[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7665-7668]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02752]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74214; File No. SR-BATS-2015-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
an Options Regulatory Fee

February 5, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on January 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c) to adopt an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') in the
amount of $0.0010 per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the ``Options Pricing'' section of
its fee schedule to adopt an ORF in the amount of $0.0010 per contract
side. The per-contract ORF will be assessed by the Exchange to each
Member for all options transactions executed and cleared, or simply
cleared, by the Member, that are cleared by OCC in the ``customer''
range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The
ORF will be collected indirectly from Members through their clearing
firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
    The ORF also will be charged for transactions that are not executed
by a Member but are ultimately cleared by a Member. In the case where a
non-Member executes a transaction and a Member clears the transaction,
the ORF will be assessed to the Member who clears the transaction. In
the case where a Member executes a transaction and another Member
clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member who
clears the transaction. As a practical matter, it is not feasible or
reasonable for the Exchange (or any SRO) to identify each executing
member that submits an order on a trade-by-trade basis. There are
countless executing market participants, and each day such participants
can and often do drop their connection to one market center and
establish themselves as participants on another. It is virtually
impossible for any exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such as
an ORF on, each executing participant on a given trading day.
    Clearing members, however, are distinguished from executing
participants because they remain identified to the Exchange regardless
of the identity of the initiating executing participant, their
location, and the market center on which they execute transactions.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation
of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to assess the ORF to
clearing members.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF only to
transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes
that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's
activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not
executed by a Member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are
the same regardless of whether a Member executes a transaction or
clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly
reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary
exercise advice violations and insider trading. These activities span
across multiple exchanges.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer
options business, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory
responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales
practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not
designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor its regulatory costs
and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF at least 30 calendar days
prior to the effective date of the change.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange announced its intent to charge an ORF on
October 7, 2014. See BATS Global Markets Access Services Fee Changes
for 2015 available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/fee_schedule/2015/BATS-Global-Markets-Access-Services-Fee-Changes-for-2015.pdf. The semi-annual review and notice provisions are
similar to those adopted by NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70500 (September 25, 2013), 78
FR 60361 (October 1, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated
persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for
other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-
Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively
surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity
across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance
programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across
all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit
violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice
violations/expiring exercise declarations. Also, the Exchange and the
other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options
audit trail (``COATS'') \7\ system in order to surveil a Member's
activities across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with

other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related issues.
Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\8\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates inquiries
and investigations with other exchanges designed to address potential
intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the requirement that it has
coordinated surveillance with markets on which security futures are
traded and markets on which any security underlying security futures
are traded to detect manipulation and insider trading.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to coordinate
intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively sharing
regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement between the
parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to coordinate
regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket trading abuses
and manipulations.
    \9\ See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a
Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's
activity, including the activity of those members on BATS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Similar regulatory fees have been instituted by PHLX, ISE,
and MIAX. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61133 (December
9, 2009), 74 FR 66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-100); 61154
(December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 (December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-
105); and 68711 (January 23, 2013), 78 FR 6155 (January 29, 2013)
(SR-MIAX-2013-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee \11\
and the MIAX, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, CBOE, PHLX, ISE and BOX ORFs. While
the Exchange does not have all of the same regulatory responsibilities
as FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like other exchanges that have
adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a
Member's activities, irrespective of where their transactions take
place, support a regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other
markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only
to a Member's customer options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 3402 (June 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the ORF on February 2, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\12\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services
if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would be objectively allocated to Members in
that it would be charged to all Members on all their transactions that
clear as customer transactions at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange
believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to those Members
that are directly based on the amount of customer options business they
conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member
proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. In addition, the
Exchange believes the amount of the ORF is reasonable as it is lower
than ORFs charged by other exchanges. By way of comparison, MIAX
charges an ORF of $0.0045 per contract side,\14\ and both NYSE Arca and
NYSE Amex charge an ORF of $0.0055 per contract side.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See MIAX fee schedule available at http://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_02012015.pdf (last visited January 30,
2015).
    \15\ See NYSE Arca Options fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (last visited January 30, 2015);
and NYSE Amex fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (last visited January 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on at least a semi-
annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure
that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does
not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular.
    The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less
than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent
with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory
purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this
regard, the Exchange believes that the initial level of the fee is
reasonable.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not intended to have
any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to enable the
Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related
to its regulatory activities. The proposed ORF is also comparable to
fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar
service. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if the deem fee structures to be
unreasonable or excessive.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on

