[Federal Register: October 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60325-60327]
[DOCID:fr17oc05-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[FERC Docket No. CP04-58-000, CP04-58-001, CP04-58-002, and CP04-58-
003; POLB Application No. HDP 03-079 SCH No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]

Port of Long Beach, Sound Energy Solutions; Notice of
Availability/Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Report, Draft General Conformity Determination, and Draft Port Master
Plan Amendment for the Proposed Long Beach LNG Import Project

October 7, 2005.
    The environmental staffs of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) and the Port of Long Beach (POLB) have
prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (EIS/EIR) on the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and
natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Sound Energy Solutions
(SES) in the above-referenced dockets. The draft EIS/EIR was prepared
to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A draft
General Conformity Determination was also prepared by the FERC to
assess the potential air quality impacts associated with construction
and operation of the proposed project and is included as Appendix E of
the draft EIS/EIR.
    The draft EIS/EIR includes an Application Summary Report that was
prepared by the POLB pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, the
certified Port Master Plan (PMP), and the California Coastal Act for
the proposed project. Based on data contained in the draft EIS/EIR and
Application Summary Report, the proposed project is in conformance with
the stated policies of the PMP. An amendment to the PMP would be
necessary, however, to accommodate the LNG facility because LNG is not
an expressly identified ``hazardous cargo'' as permitted within
Terminal Island Planning District 4. The POLB has submitted a draft PMP
amendment (draft PMP Amendment No. 20) to the California Coastal
Commission in conjunction with submittal of the draft EIS/EIR.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is participating as a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS/EIR because the
project would require permits pursuant to section 404 of the Clean
Water Act [33 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1344] and section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403). The ACOE must comply with the
requirements of NEPA before issuing these permits. The ACOE would adopt
the EIS/EIR per Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section
1506.3 if, after an independent review of the document, it concludes
that its comments and suggestions have been satisfied.
    The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) within the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security has elected to act as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EIS/EIR because it exercises regulatory authority
over LNG facilities that affect the safety and security of port areas
and navigable waterways under Executive Order 10173; the Magnuson Act
(50 U.S.C. 191); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1221, et seq.); and the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701). The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG
facility security plan review, approval and compliance verification as
provided in Title 33 CFR part 105, and siting as it pertains to the
management of vessel traffic in and around the LNG facility. As
required by its regulations, the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing
a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway
for LNG marine traffic. The Coast Guard plans to adopt the EIS/EIR if
it adequately covers the impacts associated with issuance of the LOR.
    SES' proposed facilities would provide up to 1 billion standard
cubic feet per day of natural gas to southern California, supply up to
150,000 gallons per day of LNG vehicle fuel, and provide storage of up
to 320,000 cubic meters of imported LNG to reduce fluctuations in the
local natural gas supply. In order to provide LNG import, storage, and
pipeline transportation services, SES requests authorization to

construct, install, and operate an LNG import terminal and natural gas
pipeline facilities.
    The draft EIS/EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of
the construction and operation of the following facilities:
     A 1,100-foot-long LNG ship berth and unloading facility
with unloading arms, mooring and breasting dolphins, and a fendering
system that would be capable of unloading one ship at a time;
     Two LNG storage tanks, each with a gross volume of 160,000
cubic meters (1,006,000 barrels) surrounded by a security barrier wall;
     20 electric-powered booster pumps;
     Four shell and tube vaporizers using a primary, closed-
loop water system;
     Three boil-off gas compressors, a condensing system, a
natural gas liquids recovery system, and an export ethane (C
2) heater;
     An LNG trailer truck loading facility with a small LNG
storage tank;
     A natural gas meter station and odorization system;
     Utilities, buildings, and service facilities;
     Associated hazard detection, control, and prevention
systems; site security facilities; cryogenic piping; and insulation,
electrical, and instrumentation systems;
     A 2.3-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline and associated
aboveground facilities to transport natural gas from the LNG terminal
to the existing local distribution system; and
     A 4.6-mile-long, 10-inch-diameter pipeline and associated
aboveground facilities to transport vaporized C 2 from the
LNG terminal to an existing refinery.

