TSI = thermal systems insulation.  Both are friable ACM.  NFACM = nonfriable ACM.

Sources:  AHERA RIA (EPA, 1987c), Table 4 and Appendix G; Addendum to ICR #2070-0091 Asbestos in Schools Rule (EPA, 1987a)

Worksheet A-2:  Annual Recordkeeping Cost, by School Type and Asbestos Type

Year

ACM Type

School

Counts	Public Primary	Public Secondary	Private

Total

Cost ($)

Annual

Total Cost ($)

	No. of

 Schools	$ per

School	No. of

 Schools	$ per

School	No. of Schools	$ per

School

17	SM & TSI	10,786	5,151	$858	3,036	$1,316	2,598	$938	10,851,858

TSI	3,392	1,620	$858	955	$1,316	817	$938	3,413,086

NFACM	106,319	59,412	$416	23,099	$682	23,808	$453	51,253,934	65,518,878

18	SM & TSI	10,464	4,997	$858	2,946	$1,316	2,520	$938	10,528,122

TSI	3,290	1,571	$858	926	$1,316	792	$938	3,309,430

NFACM	106,744	59,615	$416	23,218	$682	23,911	$453	51,466,199	65,303,751

19	SM & TSI	10,141	4,843	$858	2,855	$1,316	2,442	$938	10,203,070

TSI	3,189	1,523	$858	898	$1,316	768	$938	3,208,886

NFACM	107,167	59,817	$416	23,337	$682	24,013	$453	51,677,595	65,089,551

20	SM & TSI	9,819	4,689	$1,021	2,764	$1,586	2,365	$1,021	11,585,838

TSI	3,087	1,474	$1,021	869	$1,586	744	$1,021	3,642,812

NFACM	112,094	61,344	$475	24,586	$787	26,164	$475	60,915,482	76,144,132

21	SM & TSI	9,496	4,535	$1,021	2,673	$1,586	2,287	$1,021	11,204,640

TSI	2,986	1,426	$1,021	841	$1,586	719	$1,021	3,523,871

NFACM	112,518	61,546	$475	24,705	$787	26,267	$475	61,154,010	75,882,521

22	SM & TSI	8,441	4,031	$1,021	2,376	$1,586	2,033	$1,021	9,959,680

TSI	2,654	1,268	$1,021	747	$1,586	639	$1,021	1,837,161

NFACM	113,905	62,208	$475	25,096	$787	26,601	$475	61,934,827	73,731,668

23	SM & TSI	7,385	3,527	$1,116	2,079	$1,649	1,779	$1,116	9,349,767

TSI	2,322	1,110	$1,116	653	$1,649	559	$1,116	2,939,401

NFACM	122,949	63,631	$526	27,916	$877	31,402	$526	74,374,657	86,663,825

24	SM & TSI	6,330	3,023	$1,116	1,782	$1,649	1,525	$1,116	8,014,086

TSI	1,991	952	$1,116	559	$1,649	479	$1,116	2,518,787

NFACM	124,336	64,293	$526	28,307	$877	31,736	$526	75,240,464	85,773,337

25	SM & TSI	5,275	2,519	$1,116	1,485	$1,649	1,271	$1,116	6,678,405

TSI	1,658	794	$1,116	465	$1,649	399	$1,116	2,098,173

NFACM	125,723	64,955	$526	28,698	$877	32,070	$526	76,106,271	84,882,849

26	SM & TSI	4,220	2,016	$858	1,188	$1,316	1,016	$938	4,246,144

TSI	1,327	634	$858	374	$1,316	320	$938	1,336,316

NFACM

	$416

$682

$453

27	SM & TSI	3,165	1,512	$858	891	$1,316	762	$938	3,184,608

TSI	995	475	$858	280	$1,316	240	$938	1,001,150

NFACM

	$416

$682

$453

28	SM & TSI	2,110	1,008	$858	594	$1,316	508	$938	2,123,072

TSI	664	317	$858	187	$1,316	160	$938	668,158

NFACM

	$416

$682

$453

29	SM & TSI	1,055	504	$858	297	$1,316	254	$938	1,061,536

TSI	332	158	$858	93	$1,316	80	$938	332,992

NFACM

	$416

$682

$453

30	SM & TSI	0	0	$858	0	$1,316	0	$938	0

TSI	0	0	$858	0	$1,316	0	$938	0

NFACM

	$416

$682

$453

Total Cost for Years 23-25

$257,320,011

Average Cost per Year for Years 23-25

$85,773,337

SM = surfacing material; TSI = thermal systems insulation.  Both are friable ACM.  NFACM = non-friable ACM.

Sources:  AHERA RIA (EPA, 1987c), Table 4 and Appendix G; Addendum to ICR #2070-0091, Asbestos in Schools Rule (EPA, 1987a)

Wage rates have been updated as described in the text.

 This worksheet has been revised  from the previous ICR renewal supporting materials (2007) to include numbers of public primary and secondary schools, and private schools from the Dept. of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the current ICR period (years 23 through 25).   NCES data for 2007-2008 (the latest available data) were used for the current ICR renewal.  The school figures for beyond year 25 will be updated in future years of the ICR, so new totals for both NFACM schools, and all schools, which are based on the NCES data, are not calculated for the period beyond the current 3-year period of this ICR renewal.

 This worksheet has been revised to include updated numbers of public primary and secondary schools, and private schools from the Dept. of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), as discussed in the footnote to Worksheet A-1.  These school figures will be updated further using data from NCES in future years of the ICR, so new total costs for both NFCAM schools, and all schools, which are based on the NCES data, are not calculated for the period beyond the current 3-year period of this ICR renewal. Totals may not match totals in Section 6 worksheets due to rounding.

E-  PAGE   1

E-  PAGE   2

E-4


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53509-53512]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19171]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78502; File No. SR-IEX-2016-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 9.218 To Specify the List of Violations Eligible for Disposition
Under IEX's Minor Rule Violation Plan