this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written
comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BATS-2015-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-08. 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 office 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-BATS-2015-08, and should be
submitted on or before March 4, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Brent J. Fields
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-02752 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 79876]
[DOCID:fr30de08-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM06-22-005]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

December 22, 2008.
    Take notice that on December 19, 2008, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, in compliance with the directives in
paragraphs 751 and 757 of the Commission's Order No. 706, issued
January 18, 2008, submitted a supplemental filing to include Violation
Risk Factors for thirty-one Requirements or Sub-Requirements in the
Critical Infrastructure Protection (``CIP'') Reliability Standards CIP-
002-1 through CIP-009-1 that have been approved by the Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 12, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30922 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 122)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36298-36299]
[DOCID:fr26jn06-30]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0286; FRL-8188-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of Missouri for maintaining the ozone
standard in Kansas City.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
July 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0286 by one of the following methods:

    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 15, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 06-5624 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25382-25383]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1219; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-43]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Griffin, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Griffin, GA, as the
Griffin Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned and new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been developed at
Griffin-Spalding County Airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary
for the continued safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 27, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at
Griffin-Spalding County Airport, Griffin, GA (78 FR 6261). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Griffin-Spalding County
Airport, Griffin, GA, with a small segment extending from the 6.3-mile
radius to 10.3 miles southeast and northwest of the airport. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Griffin
NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Griffin-Spalding County Airport,
Griffin, GA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment:

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Griffin, GA [Amended]

Griffin-Spalding County Airport, Griffin, GA
    (Lat. 33[deg]13'37'' N., long. 84[deg]16'30'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Griffin-Spalding County Airport, and
within 2 miles either side of a 137 [deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.3 miles southeast of the
airport, and within 2 miles either side of a 317 [deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.3 miles
northwest of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 22, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Support Group, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-10209 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21735-21736]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-28-000]

Solutions for Utilities, Inc.v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company,
California Public Utilities Commission; Notice of Petition

    Take notice that on March 21, 2011, pursuant to section 210(h)(2)
of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA),\1\
Solutions for Utilities, Inc. filed a petition requesting that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) enforce the
requirements of PURPA against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (SDG&E), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC),
and find that the CPUC failed to follow Commission Rules and
Regulations for interstate wholesale sales of electricity and the
Commission's Regulations implementing PURPA, in addition to finding
PG&E, SCE, & SD&E mislead renewable energy developers regarding
interconnection to the electric grid; price to be paid to renewable
generators; and non-price terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(h)(2) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies

of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20, 2011.

    Dated: April 5, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9298 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved and extended my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I myself have been using electronic cigarettes for 2 years now after smoking for 4 years. In those 4 years I would wake up coughing and weezing and in general feeling sick until I smoked another cigarette. I would have shortness of breath and had a hard time even breathing regularly at times. They even made me tense my body to the point of having sore muscles all the time and that was starting to affect my stomach as I have problems with acid reflux. Since I have made the switch to electronic cigarettes that has all changed. I can now breath freely, I do not wake up coughing (unless I am ill), I no longer have problems with my body being tense and even my acid reflux has calmed down a major amount. Even though I do have other medical issues related to my genetics I can firmly and surely say that I believe electronic cigarettes saved and extended my life. I have so many people in my family who have had lung cancer and heart problems caused by combustible cigarettes and I am thankful to still have a way to use nicotine responsibly and safely and without all the harmful chemicals that are going into combustible tobacco cigarettes.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register: January 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 5153]
[DOCID:fr29ja09-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF90-196-002]

Formosa Plastic Corp, Louisiana; Notice of Application for
Commission Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration
Facility