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS/EIR, draft General
Conformity Determination, and/or draft PMP Amendment No. 20 may do so.
To expedite the receipt and consideration of your comments, electronic
submission of comments is strongly encouraged. See Title 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the FERC's Internet Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the eFiling link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can submit comments, you will need to create a
free account by clicking on ``Sign-up'' under ``New User.'' You will be
asked to select the type of submission you are making. This type of
submission is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' Comments submitted
electronically must be submitted by December 8, 2005.
    If you wish to mail comments on the draft EIS/EIR, draft General
Conformity Determination, and/or draft PMP Amendment No. 20, please
mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on
or before December 8, 2005 and carefully follow these instructions:
    Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
     Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Reference FERC Docket No. CP04-58-000, et al. and POLB
Application No. HDP 03-079 on the original and both copies;
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of the
Gas Branch 1, DG2E;
     Send an additional copy of your letter to: Robert Kanter,
Ph.D., Planning Division, 925 Harbor Plaza, Port of Long Beach, Long
Beach, CA 90802.
    In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, we invite
you to attend the joint public comment meeting that the staffs of the
FERC and the POLB (Agency Staffs) will conduct in the project area to
receive comments on the draft EIS/EIR, draft General Conformity
Determination, and draft PMP Amendment No. 20. The joint meeting is
scheduled as follows: Monday, November 14, 2005, 6 p.m. (PST), City of
Long Beach, City Council Chambers, 333 W. Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach,
CA 90802.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The joint meeting will be posted on the FERC's calendar located at
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx. Interested groups

and individuals are encouraged to attend and present oral comments on
the draft EIS/EIR, draft General Conformity Determination, and/or draft
PMP Amendment No. 20. A transcript of the meeting will be prepared.
    In accordance with the POLB's new protocols for preparing
environmental documents, the POLB will hold three additional public
comment meetings for interested groups and individuals to attend and
present oral comments on the draft EIS/EIR and/or draft PMP Amendment
No. 20. Transcripts of these meetings will be prepared. The additional
meetings are scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 15, 2005, 6  David Starr Jordan High School, 6550
 p.m. (PST).                    Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90805.
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005,  Robert A. Millikan High School, 2800
 6 p.m. (PST).                  Snowden Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90815.
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thursday, December 1, 2005, 6  Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo High School, 2001
 p.m. (PST).                    Santa Fe Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810.
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the comments from the meetings are reviewed, any significant
new issues are investigated, and modifications are made to the draft
EIS/EIR and draft General Conformity Determination, a final EIS/EIR,
including a final General Conformity Determination, will be published
and distributed. The final EIS/EIR will contain the Agency Staffs'
responses to timely comments received on the draft EIS/EIR and draft
General Conformity Determination.
    In addition, the POLB will consider comments on draft PMP Amendment
No. 20 and prepare a final PMP amendment. The final PMP amendment will
be presented to the Board of Harbor Commissioners for consideration of
adoption when the final EIS/EIR is presented for certification. If the
Board of Harbor Commissioners adopts the PMP amendment and certifies
the final EIS/EIR, the PMP amendment will be submitted to the
California Coastal Commission for review and certification. The POLB
draft PMP Amendment No. 20 proposes to allow for the development of an
LNG import terminal at Berth 126 on Pier T in the Terminal Island
District (Planning District 4) of the POLB. The proposed project, if
approved, is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. Copies of
draft PMP Amendment No. 20 and the draft EIS/EIR are available to the
public at the Harbor Department Administration Building or requests may
be made to the Harbor Department, Planning Division at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments on the draft EIS/EIR, draft General Conformity
Determination, and draft PMP Amendment No. 20 will be considered by the
FERC and the POLB but will not serve to make the commentor a party to
the proceeding.

Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the FERC's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (Title 18 CFR part 385.214).
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on the draft EIS/EIR.
You must file your request to intervene as specified above.\1\ You do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered and
responded to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft EIS/EIR, including the draft General Conformity
Determination, has been placed in the public files of the FERC and the
POLB and is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER> and Port of Long Beach,
Planning Division, 925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, CA 90802. (562) 590-
4160.
    The draft EIS/EIR, including the draft General Conformity
Determination, is also available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link (see instructions

for using eLibrary below).
    A limited number of copies are available from the FERC's Public
Reference Room and as .pdf files on compact disk (CD) from the POLB as
identified above. Copies of draft PMP Amendment No. 20 are available
from the POLB as identified above. In addition, copies of the draft
EIS/EIR, including the draft General Conformity Determination, have
been mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
affected landowners; POLB tenants; intervenors in the FERC's
proceeding; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested
parties.
    To reduce printing and mailing costs the final EIS/EIR will be
issued in both CD and hard-copy formats. In a separate mailing, the
parties on the current mailing list for the draft EIS/EIR will be sent
a postcard providing an opportunity for them to select which format of
the final EIS/EIR they wish to receive. The FERC and the POLB are
strongly encouraging the use of the CD format in their publication of
large documents. If you wish to receive a paper copy of the final EIS/
EIR instead of a CD, you must return the postcard indicating that
choice.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
FERC's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click

