[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4972-4974]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01842]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94047; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change of
Non-Substantive Conforming Changes to Rule 9120

January 25, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on January 10, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes non-substantive conforming changes to Rule
9120 of the Exchange's disciplinary rules. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes non-substantive conforming changes to Rule

9120 (Definitions) of the Exchange's disciplinary rules.
    In 2013, the Exchange adopted rules relating to investigation,
discipline, sanction, and other procedural rules based on the rules of
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').\4\ Rule 9120
defines certain terms used in the Exchange's disciplinary rules,
including ``Department of Market Regulation'' in paragraph (i) and
``Enforcement'' in paragraph (m). The definition of Enforcement in Rule
9120(m) includes the Department of Market Regulation of FINRA as
defined in Rule 9120(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69045 (March 5,
2013), 78 FR 15394 (March 11, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2018, FINRA created a unified enforcement function and
eliminated the separate enforcement function in the Department of
Market Regulation.\5\ In order to reflect FINRA's revised
organizational structure, the Exchange accordingly proposes to delete
the definition of Department of Market Regulation in Rule 9120(i) and
mark paragraph (i) ``Reserved'' in order to maintain the Rule's
sequencing. In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete Department of
Market Regulation of FINRA from the definition of Enforcement in Rule
9120(m). As proposed, Rule 9120(m) would provide that the term
``Enforcement'' refers to (A) any department reporting to the Chief
Regulatory Officer (defined as ``CRO'') of the Exchange with
responsibility for investigating or, when appropriate after compliance
with the Rule 9000 Series, imposing sanctions on a member organization
or covered person and (B) the Department of Enforcement of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``FINRA Announces Enforcement Structure, Senior
Leadership Team,'' July 26, 2018, available at https://www.finra.org/media-center/news-releases/2018/finra-announces-enforcement-structure-senior-leadership-team.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\
in particular, because 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 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed non-
substantive conforming changes would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because the
proposed non-substantive changes would add clarity, transparency and
consistency to the Exchange's rules. The Exchange believes that market
participants would benefit from the increased clarity, thereby reducing
potential confusion and ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's
jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can more easily
navigate and understand the Exchange's rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but is rather concerned with
making non-substantive conforming changes to the Exchange rules.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed
rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2022-02 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-NYSE-2022-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are

cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2022-02 and should be submitted on
or before February 22, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01842 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26687-26691]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09655]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204; FRL-9556-01-OCSPP]

Hydrolyzed Vegetable Proteins From Soy; Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy
when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjusting agent, surfactant, or
adhesive) in pesticide products applied to growing crops pre-harvest,
limited to 25% in the pesticide formulation. SciReg, Inc. on behalf of
Italpollina USA, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy when used in
accordance with this exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 5, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 5, 2022, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204, is

available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide
Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson
Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is open to visitors by
appointment only. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services
and access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 5, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of April 19, 2019 (84 FR 16430) (FRL-9991-
14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11079) by
SciReg, Inc. (12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192) on behalf of
Italpollina USA, Inc. (name changed to Hello Nature USA, Inc.) (1100
South Tower, 225 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30303). The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjusting
agent, surfactant, or adhesive) in pesticide products applied to
growing crops pre-harvest under 40 CFR 180.920. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by SciReg, Inc. on behalf
of Italpollina USA, Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no relevant comments received in response to the notice of
filing. The petitioner subsequently requested a limitation of not more
than 25% hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy in pesticide
formulations for use under 40 CFR 180.920.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue . . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly

demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide
chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose
no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the
toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues
of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other
exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential
settings. If EPA is able to determine that a tolerance is not necessary
to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from soy including exposure resulting from the exemption established by
this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy
as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Hydrolyzed
Vegetable Proteins from Soy; Human Health Risk Assessment and
Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in
Pesticide Formulations'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204.
    Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins (also referred to as vegetable
hydrolysates) are produced through hydrolysis of proteins derived from
plants such as soybeans, peas, corn, alfalfa, potatoes or chickpeas.
This process breaks the protein down to small peptides, reduces the
molecular weight of the original protein and reduces the antigenicity
and allergenicity of the protein. It is expected that systemic toxicity
is similar for all hydrolyzed vegetable proteins regardless the
vegetable source. Since toxicity data on hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from soy are limited, toxicity data on hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from various sources are used to bridge data gaps. Acute and repeated
dose toxicity studies summarized were conducted with a variety of
hydrolyzed vegetables including soybean, potatoes, lupine, avocado,
casein and hemp seed meal.
    Acute toxicity studies conducted with vegetable hydrolysates from
various vegetables are limited. The acute oral toxicity is low in rats
treated with soy protein hydrolysates (also known as hydrolyzed
vegetable protein from soy). The lethal dose, LD50 is >5,000
milligrams per kilogram bodyweight (mg/kg). Vegetable hydrolysates from
soy and lupine proteins do not cause skin irritation in rabbits. In
vitro studies with human skin show no irritation with vegetable
hydrolysates from potatoes. No eye irritation is observed in rabbits
treated with vegetable hydrolysates from soy, nor in in vitro studies
with human cornea treated with vegetable hydrolysates from potatoes.
Slight eye irritation is observed in rabbits treated with vegetable
hydrolysates from lupine. Vegetable hydrolysates from avocado and
lupine proteins are not dermal sensitizers in the mouse local lymph
node assay (LLNA) or the guinea pig maximization test, respectively.
    An 8-week oral toxicity study in rats treated with hydrolysates
from hemp seed meal show no adverse effects up to 1,000 milligrams/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), the limit dose. Also, no toxicity is seen in
rats treated with approximately 20,000 mg/kg/day of hydrolysates from
Lupinus albus and L. luteus for 112 days via the diet.
    No developmental, reproduction or carcinogen toxicity studies are
available for review. However, as stated above, no toxicity is seen in
repeated dose studies with hydrolysates of vegetable proteins in rats
up to 20,000 mg/kg/day. No evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity
is seen in the available studies.
    Mutagenicity studies are available with hydrolyzed vegetable
protein from potato, lupine and pea proteins. Ames tests conducted with
these hydrolyzed vegetable proteins were negative. Therefore,
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins are not expected to be mutagenic.
    To assess the immunologic response against hydrolyzed vegetable
proteins from soy, dogs were sensitized to non-hydrolyzed soy protein
over a 90-day period then were exposed to either non-hydrolyzed or
hydrolyzed soy intradermally (30 days after sensitization) and orally
(8 months after sensitization). Dogs intradermally exposed to
hydrolyzed soy protein experienced an inflammatory response that was
half the response detected after injection of non-hydrolyzed soy
protein. Dogs orally exposed to hydrolyzed soy protein up to 17.75
grams over the course of 150 minutes did not experience clinical signs
or reactions.
    While hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy are not toxic, there
is a potential for allergenicity from soy proteins. The concern is low
for the potential for allergenicity from hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from soy due to dietary exposure because the hydrolysis process breaks
down the protein structure to reduce allergenicity to hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy. Enzymatic hydrolysis of soybean proteins
is a common process used by industry to improve functional properties
and has been used to reduce allergenicity in making hypoallergenic
soybean products. Soybean products are well known products that have
been used as food for a very long time. The methods for elimination of
allergenicity are always the same: Denaturation by heat or pH change
and hydrolysis by any means that degrade the protein structures. In the
current petition, the proprietary method used to hydrolyze soybean
proteins is such that no allergenic protein is expected to remain
intact in the finished product. Although, the hydrolysis process is
partial, any non-hydrolyzed soy proteins, which are those presenting a
residual risk of allergenicity, are removed by centrifugation from the
solution.
    To further demonstrate that the enzymatic hydrolysis of soy
proteins is effective in reducing antigenicity and allergenicity, a Soy
ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was conducted with hydrolyzed
soy proteins extracted from soybean oil cake. The Soy ELISA test is a
highly sensitive detection system used to detect soy residues in
foodstuffs and has a level of quantification of 1.7 mg/kg soy. Through
the detection of reactive robust indicator proteins called soy trypsin
inhibitors, soy content and allergenic potential can be evaluated in
test samples. The concentration of soy trypsin inhibitor proteins is
directly proportional to the concentration of soy