January 23, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 11, 2008, Formosa Plastics Corp,
Louisiana, located in Baton Rouge Louisiana on Gulf States Road filed
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for
certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility
pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(b) of the Commission's regulations.
    Formosa Plastics operates a topping-cycle cogeneration facility in
which gas is used as the source of fuel to two General Electric flame
Six Gas Turbines and to supplemental firing in the associated Heat
Recovery Boilers. The power production capacity of the facility is
94,000 kw at 80 [deg]F ambient conditions. Formosa's mailing address is
P.O. Box 271, Baton Rouge, LA. 70821-0271.
    Formosa Plastics is connected to the electrical grid through
Entergy-Gulf States. Entergy--Gulf States furnishes electricity to
Formosa Plastics' Baton Rouge site primarily for the purpose of
providing ``standby maintenance'' and ``emergency'' power. Entergy-Gulf
States provides this service through ``General Service'' and ``Standby/
Maintenance'' utility contracts.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time February 6, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1892 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U.S. Department 										55 Broadway
of Transportation										Cambridge, MA 02142

Research and
Innovative Technology
Administration

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

July 25, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:	Ex parte meeting with Hino Motors, Ltd.
FROM:		Maurice Hicks, NHTSA
TO:		Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079
This memorandum documents a meeting held on November 19, 2010 between Hino, EPA, and DOT regarding the proposed fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines for model years 2014-2018.  The attendees included:
Hino: Seiichi Yamaguchi, Yoshihide Takenaka, Akira Harada, Chikako Sato, Richard Gezelle
EPA: Byron Bunker, Cleophas Jackson, Chien Sze, Soduk Lee, and Houshun Zhang
NHTSA/DOT: James Tamm, Gregory Powell, and Maurice Hicks
The following topics were discussed during the meeting:
HINO requested a meeting with the agencies to discuss the possibility of using improved approaches for certifying the GHG emissions and fuel consumption of hybrid heavy-duty trucks.  During the meeting, Hino provided a detailed overview on hardware in the loop simulation (HILS) certification.  HINO also discussed the possibility of HILS evaluation by the agencies. Hino offered to provide a copy of the software and guidelines to the agencies.
HINO stated that HILS could address an issue with the current chassis dyno test:  the duty cycles do not properly evaluate the hybrid system benefit.  According to HINO, using modeling is a more feasible approach to evaluating hybrid system benefits in heavy duty trucks.   The HILS model is one alternative approach that can be used for evaluating hybrid trucks and is currently under consideration by the industry.  HINO requested that the agencies consider the HILS model as the industry-wide test method for evaluating HD hybrid vehicles.  The HILS model is currently being evaluated for its uses as a part of the WP29 GTR on heavy duty truck fuel efficiency.
The agencies agreed to consider the above requests.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34316-34317]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0934]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0007

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of
information: 1625-0007, Characteristics of Liquid Chemicals Proposed
for Bulk Water Movement. Our ICR describe the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August
23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2016-0934] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention: Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2016-0934], and must be received by August 23,
2017.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24,

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0007.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (81 FR 95156, December 27,
2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Characteristics of Liquid Chemicals Proposed for Bulk Water
Movement.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0007.
    Summary: Chemical manufacturers submit chemical data to the Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard evaluates the information for hazardous
properties of the chemical to be shipped via tank vessel. A
determination is made as to the kind and degree of precaution which
must be taken to protect the vessel and its contents.
    Need: Title 46 CFR parts 30 to 40, 151, 153, and 154 govern the
transportation of hazardous materials. The chemical industry constantly
produces new materials that must be moved by water. Each of these new
materials has unique characteristics that require special attention to
their mode of shipment.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of chemicals.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden of 600 hours a
year remains unchanged.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: July 18, 2017.
Marilyn Scott-Perez,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-15403 Filed 7-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70811-70812]
[DOCID:fr13de07-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2004-IL-0002; FRL-8503-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois;
Source-Specific Revision for Cromwell-Phoenix, Incorporated

