[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67794-67796]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27768]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63202; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-080]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Trade Options on Leveraged Exchange-
Traded Notes and To Broaden the Definition of ``Futures-Linked
Securities''

October 28, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On August 31, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to: (a) Permit the trading of options on leveraged
(multiple or inverse) exchange-traded notes (``ETNs''), and (b) broaden
the definition of ``Futures-Linked Securities.'' On September 9, 2010,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 16, 2010.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment
No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 62880 (September 9,
2010), 75 FR 56628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of CBOE's proposed rule change is to amend
Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.3 to: (a) Permit the trading of
options on leveraged (multiple or inverse) ETNs,\4\ and (b) broaden the
definition of ``Futures-Linked Securities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ETNs are also known as ``Index-Linked Securities,'' which
are designed for investors who desire to participate in a specific
market segment by providing exposure to one or more identifiable
underlying securities, commodities, currencies, derivative
instruments, or market indexes of the foregoing. Index-Linked
Securities are non-convertible debt of an issuer that have a term of
at least one year but not greater than thirty years. Index-Linked
Securities are traded as a single, exchange-listed security. As
such, rules pertaining to the listing and trading of standard equity
options apply to Index-Linked Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leveraged ETN Options

    Multiple leveraged ETNs seek to provide investment results that
correspond to a specified multiple of the percentage performance of a
particular Reference Asset on a given day. Inverse leveraged ETNs seek
to provide investment results that correspond to the inverse (opposite)
of the percentage performance of a particular Reference Asset by a
specified multiple on a given day. Multiple leveraged ETNs and inverse
leveraged ETNs differ from traditional ETNs in that they do not merely
correspond to the performance of a given Reference Asset, but rather
attempt to match a multiple or inverse of a Reference Asset's
performance.
    The Barclays Long B Leveraged S&P 500 TR ETN (``BXUB''), the
Barclays Long C Leveraged S&P 500 TR ETN (``BXUC'') and the UBS AG 2x
Monthly Leveraged Long Exchange Traded Access Securities (``E-TRACS'')
linked to the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index due July 9, 2040
(``MLPL'') currently trade on the NYSE Arca Stock Exchange and are
examples of multiple leveraged ETNs. In addition, the Barclays ETN +
Inverse S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN (``XXV'') currently trades
on the NYSE Arca Stock Exchange and is an example of an inverse
leveraged ETN.
    Currently, Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.3 provides that
securities deemed appropriate for options trading

shall include shares or other securities (``Equity Index-Linked
Securities,'' ``Commodity-Linked Securities,'' ``Currency-Linked
Securities,'' ``Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities,'' ``Futures-
Linked Securities,'' and ``Multifactor Index-Linked Securities,''
collectively known as ``Index-Linked Securities'') that are principally
traded on a national securities exchange and an ``NMS Stock'' (as
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934), and represent ownership of a security that provides for the
payment at maturity, as described below:
     Equity Index-Linked Securities are securities that provide
for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance
of an underlying index or indexes of equity securities (``Equity
Reference Asset'');
     Commodity-Linked Securities are securities that provide
for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance
of one or more physical commodities or commodity futures, options on
commodities, or other commodity derivatives or Commodity-Based Trust
Shares or a basket or index of any of the foregoing (``Commodity
Reference Asset'');
     Currency-Linked Securities are securities that provide for
the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of
one or more currencies, or options on currencies or currency futures or
other currency derivatives or Currency Trust Shares (as defined in
Interpretation and Policy .06 to this Rule 5.3), or a basket or index
of any of the foregoing (``Currency Reference Asset'');
     Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities are securities that
provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the
performance of one or more notes, bonds, debentures or evidence of
indebtedness that include, but are not limited to, U.S. Department of
Treasury securities (``Treasury Securities''), government-sponsored
entity securities (``GSE Securities''), municipal securities, trust
preferred securities, supranational debt and debt of a foreign country
or a subdivision thereof or a basket or index of any of the foregoing
(``Fixed Income Reference Asset'');
     Futures-Linked Securities are securities that provide for
the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an
index of (a) futures on Treasury Securities, GSE Securities,
supranational debt and debt of a foreign country or a subdivision
thereof, or options or other derivatives on any of the foregoing; or
(b) interest rate futures or options or derivatives on the foregoing in
this subparagraph (b); or (c) CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) futures
(``Futures Reference Asset''); and
     Multifactor Index-Linked Securities are securities that
provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the
performance of any combination of two or more Equity Reference Assets,
Commodity Reference Assets, Currency Reference Assets, Fixed Income
References Assets, or Futures Reference Assets (``Multifactor Reference
Asset'').
    For purposes of Interpretation and Policy .13 to this Rule 5.3,
Equity Reference Assets, Commodity Reference Assets, Currency Reference
Assets, Fixed Income Reference Assets, Futures Reference Assets
together with Multifactor Reference Assets, collectively are referred
to as ``Reference Assets.''
    In addition, Index-Linked Securities must meet the criteria and
guidelines for underlying Securities set forth in Interpretation and
Policy .01 to this Rule 5.3; or the Index-Linked Securities must be
redeemable at the option of the holder at least on a weekly basis
through the issuer at a price related to the applicable underlying
Reference Asset. In addition, the issuing company is obligated to issue
or repurchase the securities in aggregation units for cash, or cash
equivalents, satisfactory to the issuer of Index-Linked Securities
which underlie the option as described in the Index-Linked Securities
prospectus.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .13 to
Rule 5.3 to expand the type of Index-Linked Securities that may
underlie options to include leveraged (multiple or inverse) ETNs. To
affect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.3.13 by
adding the phrase, ``or the leveraged (multiple or inverse)
performance'' to each of the subparagraphs ((A) through (F)) in that
section which set forth the different eligible Reference Assets.
    The Exchange's current continuing listing standards for ETN options
will continue to apply. Specifically, under Interpretation and Policy
.16 to Rule 5.4, ETN options shall not be deemed to meet the Exchange's
requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open
for trading any additional series or option contracts of the class
covering such Securities whenever the underlying Securities are
delisted and trading in the Securities is suspended on a national
securities exchange, or the Securities are no longer an ``NMS Stock''
(as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934). In addition, the Exchange shall consider the suspension
of opening transactions in any series of options of the class covering
Index-Linked Securities in any of the following circumstances: (1) The
underlying Index-Linked Security fails to comply with the terms of
Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.3; (2) in accordance with the
terms of Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 5.4, in the case of
options covering Index-Linked Securities when such options were
approved pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.3, except
that, in the case of options covering Index-Linked Securities approved
pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .13(3)(B) to Rule 5.3 that are
redeemable at the option of the holder at least on a weekly basis, then
option contracts of the class covering such Securities may only
continue to be open for trading as long as the Securities are listed on
a national securities exchange and are ``NMS'' stocks as defined in
Rule 600 of Regulation NMS; (3) in the case of any Index-Linked
Security trading pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.3,
the value of the Reference Asset is no longer calculated; or (4) such
other event shall occur or condition exist that in the opinion of the
Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange
inadvisable. Expanding the eligible types of ETNs for options trading
under Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.3 will not have any
effect on the rules pertaining to position and exercise limits \5\ or
margin.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rules 4.11, Position Limits, and 4.12, Exercise Limits.
    \6\ See Rule 12.3, Margin Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has represented that its existing surveillance
procedures applicable to trading in options are adequate to properly
monitor the trading in leveraged (multiple and inverse) ETN options.
    It is expected that The Options Clearing Corporation will seek to
revise the Options Disclosure Document (``ODD'') to accommodate the
listing and trading of leveraged (multiple and inverse) ETN options.