on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the FERC, such as orders, notices,
and rulemakings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription
link on the FERC Internet Web site.
    Information about the project is also available from the POLB by
calling the POLB Environmental Planning Division at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5706 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division Contact: Kathryn Montague<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[K-I CHEMICAL U.S.A., INC.]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
K-I CHEMICAL U.S.A., INC. c/o Landis International, Inc., P. O. Box 5126
Valdosta, GA  31603-5126 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing  tolerances for residues of
pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)
pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and
its metabolites  M-3
(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic
acid), M-25
(5-difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic
acid and M-28
(3-[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5-dihydroisoxazol-3-ylthio)ethylamino]-3
-oxopropanoic acid) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
pyroxasulfone in or on the raw agricultural commodities soybean seed at
0.07 and pyroxasulfone
(3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)
pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and
its metabolites M-1
(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-ylmethanesulf
onic acid ), M-3
(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic
acid), and M-25
(5-difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic
acid)  calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone in
or on the raw agricultural commodities soybean forage at 1.5 and soybean
hay at 2.0 ppm (parts per million).  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

Residue Chemistry

1. Plant Metabolism. Plant metabolism studies were conducted and
accepted by the Agency for soybean and field corn.  The plant and animal
metabolism of pyroxasulfone is well understood. Primary metabolic
processes are cleavage between the two ring structures, side chain
oxidation to carboxylic acid and demethylation.  Pyroxasulfone and its
major metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25 were metabolites in corn and
soybean.  The metabolism of pyroxasulfone in plants and animals is
understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances.  Pyroxasulfone
and its metabolites M-1, M-3, M-25and M-28 are the residues of concern
for tolerance setting purposes for soybean.

	2. Analytical method. EPA has approved an analytical enforcement
methodology including liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, and mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) to enforce the tolerance expression for
pyroxasulfone.

	3. Magnitude of residues.

A total of 25 soybean residue (RAC) field trials were conducted in
regions 2, 4 and 5 of the United States.  Samples were collected from
each plot at the appropriate time.   Matrices were extracted with
acetonitrile or aqueous methanol followed by various cleanup steps
depending on the matrix and analyte.  Analysis was performed using
LC-MS/MS for pyroxasulfone and its metabolites in all matrices.  The
proposed tolerances were calculated using the OECD residue calculator.
The proposed tolerance in or on soybean seed for combined residues of
pyroxasulfone, M-3, M-25, and M-28 is 0.07 ppm. The proposed tolerance
in or on soybean forage and hay for combined residues of pyroxasulfone,
M-1, M-3, and M-25 is 1.5 ppm and 2.0 ppm, respectively. The proposed
tolerances on processed soybean commodities are not necessary at this
time since residues on these commodities are not expected to exceed
those in the raw agricultural commodities (RAC) and thus will be covered
by the RAC tolerances.

Confined Rotational Crop Study

Pyrazole or isoxazoline ring labeled 14C KIH-485 was sprayed on confined
plots of bare soil prior to planting soybean, radish and wheat at 30,
120 and 365 day intervals.  There were two treated plots for each
plantback interval, one of which was wheat only and the other was
planted half with soybean and half with radish.  All plots were treated
at a target application rate of 300 g a.i./ha but the actual rate was
313 g a.i./ha.  Samples were analyzed by combustion analysis and liquid
scintillation counting.  All treated crops contained radioactive residue
>0.01 ppm and were subjected to further analysis.  The highest total
radioactive residue (TRR), 5.2 ppm was found at the 30 day rotational in
wheat straw; the residue level declined to 0.02 ppm at 485 days.  The
primary metabolites were M-1 and M-3.

Cow Feeding Study

	Holstein dairy cows were treated orally with gelatin capsules fortified
with pyroxasulfone.  These were administered once daily for 28
consecutive days at dose levels of 0, 1.8, 5.4, and 18 ppm per cow/day
on a dry weight basis amounting to concentrations of control, 1X, 3X and
10X dose groups, respectively.  These dose levels were equivalent to 0,
35.8 mg/cow/day, 109.9 mg/cow/day and 367.4 mg/cow/day, respectively.
Milk samples from the high dose animals (10X) were found to contain no
residues of the parent compound or metabolites with the exception of 3
milk samples from day 7 which contained an average of 0.003 ppm parent
pyroxasulfone.  No other milk samples from the other dose levels were
found to contain residues of pyroxasulfone or metabolites.  No other
matrix (muscle, liver, kidney or fat) was found to contain residues of
pyroxasulfone or metabolites above LOQ.  The LOQs were 0.001 ppm in milk
and 0.01 ppm in all other matrices.  Therefore, no tolerances for
residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites are being proposed for
meat, milk, eggs or other edible tissues of livestock or poultry.

B. Toxicological Profile

1.  Acute Toxicity. Pyroxasulfone was found to be of low acute toxicity
via oral, dermal and inhalation routes of administration.  It was not
irritating to skin or eyes and was not a sensitizing agent.  The
formulated product (85WG) was also of low acute toxicity and was found
to be mildly irritating to skin, moderately irritating to eyes and was a
dermal sensitizer.  In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, there were
no test substance-related effects on body weights, food consumption,
clinical observations, functional observational battery assessments,
motor activity measurements, or gross and microscopic neuropathology.
The NOEL was demonstrated to be >2000 mg/kg/day in adult male and female
rats.