August 8, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 4, 2016, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') [sic],\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') [sic] is filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') [sic] a
proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule 9.218 (Violations Appropriate
for Disposition Under Plan Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19d-1(c)(2))
to specify the list of violations eligible for disposition under IEX
Rule 9.216(b), (Procedure for Violation Under Plan Pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 19d-1(c)(2)) pursuant to IEX's Minor Rule Violation Plan
(``MRVP'').\6\ The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-
controversial and provided the Commission with the notice required by
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CRF 240.19b-4.
    \6\ IEX's MRVP was declared effective by the Commission on
August 3, 2016. See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78474
(August 3, 2016).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    IEX Rule 9.216(b) provides procedures for disposition of certain
rule violations designated as minor rule violations pursuant to a plan
declared effective by the Commission in accordance with Section
19(d)(1) of the Act and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) thereunder. IEX's MRVP allows
IEX, or FINRA on its behalf, to impose a fine of up to $2,500 on any
Member or associated person of a Member for a minor violation of an
eligible rule. As proposed, IEX Rule 9.218 sets forth the rules
eligible for disposition pursuant to IEX's MRVP as well as the
recommended fine schedule for such dispositions. While IEX considers
compliance with all of its rules to be important, inclusion of more
technical rule violations in the MRVP is designed to provide for a
risk-based allocation of FINRA and IEX resources to more high-risk
matters because MRVP settlements are typically handled more efficiently
and expeditiously.
    The purpose of the MRVP is to provide reasonable but meaningful
sanctions for minor or technical violations of rules when the conduct
at issue does not warrant stronger, reportable disciplinary sanctions.
The inclusion of a rule in IEX's MRVP does not minimize the importance
of compliance with such rule, nor does it preclude IEX, or FINRA on its
behalf, from choosing to pursue violations of eligible rules through an
Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (``AWC'') or Complaint if the nature of
the violations or prior disciplinary history warrants more significant
sanctions. Rather, the option to impose an MRVP sanction gives IEX, and
FINRA on its behalf, additional flexibility to administer its
enforcement program in the most effective and efficient manner, while
still fully meeting IEX's remedial objectives in addressing violative
conduct. FINRA, on behalf of IEX, and subject to IEX oversight, will
examine and surveil for compliance with MRVP eligible rules in a manner
consistent with the IEX regulatory program and will determine on a
case-by-case basis whether disposition pursuant to the MRVP is
appropriate.
    In addition, Members and their associated persons may decline to
accept a Minor Rule Violation, in which case FINRA, on behalf of IEX,
may proceed in accordance with the Exchange's disciplinary rules, which
include hearing rights for formal disciplinary proceedings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, Chapter 9 generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX conducted a comprehensive review of its rules to determine the
rules that are appropriate to add to the MRVP. As proposed, the rules
included in the MRVP are as follows:
     Continuing education: Rule 2.160(p) specifies the
continuing education requirements applicable to registered
representatives of Members. Both FINRA and the Nasdaq Stock Market
(``Nasdaq'') include comparable rules in each of their MRVPs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Rules 9217 and 1250, Nasdaq Rules 1120 and IM-
9216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Books and records: Rule 4.511 requires IEX Members to
comply with FINRA Rule 4511 as if such rule were part of the Exchange's
rules, and specifies applicable books and records requirements. FINRA
Rule 4511 is included in FINRA's MRVP.
     Furnishing of records: Rule 4.540 requires IEX Members to
furnish specified records to the Exchange, upon request and in a time
and manner required by the Exchange. The rule also provides that the
Exchange shall be allowed access, at any time, to the books and records
of the Member in order to obtain or verify information related to
transactions executed on or through the Exchange or activities relating
to the Exchange. This rule is comparable to BATS BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX'') Rule 4.2, which is included in the BZX MRVP.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BZX Rule 8.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Supervision: Rule 5.110 requires that each Member
establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each
associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance
with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable
IEX rules; including, as specified, written procedures, internal
inspections, transaction review and investigation, and investigation of
applicants for registration. Violations of Rule 5.110 would be included
in the MRVP where the underlying violative conduct is also included in
the MRVP.\11\ FINRA treats its comparable Rule 3110 in the same manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, if FINRA (on behalf of IEX) identified that a
short sale order marking violation (Rule 11.290) was attributable to
a supervision deficiency, the supervision deficiency could be
included in a disposition under the MRVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Automated submission of trading data requested: Rule 8.220
requires Members to submit trade data in the specified automated format
upon request by IEX. This rule is comparable to FINRA Rule 8211 which
is included in FINRA's MRVP.
     Market Maker two-sided quotation requirement: Rule
11.151(a)(1) requires that a Member registered as a Market Maker comply
with the specified continuous two-sided quotations requirements. This
rule is comparable to BZX Rule 11.8(a)(1) which is included in BZX
MRVP.
     Short sales: Rule 11.290 requires, among other things,
that all sell orders be marked long, short, or short exempt. FINRA
includes Rule 200(g) of SEC Regulation SHO (Failure to accurately mark
sell orders of equity securities) in its MRV. Similarly, BZX includes
its Rule 11.19 requirement to identify short sale orders as such in its
MRV plan.
     Locking or crossing quotations in NMS stocks: Rule 11.310
provides in relevant part that Users of IEX shall reasonably avoid
displaying, and shall not engage in a pattern or practice of
displaying, any quotations that lock or cross a protected quotation
previously disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system
plan. This rule is comparable to BZX Rule 11.20, which is included in
BZX MRVP.
     Order audit trail system requirements: Rule 11.420
specifies the order audit trail system requirements applicable to
Members and persons associated with a Member, and in relevant part also
requires compliance with FINRA Rules 7440 and 7550 as if such rule were
part of IEX's rules. This rule is comparable to Nasdaq Rules 6954 and
6955,\12\ as well as FINRA Rules 7440 and 7450, each of which are
included in the Nasdaq and FINRA MRVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nasdaq Rules 6954 and 6955 were renumbered as Rules 7440A
and 7450A respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as proposed, Rule 9.218 includes the following
recommended fine schedule for minor rule violation dispositions of the
rules included therein:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Occurrence *                  Individual        Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First time fined........................            $100            $500
Second time fined.......................             300           1,000
Third time fined........................             500           2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Within a ``rolling'' 12-month period.

    The recommended fine schedule is based on BZX Rule 8.15,
Interpretations and Policies .01. The recommended fine schedule is
intended to provide transparency to IEX Members and associated persons
with respect to administration of the Exchange's MRVP.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5),\14\ (6) \15\ and (7) \16\ of the Act,
in particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ because it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the proposed rule change will provide the Exchange with the ability to
impose reasonable but meaningful sanctions for minor or technical
violations of rules when the conduct at issue does not warrant
stronger, reportable disciplinary sanctions, which is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Further, the
Exchange believes that inclusion of the specified rules in the
Exchange's MRVP, as well as the recommended fine schedule, would
provide FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, with the ability to
administer its enforcement program in the most effective and efficient
manner, while still fully meeting IEX's remedial objectives in
addressing violative conduct, which is also consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 14 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act \18\ because it would provide a fair
procedure for the disciplining of IEX Members and associated persons.
As discussed above, under the Exchange's disciplinary rules a Member or
associated person may decline to accept a Minor Rule Violation, in
which case FINRA, on behalf of IEX, may proceed in accordance with the
Exchange's disciplinary rules, which include hearing rights for formal
disciplinary proceedings. The Exchange's rules governing formal
disciplinary rules have already been approved by the Commission, which
included a finding that IEX's rules concerning its disciplinary and
oversight programs are consistent with the requirements of Sections
6(b)(6) and 6(b)(7) of the Act \19\ in that they provide fair
procedures for the disciplining of members and persons associated with
members.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 16 [sic].
    \19\ See supra, notes 15 [sic] and 16 [sic].
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78101 (June 17,
2016), 81 FR 41141 (June 23, 2016) (File No. 10-222).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers
in that it will be applicable to all Members.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will
allow for a quicker, more efficient means to resolve minor violations
of eligible rules, potentially lessening the burden on firms in those
circumstances where, absent the rule's inclusion in the MRVP, a more
resource-intense formal process might ensue.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \25\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\26\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative at the time of the launch of its
operation as a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. As
noted above, the IEX MRVP, including the proposed violations, was
declared effective by the Commission on August 3, 2016.\27\ The
proposed rule change merely incorporates the list of violations
included in the MRVP into IEX Rule 9.218. For this reason, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 6.
    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the

public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2016-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2016-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2016-10,
and should be submitted on or before September 2, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19171 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77375-77376]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1190; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-038-AD;
Amendment 39-16877; AD 2011-25-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Apical Industries, Inc., (Apical)
Emergency Float Kits

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
the Apical emergency float kits installed on certain model helicopters
under supplemental type certificates. This AD requires adding placards
on each side of the fuselage to identify the location and operation of
the liferaft external inflation handle. This AD also requires replacing
each liferaft operation placard to state that external liferafts are
installed. This amendment is prompted by a report of a helicopter that
crashed into the water, and the pilot did not deploy the floats and
liferafts. Two external T-handles were available for deployment of the
liferafts but were not used by the passengers because they were unaware
of their location. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent helicopter occupants from further injury due to unnecessary
exposure to harsh water conditions and to aid in deploying liferafts
when liferafts are available on the helicopter and can be activated
after a water landing.