Definition of ``Futures-Linked Securities''

    The second change being proposed by the Exchange's filing is to
amend the definition of ``Futures-Linked Securities'' set forth in Rule
5.3.13(1)(E). Rule 5.3 sets forth generic listing criteria for
securities that may serve as underlyings for listed options. Currently,
the definition of ``Futures-Linked Securities'' is limited to
securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount
based on the performance of an index of (a) futures on Treasury
Securities, GSE

Securities, supranational debt and debt of a foreign country or a
subdivision thereof, or options or other derivatives on any of the
foregoing; or (b) interest rate futures or options or derivatives on
the foregoing in this subparagraph (b); or (c) CBOE Volatility Index
(VIX) futures. The Exchange is proposing to revise the definition of
``Futures-Linked Securities'' to provide that they are securities that
pay at maturity a cash amount based on the performance or the leveraged
(multiple or inverse) performance of an index or indexes of futures
contracts or options or derivatives on futures contracts (``Futures
Reference Asset''). All ETNs eligible for options trading must still be
principally traded on a national securities exchange and an ``NMS
Stock.''

III. Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange,\7\ and in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\8\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leveraged ETN Options

    The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that,
similar to its imposition of higher margin requirements for options on
leveraged ETFs,\10\ the Exchange will impose higher margin requirements
for leveraged ETNs, as allowed under CBOE Rules 12.3(h) and 12.10. The
Exchange will also issue a Regulatory Circular announcing the new
margin requirements prior to listing and trading options on leveraged
ETNs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CBOE Regulatory Circulars RG09-97 (August 31, 2009),
RG09-132 (November 20, 2009). See also FINRA Regulatory Notices 09-
53 (August 2009), 09-65 (November 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to the proposed rule change, the Exchange
represented that the current listing standards for ETN options will
continue to apply. The Exchange has also represented that its existing
surveillance procedures applicable to trading options are adequate to
properly monitor trading of options on leveraged ETNs.
    The Commission believes that these representations are adequate to
protect investors. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the
ability to trade options on leveraged ETNs will provide investors with
additional risk management tools. Therefore, the Commission believes
that this proposed rule change is appropriate.

Broaden the Definition of ``Futures-Linked Securities''

    The Commission believes that this proposal will provide a more
efficient process for the Exchange to list and trade options on ETNs.
The Exchange will be able to list and trade options overlying newly
introduced ETNs that do not fall within the current definition of
``Futures-Linked Securities,'' without first filing a rule change
proposal with the Commission to change the definition of ``Futures-
Linked Securities'' to include each specific new product. The
Commission notes that all ETNs that underlie options traded on the
Exchange must still be principally traded on a national securities
exchange and must be an ``NMS stock.'' In addition, pursuant to the
proposed rule change, the Exchange represented that the current listing
standards for options on ETNs will continue to apply to options on ETNs
that fall within the proposed definition of ``Futures-Linked
Securities.'' The Exchange has also represented that its existing
surveillance procedures applicable to trading options are adequate to
properly monitor trading of options on ETNs. Therefore, the Commission
believes that this proposed rule change is appropriate.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the propose rule change (SR-CBOE-2010-080), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and is hereby, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2010-27768 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8015-8016]
[DOCID:fr15fe06-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53248; File No. SR-ISE-2005-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Amend ISE Rule 700 Governing the Hours of
Trading in Equity Options and Narrow-Based Index Options

February 7, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On December 27, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rules governing the
hours of trading in equity options and narrow-based index options. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on January 13, 2006.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change. On January 30, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission is approving the
amended proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53055 (January 5,
2006), 71 FR 2279.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange requested that the
implementation date for the new closing time be changed from
February 1, 2006, as was originally proposed, to February 13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 700 governing the hours of
trading in equity options and narrow-based index options. Specifically,
the ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 700 to change the close of the
normal trading hours in options on individual stocks and narrow-based
indexes from 4:02 p.m. to 4 p.m. (New York time). After the change, the
time of the close of trading in these ISE options will correspond to
the normal time set for the close of trading on the primary exchanges
listing the stocks underlying the ISE options. The primary exchanges
generally close at 4 p.m. (New York time).
    The Exchange represents that improvements in the processing and
reporting of transactions have largely eliminated significant delays in
the reporting of closing prices; and therefore, a two minute session is
no longer needed to trade options after the underlying securities close
trading. Additionally, the Exchange believes that pricing aberrations
can occur if an option is traded when the underlying stock is no longer
trading, since there is a close relationship in the price of the
underlying stock and the overlying option. As a result, the ISE
believes that it is difficult for the market to price options
accurately when the underlying security is not trading. Furthermore, as
noted above, the Exchange proposes to change the closing time for
options on narrow-based indexes, as defined in ISE Rule 2001, because
these indexes are subject to the same pricing problems as options on
individual stocks. According to the ISE, a significant news
announcement on one component of a