2.  Genotoxicity. Pyroxasulfone and its metabolites and impurities do
not induce gene mutations in bacterial cells.  Pyroxasulfone does not
induce gene mutations or chromosomal aberrations in in vitro mammalian
cells or in vivo in the mouse micronucleus test.  Pyroxasulfone is
non-genotoxic.

3.  Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a developmental toxicity
study in rats, the NOEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was
>1000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

	In a developmental toxicity study in rabbits, there were slight test
substance-related effects on fetal weight and number of implant
resorptions at 1000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.  The NOEL for
maternal toxicity was 1000 mg/kg/day. The NOEL for developmental
toxicity was 500 mg/kg/day.

	In a rat one-generation reproductive study no reproductive toxicity was
observed up to and including the high dose of 5000 ppm.  The NOEL for
reproductive toxicity was >5000 ppm, the highest dose tested.  The NOEL
for P1 adult rats was 25 ppm.  The NOEL for F1 offspring was 250 ppm and
the NOEL for F1 adults was 250 ppm.

	In a rat two-generation reproduction study there were no test
substance-related effects for reproductive toxicity at 2000 ppm, the
highest concentration tested.   The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was
>2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested. Test substance-related
effects were observed at 2000 ppm in both adults and offspring.
Therefore, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was demonstrated to be 100
ppm (6.94 – 11.76 mg/kg/day) in both parents and offspring.

	In a developmental neurotoxicity study conducted on pyroxasulfone in
mated female rats no reproductive effects were observed in the maternal
animals at 2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested. No effects were
observed on FOBs, auditory startle response habituation, pre-pulse
inhibition, learning and memory of offspring.  A slight (5%) decrease in
absolute brain weight at 900 mg/kg/day was present on PD 66, although no
effect was present when evaluated on a % body weight basis.  Based on
the effects observed in this study, the maternal and offspring systemic
NOAEL is 900 mg/kg/day. The NOEL for functional development was judged
to be 900 mg/kg/day. A NOEL for histomorphological development of the
brain of the offspring was judged to be 300 mg/kg/day.

	Two studies were performed to assess the availability of the test
substance to the pup.  These studies indicated that pyroxasulfone was
available in the milk to nursing pups.

	4.  Subchronic toxicity. Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in a 28-day
inhalation toxicity study in rats.  There were no test substance-related
effects.  The NOEL was >200 mg/m3, the highest dose tested.

	In a 28-day dermal toxicity study there was a test substance-related
increase in the incidence of minimal to mild cardiac myofiber
degeneration with inflammation observed in males and females dosed with
1000 mg/kg/day and cutaneous myofiber degeneration with inflammation
observed in the treated skin of males dosed with 1000 mg/kg/day.  The
NOEL was 100 mg/kg/day.

	Immunotoxicity was evaluated in rats and mice following dietary
exposure for 28 days.  There were no test substance related effects for
any of the immunotoxicity parameters examined.  In the rat, systemic
toxicity was limited to reductions in body weight and food consumption.
The NOEL for immunotoxicity was 7500 ppm (529 and 570 mg/kg in males and
females) and the NOEL for systemic effects was 250 ppm (18 and 19 mg/kg
in males and females).  In the mouse, the NOEL for immunotoxicity was
4000 ppm (633 mg/kg/day males: 791 mg/kg/day females) and the NOEL for
systemic effects was 400 ppm (61 mg/kg males: 77 mg/kg females).

	Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in 13-week oral toxicity studies in rats,
mice and dogs. In the 13 week mouse study, no test substance-related
effects on in-life and clinical pathology parameters were observed at
any level tested. Test substance-related effects at 2500 ppm were
limited to an increased incidence of minimal to mild chronic progressive
nephropathy in female mice and increased liver weight in males and
females fed 2500 ppm.  The NOEL was 250 ppm for female mice (51.2
mg/kg/day).  The NOEL for male mice was 2500 ppm (394.0 mg/kg/day).

	 In the 13 week rat study, a NOEL of 250 ppm for male and female rats
corresponded to mean daily intake values of 16.4 and 20.6 mg/kg/day in
males and females, respectively.  Test substance related effects were
increased cardiac myofiber degeneration with inflammation and diffuse
mucosal hyperplasia of the urinary bladder.  Increased liver weights and
centrilobular hypertrophy were also observed in 2500 ppm males and
females. In a second study evaluating recovery, full or partial recovery
was evident in all the above effects apart from kidney weights in
females with all microscopic findings in the liver, heart, muscle and
pancreas of 5000 ppm animals comparable to control rats indicating a
complete reversal of the treatment-related findings noted at the
terminal sacrifice.