DATES: Effective January 17, 2012.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD
from Apical Industries, Inc., 2608 Temple Heights Drive, Oceanside,
California 92056-3512, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
http://www.apicalindustries.com/.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains this
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Docket Operations office, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Venessa Stiger, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone (562) 627-
5337, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an AD for helicopters modified in accordance with certain
supplemental type certificates with certain emergency float kits, was
published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 75934).
That action proposed to require, for certain model helicopters modified
per Supplemental Type Certificate Number SR01535LA, SR01779LA,
SR01813LA, SR01855LA, or SR00856LA, adding an external placard near the
external T-Handles to provide instructions for the operation of the
liferaft external inflation handle. That action also proposed to
require replacing earlier installed liferaft operation placards with
more recent placards.
    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the
determination of the cost to the public.
    We estimate that this AD will affect 324 helicopters of U.S.
registry, and it will take about \1/2\ work hour per helicopter to
install 4 or 6 placards at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour.
Required parts will cost about $70 per helicopter. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators
is $36,450 for the entire fleet.

Regulatory Findings

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-25-01 Apical Industries, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-1190;
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-038-AD.

    Applicability: The helicopter models, certificated in any
category, with an Emergency Float Kit with a part number (P/N) and
serial number (S/N), installed by a supplemental type certificate
(STC), as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Kit P/N                        Kit S/N          Affected helicopter model           STC No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
614.3001...........................  080 and below.........  Bell Helicopter Textron      SR01535LA
                                                              (Bell) 407.
614.3003...........................  133 and below.........  Bell 206L, L-1, L-3, and L-  SR01535LA
                                                              4.
614.3007...........................  014 and below.........  Bell 206A and B............  SR01535LA
614.7601...........................  045 and below.........  Bell 210, 212, 412, 412CF,   SR01779LA
                                                              412EP, AB412, and AB412EP.
634.2901...........................  012 and below.........  Bell 427...................  SR01813LA
644.1801...........................  031 and below.........  Eurocopter Deutschland Gmbh  SR01855LA
                                                              (Eurocopter) EC135.
20430-300..........................  009 and below.........  Eurocopter BO-105A, C, S,    SR00856LA
                                                              LS A-1 and LS A-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Compliance: Within 180 days, unless accomplished previously.
    To install placards to aid in locating and deploying liferafts
to prevent further injury or loss of life in the event of a
helicopter landing in the water, do the following:
    (a) Install the Liferaft External Inflation Handle Placard, P/N
600.0897, shown in Figure 1 of Apical Industries Inc. Alert Service
Bulletin SB2008-01, Revision A, dated March 3, 2010 (ASB), on the
crosstubes or fuselage near the external T-Handles, as shown for two
model helicopters in Figures 2 and 3, by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, 1.0, paragraphs 1 through 5, of the
ASB.
    (b) Remove the Liferaft Operation Placard, P/N 634.9703,
Revision N/C through B, as shown in Figure 4 of the ASB, and install
Liferaft Operation Placard, P/N 634.9703, Revision C, as shown in
Figure 5, above all aircraft exits, inside the aircraft in plain
view.
    (c) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
ATTN: Venessa Stiger, Aviation Safety Engineer, 3960 Paramount
Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information about previously approved
alternative methods of compliance.
    (d) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Codes are 2564:
Liferaft and 3212: Emergency Flotation Section.
    (e) The modification shall be done in accordance with the
specified portions of Apical Industries Inc. Alert Service Bulletin
SB2008-01, Revision A, dated March 3, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from Apical Industries, Inc., 2608 Temple Heights Drive,
Oceanside, California 92056-3512, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(760) 758-9612, http://www.apicalindustries.com/. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137 or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (f) This amendment becomes effective on January 17, 2012.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 18, 2011.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manger, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-30925 Filed 12-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

Subject:	Illustrative Costs Impact of the Final RFS2 Standards, 2014-2016

From:	Michael Shell and Michael Shelby, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

To:		EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111

	In this memo we provide further description of our assessment of the illustrative costs of the final advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards for 2015 and 2016.  We start with an overview of considerations of a baseline from which to assess the impacts, followed by descriptions of the specific costs assessed.  We provide cost estimates for three illustrative scenarios  -  one, if the entire change in the final advanced standards is met with soybean oil biodiesel; two, if the entire change in the final advanced standards is met with Brazilian sugarcane ethanol; and three, if the entire change in the volume of the non-advanced renewable fuel required by the final standards is met with corn ethanol. While a variety of biofuels could help fulfill the advanced standard beyond soybean oil BBD and sugarcane ethanol from Brazil, these two biofuels have been most widely used in the past. We believe these scenarios provide a range of possible costs of meeting the final standards.

      For this analysis, we estimate the per gallon costs of producing biodiesel, sugarcane ethanol and corn ethanol relative to the petroleum fuel they replace at the wholesale level, then multiply these per gallon costs by the applicable volumes established in this rule for the advanced and total renewable fuel categories. Because we are focusing on the wholesale level in each of the three scenarios, these comparisons do not consider taxes, retail margins, and any other costs or transfers that occur at or after the point of blending (i.e., transfers are payments within society and not additional costs).  Also, we did not attempt to estimate the infrastructure costs (e.g., E85 pump installations) that would be required to meet these RFS standards.  In addition, because more ethanol gallons must be consumed to go the same distance as gasoline and more biomass-based diesel must be consumed to go the same distance as petroleum diesel due to each of the biofuels' lesser energy content, we consider the costs of ethanol and biomass-based diesel on an energy equivalent basis to their petroleum replacements (i.e., per energy equivalent gallon (EEG)).

	1.	Baseline Consideration

	A number of different scenarios could be considered the "baseline" for the assessment of the costs of this rule.  For the purposes of showing illustrative overall costs of this rulemaking, we are proposing to use the preceding year's standard as the baseline (e.g., the baseline for the 2016 advanced standard is the applicable 2015 advanced standard), an approach consistent with past practices.  Arguments could be made for using a variety of alternative baselines such as the statutory renewable fuel volumes (e.g., the required volumes in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 for 2013, 2014, and 2015) or the volumes of renewable fuels that would be produced in the complete absence of the RFS program (e.g., "no RFS").  However, we believe the difference between each year's standards provides information that is illustrative of the magnitude of the potential overall costs of the standards being finalized today without adding the complexity of trying to project a hypothetical future baseline that would only call into question the usefulness of the cost comparison.

	Use of alternative baselines other than the 2013, 2014 and 2015 applicable standards is problematic from a practical standpoint.  For example, using the 2013, 2014, and 2015 statutory volumes would require estimating a hypothetical set of cellulosic fuel costs as part of the baseline.  Since liquid cellulosic fuels are not currently being produced in significant quantities, estimating their average costs of production would be highly speculative on EPA's part. Furthermore, trying to estimate the hypothetical mix of fuels that could meet the annual EISA volumes would introduce a level of complexity that would not necessarily provide a more robust estimate of costs.

	There are similar complexities with trying to project what volumes of renewable fuels would be consumed in the U.S. in the absence of any RFS program, a hypothetical "no RFS" baseline.  One option would be to try to estimate the amount and types of biofuels that would have penetrated the market without the RFS program from its inception in the relevant years of consideration 2013, 2014 and 2015.  Estimating the quantities of renewable fuels that would have been used by market participants absent any RFS requirements from the inception of the program would be an uncertain exercise.  For example, absent the RFS, billions of gallons of ethanol would still be produced for consumption in the U.S. fuel market due to ethanol's value as a low cost octane enhancer. Another factor that would impact consumption absent the RFS is individual state renewable fuel mandates, each of which would have to be assessed to determine this baseline.  Thus, we believe that estimating the quantities of renewable fuels that would be used in the absence of the RFS program, as well as their associated costs, would be highly speculative.

	The choice of a baseline will have a directional implication for the costs assessed.  For example, reducing the standards from a high renewable fuel volume baseline (e.g., the EISA 2013, 2014, or 2015 volumes) would show cost savings (assuming a gallon of renewable fuel is more costly than its petroleum-based fuel equivalent).  Conversely, increasing the volumes from a low renewable fuel volume baseline (e.g., the "no RFS" volumes) would show cost increases as a result of the 2014, 2015, and 2016 standards (assuming a gallon of renewable fuel is more costly than its petroleum-based fuel equivalent).  For the purpose of providing illustrative costs, we have opted for a more straightforward and real world baseline assumption of the applicable standard for the previous year as a baseline to assess the costs. In evaluating the costs for 2014, we would use the actual applicable standards for 2013 as the baseline.  In evaluating the costs for 2015 and 2016, we would use the applicable standards for 2014 and 2015, respectively, as the baseline.