narrow-based index could have a significant effect on that index.
However, the Exchange is not at this time proposing to change the
closing time of 4:15 p.m. (New York time) for options on a broad-based
index, as defined in ISE Rule 2001, because the ISE believes it is
unlikely that a significant news announcement by the issuer of one
component stock of a broad-based index is likely to have a significant
effect on the price of that broad-based index. The Exchange proposes to
implement the proposed rule change on February 13, 2006.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\6\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the need to
continue trading options for some period of time after the close of
trading in the underlying securities markets is no longer necessary
because improvements in the processing and reporting of transactions
have obviated the need to respond to late reports of closing prices
over the consolidated tape in order to bring options quotes in line
with the closing price of the underlying security. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that allowing two additional minutes of options
trading after trading on the underlying primary exchanges has ended may
actually result in pricing aberrations. Because the two minute delay
between the close of normal trading in equity options and narrow-based
index options and the corresponding underlying equity markets is no
longer necessary, the Commission believes that eliminating the delay is
in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors
and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Therefore, the
Commission finds that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to
amend its rules to change the close of normal trading hours in equity
and narrow-based index options from 4:02 p.m. to 4 p.m. (New York
time).
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule
change, as amended, before the thirtieth day after publication of
notice thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission notes that all
of the options exchanges have filed substantially similar proposals and
seek to implement these industry-wide changes simultaneously on
February 13, 2006.\8\ For example, on December 20, 2005, the Commission
published for comment in the Federal Register a similar proposed rule
change submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'').\9\ The Commission received no comments on the CBOE's
proposed rule change. The Commission believes that the ISE's proposed
rule change, as amended, raises no new issues or novel regulatory
questions. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the
Federal Register. In addition, because the existence of dissimilar
closing times among the options exchanges could lead to confusion for
options investors and broker-dealers, the Commission finds good cause
to accelerate approval of the proposed rule change to enable the six
options exchanges to simultaneously amend their hours of trading on an
industry-wide basis in a uniform manner.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 11, infra.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52949 (December 13,
2005), 70 FR 75513 (December 20, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-104).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ The Commission notes that it is simultaneously approving
similar proposals from the other options exchanges. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 53244 (SR-Amex-2006-003); 53245 (SR-BSE-
2006-02); 53246 (SR-CBOE-2005-104); 53249 (SR-PCX-2005-138); and
53247 (SR-Phlx-2006-01) (February 7, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 thereto (SR-
ISE-2005-58) be, and hereby are, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2114 Filed 2-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18232-18233]
[DOCID:fr11ap07-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

April 5, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Amendment of license for a change in water
surface elevation limits for the upper reservoir.
    b. Project No.: 2485-041.
    c. Date Filed: March 13, 2007.
    d. Applicant: First Light Hydro Generating Company.
    e. Name of Project: Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage.
    f. Location: The project is located on the east side of the
Connecticut River, in the towns of Northfield and Erving, in Franklin
County, Massachusetts. The project does not utilize federal or tribal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Campbell, Senior Vice President,
First Light Power Resources Services LLC, 301 Hammer Mill Road, Rocky
Hill, Connecticut 06067,<PHONE_NUMBER> with copies of all
correspondence and communications to:
    Mr. John Howard, Station Manager, Northfield Mountain Station, 99
Millers Falls Road, Northfield, Massachusetts 01360,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and
    James B. Vasile, Davis Wright Termaine LLP, 1500 K Street, NW.,
Suite 450, Washington, DC 20005-1272.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Vedula Sarma at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: May 4, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: First Light Hydro Generating Company
(FLHGC) seeks authorization to change the upper reservoir normal
maximum and minimum water surface elevations from 1,000.5 and 938 feet
to 1,004.5 and 947 feet, respectively, for its currently normal daily
generation of approximately 8,475 megawatt hours (MWh). FLHGC said it
needs the elevation change in order to establish an emergency storage
band at the upper reservoir between 920 feet and 938 feet to allow for
additional generation of 1,990 MWh when ISO-NE is operating under
emergency conditions.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6797 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39153-39156]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0673; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-091-AD;
Amendment 39-17109; AD 2012-13-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD requires inspecting parts or doing a records review
to determine if certain trailing edge flap carriages are installed,
doing repetitive inspections for corrosion, and flaking or missing
thermal coating on suspect carriage spindles, and related investigative
and corrective actions, if necessary; this AD also provides optional
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD was prompted
by reports of corrosion found on carriage that are located on the
outboard flaps. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion
of the carriage spindle, which could result in a fracture; fracture of
both the inboard and outboard carriage spindles, at the forward ends
through the large diameters, on a single flap assembly, could adversely
affect the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 17, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 17, 2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 16, 2012.

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 http://www.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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6440; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We received reports of corrosion found on carriages that are
located on the outboard flaps. Each of the suspect carriages had
accumulated fewer than 7,000 total flight cycles. The suspect carriages
had tungsten-carbide-cobalt-chrome coating applied with high velocity
oxygenated fuel (HVOF) thermal coating on the spindle. The HVOF thermal
coating had flaked off the lower surface of the spindle, at the root of
the spindle. Cracked, flaking, or missing thermal coating can lead to
moisture ingress, which might begin corroding the alloy steel base
metal. Corrosion pits in this area could create a stress concentration
where a crack can start in the base metal, resulting in the inability
of the carriage to sustain limit load. Corrosion of the carriage
spindle, if not detected and corrected, could result in fracture of the
spindle. One fractured carriage spindle on a flap can be compensated
for with pilot inputs to the aileron or rudder (increasing pilot
workload). However, fracture of both the inboard and outboard carriage
spindles, at the forward ends through the large diameters, on a single
flap, could adversely affect the continued safe flight and landing of
the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1319, dated April
16, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1319,
Revision 1, dated June 6, 2012. This service information describes the
following procedures.
     For all airplanes, inspection of parts or review of
maintenance records to determine if a carriage, i.e., a carriage with
HVOF thermal coating, is installed at wing butt line (WBL) 254 or WBL
355.
     For any suspect carriage or carriage with an
unidentifiable part number (P/N): Repetitive detailed inspections for
corrosion, missing, or flaking thermal coating on the forward end of
the carriage spindle at the root (with the option to do a borescope
inspection instead), and related investigative and corrective actions
if necessary.
     Related investigative action is a detailed inspection for
corrosion inhibiting compound (CIC) coverage on the lower surface of
the spindle at the root.
     The corrective actions include applying or reapplying CIC,
and replacing the suspect carriage with a new or serviceable carriage.
     Replacement of the suspect carriage with a new or
serviceable non-HVOF thermal coated carriage eliminates the need for
the repetitive inspections for that carriage only.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently
developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition
identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved,
and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
corrosion occurring on the exposed base metal can quickly lead to
cracking and full fracture of the carriage spindle. Fracture of both
the inboard and outboard carriage spindles, in the forward ends through
the large diameters, on a single flap, could adversely affect the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Because of our
requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and thus, the
critical need to assure the structural integrity of the carriage
spindle and the short compliance time involved with this action, this
AD must be issued immediately. Therefore, we find that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2012-0673 and
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-091-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 494 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Number of U.S.    Cost on U.S.
                               Action                                   Labor cost       Parts cost        product         operators        operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection or records review to determine installation of suspect     1 work-hour x               $0              $85              494          $41,990
 carriage..........................................................  $85 per hour =
                                                                                $85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary actions that
would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no
way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
actions.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost                  Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of suspect           3 work-hours x     $0...............  $255 per inspection cycle.
 carriages.                      $85 per hour =
                                 $255 per
                                 inspection cycle.
Replacement of carriage         17 work-hours x    We have received   $1,445.
 spindle, per spindle (four      $85 per hour =     no definitive
 spindles per airplane).         $1,445.            data that would
                                                    enable us to
                                                    provide a cost
                                                    estimate for
                                                    parts necessary
                                                    for the
                                                    replacement
                                                    specified in
                                                    this AD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 (AD):