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Illinois
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate site-specific Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) regulations for the Corrosion Inhibiting (CI)
packaging production facility of Cromwell-Phoenix, Incorporated
(Cromwell-Phoenix) located in Alsip, Illinois (Cook County). The EPA is
proposing to approve an adjusted standard from Illinois' paper coating
regulations for Cromwell-Phoenix's CI packaging production facility.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2004-IL-0002, by one of the following methods:

    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 27, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E7-23984 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61990-61993]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19365]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1822; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00653-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1822; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1822.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-
231-3225; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1822; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00653-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt

from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the
submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0092, dated May 5, 2023 (EASA
AD 2023-0092) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition on all Airbus SAS Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI
states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been
developed.
    EASA AD 2023-0092 specifies that it requires a task (limitation)
already in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2,
Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03,
dated December 14, 2018, that is required by EASA AD 2019-0091, dated
April 26, 2019 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019-20-06, Amendment 39-
19759 (84 FR 55859) (AD 2019-20-06)), and that incorporation of EASA AD
2023-0092 invalidates (terminates) prior instructions for that task.
This proposed AD therefore would terminate the limitations for the
corresponding tasks identified in the service information referenced in
EASA AD 2023-0092 only, as required by paragraph (g) of AD 2019-20-06.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage,
or corrosion in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2023-1822.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0092, which describes new or more
restrictive airworthiness tasks for airplane structures. This material
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD
2023-0092 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any
differences with EASA AD 2023-0092 are identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to
paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0092 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0092 through that incorporation, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a
particular section in EASA AD 2023-0092 does not mean that operators
need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0092. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0092 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2023-1822 after the FAA final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals
are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in
the AMOC paragraph under ``Additional AD Provisions.'' This new format
includes a ``New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals''
paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may
still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 1 airplane of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to
operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1
work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    The FAA is 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 rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2023-1822; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-
00653-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 23, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2019-20-06, Amendment 39-19759 (84 FR 55859,
October 18, 2019) (AD 2019-20-06).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A310-203, -204, -221, -
222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in
principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2023-0092, dated May 5, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0092).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0092

    (1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2023-0092.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0092 specifies revising ``the
AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD
requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA 2023-0092 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of
EASA AD 2023-0092, or within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in the
``Recording AD compliance'' section of EASA AD 2023-0092.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0092.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they
are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2023-0092.

(j) Terminating Action for Certain Tasks Required by AD 2019-20-06

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates the
corresponding requirements of AD 2019-20-06 for the tasks identified
in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0092 only.

(k) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified
in paragraph (l) of this AD or email to: [email protected].
If mailing information, also submit information by email. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aviation
Safety

Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0092,
dated May 5, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0092, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 1, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-19365 Filed 9-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62565-62566]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15229-001]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Effectiveness of Withdrawal of
Notice of Intent

    On April 14, 2023, Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) filed a
Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed 1,600-megawatt Chandler
Mountain Pumped Storage Project. The project would have been located on
Little Canoe Creek East and Chandler Mountain in Etowah and St. Clair
Counties, near the town of Steele, Alabama. On August 17, 2023, Alabama
Power filed a notice of withdrawal of the NOI for the above-referenced
project.
    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed,
and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal.
Pursuant to

Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,\1\ the
withdrawal of the NOI became effective on September 1, 2023, and this
prefiling process is hereby terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2022).

    Dated: September 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19570 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="23/06/2008 06:34:51 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:After smoking for over 20 years, I haven't had a cigarette in 3 weeks.  My son took me to Steam Cigs in Lawrenceville, GA and I bought a starter kit.  I have tried Chantix, Zyban, Commit lozenges and cold turkey quitting all without success.  My experience with vaping has been the only thing that has worked for me.

 A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register: September 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 51221-51222]
[DOCID:fr06se07-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-91-000]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Petition for Declaratory Order

August 28, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 16, 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting that
the Commission extend the terms of its Order issued January 28, 2004,
to continue the revenue sharing mechanism for secondary products and
services which generate revenue from certain non-tariffed uses of
PG&E's jurisdictional electric transmission assets.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 17, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17554 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Petition for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of products containing the active ingredient “2-Phenethyl
Propionate” and its degradates “Phenethyl Alcohol” and
“Propionic Acid” in and on all food commodities

Submitted for:	EcoSMART Technologies, Inc.