	 The 2014 standards were not finalized in 2014 so it is difficult to estimate what their costs may have been. Market participants may have anticipated that a final 2014 standard would require higher levels of biofuels than the market would provide in the absence of the standard, which would contribute to the positive RIN prices witnessed in 2014. In contrast, the 2014 standards being finalized in this rulemaking represent reductions in both the advanced and conventional volumes compared to the 2013 standards, suggesting cost savings for this final 2014 rule. Finally, the 2014 standards being finalized in this rulemaking are based on actual production levels in 2014, suggesting that the 2014 standards we are proposing have no costs. Given the disputable foundation of this historical dynamic, we have not attempted to estimate the costs of the 2014 standards. Therefore, we only evaluate costs for the 2015 and 2016 advanced standards and total (i.e., non-advanced) standards.

2.	Cost of Displacing Petroleum-Based Diesel with Soybean-Based Biodiesel

	Consistent with our previous work in this area, EPA's estimate is a "bottom-up" engineering cost analysis that quantifies the costs of producing a gallon of soybean-based biodiesel and then compares that cost to the energy-equivalent gallon of petroleum-based diesel.

	Similar to the analysis EPA undertook for the 2013 annual standard, we have made the simplifying assumption that the marginal biodiesel feedstock used to meet the higher total advanced biofuel standard will come from soybean oil.  EPA recognizes that a variety of different feedstocks in addition to soybean oil could be used to make additional biodiesel.  These include other oils (e.g., canola oil) as well as waste oils, fats, and greases.  However, projecting the proportions of different feedstocks that may be used to make extra biodiesel as a result of the standard and the different feedstocks' costs would be speculative.  Based on historical data, 52 percent of the feedstock used for U.S. biodiesel production in 2015 (through August) was from soybean oil, the largest source of feedstock used to make biodiesel.  Other feedstocks such as oils derived from wastes are generally less costly so they will be preferentially used regardless of the volume set.  However, there are not enough oils derived from wastes to fully supply the advanced standards we are proposing. Thus, we believe it is appropriate to make the simplifying assumption that the marginal feedstock used to produce biodiesel to meet the total advanced biofuel standard will be from soybean oil.

	We base our estimates of soybean oil feedstock costs in 2015 and 2016 on the latest United States Department of Agriculture/World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate (USDA-WASDE) forecasts.  Soybean oil feedstock costs represent the majority of the overall costs of biodiesel, usually somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of overall costs.  In addition to soybean oil feedstock cost, we assume variable production costs to estimate the total per gallon cost.  We use two sources to represent a range of potential variable costs.  For the higher cost estimate, we used per gallon cost estimates from the University of Missouri, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI-Missouri) March 2015 U.S. Baseline Briefing Book.  They estimate variable biomass-based biodiesel production costs of $0.47/gallon, net of the coproduct (i.e., glycerin) value for both 2015 and 2016.  FAPRI-Missouri also include an average net operating return to produce biodiesel of $0.10 per gallon in 2015 and $0.39 per gallon in 2016.  For our lower cost estimate, we used a forecast of 2014 average biodiesel variable cost projections of $0.50/gallon from the National Biodiesel Board.  We then compare these ranges to estimates of the average price of wholesale petroleum-based diesel in 2015 and 2016.  We assume that the wholesale price of petroleum-based diesel represents its costs.  EPA obtained the projected average wholesale petroleum-based diesel 2015, and 2016 cost estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) Report.  The STEO price is $1.71 in 2015 and $1.82 in 2016.

	The final 2014 standard is being set at the actual level of advanced biofuels produced in 2014, 2.67 billion gallons. The total advanced biofuel volumes are being finalized for 2015 at 2.88 billion gallons and 3.60 billion gallons in 2016.

	Consistent with the approach we used for the 2013 BBD standard, EPA estimates that increasing volumes of soybean oil for biodiesel will create upward pressure on the price of soybean oil.  Based on work from Iowa State University, we assume each additional 200 million gallons of soybean oil used to produce extra biodiesel results in an increase in soybean oil costs of 3.2 cents per pound.  However, given the current low-price or glutted condition of commodity markets in general, including soybean oil markets, it is also possible that changes in biomass-based diesel volumes would have minimal impacts on prices in the near-term, before supply adjusts. Therefore, in our low price estimate, we assume there is no upward price pressure on soybean oil prices from greater biomass-based diesel volumes. Applying the cost impact assumptions to the projected range of USDA-WASDE soybean oil prices results in soybean oil price estimates at 32 to 34 cents per pound for 2015, and 28 to 40 cents per pound for 2016.  Considering non-feedstock variable production cost estimates from FAPRI-Missouri and the National Biodiesel Board, and low and high WASDE soybean oil estimates, the resulting biodiesel costs range from $3.16 to $3.42 per gallon in 2015 and $2.82 to $4.28 per gallon in 2016 (on a diesel gallon equivalent basis).

	Comparing the petroleum-based diesel price estimate and multiplying by the volume of fuel displaced on an energy equivalent basis, results in an overall annual cost of $203 to $240 million in 2015 and $480 to $1,182 million in 2016. Table 1 below shows estimates of per gallon increases on an energy equivalent basis as well as total annual costs for 2015 and 2016 of using greater amounts of biodiesel to meet the total advanced biofuel standard.

	These cost estimates assume that the increase in the total advanced biofuel standard is met with soybean-based biodiesel, which is a simplifying assumption used for illustrative purposes.  In all likelihood a variety of different sources of feedstocks and renewable fuels (e.g., biodiesel from other feedstocks, sugarcane ethanol, sorghum ethanol, CNG/LNG from biogas) are expected to be produced to meet the 2015 and 2016 total advanced biofuel standard. It should be noted that soybean oil costs and petroleum-based diesel costs could vary depending upon evolving supply and demand factors in their respective markets that are not reflected in current USDA/EIA price estimates.

                                    Table 1
Illustrative Per Energy Equivalent Gallon Cost Difference and Total Cost Estimates of Meeting the Advanced Standard in 2015 and 2016 Using Biomass-Based Diesel to Displace Diesel

                                     2015
                                     2016

                                      Low
                                     High
                                      Low
                                     High
Per Gallon Differences in Cost ($/gallon)
                                     1.45
                                     1.71
                                     1.00
                                     2.46
Total Annual Costs (millions of dollars)
                                      203
                                      240
                                      480
                                     1,182

3.	Cost of Displacing Petroleum-Based Gasoline with Sugarcane Ethanol

	While BBD can be used to meet the total advanced biofuel standard, other advanced renewable fuels can also be used to comply.  One possible option is the use of sugarcane ethanol, the majority of which is imported to the U.S., principally from Brazil.  In this section, we provide illustrative estimates of what the potential costs might be for a scenario in which we assume that all additional volumes used to meet the 2015 and 2016 total advanced biofuel standards above the previous year's total advanced biofuel standard are met with imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.  We compare the cost of sugarcane ethanol and gasoline at the wholesale stage, since that is when the two are blended together and represents the approximate costs to society absent transfer payments.  On this basis, EPA estimates the costs of producing and transporting a gallon of sugarcane ethanol to the blender in the U.S.