2012-13-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17109; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0673; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-091-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 17, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-04-10, Amendment 39-16609 (76 FR 9498,
February 18, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion found on carriage
spindles that are located on the outboard flaps. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct corrosion of the carriage spindle, which
could result in a fracture; fracture of both the inboard and
outboard carriage spindles, at the forward ends through the large
diameters, on a single flap, could adversely affect the continued
safe flight and landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection To Determine Suspect Carriage Spindle

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, do an
inspection of the part or a records review to determine whether a
suspect carriage with a high velocity oxygenated fuel (HVOF) thermal
coating is installed at wing butt line (WBL) 254 or WBL 355, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1319, dated April 16, 2012, as revised by
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1319, Revision 1, dated June 6,
2012. If no suspect carriage is installed, no further action is
required by this paragraph.

(h) Repetitive Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and
Corrective Action

    (1) For airplanes on which any suspect carriage is installed, or
if the part number of the carriage cannot be determined: Within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, or within 180 days after
installation of a suspect carriage, whichever occurs later, do a
detailed or borescope inspection of the forward end of the carriage
spindle for corrosion and flaking and missing thermal coating, and
do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1319, dated April 16, 2012, as revised by
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1319, Revision 1, dated June 6,
2012. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions
before further flight. Repeat the detailed or borescope inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 180 days.
    (2) For the purposes of this AD, a ``serviceable part'' can be
either a suspect part (i.e., a carriage with HVOF thermal coating)
or a non-suspect part (i.e., a carriage that does not have HVOF
thermal coating).

(i) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacement of a suspect carriage with a new or serviceable
carriage without HVOF thermal coating, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1319, dated April 16, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1319, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2012, terminates the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD for that carriage spindle
only.

(j) Parts Installation

    As of the effective date of this AD, a serviceable HVOF-coated
carriage may not be installed on an airplane unless the actions
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD are done on that carriage
prior to installation.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the inspections required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, and the replacement specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1319, dated April 16, 2012.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) The inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD may be
used as an AMOC for the initial and repetitive detailed or borescope
inspections required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of AD 2011-04-10,
Amendment 39-16609 (76 FR 9498, February 18, 2011), provided the
inspections are accomplished at the compliance times required by
that AD.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Nancy Marsh,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service
information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1319, dated April 16,
2012.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1319, Revision 1,
dated June 6, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by

reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an
NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15898 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Page 1 of 12 Overview of the Phenol/ Sodium Phenate Preliminary Risk Assessment, September 13, 2004 Introduction This document summarizes EPA's preliminary human health and ecological risk findings and conclusions for the antimicrobial pesticide phenol/ sodium phenate, as presented fully in the following nine documents:

1. Incidents reported with Phenol: Human Health Effect Report, PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074, Antimicrobials Division, 7/ 24/ 04., Jonathan Chen, Ph. D.

2. Product Chemistry Science Chapter on Phenol. PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074, Antimicrobials Division, 8/ 4/ 04, A. Najm Shamim, Ph. D.

3. Phenol/ Sodium Phenate: Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document, PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074, Antimicrobials Division, 7/ 6/ 04, Michelle M. Centra, Pharmacologist and Timothy F. McMahon, Ph. D.

4. Phenol/ Sodium Phenate: Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision. PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074, Antimicrobials Division, 5/ 18/ 04, A. Najm Shamim, Ph. D.

5. Phenols Occupational/ Residential Exposure Assessment. PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074 Antimicrobials Division, 6/ 11/ 04, Timothy Leighton.

6. Report of the Antimicrobials Division Toxicology Endpoint Selection Committee. PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074 Antimicrobials Division, 3/ 9/ 04, Timothy F. McMahon, Ph. D.

7. Science Chapter on: Environmental Fate Studies and Environmental Fate Assessment of Phenol. PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074, Antimicrobials Division, 1/ 29/ 04, A. Najm Shamim, Ph. D.

8. Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment: Phenol. PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074, Antimicrobials Division, 7/ 28/ 04, Kathryn Montague, M. S.

9. Phenols Preliminary Risk Assessment. PC Code 64001 and 64002, Case 4074, 7/ 7/ 04, Tim McMahon, Ph. D. Page 2 of 12 The purpose of this overview summary is to assist the reader by identifying the key features, findings, and conclusions of these risk assessments. This standard overview format was developed in response to comments and requests from the public which indicated that prior risk assessments for other chemicals were difficult to understand and too lengthy, as well as that it was not easy to compare the assessments for different chemicals due to the use of different formats.

Risks summarized in this document are those that result only from the use of Phenol/ Sodium Phenate. The Food Quality Protection Act requires that the Agency consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity". The reason for consideration of other substances is due to the possibility that low level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect as would a higher level of exposure to any of the other substances individually. Although it is possible that Phenol/ Sodium Phenate may express toxicity through a common mechanism with other compounds, at this time, the Agency does not have sufficient reliable information to make this determination. Consequently, the risks summarized herein are only for Phenol/ Sodium Phenate. If EPA identifies other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with Phenol/ Sodium Phenate, aggregate exposure assessments will be performed on each chemical, followed by a cumulative risk assessment.