20 Mansell Court, Suite 375

Roswell, GA 30076

Submitted by:	Technology Sciences Group Inc.

			712 Fifth Street, Suite A

			Davis, CA 95616

SECTION A  		Product name and proposed use practice

Product Name:	2-PEP Technical (TGAI)

				EcoPCO® ACU (EP); EPA Reg. No. 67425-14

Proposed Use Practice:	EcoSMART Technologies, Inc. uses 2-PEP as a
minimum risk pesticide active ingredient in a variety of exempt 25(b)
products and as a broad spectrum contact insecticide/miticide for
application in commercial, industrial and residential areas.  With the
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of this active ingredient, EcoSMART Technologies, Inc. proposes
to expand the use of its products to include crack and crevice
treatments in food and feed handling and processing facilities for the
control of insect pests.  This is an indoor use pattern that does not
involve direct application to food crops.

SECTION B		Product identity/chemistry

Active Ingredient:	2-Phenethyl Propionate (CAS No. 122-70-3).

	Information regarding the name, identity and chemical composition has
been submitted to EPA and can be found in MRID No. 487536-02.

	2-Phenethyl Propionate (2-PEP) degrades after twenty-four (24) hours
into Phenethyl Alcohol (PEA) (CAS No. 60-12-8) and Propionic Acid (CAS
No. 79-09-4).  It also degrades rapidly in water and soil.  2-PEP also
hydrolyzes in the gut to PEA. (MRID Nos. 487536-05 and 487536-06).
Therefore, this tolerance exemption covers 2-PEP and its degradates.

	2-PEP is classified as a minimum risk pesticide per 40 CFR 152.25(f)
and is exempt from federal registration requirements under section 25(b)
of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  It is
also found in registered products, as a biochemical active ingredient,
when combined with other non-exempt active ingredients or with inert
ingredients that do not meet the criteria of 40 CFR 152.25(f).
Historically, 2-PEP has been used to attract Japanese Beetles to traps
and as an insecticide/miticide on a wide variety of insects, mites,
ticks, spiders, etc.  (EPA, Floral Attractants, Repellents and
Insecticides Fact Sheet, 11/04).

	2-PEP is a naturally occurring plant volatile ingredient derived from
peanut oil.   In addition to its use as a pesticide active ingredient,
it is listed as GRAS and approved as a direct food additive by the FDA
(21 CFR 172.515) as a flavoring agent.  2-PEP is widely used as an
additive in the food and flavor industry, and occurs naturally in the
human diet.  It is an ester formed from PEA and Propionic Acid, and is
often in natural sources with those two compounds.

	PEA is a degradate of 2-PEP.  PEA has been identified as a volatile
component in various raw and processed foods.  PEA is commonly used as a
flavoring agent in food and as a fragrance in cosmetics, household and
laundry cleaning products and air fresheners.  PEA is cleared by the FDA
for use as a synthetic flavoring substance in food per 21 CFR 172.515.
EPA has conducted an extensive review of the toxicity and fate of PEA
(MRID No. 487536-06).

	Propionic Acid is a degradate of 2-PEP.  Propionic Acid is used widely
as a preservative and flavoring agent in packaged foods such as baked
goods and cheese.  Propionic Acid occurs naturally in dairy products and
is a normal component of human metabolism.  Propionic Acid is exempt
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues when used as an active
or an inert ingredient on all food crops per 40 CFR 180.1023(c).
Propionic Acid is affirmed GRAS as a direct human food ingredient per 21
CFR 184.1081.

Mode of Action:	When used as an insecticide/miticide, 2-PEP has a unique
mode of action that targets and blocks a key neurotransmitter receptor
site called octopamine, which is found in all invertebrates, but not
mammals.  Octopamine regulates an insect’s heart rate, movement and
metabolism.  Interrupting the function of octopamine results in a total
breakdown of the insect’s nervous system.  2-PEP degrades after 24
hours into PEA and Propionic Acid. 2-PEP and its degradates dissipate
rapidly leaving low concentrations for short periods of time, likely due
to their ready volatility (MRID No. 487536-05).