	In an oral 90 day toxicity study in beagle dogs administered
pyroxasulfone in a capsule, the NOEL was 2.0 mg/kg. The only effects
noted were degeneration of muscle fiber of the musculature portion of
the diaphragm, hyperplasia of the satellite cell of the muscle and nerve
fiber degeneration of the sciatic nerve in one 10mg/kg/day group male
only.  In a second study dosed with 0 or 15 mg/kg of pyroxasulfone,
male dogs showed a decrease in body weight and histopathology similar to
the full study.

	Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in a subchronic 90 day neurotoxicity
dietary study in rats.  There were no effects on body weights, food
consumption, clinical observations, FOB assessments, motor activity
measurements, or gross and microscopic neuropathology. The NOEL was
>2500 ppm, the highest dose tested, for male and female rats
corresponding to mean daily intake values of 161.48 and 199.59 mg/kg/day
in males and females, respectively.

5.  Chronic toxicity. Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in the rat
and dog. In the rat one year chronic toxicity study test
substance-related effects occurred at 1000 ppm and above that included
reduced body weight parameters and microscopic findings in the liver
(centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy in males), heart (increased
cardiomyopathy in females) and urinary bladder (mucosal hyperplasia in
males and females) and urinary bladder hyperplasia considered to be
secondary to inflammation or irritation.  At 2000 ppm, these effects
were accompanied by increased clinical observations of red discharge
from the penis and associated red-stained cageboards as well as
increased liver and kidney weights. A slight increase in liver and
kidney weights was observed in the 2000 ppm male and female dietary
exposure groups. The NOEL is 50 ppm (2.22 and 3.12 mg/kg/day for males
and females, respectively).

	In a one-year dog study beagle dogs/sex/dose were administered capsules
containing 0.0, 0.2, 2.0 and 10.0 mg/kg/day.  Adverse test
article-related findings were limited to the 10.0 mg/kg/day group, the
highest dose tested and not all animals at the 10 mg/kg/day dosage had
clear test-article related abnormal observations.  Adverse changes in
the clinical pathology parameters were increases in creatine kinase,
aspartate aminotransferase and change in the pathology limited to the
sciatic nerve and spinal cord.  The NOAEL is 2.0 mg/kg/day.

	The carcinogenic potential of pyroxasulfone was evaluated in rats and
mice. The Agency has classified pyroxasulfone as “Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans” at doses that do not cause crystals with
subsequent calculi formation resulting in cellular damage of the urinary
tract.

6.  Animal metabolism.  In the rat, pyroxasulfone is rapidly and
completely eliminated.  Between 80 to 90% of pyroxasulfone was
eliminated in the urine during the first 24 hours and elimination was
essentially complete after 48 to 72 hours.  Absorption was calculated
(bile and urine) at 76%.  Maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at
2 hours in the low and 11 hours in the high dose animals.  At 96 hours
only 7% of the low dose and <0.5% of the high dose was present in the
carcass demonstrating the near complete elimination of pyroxasulfone.
Of the radioactivity present in the animals, the highest levels were
seen in the liver and kidney.  The major metabolites were a carboxylated
(pyrazole ring methyl group) and cleavage products between the
isoxazoline and pyrazole ring structure with subsequent carboxylation.
The absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of
pyroxasulfone is unaffected by sex or treatment regimen.

	In a preliminary study in the dog, pyroxasulfone is rapidly eliminated
with 76.9% of radioactivity excreted within 24 hours.  Excretion is
approximately equal in urine and feces. The terminal half life was 89.58
hr and 40.80 hr in blood and plasma, respectively.  The feces were found
to contain only unchanged pyroxasulfone while no parent molecule was
found in the urine.  At 120 hr after dosing, the levels of radioactivity
in the tissues were highest in the liver and blood.

	In a preliminary mouse metabolism study, 73% of the applied dose of
pyroxasulfone was excreted in urine within 24 hours of dosing.
Pyroxasulfone was rapidly absorbed and distributed through the tissues
of the mouse but by 24 hours after dosing, radioactivity concentrations
in the majority of tissues were indistinguishable from background
levels.

	Metabolism studies in livestock and poultry (Nature of Residue Studies
with Goat and Hen) with repeated dose established that pyroxasulfone was
rapidly metabolized and excreted and that there was minimal transmittal
of residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites to meat or milk.  For
goats fed 10 ppm of radiolabeled pyroxasulfone, the highest residues
(TRR) were seen in liver and kidney.  In the hen, fed 10 ppm, the
highest residue was seen in liver and muscle.