Once the risk assessments are available to the public, there will be an opportunity for the public to view them and to comment on them. Public comments may be submitted to the OPP electronic docket at: www. epa. gov/ edocket under the docket number OPP 2004 0305. Meetings with stakeholders ( e. g., registrants, distributors, etc.) are planned to discuss the identified risks and to solicit input on risk mitigation strategies. This feedback will be used to complete the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) document, which will include the resultant risk management decisions. The Agency plans to conduct a closure conference call with interested stakeholders to discuss the final regulatory decisions presented in the RED.

PROFILE ANTIMICROBIAL Phenol is used as a surface cleaner in commercial transportation facilities, institutions, industrial premises, eating establishments, indoor residential areas and medical premises.

The following information is based on the currently registered uses of Phenol/ Sodium Phenate.

TYPE OF PESTICIDE Sanitizer, bacteriostat, fungicide/ fungistat, Tuberculocide, disinfectant, and Virucide SUMMARY OF USE SITES Page 3 of 12 Indoor Food: For use in Eating Establishments Equipment/ Utensils ( Food Contact)

Indoor Non Food Residential: For use on Bathroom Premises, Hard Surfaces, Diaper Pails, Dogs/ Canines, Household/ Domestic Dwellings, Indoor Premises, Solid Waste Containers ( Garbage Cans), Rugs, Carpets, Swimming Pool Related Surfaces,

Indoor Non Food, Commercial & Industrial: For use in Animal Cages, Commercial Transportation Facilities, Buses, Boats, Trains, Airplanes, Automobiles, Ambulances Institutional/ Industrial Floors, Industrial Premises/ Equipment, Laundry Equipment, Veterinary Hospital Premises, Athletic Facilities.

Indoor non food materials preservative: For use in the preservation of Paints, Latex, Specialty Industrial Products, Metal Working Cutting Fluids, Coatings, Plastics, Polymers, Polyurethane, Synthetic Yarns, Polishes, Emulsions, Wax, Air Ducts. . Indoor Medical: For Use in Hospital Critical Items ( Surgical Instruments/ Pacemakers), Hospital Non Critical Items ( Bedpans/ Furniture, Hospital Semi Critical Items( Catheters/ Inhalation Equipment), Hospital/ Medical Institutions Non conductive Floors, Critical Premises ( Burn Wards), Noncritical Premises, Patient Premises, Institutions Premises ( Human/ Veterinary), Hemodialysis Machines.

TARGET PESTS: Animal Pathogenic Bacteria ( G And G+ Vegetative), Pseudomonas SPP., Mycobacterium SPP. ( Tubercle Bacilli), Animal Pathogenic Fungi, Hydrophilic Viruses, Polio virus Type 1, Parvo virus, Lipophilic Viruses, Vaccinia Virus, Influenza A2 ( Hong Kong, Japan, Japan 305/ 57 Asian Strain), HIV I ( human Immunodeficiency Virus), Mold/ Mildew FORMULATION TYPES REGISTERED Phenol/ Sodium Phenate is formulated as a pressurized liquid ( aerosol spray), as a liquid concentrate, as a ready to use liquid, and as an impregnated towelette.

METHOD AND RATES OF APPLICATION Page 4 of 12 Concentrations of phenol/ sodium phenate in products range from 1.6% to 8.2%, 1.6% ( being the most common concentration)

Sanitize Non food Contact Surfaces: Before Treatment, clean surface of loose dirt. Spray 4 to 6 inches from surface for 3 4 seconds until covered with mist. Allow to air dry and remain undisturbed for 15 minutes.

Food Handling areas: Spray for use at start of day/ End of Day anti microbial treatment on precleaned surfaces.

Hospital Use: Spray for use to precleaned or decontaminate critical or semi critical medical devices prior to sterilization or high level disinfection.

Disinfectant towelette contact times: HIV 1 ( AIDS virus) on hard nonporous surfaces: Kills in one minute Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella colorists. Pseudomonas aerogenes, Trichophylon mentagrophytes ( Athlete's Foot fungus) on hard nonporous surfaces in 3 minutes.

Vegetative organisms including Streptococcus progenies, streptococcus solitarius, Escherichia coli, " Herpes Simplexs types 1/ F and 2/ G ( oral, ocular and genital) Influenza A, Canine pavovirus, Cylomegalovirus, Coronavirus and Polio type 1 viruses on hard inanimate surfaces and Mycobacterium tuberculosis at 20 degrees Celsius/ 68 Degrees Fereignhieht, or above 10 minutes.

Dialysis Machines: Single Patient Delivery Systems. Place 150cc ( 5.04oz) into the hemdialysate system. Multipatinet Selivery Systems Place 3.0 liters ( 33.87 oz) into the hemdialysate system. Maintain product in system for minimum of 10 minutes.

Industrial Additive: Add 2 5% by weight of active ingredients.

TECHNICAL REGISTRANTS ( There is no technical grade product registered with the EPA) The following companies have phenol products registered: Alphamed Pharmaceutical Corp., Pro Clean Products, Ristex Biochemicals, Sporicidin International CHEMICAL FORMULA AND MOLECULAR WEIGHT C 6 H 6 O MW = 94.144 Page 5 of 12 HAZARD:

Phenol/ Sodium Phenate has a moderate order of acute toxicity via the oral and dermal routes of exposure ( Toxicity Category II or III) and produces severe and marked irritation to the eyes and skin ( Toxicity Category I or II). Phenol concentrations used in acute inhalation studies failed to induce mortality in the study animals. Therefore, toxicity endpoints and a toxicity category could not be established.

Phenol/ Sodium Phenate was administered in two developmental guideline studies in the rat and mouse at concentrations of 30, 60, or 120 mg/ kg/ day and 70, 140, or 280 mg/ kg/ day, respectively. There was no evidence of toxicity in these animals at concentrations below the high dose. Fetal body weight was significantly reduced at 120 and 280 mg/ kg/ day in both rat and mouse studies. Additionally, female mice experienced increased mortality and clinical signs of central nervous system toxicity ( tremors, ataxia, lethargy) at the high dose ( 280 mg/ kg/ day). In a non guideline developmental study ( Kavlock, 1990), there were decreases in rat maternal body weight gain in maternal and offspring.

In a 2 generational reproductive study in rats exposed to 200, 1000, or 5000 ppm phenol in drinking water for 10 weeks/ generation, there were decreases in water and food consumption, body weight and body weight gain at the high dose ( potential reduced palatability). Offspring toxic effects including decreases in body weight and litter survival were observed at 5000. This occurred concurrently with maternal toxicity ( decreased maternal body weight); believed to be secondary to the animals' aversion to the flavor of phenol treated water and resulted in decreased maternal as well as offspring body weight. In a non guideline reproductive study ( Bishop, et al. 1997) phenol was administered to mice at a concentration of 350 mg/ kg. There were no treatment related clinical signs or mortality observed in maternal, reproductive, and developmental parameters sand the LOAEL was not established ( highest dose tested, 350 mg/ kg).