Magnitude of residues and

method to determine:	An analytical method for residues is not
applicable.  It is expected that, when used as proposed, 2-PEP, and its
degradates PEA and Propionic Acid, would not result in residues that are
of toxicological concern.

 SECTION C	Toxicological Profile

Toxicity of 2-PEP:

1)	Acute Toxicity of 2-PEP.  2-Phenethyl Propionate is of low acute oral
and dermal toxicity, with two oral LD50s in rats reported at 4,000 mg/kg
and 3980 mg/kg (Toxicity Category III), and a dermal LD50 in rabbits
reported at greater than 5,000 mg/kg (Toxicity Category IV).  Low acute
inhalation toxicity was demonstrated in a study on the active ingredient
on rats that resulted in an LC50 of greater than 2.06 mg/L (Toxicity
Category IV).  2-Phenethyl Propionate is a moderate irritant in an eye
irritation study (Toxicity Category III) and a slight irritant in skin
irritation study (Toxicity Category IV).  Finally, 2-PEP was shown to
not be a dermal sensitizer.

2)	Subchronic Toxicity, Teratogenicity and Genotoxicity of 2-PEP.
EcoSMART Technologies, Inc. has requested that existing data be
considered to satisfy these data requirements based on the results of
toxicity testing available in published literature, studies on
persistence and dissipation of 2-PEP in the environment, the results of
toxicity testing on appropriate degradates available in published
literature, the ingredient’s status as GRAS and as a direct food
additive with the FDA, and the ingredient’s status as a minimum risk
active ingredient with the EPA (MRID No. 487536-07).

	Studies performed on structurally similar degradates are of low
toxicity in subchronic and teratogenicity studies and had negative
results in genotoxicity studies, and that 2-Phenethyl Propionate is a
common ingredient in the diet as a result of its natural occurrence in
food and as a food additive.  Further, 2-Phenethyl Propionate is
classified by EPA as a minimum risk active ingredient and is known to be
non-hazardous to humans and animals.  2-Phenethyl Propionate meets the
criteria for minimum risk in that it is 1) listed GRAS by the FDA, 2)
has a non-toxic mode of action and is generally considered non-toxic, 3)
has negligible human or environmental exposure, and 4) is nonpersistent.
 Moreover, 2-Phenethyl Propionate has been shown to rapidly degrade in
water and soil and in the gut.  Its primary degradates are well studied,
are rapidly metabolized and excreted, and pose no significant risk.

Toxicity of Degradates PEA and Propionic Acid:

2-PEP rapidly degrades to PEA and Propionic Acid which are the principal
residues following use of 2-PEP.  Both compounds are approved for use in
food by FDA.  The toxicology of PEA has been extensively documented in
the literature, and the Agency has conducted robust reviews of that
information (MRID No. 487536-06).  Moreover, Propionic Acid is a normal
metabolite in mammalian systems and would be expected to undergo the
same metabolic process as endogenous Propionic Acid.

The results of toxicity testing on 2-PEP, information on toxicity of the
major degradates, the direct food additive status of 2-PEP, and its
status as a minimum risk active ingredient show there is no risk to
human health from 2-Phenethyl Propionate.  Both dietary and non-dietary
exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a
lack of residues of toxicological concern.

SECTION D	Aggregate Exposure

1)	Dietary Exposure:

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Dietary exposure from use of 2-PEP, as proposed,
is minimal.  The intended use of 2-PEP is as a crack and crevice
treatment in food and feed handling and processing facilities for the
control of insect pests.  2-PEP is a plant volatile that rapidly
degrades into PEA and Propionic Acid in the environment.  It is a
naturally occurring ingredient and is not considered persistent based on
its characteristics, properties or known degradation pathways.

	The results of toxicity testing, information on toxicity testing of
degradates, and the ingredient’s status as GRAS, as a direct food
additive, and as a minimum risk active ingredient show there is no risk
to human health from 2-PEP.  There are no reports of ecological or human
health hazards caused by 2-PEP. Dietary exposures would not be expected
to pose any quantifiable risk, due to a lack of residues of
toxicological concern.