in a test sample. No soy trypsin inhibitors were found in any samples
of vegetable hydrolysates from soy, indicating a negative result for
the presence of residual soy allergenic proteins in hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy within the LOQ of the ELISA assay. Although
the LOQ for the ELISA test is 1.7 mg/kg of soy, the soy protein
hydrolysates contain only hydrolyzed protein, which has been shown to
have low allergenic potential as explained above. Therefore, there is
low concern for allergenicity from soy protein hydrolysates at levels
below the LOQ.
    Moreover, residues of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy used
in pesticide formulations in accordance with the tolerance exemption
established in this action will be exposed to the effects of weather
and microbial degradation before the treated crop enters the food
chain. Therefore, based on the hydrolysis process, the negative ELISA
assay and the expected effects of weather and microbial degradation,
the concern is low for the potential allergenicity of hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    The available toxicity studies indicate that vegetable hydrolysates
from soy have very low overall toxicity. Since no toxicity is observed
in the available studies, an endpoint of concern for risk assessment
purposes was not identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment
was conducted for acute and chronic dietary exposures and short- and
intermediate-term incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposures.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy, EPA considered
exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance and from existing uses. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy in food as follows.
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to hydrolyzed vegetable
proteins from soy may occur following ingestion of foods with residues
from their use in accordance with this exemption. Dietary exposure may
also occur after ingestion of food residues from their use in
fertilizer products, dietary treatment for specific health conditions
and use as a food additive (plant protein products) according to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under 21 CFR 170.3(n)(33).
However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted
since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy may be used in pesticide
products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the
home (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
cosmetics and personal care products). A quantitative residential
exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint
for risk assessment was not identified.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, 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.''
    Based on the lack of toxicity in the available data, hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy and its metabolites are not expected to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with other chemicals; therefore,
section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA concludes that
a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.
Based on the lack of threshold effects, EPA has not identified any
toxicological endpoints of concern and is conducting a qualitative
assessment of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy. The qualitative
assessment does not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no
additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and
children. Based on an assessment of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from
soy, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of
concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy, EPA has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy residues. Therefore, the
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under
40 CFR 180.920 for residues of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy
when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops pre-harvest limited to 25% in the final formulation, is
safe under FFDCA section 408.

V. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy in or on any food commodities.
EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of hydrolyzed vegetable
proteins from soy that may be used in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops pre-harvest. This limitation will be enforced through the
pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA
will not register any such pesticide formulation that exceeds 25% of
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from
soy when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjusting agent, surfactant,
or adhesive) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops pre-
harvest limited to 25% in the formulation.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.920, amend table 1 to 180.920, by adding in
alphabetical order ``Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.920   Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins     Not to exceed 25%   pH adjusting
 from soy.                         of pesticide        agent,
                                   formulation.        surfactant,
                                                       adhesive.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-09655 Filed 5-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41701-41702]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4451-024]

Green Mountain Power Corporation, City of Somersworth, New
Hampshire; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the relicense application for the Lower Great Falls
Hydroelectric Project No. 4451, located on the Salmon Falls River in
Strafford County, New Hampshire and York County, Maine, and has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. No federal
land would be occupied by the project.
    The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
effects of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    The number of pages in the EA exceeds the page limits set forth in
the Council on Environmental Quality's July 16, 2020 final rule, Update
to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (85 FR 43304). Noting the scope and
complexity of the proposed action and action alternatives, the Director
of the Office of Energy Projects, as our senior agency official, has
authorized this page limit exceedance for the EA.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's
Home Page (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. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected], toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file comments

using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eFiling.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filings, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first
page of any filing should include docket number P-4451-024.
    For further information, contact Arash Barsari at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: July 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14928 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 41908]
[DOCID:fr19jy10-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on July 21, 2010 at
10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be:
    Item 1: The Commission will consider a recommendation to propose
for public comment a new rule and rule and form amendments under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, the Securities Act of 1933, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to reform the regulation of
distribution fees paid by registered open-end management investment
companies (``funds''). The recommended proposal would provide a new
framework for how funds currently use their assets to pay for sales and
distribution expenses pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Investment
Company Act, and would revise disclosure requirements for transaction
confirmations pursuant to rule 10b-10 under the Securities Exchange
Act.
    Item 2: The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to
Part 2 of Form ADV and related rules under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940. The amendments would require investment advisers to provide
clients with narrative brochures containing plain English descriptions
of the advisers' businesses, services, and conflicts of interest. The
amendments also would require advisers to electronically file their
brochures with the Commission and the brochures would be available to
the public through the Commission's Web site.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 14, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17599 Filed 7-15-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


                                  Meeting Log

Includes all face-to-face meetings and phone calls between EPA personnel and stakeholders following signature of the "Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Renewable Fuel Standard and Diesel Sulfur Programs" Proposed Rule (77 FR 61313, October 9, 2012).