	We use the sugarcane ethanol free on board (FOB) price at Santos, the port of San Paulo, Brazil, from which sugarcane ethanol is typically shipped to the U.S.  Using daily price data from the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) from October 2014 to October 2015, we estimate a range of prices for Brazilian ethanol exported to the U.S. Since OPIS does not project future sugarcane ethanol prices from Brazil, and a bottom-up approach to estimate sugarcane ethanol prices from sugar futures prices is uncertain, we make the simplifying assumption that the observed high and low estimates from January 1, 2014 to the present are reasonable high and low price estimates for 2015 and 2016 as well. We assume that the reported price of sugarcane ethanol represents both the production and transportation costs of delivering sugarcane ethanol to the port at Santos. Using data collected by Argus in a daily Argus Americas Biofuels report, we assume that it costs an additional $0.19/gallon to transport the sugarcane ethanol from Santos to the U.S. where the ethanol can be blended with gasoline.  Based on the range of OPIS prices, the delivered price of sugarcane ethanol to the U.S. ranges from $1.53 to $2.31 per gallon.  For comparison purposes, we used the average wholesale price of gasoline for 2015 and 2016 from the STEO, which is $1.70 per gallon and $1.67 per gallon, respectively.

	Taking the difference between the sugarcane ethanol and the wholesale gasoline price estimates, and multiplying that by the volume of petroleum displaced on an energy equivalent basis, results in an overall estimated annual cost of $186 to $431 million for 2015 and $656 to $1,493 million for 2016.  Table 2 below shows estimates of per gallon increases on an energy equivalent basis as well as total annual costs for 2015 and 2016 of using greater amounts of sugarcane ethanol to meet the total advanced biofuel standard.  These cost estimates assume that the increase in the advanced biofuel standard is met with sugarcane ethanol, which is a simplifying assumption used for illustrative purposes.  In all likelihood a variety of different sources of feedstocks and renewable fuels (e.g., biodiesel, sorghum ethanol, CNG/LNG from biogas) are expected to be produced to meet the increase in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 advanced biofuel standards.  It should be noted that sugarcane ethanol costs and wholesale gasoline costs could vary depending upon evolving supply and demand factors in their respective markets that are not reflected in current OPIS/EIA price estimates.

                                    Table 2
Illustrative Per Energy Equivalent Gallon Cost Difference and Total Cost Estimates of Meeting the Advanced Standard in 2015 and 2016 Using Sugarcane Ethanol to Displace Gasoline

                                     2015
                                     2016

                                      Low
                                     High
                                      Low
                                     High
Per Gallon Difference in Cost ($/gallon)
                                     0.89
                                     2.05
                                     0.91
                                     2.07
Total Annual Costs (millions of dollars)
                                      186
                                      431
                                      656
                                     1,493

4.	Cost of Displacing Petroleum-Based Gasoline with Corn Ethanol

	 In this section, we assess the difference in cost associated with a change in the implied volumes available for conventional (i.e., non-advanced) biofuels for 2015 and 2016.  We provide illustrative estimates of what the potential costs might be in a scenario where corn ethanol is used to meet the entire conventional renewable fuel volumes.

	The implied 2014 volume allowance for conventional renewable fuel is 13.61 billion gallons, 14.05 billion gallons in 2015, and 14.50 billion gallons in 2016. If corn ethanol is used to meet the difference between the implied 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016 conventional renewable fuel volumes, an increase in 440 million gallons of corn ethanol would be required in 2015 and 450 million gallons in 2016.  In Table 3, we show estimates of differences in costs on a per gallon energy equivalent basis between corn ethanol and wholesale gasoline as well as total annual costs of the conventional biofuel standard for 2015 and 2016.

	To calculate the cost of corn ethanol, we use a bottom-up engineering cost framework starting with USDA-WASDE estimated corn prices for 2015 and 2016.  We then estimate the 2015 and 2016 marginal production costs of corn ethanol using data from the University of Missouri, FAPRI March 2015 U.S. Baseline Briefing Book.  There are many factors that influence the price of corn ethanol besides the RFS program. The price of corn is one of the primary drivers of the corn ethanol price, and corn is a commodity demanded for other end uses in addition to ethanol including food and livestock feed.  Changes in demand for these other end uses will impact corn prices which will in turn affect corn ethanol prices. Also, corn ethanol is demanded internationally so changes in international demand will have impacts on domestic prices independent of the RFS program.

	Using historical relationships developed by Iowa State, we assume each increase of one billion gallons of corn ethanol results in an increase in corn costs of $0.21/bushel.  Using this relationship, we estimate that corn prices will increase by roughly $0.09 bushel in 2015 and $0.18 per bushel in 2016 (approximately $0.03 and $0.06 per gallon of corn ethanol for 2015 and 2016, respectively).  Based upon this methodology, EPA estimates that a gallon of corn ethanol will cost $1.77 per gallon ($2.66 per gallon on a gasoline gallon equivalent basis (GGE)) in 2015 and $1.79 and $2.00 per gallon ($2.68 and $3.00 per GGE) in 2016.  To estimate the premium per gallon against wholesale gasoline, we estimated the price of a gallon of wholesale gasoline using the latest EIA STEO estimates.  As mentioned previously, STEO estimates an average wholesale gasoline price of $1.70 per gallon for 2015 and $1.67 per gallon for 2016.  We assume that the wholesale price of gasoline represents the costs of producing gasoline.

      Taking the difference between the corn ethanol and the wholesale gasoline price estimates, and multiplying that by the volume of petroleum displaced on an energy equivalent basis, results in an overall estimated annual cost of $424 million for 2015 and $453 to $597 million for 2016.  Table 3 below shows estimates of per gallon increases on an energy equivalent basis as well as total annual costs for 2015 and 2016 of using greater amounts of corn ethanol to meet the entire conventional renewable fuel volumes.  It is worth noting that corn ethanol costs and wholesale gasoline costs could vary depending on evolving supply and demand factors not reflected in current USDA/EIA price estimates.

                                    Table 3
Illustrative Per Energy Equivalent Gallon Cost Difference and Total Cost Estimates of
Meeting the Change in the Total Standard for 2015 and 2016 Using Corn Ethanol to Displace Gasoline

                                     2015
                                     2016

                                      Low
                                     High
Per Gallon Difference in Cost ($/gallon)
                                     0.96
                                     1.01
                                     1.33
Total Annual Costs (millions of dollars)
                                      424
                                      453
                                      597

	The short time frame provided for the annual renewable fuel rule process does not allow sufficient time for EPA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of the 2015 and 2016 standards and the statute does not require it. Moreover, as discussed in the proposed rule establishing the 1.28 billion gallon requirement for BBD in 2013, the costs and benefits of the RFS program as a whole are best assessed when the program is fully mature in 2022.  We continue to believe that this is the case, as the annual standard-setting process encourages consideration of the program on a piecemeal (i.e., year to year) basis, which may not reflect the long-term economic and environmental effects of the program.  Therefore, for the purpose of this annual rulemaking, we have not quantified benefits for the 2015 and 2016 final standards.  We do not have a quantified estimate of the GHG impacts for the single year (e.g., 2015, 2016).  When the RFS is fully phased in, the program will result in considerable volumes of advanced and cellulosic biofuels that will reduce GHG emissions in comparison to the fossil fuels which they will replace. EPA estimated greenhouse gas, energy security and air quality impacts and benefits in the 2010 RFS Final Rule.


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13826]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER05-1410-000, EL05-148-000, ER06-456-000, EL05-121-000
and EL06-50-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Electric Power Service
Corporation; Notice Rescinding Prior Notice

March 9, 2006.
    On March 8, 2006, the Commission issued a ``Notice of FERC Staff
Attendance'' in the above-captioned proceedings. This notice was issued
in error and is hereby rescinded.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3862 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

 OFFICE OF

                                    PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

         TOXIC SUBSTANCES

December 4, 2008

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Summary of Product Chemistry, Environmental Fate, and
Ecotoxicity Data for the 2-[(Hydroxymethyl)-amino]ethanol Registration
Review Decision Document.