Two carcinogenicity studies performed by the National Cancer Institute did not exhibit an incidence of neoplasms in male and female mice or rats following administration of phenol, with the exception of a statistically significant increase in the occurrence of leukemia, lymphoma, or interstitial cell tumors in low dose male rats. Due to the lack of significant tumors in high dose males and the absence of significant neoplasms in mice and female rats, phenol was found to be non carcinogenic in the 2 year drinking water studies. Although phenol treated rats and mice experienced a decrease in mean body weight and body weight gain, the reduction was not significantly different from the respective controls and chronic toxicity was not observed at phenol concentrations up to 5000 ppm. A 20 week dermal study exhibited effects of chronic irritation and hair growth inhibition with administration of 3 mg phenol ( in 200 uL acetone). A single papilloma was found 7 weeks into the study, but there was no evidence that it was significantly increased or treatment related. In a special, mechanistic study there was no evidence of tumor initiation or hepatocyte GSH depletion following administration of 100 mg/ kg/ day phenol.

TOXICITY ENDPOINTS Page 6 of 12 The toxicity endpoints used in this document to assess potential risks include the chronic dietary reference dose ( RfD), and short, intermediate and/ or long term incidental oral, dermal, and inhalation doses. The endpoints selected were reviewed by the ADTC in 2004.

Dietary Endpoints: The chronic RfD value was calculated to be 0.6 mg/ kg/ day, based on a developmental No Observable Adverse Effects Level ( NOAEL) value of 60 mg/ kg/ day and an uncertainty factor of 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intraspecies variation).

Dermal Endpoints: The Developmental Toxicity NOAEL of 60 mg/ kg/ day was selected for short and intermediate term dermal risk assessments from a developmental toxicity study in rats ( Jones Price, Ledoux, Reel, et al. 1983) based on a significant reduction from the control in mean fetal body weight/ litter at the LOAEL of 120 mg/ kg/ day. A dermal absorption factor of 50% is used since an oral endpoint was selected. A target margin of exposure ( MOE) of 100 was selected for the dermal risk assessment, based on 10x for differences among humans ( intra species variability) and 10x for differences between the test animals and humans ( inter species extrapolation).

Inhalation Endpoints: The endpoint used for inhalation risk assessment is a LOAEL of 0.1 mg/ L from a published inhalation toxicity study ( Dalin and Kristoffersson ( 1974) ) based on alterations in sliding angle from tilting plane test, and significant increases in liver enzymes. An uncertainty factor of 300 is applied to this risk assessment for short and intermediate term risk assessments ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intraspecies variation, 3x for use of a LOAEL). For long term risk assessments, an uncertainty factor of 1,000 is applied to the risk assessment ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intraspecies variation, 3x for use of a LOAEL, 3x for lack of a long term study).

FQPA SAFETY FACTOR On March 9, 2004, the ADTC reviewed the available toxicology data for phenol and discussed endpoint selection for use as appropriate in occupational/ residential exposure risk assessments. The ATDC determined that for acute dietary risk, there was no appropriate endpoint for assessment. The conclusion was based upon examination of the hazard data which might be used in support of such an endpoint. Body weight effects observed are not believed to be the result of a single exposure, and there were no other effects from the data that were considered reflective of an adverse effect from a single exposure. An acute RfD value was not selected.

For chronic dietary risk, the ATDC cited the published chronic RfD value in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) database. This RFD value is based upon an unpublished developmental toxicity study conducted according to GLP guidelines ( Argus Research Laboratories, 1977). The chronic RfD value was determined to be 0.6 mg/ kg/ day. The ATDC determined that a special hazard based safety factor was not required for phenol and could be reduced to 1x. Page 7 of 12 Based on Agency policy, a RfD modified by a FQPA safety factor is a population adjusted dose ( PAD). The Agency calculated a chronic PAD, and used this value to estimate chronic dietary risk. The chronic PAD ( cPAD) is the chronic RfD divided by the FQPA safety factor.

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT DIETARY ( FOOD) RISK ASSESSMENTS Dietary Exposure: The Agency has conducted a dietary exposure and risk assessment for use of phenol in a ready to use solution and in a wettable disposable cloth impregnated with phenol and sodium phenate. A counter top that is treated with either of these products may come into contact with food, which in turn may be ingested. An acute RfD value was not selected, thus the acute dietary risk was not evaluated. For chronic dietary exposure, children had the highest percentage of the chronic PAD, at 363%, which exceeds the Agency's level of concern ( 100% cPAD). For adult males and females, the dietary exposure is 90.7% and 77.8%, respectively, which is below the Agency's level of concern ( 100% of aPAD or cPAD).

Water Exposure and Risk: Phenol's use in the production of resins and other manufacturing industries, pulp mills, wood treatment facilities, and as a general disinfectant allows for the possibility of ground and surface water contamination. Despite phenol's high water solubility and poor sorption to soil, biodegradation of phenol is sufficiently rapid so that the probability of groundwater contamination will be low. Because phenol absorbs light in the region of 290 330 nm, phenol might photo degrade directly in surface water. Phenol is not expected to absorb to sediment in the water column.

Cumulative Chronic Dietary Risk  Cumulative chronic dietary risk estimates from indirect food uses ( i. e., exposure to disinfectant solutions and room deodorizers) were calculated to be 36% for children, 9.0% for adult females, and 7.5% for adult males, indicating no risk of concern from dietary exposure RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE Phenols and salts are formulated as a soluble concentrate, towelette, ready to use solution an aerosol spray. Based on product labels, all formulations are liquid. The following scenarios were considered for residential handlers of phenol containing products: ( 1) application of paint treated with a material preservative using paintbrush/ roller, ( 2) use of disinfectant/ deodorizing spray on hard non porous surfaces, and ( 3) use of disinfectant towelette on hard non porous surfaces. Inhalation and dermal exposures were addressed for residential populations using surrogate data from the Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA, 1992), and several studies which relate to the use patterns of PHMB. Using surrogate unit exposure data, application rates from labels, and EPA estimates of daily amount handled, exposure and risks to handlers and postapplication workers were assessed. At this time, EPA does not have available chemical specific handler or post application exposure studies that meet Agency guidelines.