7.  Metabolite toxicology. Three plant metabolites and three impurities
were evaluated in acute oral toxicity studies.  All six test substances
evaluated showed LD50’s >2000 mg/kg similar to the parent,
pyroxasulfone.  Two metabolites were further assessed in a 14 day
toxicity study in rats.  The NOEL for each of the metabolites was > 1000
mg/kg.  The same three metabolites and impurities were evaluated in a
bacterial gene mutation test with and without activation.  All test
substances were non-genotoxic.

8.  Endocrine disruption. Pyroxasulfone does not belong to a class of
chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine
system.  There is no evidence that pyroxasulfone has any effect on
endocrine function in developmental, reproduction or developmental
neurotoxicity studies.  Furthermore, histological investigation of
endocrine organs in chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate
that the endocrine system is targeted by pyroxasulfone.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. It can be concluded with reasonable certainty that
residues of pyroxasulfone in food will not result in unacceptable levels
of human health risk. Using proposed tolerances for corn, soybean and
wheat, both the acute and chronic dietary exposure MOEs for the overall
US population and 25 population subgroups are above the EPA level of
concern.

	i. Food. Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted
using a Tier I approach.  This Tier I assessment incorporated tolerance
level residues and 100% crop-treated in the DEEMTM (Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model; Exponent, Inc., 2003) software system.  The acute
toxicological endpoint selected for assessment of risk following acute
dietary exposure was 300 mg/kg/day based on the Developmental
Neurotoxicity Study with a NOEL 300 mg/kg/day for motor activity and
brain morphology. The acute reference dose (aRfd) was determined to be 3
mg/kg/day assuming the aRdf is 1 percent of the NOEL. The chronic
toxicological endpoint selected for assessment of risk following chronic
dietary exposure was 2 mg/kg/day based on the one-year chronic feeding
dog study with a NOEL of 2 mg/kg/day. The chronic reference dose (cRfd)
was determined to be 0.02 mg/kg/day assuming the cRfd is 1 percent of
the NOEL. Using proposed tolerances for corn, soybean and wheat, the
acute and chronic dietary exposure Margin of Exposure (MOEs) for the
overall US population and 25 population subgroups are above the EPA
level of concern. It can be concluded with reasonable certainty that
residues of pyroxasulfone in food will not result in unacceptable levels
of human health risk.

	ii. Drinking water. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure
Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model
Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of pyroxasulfone for acute exposure are estimated to be 17 ppb
for surface water and 210 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of pyroxasulfone
for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 3.2
ppb for surface water and 174 ppb for ground water. It can be concluded
with reasonable certainty that residues of pyroxasulfone in drinking
water will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Pyroxasulfone is not intended for any specific
use patterns that would result in residential exposures.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Pyroxasulfone represents a new class of pyrazole herbicides.  No other
products are known to have the same mode of action as pyroxasulfone.
Therefore, a cumulative assessment is not appropriate at this time.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is
complete. Based on the NOEL of 2 mg/kg/day from a 1-year toxicity study
in the dog, proposed uses represent 1 percent of the cRfD of 0.02
mg/kg/day.  Based on the NOEL of 300 mg/kg/day from a developmental
neurotoxicity study, the proposed uses represent 1 percent of the RfD of
3 mg/kg/day.  There is reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S.
population will result from the proposed uses of pyroxasulfone.

	2. Infants and children. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is
complete.  The database includes acute, subchronic, chronic,
mutagenicity, genotoxicity, developmental, reproduction, neurotoxicity
and immunotoxicity studies on pyroxasulfone and acute mutagenicity and
genotoxicity studies on several metabolites.  The weight of evidence
indicates that infants and children are not expected to be more
sensitive to pyroxasulfone than are adults.  Consequently, EPA reduced
the FQPA Safety Factor from 10x to 1x.

F. International Tolerances.

	No international tolerances exist at this time.  Tolerances are
simultaneously being sought in Canada at the same levels and for the
same crops as for the U.S.  Tolerances are simultaneously being sought
on wheat, barely and triticale in Australia.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: October 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 63222-63224]
[DOCID:fr23oc08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58809; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Temporarily Suspend, Through January 16, 2009, the Continued Listing
Requirements Related to Bid Price and Market Value of Publicly Held
Shares