	PC Code: 099001		Case No.: 3070

			CAS No.: 34375-28-5		DP Barcode: 358961

FROM:	Srinivas Gowda, Microbiologist/Chemist

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

TO:			Mark Hartman, Branch Chief

Diane Isbell, Team Leader

Lance Wormell, Chemical Review Manager

Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

THRU:	Siroos Mostaghimi, Team Leader, Team one

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Norman Cook, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Attached is the summary of available product chemistry, environmental
fate, and ecotoxicity data to support the registration review of the
industrial/material preservative, microbiocide, bactericide, fungicide,
fungistat, mildew inhibitor, 2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol

REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION

PRODUCT CHEMISTRY, ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND

 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS SUMMARY

PC Code:  099001; Case No. 3070

Introduction

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol (HMAE) is a formaldehyde releaser and
also known by the trade names, Troysan® 174 and Nuosept® 91.  It is
strongly alkaline solution and completely miscible in water.

The active ingredient 2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol was first
registered in the United States on April 3, 1975, for use as an
industrial preservative against bacterial and fungal deterioration.
Presently, there are four active products under a single PC Code 099001
which are listed in Table1.  A RED was completed in December 1993.

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is a broad spectrum, non-metallic,
organic liquid industrial preservative/biocide registered for use in the
manufacture of water-based products such as caulks, sealants, lattices,
grouts, spackling, ready-mixed wallboard compounds, resin emulsions,
latex paint, adhesives, pigment dispersions, dispersed colors, pigment
slurries and ready-mix joint cements, cutting oils, and drilling
additives, to prevent bacterial and fungal deterioration.  It is used in
all products where water is a primary component.

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol must not be used in connection with
feed, food or drinking water.  2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is not
registered for agricultural uses.  There are no direct food or feed uses
of 2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol, therefore, EPA has not established
tolerances or exemptions from tolerances in raw agricultural commodities
or processed food and feed products under the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is not cleared by the Federal food, Drug
and cosmetic Act for use in food grade adhesives.

In June 2007, the Agency received an amended application from
International Specialty Products (ISP) to change the nomenclature of the
active ingredient from 2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol (HMAE) to
Hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-s-triazine (HHT) for the product
Nuosept® 91 Preservative (EPA Reg. No. 1529-31).  The amendment to
change the name of the active ingredient to HHT was accepted and the ISP
was asked to submit the revised CSF and label to reflect the proper name
of the active ingredient (HHT).  HHT is a formaldehyde releaser.

Also, on August 14, 2008, the Agency met with the registrant, Troy
Chemical Corp., at which Troy Chemical announced its intention to cancel
the product Troysan® 174 (EPA Reg. No. 5383-11) and transfer a number
of its uses to an already registered HHT product label/registration (EPA
Reg. No. 365-76; Troyshield B2).

Table 1.  Registered Active Products of 2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol

Registration #	Registration Name	Company Name	Formulation Type	% of
Active Ingredient

1529-31	Nuosept® 91 Preservative	International Specialty Products
Technical Chemical	100

5383-11	Troysan® 174	Troy Chemical Corp	Ready-to-Use Solution	98.9

5383-47	Troysan® 364 	Troy Chemical Corp	Soluble Concentrate	21

5383-68	Troysan® 174P	Troy Chemical Corp	Wettable Powder	50

Table 2. Chemical Identity

Common Name	2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol

Chemical Name	Ethanol, 2-(hydroxymethylamino)-

2-(Hydroxymethylamino) ethanol

2-Hmae

Ethanol, 2-((hydroxymethyl) amino)-

Ethanol, 2-(Hydroxymethylamino)-

Ethanol, 2-[(hydroxymethyl) amino]-

Trade Names	Troysan® 174, Nuosept® 91

Molecular Weight	91.11 g/mole

PC Code 	099001

CAS Registry Number	34375-28-5

Molecular Formula	C3H9NO2

Registration Review No.

Registration Review Case Name	3070

Ethanolamine, 2-

Classification	Alcohol

Amine

Active

Inert	Yes

No

Molecular Structures:

Parent:

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol

OH-CH2-NH-CH2-CH2-OH

Degradates:

Formaldehyde: H2C(OH)2

Ethanolamine: H2N(CH2)2OH

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol

Degradates:

Formaldehyde monohydrate     Ethanolamine

Use Patterns

Bacteriostat, Mildew Inhibitor, Microbiocide (Deterioration/spoilage
bacteria)

Sold for industrial use only.

Materials Preservatives

Caulks

Sealants

Grouts

Spackling

Ready-mixed wallboard compounds

Joint cements

Resin emulsions

Latex paint

Adhesives (not intended for food contact)

Industrial adhesives (in-can use)

Lattices

Dispersed colors

Pigment dispersions

Pigment slurries

Ready-mix joint cements

Cutting oils

Drilling additives

Metalworking cutting fluids

Used as a preservative in aqueous cutting oil compositions

Used to provide in-can preservative properties for adhesives, caulks,
sealants, and lattices.

Used to control microbial growth at the air-water interface of paint
manufacturing latex storage tanks.  An aqueous solution should be
sprayed over the surface.

Used to prevent microbial growth at the air-film interface of latex
storage tanks in exterior paint manufacturing operations.

Used as a treatment for in-plant maintenance of non-food process
equipment.

Commercial/institutional/industrial indoor equipment (surface
treatment).

Science Findings

	The Agency has conducted a review of the available product chemistry,
environmental fate, and ecotoxicity data for
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.  The findings are summarized below.

Product Chemistry Summary

The data submitted pertaining to the physical and chemical
characteristics of the active ingredient,
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol are adequate.

All product chemistry data requirements have been fulfilled for the
active ingredient 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.  Therefore, the
Agency does not anticipate needing additional product chemistry data for
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol at this time.  See Table 3.

Table 3.  Product Chemistry Data Summary for
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol (97% a.i. )

Guideline Number

	Requirement	Status1	Results

830.1550	Product identity and composition	A	Refer to Table 2

830.1600	Description of materials used to produce the product	A	CBI

830.1620	Description of production process	A	CBI

830.1650	Description of formulation process	A	CBI

830.1670	Discussion of formation of impurities	A	CBI

830.1700	Preliminary analysis	A	CBI

830.1750	Certified limits	A	CBI

830.1800	Enforcement analytical method	A	Gas Chromatography

Supercritical Fluid Chromatography (SFC)

High Pressure Liquid chromatography

830.1900	Submittal of samples	N/A

	830.6302	Color	A	Clear amber liquid @ 20°C

830.6303	Physical State	A	Liquid @ 20°C

Clear amber liquid

830.6304	Odor	A	Mild odor

Sharp, amine odor

830.6313	Stability to sunlight, normal and elevated temperature,
metals/metal ions	A	Stable for 14 days under the following conditions:
ambient temperature (~23°C);

simulated sunlight; mixed with aluminum, galvanized steel, and stainless
steel metals; and mixed with zinc ions.  An apparent effect was observed
with exposure to iron (III) ions, and a marginal loss was observed with
exposure to aluminum ions.

Slight loss @ 50°C after 2 weeks of storage.

Stable for one month at 4°C and 50°C and for 3 months at room
temperature.

It should not be exposed to temperatures exceeding 125°F (52°C) for
prolonged periods of time.

830.6314	Oxidation/Reduction: Chemical Incompatibility	A	This product
does not contain an oxidizing or reducing agent.  Waived.

Oxidizing/Reducing Reaction: Not Applicable.

830.6315	Flammability	A	Flash point is 230°F (110°C).

830.6316	Explodability	A	This product is not potentially explosive
Waived.

830.6317	Storage Stability	A	Stable for one month 4°C and 50°C and for
3 months at room temperature.

Stability (Shelf life): 2 years minimum.

Does not degrade when stored at ambient temperature over a one-year
period.

830.6319	Miscibility	A	This product is not an emulsifiable liquid and is
not to be diluted with petroleum solvents.  Waived.

830.6320	Corrosion Characteristic	A	Not Required

830.6321	Dielectric breakdown voltage	N/A	This product will not be used
around electrical equipment Waived

830.7000	pH at 25°C	A	11 ± 0.5 – 100%

11 – 11.7

10.66 (1% solution)

Troysan® 174 is not suitable for use in systems with a pH below 7.