The calculated inhalation MOE's for all three scenarios are above the target MOEs of 1,000. Page 8 of 12 The calculated dermal MOEs for the following scenarios were below the target MOE of 100, and are therefore of concern: painting using a paintbrush/ roller ( MOE = 18.3) and wiping hard surfaces using a towelette ( MOE = 41.0).

Residential post application exposures ( adults and children) are expected to be minimal because the majority of exposure is expected occur through contact with dry surfaces ( e. g. paints) and the end use products are expected to be diluted. The residential post application scenario considered in this assessment is exposure to residue from carpets that have been machine cleaned with a product containing phenol ( and phenol salts). While the label also indicates that the product may be sprayed directly onto carpet, this scenario was not evaluated due to lack of data regarding application rates. In general, dermal exposure to residues in treated carpet should be limited to contact on bare feet. However, there is also potential exposure to undressed toddlers. The dermal MOEs calculated is below the target MOE of 100. However, the potential daily dose calculated is extremely conservative, due to a lack of supporting data. The dose should not be considered indicative of the true values associated with this type of exposure. .

AGGREGATE EXPOSURE AND RISK In order for a pesticide registration to continue, it must be shown that the use does not result in " unreasonable adverse effects on the environment". Section 2 ( bb) of FIFRA defines this term to include " a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with standard under section 408..." of FFDCA. Consequently, even though no pesticide tolerances have been established for phenol, the standards of FQPA must still be met, including " that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and other exposures for which there are reliable information." Aggregate exposure is the total exposure to a single chemical ( or its residues) that may occur from dietary ( i. e., food and drinking water), residential, and other non occupational sources, and from all known or plausible exposure routes ( oral, dermal, and inhalation). Aggregate risk assessments were conducted for acute ( 1 day), short term ( 1 30 days), intermediate term ( 1 6 months) and chronic ( several months to lifetime) exposures.

Dermal Aggregate Exposure: Aggregate risk assessments were considered for three short, intermediate and long term exposure scenarios for adults exposed to phenol and phenol salts as a result of residential handling, including: ( 1) application of paint treated with a material preservative using paintbrush/ roller, ( 2) use of disinfectant/ deodorizing spray on hard non porous surfaces, and ( 3) Use of disinfectant towelette on hard non porous surfaces.

The dermal MOE calculated for the paintbrush/ roller application is 18.3. The dermal MOE calculated for the disinfectant/ deodorizing spray is 41.0. Because these dermal MOEs are below the target MOE of 100, the application of treated paints with a material preservative using a paintbrush/ roller by adults and the use of disinfectant/ deodorizing spray on hard non porous surfaces by adults, are risks of concern. As a result, an aggregate risk assessment of the application of paint or the use of the disinfectant/ deodorizing spray in conjunction with another activity ( i. e. the use of a disinfectant towelette on hard non porous surfaces) would not be required to show that a composite of activities is also below the target MOE of 100.

The dermal MOEs calculated for the disinfectant towelettes on hard non porous surfaces is 871,000. Because the dermal MOE is above the target MOE of 100, the use of Page 9 of 12 disinfectant/ deodorizing spray on hard non porous surfaces by adults, in itself, is not a significant risk. However, for other possible applications of phenol and phenol salts, the dermal MOE is below the target MOE of 100. As a result, an aggregate risk assessment, including the use of disinfectant/ deodorizing spray on hard non porous surfaces in conjunction with another activity ( i. e. application of paint treated with a material preservative using paintbrush/ roller or the use of a disinfectant towelette on hard non porous surfaces) is not needed to demonstrate that a combination of two activities would be below the target MOE of 100.

Inhalation Aggregate Exposure: In two of the three adult exposure scenarios considered, the dermal MOEs were below the target MOE of 100 and demonstrate a concern of risk for these scenarios. The calculated inhalation MOEs for these same scenarios exceed the target MOE of 1,000. However, because the dermal MOEs already demonstrate a concern of risk for these scenarios, an aggregate of inhalation exposure to restate a concern of risk for these scenarios is not required.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE A detailed human exposure risk assessment for phenol and phenol salts is provided in the Appendix. The summary of the occupational exposures are presented below.

Inhalation and dermal exposures were addressed for occupational populations using surrogate dat from the chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA, 1992) and PHED. Using surrogate unit exposure data, application rates from labels, and EPA estimates of daily amount handled, exposure and risks to handlers and post application workers were addressed. At this time, EPA has not identified post application scenarios for commercial uses that are not addressed by the residential post application exposure assessment ( e. g., contacting treated surfaces are represented by children's incidental oral and dermal exposures while crawling on treated surfaces such as carpets).

Six commercial/ institutional scenarios have been considered in this assessment:

1. Use of disinfectant solutions in hemodialysis machines,

2. Application of paint treated with a material preservative using airless sprayer,

3. Application of paint treated with a material preservative using paintbrush/ roller.

4. Use of disinfectant/ deodorizing spray on hard non porous surfaces.

5. Use of disinfectant towelette on hard non porous surfaces.

6. Use as a material preservativeas a liquid pour.

For hemodialysis machines, the label indicates that the product can be used in single patient and multiple patient delivery systems. The use of this product in multi patient delivery systems was chosen for evaluation since it involves a greater volume of product ( 1.0 L vs. 0.150mL) than the single patient delivery system. It was assumed that the machines are disinfected daily and on average, a worker handles 3 machines per day.

One phenol product is listed for use as an industrial additive, and lists paint as a possible use. The label recommends 2% 5% by active ingredients be added. As a conservative measure, it is assumed that the treated paint is comprised of 5% active ingredient, by weight. Assuming that paint Page 10 of 12 has a density of 10 lbs per gallon, the concentration of phenols in paint is 0.5 lbs a. i./ gallon. For the material preservative use of phenol, primary handlers adding the product during the manufacturing of paint has been selected to represent the high end of exposure for the primary handlers. It is assumed that paint is produced in 1,000 gallon batches ( i. e., 10,000 lbs.). In addition, paint also has been selected to represent the high end of the exposures for the secondary handlers. Two painting scenarios were considered in this assessment: use of an airless sprayer ( 50 gallons per day) and use of a paintbrush/ roller ( 5 gallons per day) to paint the exterior of a house.