2)	Drinking Water Exposure:

Similarly, exposure to humans from residues of 2-PEP or it’s
degradates in consumed drinking water would be unlikely.  Potential
exposure to surface water would be unlikely and exposure to drinking
water (well or ground water) would be impossible to measure. The
intended use of 2-PEP is as a crack and crevice treatment in food and
feed handling and processing facilities for the control of insect pests.
 The ingredient is not applied directly to water.

	The results of toxicity testing, information on toxicity testing of
degradates, and the ingredient’s status as GRAS, as a direct food
additive, and as a minimum risk active ingredient show there is no risk
to human health from 2-PEP.  There are no reports of ecological or human
health hazards caused by 2-PEP.  Drinking water exposures would not be
expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of
toxicological concern.

3)	Non-Dietary Exposure:

	The potential for non-dietary exposure to the general population,
including infants and children, is unlikely as the proposed use sites
are commercial food handling and processing facilities.  The intended
use of 2-PEP is as a crack and crevice treatment in food and feed
handling and processing facilities for the control of insect pests.
2-PEP is a plant volatile that rapidly degrades into PEA and Propionic
Acid in the environment.  It is a naturally occurring ingredient and is
not considered persistent based on its characteristics, properties or
known degradation pathways.

	The results of toxicity testing, information on toxicity testing of
degradates, and the ingredient’s status as GRAS, as a direct food
additive, and as a minimum risk active ingredient show there is no risk
to human health from 2-PEP.  There are no reports of ecological or human
health hazards caused by 2-PEP. Non-dietary exposures would not be
expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of
toxicological concern.

SECTION E	Cumulative Effects

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 It is not expected that, when used as proposed,
2-PEP would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. The
intended use of 2-PEP is as a crack and crevice treatment in food and
feed handling and processing facilities for the control of insect pests.
 2-PEP is a plant volatile that rapidly degrades into PEA and Propionic
Acid in the environment.  It is a naturally occurring ingredient and is
not considered persistent based on its characteristics, properties or
known degradation pathways. The results of toxicity testing, information
on toxicity testing of surrogates, and the ingredient’s status as
GRAS, as a direct food additive, and as a minimum risk active ingredient
show there is no risk to human health from 2-PEP.  There are no reports
of ecological or human health hazards caused by 2-PEP.

SECTION F	Safety Determination

1)	General US Population:

	The results of toxicity testing, information on toxicity testing of
degradates, and the ingredient’s status as GRAS, as a direct food
additive, and as a minimum risk active ingredient show there is no risk
to human health from 2-PEP. The intended use of 2-PEP is as a crack and
crevice treatment in food and feed handling and processing facilities
for the control of insect pests. It is not expected that, when used as
proposed, 2-PEP would result in residues that are of toxicological
concern.  2-PEP is a plant volatile that rapidly degrades into PEA and
Propionic Acid in the environment.  It is a naturally occurring
ingredient and is not considered persistent based on its
characteristics, properties or known degradation pathways. There are no
reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by 2-PEP.  There is
a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general US population from
exposure to this active ingredient.

2)	Infants and Children:

As mentioned above, it is not expected that, when used as proposed,
2-PEP would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. There
is a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children from
exposure to 2-PEP from the proposed uses.

SECTION G – Effects on Immune and Endocrine Systems

To date there is no evidence to suggest that 2-PEP or its degradates PEA
or Propionic Acid function in a manner similar to any known hormone, or
that they acts as an endocrine disrupter.

SECTION H – Existing Tolerances

There is no US EPA tolerance or tolerance exemption for 2-PEP.

There is an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of the degradate Propionic Acid, when used as an active or an
inert ingredient, on all foods at 40 CFR 180.1023.

SECTION I – International Tolerances

A Codex Alimentarium Commission Maximum Residue Level (MRL) is not
established for 2-PEP or it’s degradates PEA and Propionic Acid.

2-Phenethyl Propionate Petition to Establish a Tolerance Exemption –
March 1, 2012

Page  PAGE  10  of 10