830.7050	UV/Visible absorption	N/A	Not Required

830.7100	Viscosity at 25°C	A	260 mm2/s (cST) @ 22°C

207.5 ± 0.1 (s) cST @ 25°C

830.7200	Melting Point	N/A	The product is not a solid, rather a liquid.
Waived

830.7220

	Boiling point	A	264-265°C at 739 mm Hg

110°C with decomposition

113.1°C at 760 mm Hg

830.7300	Density

Bulk Density	A	1.149 @ 25°C

1.1545 g/ml @ 25°C

9.4 – 9.7 pounds/gallon

9.5 – 9.6 lbs/gal at 80°F

	Specific Gravity	A	1.149 (25/25°C)

1.14 – 1.16

1.144 – 1.153 at 80°F

1.152 at 80°F

830.7370	Dissociation Constant

Dissociation Constants in water (pKa)	A	pKa: 8.5  + 0.2 (s) @ 25°C

830.7550	Octanol/water partition coefficient	A	Not Required

830.7840	Water solubility (g/100ml)	A	Completely miscible in water at
25.0 ± 0.5°C.

830-xxxx	Solubility in organic solvents	A	Completely miscible in
isopropanol at 25 ± 0.5°C

23.6 ± 0.7 (sd) g/100 ml in octanol @ 25± 0.5°C

830.7950	Vapor pressure

	A	16.4 mmHg at 25°C

7.5 mmHg at 20°C

2082 Pa @ 24.6°C

2904 Pa @ 30.8°C

4453 Pa @ 38.8°C

6785 Pa @ 46.9°C

Other Physical/Chemical Properties

	Classification of a.i.

Alcohol

Amine

	Henry's Law Constant at 25ºC

4.496E-017 atm-m3/mole (Source: EPI Suite)

	Log Kow

-1.53  (Source: EPI Suite)

	Koc (Estimated)

2.13  (Source: EPI Suite)

	Ready Biodegradability

Yes (Source: EPI Suite)

	Estimated Log BCF

0.500 (BCF=3.162) (Source: EPI Suite)

	Refractive index mD at 20ºC

1.480

1A = Acceptable; N/A = Not applicable; CBI = Confidential Business
Information.

Environmental Fate Summary

2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is a formaldehyde releaser.  A
hydrolysis study was conducted on the 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino) ethanol apparently hydrolyzed so rapidly in pH
5, 7, and 9 aqueous buffer solutions that no rate of hydrolysis or
half-life could be determined from the study.  The hydrolysis products
were ethanolamine and formaldehyde.  The primary degradates,
ethanolamine and formaldehyde, were approximately 100% of the applied
dose (parent compound) at day zero and they were stable for the length
of the study (30 days).  Hydrolysis study satisfied the OPP 161-1 data
requirement for the indoor use.

Hydrolysis is the only data the Agency has on this chemical.  Other
environmental fate studies were not required because of its indoor use
patterns.  Due to the indoor use pattern, the Agency did not conduct an
environmental fate assessment for 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.
However, the Agency anticipates conducting an environmental fate
assessment for material preservatives that potentially pass through
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and may be discharged into
terrestrial and aquatic environments.  For this assessment the Agency
anticipates needing those data [ready bio-degradability (835.3110),
activated sludge sorption isotherm (835.1110), activated sludge, and
respiration inhibition (850.6800)] outlined on page 12 of this document.

Ecological Effects Summary

No risk assessment was performed for 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.
The Agency has reviewed four basic ecotoxicology studies for
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.  The four studies submitted on the 97%
active ingredient were all found to be acceptable for use in a hazard
assessment.  Ecotoxicity guideline studies and the results are
summarized in Table 4.  The Agency's conclusions for the avian and
aquatic effects studies are as follows.

a.	Terrestrial Studies

2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is considered to be slightly toxic to
upland game birds (Colinus virginianus) with an acute oral LD50 value of
1743 mg/kg.  Based on avian dietary exposure,
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol would be categorized as slightly toxic
to upland game birds (Colinus virginianus) with LC50 values greater than
3755 ppm.

b.	Aquatic Studies

Two studies were performed to assess aquatic toxicity.  Based on rainbow
trout and daphnia testing, 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is classified
as slightly toxic to freshwater fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with LC50
values of >60.3 ppm, and slightly toxic to freshwater invertebrates
(Daphnia magna) with EC50 = 25.2  ppm.

Table 4.  Ecotoxicity  Data Summary for 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol

Guideline Number

	Test

Species	Percent

a.i.	Test

Type	Test

Results	Study

Status	Category of Toxicity

850.2100

71-1a	Bobwhite Quail

Colinus virginianus	97	Acute  Oral	14 D LD50= 1743 mg/kg

NOAEL: 292 mg/kg 	Core	Slightly toxic

850.2200

71-2a	Bobwhite Quail

Colinus virginianus	97	Avian Dietary	8 D LC50=

>3755 ppm

NOAEC = 1930 ppm	Supplemental	Slightly toxic

850.1075

72-1c	Rainbow Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss	97	Fish

Acute 	96-hr LC50=

>60.3 ppm

NOAEC: 30.7 ppm	Supplemental	Slightly toxic

850.1010

72-2a	Daphnia

Daphnia magna	97	Aquatic Invertebrate	48-hr EC50=

25.2 ppm

NOAEC: 8.3 ppm	Core	Slightly toxic

2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is slightly toxic to birds, fish and
aquatic invertebrates.

Ecological Effects Risk Assessment

An ecological risk assessment was not conducted on the
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol use patterns described in this document.
 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol uses that have potential for
environmental exposure are materials preservative discharges.  The
Agency anticipates conducting an ecological risk assessment for material
preservatives that potentially pass through wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) and may be discharged into terrestrial and aquatic environments.
 For this ecological risk assessment, including an endangered species
assessment for all uses, the Agency anticipates needing the algal
toxicity data outlined on page 12 of this document.

The planned ecological risk assessment will allow the Agency to
determine if use patterns will result in a “no effect” or “may
affect” determination for federally listed threatened or endangered
species (listed species), or their designated critical habitat.  If the
ecological risk assessment indicates that
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol “may affect” a listed species or its
designated critical habitat, the assessment will be refined.  The
refined risk assessment will allow the Agency to determine whether use
of 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is “likely” or “not likely to
adversely affect” the species or critical habitat.  When an assessment
concludes “likely to adversely affect” further refinements to the
risk assessment or regulatory options may be pursued prior to a “may
affect” consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or
National Marine Fisheries Service (Services), as appropriate.

Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicity Data Gaps and Anticipated Work

Environmental fate and ecological risk assessments have not been
conducted for 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.  The Agency anticipates
conducting environmental fate and ecological risk assessments for
material preservatives that potentially pass through waste water
treatment plants (WWTPs) and may be discharged into terrestrial and
aquatic environments.  Therefore, the Agency anticipates needing the
proposed environmental fate and ecotoxicity data for
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol and/or any of its major degradation
products that are of potential concern for all registered uses of
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.  The following environmental fate and
ecotoxicity data are needed to conduct an environmental fate and
ecological risk assessment:

The Agency anticipates needing the following data in order to conduct a
complete environmental fate assessment:

(GLN 850.6800) modified activated sludge respiration inhibition;

(GLN 835.1110) activated sludge sorption isotherm; and

(GLN 835.3110) ready biodegradability.

The Agency anticipates needing the following data in order to conduct a
complete ecological risk assessment, including an endangered species
assessment for all uses:

 (GLNs 850.4400 & 850.5400) algal toxicity (Tier II) using freshwater
green alga, Selenastrum capricornutum.

Additional Data/Clarifying Information Required to Support the
Nomenclature Change from HMAE to HHT

Revised Confidential Statement of Formula for Nuosept® 91 Preservative,
EPA Reg. No. 1529-31.