October 17, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 16, 2008, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated the proposed rule
change as effecting a change described under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act,\3\ 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to temporarily suspend, through January 16, 2009,
the application of the continued listing requirements related to bid
price and market value of publicly held shares.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Given current market conditions, Nasdaq proposes to provide issuers
of common stock, preferred stock, secondary classes of common stock,
shares or certificates of beneficial interest of trusts, limited
partnership interests, American Depositary Receipts, and their
equivalents temporary relief from the continued inclusion bid price \4\
and market value of publicly held shares requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nasdaq's continued listing requirements relating to bid
price are set forth in Rules 4310(c)(4), 4320(e)(2)(E)(ii),
4450(a)(5), 4450(b)(4), and 4450(h)(3) and the related compliance
periods are set forth in Rules 4310(c)(8)(D), 4320(e)(2)(E)(ii), and
4450(e)(2). Under these rules, a security is considered deficient if
it fails to achieve at least a $1 closing bid price for a period of
30 consecutive business days. Once deficient, Capital Market issuers
are provided one automatic 180-day period to regain compliance.
Thereafter, these issuers can receive an additional 180-day
compliance period if they comply with all Capital Market initial
inclusion requirements except bid price. Global Market issuers are
also provided one automatic 180-day period to regain compliance,
after which they can transfer to the Capital Market, if they comply
with all Capital Market initial inclusion requirements except bid
price, to take advantage of the second 180-day compliance period. A
company can regain compliance by achieving a $1 closing bid price
for a minimum of ten consecutive business days.
    \5\ Nasdaq's continued listing requirements relating to market
value of publicly held shares are set forth in Rules 4310(c)(7),
4320(e)(5), 4450(a)(2), 4450(b)(3) and 4450(h)(2) and the related
compliance periods are set forth in Rules 4310(c)(8)(B) and
4450(e)(1). Under these rules, a security is considered deficient if
it fails to achieve the minimum market value of publicly held shares
requirement for a period of 30 consecutive business days.
Thereafter, companies have a compliance period of 90 calendar days
to achieve compliance by meeting the applicable standard for a
minimum of ten consecutive business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past several weeks, U.S. and world financial markets have
faced

almost unprecedented turmoil, and the Commission has acknowledged in
several recent emergency Orders that this turmoil has resulted in a
crisis in investor confidence and concerns about the proper functioning
of the securities markets.\6\ As a result, the number of securities
trading below $1 has increased dramatically. For example, as of
September 30, 2007, there were 64 securities trading below $1 on
Nasdaq. By September 30, 2008, that number had increased to 227 and by
October 9, 2008, there were 344 securities trading below $1 on Nasdaq
and over another 300 Nasdaq-listed securities trading between $1 and
$2.\7\ Nasdaq believes that during this time there was no fundamental
change in the underlying business model or prospects for many of these
companies, but the decline in general investor confidence has resulted
in depressed pricing for companies that otherwise remain suitable for
continued listing. These same conditions make it difficult for
companies to successfully implement a plan to regain compliance with
the price or market value of publicly held shares tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58588
(September 18, 2008), 73 FR 55174 (September 24, 2008) (``The
Commission is aware of the continued potential of sudden and
excessive fluctuations of securities prices and disruption in the
functioning of the securities markets that could threaten fair and
orderly markets. Given the importance of confidence in our financial
markets as a whole, we have also become concerned about sudden and
unexplained declines in the prices of securities. Such price
declines can give rise to questions about the underlying financial
condition of an issuer, which in turn can create a crisis of
confidence without a fundamental underlying basis. This crisis of
confidence can impair the liquidity and ultimate viability of an
issuer, with potentially broad market consequences.'').
    \7\ Similarly, from January 1, 2008, to September 30, 2008, the
number of companies deficient in the market value of publicly held
shares requirement more than doubled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these extraordinary market conditions, Nasdaq has determined
that the bid price and market value of publicly held shares
requirements should be temporarily suspended through January 16,
2009.\8\ Under this proposal, companies would not be cited for new bid
price or market value of publicly held shares deficiencies during the
suspension period, and the time allowed to companies already in a
compliance period or in the hearings process for bid price or market
value of publicly held shares deficiencies would be suspended with
respect to those requirements.\9\ Following the temporary suspension,
any new deficiencies with the bid price or market value of publicly
held shares requirements would be determined using data starting on
January 19, 2009.\10\ Companies that were in a compliance period prior
to the suspension would receive the balance of any pending compliance
periods in effect at the time of the suspension.\11\ Similarly,
companies that were in the Hearings process prior to the suspension
would resume in that process at the same stage they were in when the
suspension went into effect. Nasdaq will continue to monitor securities
to determine if they regain compliance during the temporary suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In late 2001, in response to a continuing decline in the
market, which was exacerbated by the tragic events of September
11th, Nasdaq imposed a similar temporary suspension on delisting
securities which were deficient in the bid price and market value of
publicly held shares requirements. Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 44857 (September 27, 2001), 66 FR 50485 (October 3, 2001) (SR-
NASD-2001-61).
    \9\ Nasdaq would continue to identify companies in a compliance
period or in the hearings process as not satisfying the continued
listing standards, unless the company regains compliance during the
suspension. A company would continue to be subject to delisting for
failure to comply with other listing requirements.
    \10\ Nasdaq would not consider the bid price or market value of
publicly held shares for the period before or during the suspension
with respect to a company that is not yet non-compliant with those
requirements at the start of the suspension.
    \11\ For example, if a company is 120 days into its first 180-
day compliance period for a bid price deficiency when the suspension
starts and the company does not regain compliance during the
suspension, the company would have an additional sixty days starting
on January 19, 2009, to regain compliance. The company may be
eligible for the second 180-day compliance period if it satisfies
the conditions for the second compliance period at the conclusion of
the first compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that this temporary suspension will permit
companies to focus on running their businesses, rather than satisfying
market-based requirements that are largely beyond their control in the
current environment. Moreover, this temporary suspension would allow
investors to buy shares of some of these lower-priced securities
without fear that the company will receive a delisting notification or
be delisted in the very near term.\12\ During the temporary suspension,
Nasdaq will consider whether it is appropriate to propose further
revisions to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As noted above, following the suspension, companies
presently in the compliance process will remain at that same stage
of the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular in that it is 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and 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. The proposed rule change is
designed to remove uncertainty regarding the ability of companies to
remain listed on Nasdaq during this especially turbulent market
environment, thereby protecting investors, facilitating transactions in
securities, and removing an impediment to a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \17\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has

requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow Nasdaq to immediately implement a temporary
measure to suspend its continued listing requirements relating to bid
price and market value of publicly held shares to respond to recent
market volatility and conditions. The Commission notes that this will
provide certain companies with immediate relief from receiving a
deficiency or delisting notification, or from being delisted, as a
result of the current market conditions. The Commission notes that this
action is temporary in nature, and that following the suspension,
companies currently in the compliance process or in the hearings
process will resume at the same stage of the process if they remain
non-compliant with these standards. This will ensure that the temporary
suspension addresses the concerns to companies and investors caused by
the current market conditions, and that may result in a company's
securities becoming non-compliant with the bid price and market value
of publicly held shares requirements, or unable to cure such a
deficiency, due to these market conditions. For these reasons, the
Commission designates that the proposed rule change become operative
immediately upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-082 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-NASDAQ-2008-082. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
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-NASDAQ-2008-082 and should be submitted on or before
November 13, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25242 Filed 10-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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

General Comment:First, the comment period on this issue should remain open for 180 days. I am a frequent user of electronic cigarettes and am only just now hearing about this.

I would like to tell you about my father-in-law, who died in January 2013. He was 76 and had smoked cigarettes since he was a teenager. He had heart problems and his doctors told him in 2010 he only had 6 months or less to live if he continued his lifestyle. We purchased an electronic cigarette for him and he quit smoking cigarettes within a week. He started to eat better, his body became healthier and he was better for a time. He had smoked for over 50 years. He lived another 2 and a half years thanks to e-cigarettes. Our family was given 2 more years with him.

My husband I have been smokers since the age of 17. We are both currently 34. In 2009, we were sick of our addiction and we decided to try electronic cigarettes. We had already tried chantix, Wellbutrin, patches, and nicotine gum. We just couldn't quit Within a few months of using electronic cigarettes, we had both quit smoking traditional cigarettes. We are both healthier, no hacking and coughing in the mornings. If we even smell someone smoking, it is offensive. Regular cigarettes are nasty and they are killers. With e-cigarettes, we can slowly reduce the amount of nicotine in the juice we purchase. We can completely control our vaping experience, and no one around us is offended.

The FDA may see a purpose in regulating e-cigarettes, but it certainly shouldn't be under the tobacco category. There is no traditional tobacco in electronic cigarettes. For some, like me, there is no nicotine. There is no burning, offensive odor, no staining of teeth, no residue in the lungs, no second hand smoke. You can vape anywhere and but for the puff of vapor, no one would know you are doing it - there literally is no odor.

There should be some type of oversight, as I wouldn't want to ingest any chemical that would be harmful. However, e-cigarettes and their parts and juice shouldn't be regulated under existing tobacco regulations.

My biggest fear here is that regulations will cause a major change in the industry, products will become unavailable, costs will increase, and people like me will not be able to get e-cigarettes and we will go back to regular cigarettes, which are much more harmful. Up until now, e-cigarettes have been able to evolve with demand and the products have gotten much better over the years. I have been using e-cigarettes for almost 5 years and they have gotten much better in that time. Regulations only serve to stifle industry. Free markets thrive because they are more responsive to the public.


[Federal Register: May 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27535]
[DOCID:fr13my08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-537-000; ER08-537-001]

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 6, 2008.
    Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation (Safe Harbor) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Safe Harbor also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Safe Harbor requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under
18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by Safe Harbor.
    On May 6, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Safe Harbor, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission
encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online
link at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
June 5, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such
blanket approvals by the deadline above, Safe Harbor is authorized to
issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Safe Harbor, compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.

Docket Nos. ER08-537-000 and ER08-537-001

    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Safe Harbor's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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
filed to access the document. 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
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10609 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P