The sprays and the solution used to treat the towelette contain 1.62% phenol/ sodium phenate. It was assumed that the density of this solution is the same as the density of water. The label for the towelette product did not describe the quantity of product to be used, rather, the directions state that towelette to be used to wipe the surface, and then the surface should be wiped dry. In the absence of more specific use information, it was assumed that 1 liter of the solution used to wet the towelette is used by the exposed individual per day. Similarly, the aerosol spray directions state that the product can be sprayed 2 4 seconds to deodorize a room, but no data were available describing the quantity that is emitted by spraying for this time. Therefore, 1 liter of solution also was assumed for use of the aerosol spray.

The estimated short and intermediate term dermal MOEs for the following scenarios were below the target MOE of 100, and are therefore of concern.

6. Painting using an airless sprayer, with chemical resistant gloves ( MOE= 21); and 7. Wiping hard surfaces using a towelette ( MOE = 70)

The estimated short and intermediate term inhalation MOEs for the following scenarios were below the target MOE of 300, and are therefore of concern:

8. Painting using an airless sprayer ( MOE = 88).

INCIDENT REPORT ASSESSMENT A total of 10 individual human incident cases submitted to the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs are associated with exposed to phenol and/ or sodium phenate containing products. Dermal and inhalation are the two primary route of exposure.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of dermal exposure were skin irritation/ burning , rash , itching , skin discoloration/ redness.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of inhalation exposure were respiratory irritation/ burning, asthma/ difficult breathing, throat / chest congestion and sore throat. Headache, drowsiness, night sweats and heart palpitation have also been reported when expose to the chemical through both dermal and inhalation exposure routes. Page 11 of 12 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT III. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE ASSESSMENT Phenol appears to have degradation pathways in air ( calculated half life less than a day) water ( measured half life less than a day), aerobic and anaerobic soils ( degradation half lives less than 5 days). It is not likely to bio accumulate in aquatic organisms. ( Measured BCF in goldfish is 0.28 and 1.3 in golden orfe). Data on plants show that due to a high respiratory decomposition of phenol into carbon dioxide ( mineralization), it is also not likely to accumulate in plants. Due to multi media degradation pathways, phenol is not likely to be an environmental concern.

IV. ECOLOGICAL/ ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT Phenol/ Sodium Phenate is registered with EPA as an active product and is used as an intermediate in the production of epoxy resins, the production of various other products, as a general disinfectant and in medicinal preparations. For the reregistration eligibility decision ( RED) process the Agency has relied on open literature and fate properties of Phenol from open literature.

Phenol and sodium phenate also are used as sanitizers, primarily for hard surfaces and as materials preservatives. Outdoor uses, such as swimming pool waters and intermittently flooded areas, were once registered uses for phenol and sodium phenate, but are no longer supported by any registrants.

Terrestrial Animals  For indoor uses, an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient ( TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of phenol to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck ( a waterfowl) or northern bobwhite quail ( an upland game bird). No avian acute toxicity studies were identified in the reviewed literature for phenol and its salts. Avian acute oral toxicity testing ( 850.2100/ 71 1) is required to support the currently registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate. Avian dietary toxicity studies using the TGAI of phenol and sodium phenate are not required for the indoor uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.

Freshwater Fish  Freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI to establish the toxicity of phenol to fish. Data generally are required for only one species. Testing in two fish species is required for stable chemicals with high volume effluents ( e. g., including, but not limited to, egg washing, fruit and vegetable rinses, swimming pools or materials preservatives) and if the LC 50 in the first species is greater than(> 1 ppm. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish), although other test species identified in OPPTS Guideline ( i. e., 850.1075 ( e)( 4)( i)( A)) also may be used. Many freshwater fish acute toxicity studies were identified from peerreviewed literature, but no studies have been submitted to support registration of phenol/ sodium phenate. Freshwater fish acute toxicity testing ( 850.1075/ 72 1) on one species is required to support the currently registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.

Acute toxicity for freshwater fish ranged from 5 mg/ L ( rainbow trout) to 23.9 mg/ L ( bluegill), with average values of 9.1 mg/ L for rainbow trout and 17.1 mg/ L for bluegill. These data indicate the phenol is moderately toxic to coldwater species, such as the rainbow trout, and slightly toxic to warmwater species, such as the bluegill. Page 12 of 12 RISK TO ENDANGERED SPECIES The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses to affect any particular species, EPA puts basic toxicity and exposure data developed for risk assessments into context for individual listed species and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, the geographic relationship between specific pesticide uses and species locations, and biological requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species. A determination that there is a likelihood of potential impact to a listed species may result in limitations on use of the pesticide, other measures to mitigate any potential impact, or consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/ or the National Marine Fisheries Service as necessary.

Based on the low likelihood of environmental exposure from the registered indoor uses, coupled with phenol's rapid degradation in air, water, and soil, as well as the low toxicity of phenol to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants, adverse impacts to endangered species are not expected from the registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42005-42006]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16926]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9015-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 07/07/2014 Through 07/11/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140191, Final EIS, NPS, FL, Gulf Islands National Seashore
Final General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/18/2014, Contact:
Dan Brown<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140192, Second Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Mid-Coast Corridor
Transit Project, Comment, Period Ends: 09/02/2014, Contact: Alexander
Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140193, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, West Sacramento Project,
Comment Period Ends: 09/02/2014, Contact: Anne Baker<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140194, Revised Final EIS, USFS, CA, Harris Vegetation
Management, Review Period Ends: 08/25/2014, Contact: Emelia Barnum 530-
926-9600.
EIS No. 20140195, Final EIS, CALTRANS, CA, State Route 58 (SR-58)
Kramer Junction Expressway, Project, Review Period Ends: 08/18/2014,
Contact: Kurt Heidelberg<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140113, Draft EIS, USFWS, MA, Monomoy National Wildlife
Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/
10/2014, Contact: Libby Herland<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to the FR Notice
Published 04/18/2014; Extending the Comment Period from 06/06/2014 to
10/10/2014.
EIS No. 20140151, Draft EIS, USFWS, VA, Chincoteague and Wallops Island
National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan,
Comment Period Ends: 08/15/2014, Contact: Thomas Bonetti<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Revision to the FR Notice Published 05/23/2014; Extending Comment
Period from 07/15/2014 to 08/15/2014.

    Dated: July 15, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-16926 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-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 my life. I had attempted to quit smoking on many occasions during the 15 years that I smoked. I started using a vaporizor in Sept. of 2012. Since then I have slowly decreased the level of nicotine in the juices I vape from 18mg to 6mg and will soon be switching to 0 nicotine juices. I feel tremendously better since switching. And my family is very happy for the change.

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