Revised label to reflect the new nomenclature (HHT) for Nuosept® 91
Preservative, EPA Reg. No. 1529-31.

Provide rationale, and data, including C-13 NMR to show that the linear
azine becomes a cyclic triazine.

Justifications to show that available product chemistry, environmental
fate, and ecotoxicity data developed on HMAE and HHT is adequate to
support the proposed nomenclature change.  Also, clarify if there are
any discrepancies between the available HMAE and HHT product chemistry,
environmental fate, and ecotoxicity data.  Click on links listed below
for the Agency’s product chemistry, environmental fate, and
ecotoxicity assessments done on
Hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-s-triazine (HHT).

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=0900006480509086" \o "View Document details"  HHT Preliminary
Product Chemistry Chapter.   Docket ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&
d=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193" \o "View Docket details"  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193
Document ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=0900006480509086" \o "View Document details"
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193-0002.8

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=0900006480509084" \o "View Document details"  HHT Preliminary
Environmental Fate Assessment.   Docket ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&
d=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193" \o "View Docket details"  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193
Document ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=0900006480509084" \o "View Document details"
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193-0002.6

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=090000648050907b" \o "View Document details"  HHT Preliminary
Ecological Hazards Assessment.   Docket ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&
d=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193" \o "View Docket details"  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193
Document ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=090000648050907b" \o "View Document details"
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193-0002.5

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=09000064805099df" \o "View Document details"  HHT Preliminary Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessments.   Docket ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&
d=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193" \o "View Docket details"  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193
Document ID:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetai
l&o=09000064805099df" \o "View Document details"
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193-0002.1

APPENDICESAppendix A. Environmental Fate Guideline Study Justifications

Guideline	Study Title	Practical Utility of the Data

850.6800	Modified Activated Sludge, Respiration Inhibition	1) What is
the value of the study?

The modified activated sludge, respiration inhibition test would allow
EPA to identify antimicrobial pesticides which could harm microorganisms
found in biological wastewater treatment systems and would also help
establish correct concentrations for use in the ready biodegradability
test.

2) How would the data be used?

The data would be used to determine the potential of
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol to directly harm the nontarget organisms
and/or to microbial treatment processes present in a WWTP and to
determine suitable noninhibitory concentrations of
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol to be used in biodegradability tests.

3) How could the data affect the risk assessment?

If the data shows that 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is toxic to
nontarget organisms and/or to microbial process found in WWTPs then, the
Agency may need Tier II environmental fate data to evaluate potential
adverse effects on WWTPs.

4) What is triggering the need for this data?

Studies are needed to conduct environmental fate assessment and to
determine the potential exposure of 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol to
waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) (via effects on WWTP microbes).

835.1110	Activated Sludge Sorption Isotherm	1) What is the value of the
study?

The results from activated sludge sorption study would allow EPA to
assess the distribution of the antimicrobial among the solid, aqueous,
and vapor phases of WWTPs.  Specifically, this study identifies those
chemicals which sorb to sludge biomass.

2) How would the data be used?

The data would be used to determine the sorption potential of
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol to activated sludge biomass and in
biological wastewater treatment systems.

3) How could the data affect the risk assessment?

If 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is not sorbed or biodegraded then, it
would pass through a biological treatment system unaffected and it may
contaminate surface and drinking waters and also may have potential
adverse effects to nontarget organisms.

4) What is triggering the need for this data?

Studies are needed to conduct environmental fate assessment and to
determine the sorption potential of activated sludge for the removal of
specific chemical compounds in biological wastewater treatment systems.

835.3110

	Ready Biodegradability	1) What is the value of the study?

The ready biodegradability study would enable the Agency to determine
the likelihood that the antimicrobial pesticide of biodegrading in
aquatic environments under aerobic conditions.

2) How would the data be used?

The results from the data would be used to determine the rate and extent
of aerobic biodegradation of 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol when it is
released into aquatic environments and would help establish if
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol is stable or not stable under real
environmental conditions.

3) How could the data affect the risk assessment?

If the results show low biodegradability then,
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol would occur in significant quantities in
WWTP effluents (water and biosolids) and in environmental compartments
(e.g., surface waters) such that potential adverse effects to nontarget
organisms, found in such environmental compartments, may occur.

4) What is triggering the need for this data?

Data are needed to conduct environmental fate assessment and to
determine the ready biodegradability of 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol.

Appendix B: Ecological Guideline Study Justifications

Guideline	Study Title	Practical Utility of the Data:

850.5400	Tier II green algae using

Selenastrum

capricornutum	1) What is the value of the study?

As part of a Tier I risk assessment, one indicator plant species is
tested for phytotoxicity.  This study would allow the Agency to
categorize 2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol as toxic or non-toxic to
plants.  If toxic, additional higher tier plant tests would be needed.
An endangered species assessment for endangered or threatened plants is
not possible without this study.

2) How would the data be used?

This study would be used to evaluate the toxicity of
2-((hydroxymethyl)amino)ethanol to non-target plants in terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems.

3) How could the data affect the risk assessment?

Adverse effects to non-target plants in terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems may result in mitigation to protect species at risk.
Mitigation might include reduced label dosages, neutralization of
effluents prior to discharge into water, restrictions on use in
sensitive ecosystems or where endangered species are present, or other
mitigation measures.

4) What is triggering the need for this data?

Increased concern from state regulators and the public to evaluate
impacts on WWTP operations, endangered species, and persistence in the
environment, since initial registration, have triggered the need for
this study.  Green algae are critical to ecosystem health and
productivity.

	Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  17

Page   PAGE  15  of   NUMPAGES  17

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  17  of   NUMPAGES  17


[Federal Register: September 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51878-51879]
[DOCID:fr05se08-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2003-25290]

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards; Isuzu Motors
America, Inc. (Isuzu); Exemption Renewal

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew Isuzu's
exemption from the Agency's requirement that drivers of commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) possess a commercial driver's license (CDL)
issued in the United States. Isuzu requested that its current exemption
for 11 Japanese engineers and technicians be renewed to enable them to
continue test driving CMVs in the U.S. FMCSA requested comment on the
renewal of the exemption, but received no comments.

DATES: This exemption is effective from July 2, 2008 through July 2,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert F. Schultz, Jr., FMCSA
Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck
Standards and Operations, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315, as referenced in section 31136(e), FMCSA may
grant an exemption if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' Exemptions may be granted
for up to 2 years from the approval date and may be renewed upon
application (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1)). FMCSA has evaluated Isuzu's
application for renewal on its merits and has granted renewal of the
exemption for 11 of Isuzu's engineers and technicians for a 2-year
period,

effective July 2, 2008 as previously announced in the Federal Register
(73 FR 38023, July 2, 2008).

Comments

    The FMCSA received no response to its request for public comments
published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2008 (73 FR 38023).

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    Based upon its evaluation of the application for an exemption,
FMCSA granted Isuzu a renewal of the exemption from the Federal CDL
requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 for eleven drivers (Shiro Fukuda, Wataru
Kumakura, Takehito Yaguchi, Tsutomu Yamazaki, Toshiya Asari, Shintaro
Moroi, Masaru Otsu, Satoru Amemiya, Tsuyoshi Koyama, Nobuyuki Miyazaki,
and Hiroyoshi Takahashi) to test-drive CMVs within the U.S., subject to
the following terms and conditions: (1) That these drivers are subject
to drug and alcohol testing regulations, including testing, as provided
in 49 CFR part 382, (2) that these drivers are subject to the same
driver disqualification rules under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 that apply
to other CMV drivers in the U.S., (3) that these drivers keep a copy of
the exemption in the vehicle they are driving at all times, (4) that
Isuzu notify FMCSA in writing of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR
390.5, involving one of the exempted drivers, and (5) that Isuzu notify
FMCSA in writing if any driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense
described in section 383.51 or 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
    The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The drivers for Isuzu fail to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and
31136.

    Issued on August 29, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-20668 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P