Date: January 23, 2013
Attendees: EPA staff (Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of General Counsel); Ensyn Corporation.
Subject: Comments regarding renewable heating oil proposed rule and market update.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36416-36419]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0471]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Fourth of July Fireworks Displays Within the
Captain of the Port Charleston Zone, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones
during Fourth of July Fireworks Displays on certain navigable waterways
in Murrells Inlet and North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. These safety
zones are necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with
launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States. Persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring
in, or remaining within any of the safety zones unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 4, 2014 and will be enforced from
9:00 p.m. until 10:25 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2014-0471 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2014-0471 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email CWO Christopher L. Ruleman, Sector
Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843)
740-3184, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
necessary information regarding the fireworks displays until May 27,
2014. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to
publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the fireworks
displays. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be
contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to
minimize potential danger to the public during the fireworks displays.
    For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.The purpose
of the rule is to protect the public from the hazards associated with
launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States.

C. Discussion of Rule

    Multiple fireworks displays are planned for Fourth of July
celebrations throughout the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone. The
fireworks will be launched from land, piers, or barges. The fireworks
will explode over navigable waters of the United States.
    The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones for
Fourth of July Fireworks Displays on navigable waters of the United
States within the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone. The two safety
zones, with the specific enforcement period for each safety zone, are
listed below.
    1. Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. All waters within a 1,000 yard
radius around Veterans Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched,
located on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. This safety zone will be
enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
    2. North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. All waters within a 500 yard
radius around Cherry Grove Pier, from which the fireworks will be
launched, located on the Atlantic Ocean. This safety zone will be
enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 10:25 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
    Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the safety zones
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within any of the safety zones may contact the
Captain of the Port Charleston via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a
designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within any of the safety zones is granted by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and on-scene
designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those orders. The economic impact of
this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety
zone will only be enforced for a total of one and a half hours; (2)
although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain
of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate
in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and
vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide
advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime

community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review
section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). Based on our
analysis, we concluded this action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination were completed for this event in previous years. Since
this event has remained materially unchanged from the time of the prior
determinations, a new environmental analysis checklist and Categorical
Exclusion Determination were not completed for 2014. The previously
completed environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion
Determination can be found in docket folder for USCG-2013-0415 at
www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;

Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0471 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0471  Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks Displays
Within Captain of the Port Charleston Zone, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated areas are safety zones.
    (1) Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. All waters within a 1,000 yard
radius around Veterans Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched,
located on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
    (2) North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. All waters within a 500
yard radius around Cherry Grove Pier, from which the fireworks will be
launched, located on the Atlantic Ocean.
    (b) Effective and enforcement periods. Paragraph (a)(1) of this
section will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4,
2014. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section will be enforced from 9:00 p.m.
until 10:25 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
    (c) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (d) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.

    Dated: June 17, 2014.
R. R. Rodriguez,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2014-15137 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 47702]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program; Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, Seattle, Washington

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as
``the Act'') and 14 CFR Part 150 on May 29, 2014. These findings were
made in recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal
responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). On December 13,
2013, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport under Part 150 were in compliance
with applicable requirements. On May 29, 2014, the FAA approved the
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Noise Compatibility Program in a
Record of Approval (ROA), which was published in the Federal Register
on June 12, 2014.
    Subsequent to the Federal Register publication, FAA recognized that
a measure was inadvertently omitted from the ROA. This measure has been
added via an errata sheet. Measure M-14--Sound insulate eligible owner-
occupied multi-family (condominiums) within the modified noise remedy
boundary was included in the Noise Compatibility Program and vetted
with the public through the Part 150 process. As stated in the errata
sheet, FAA has approved this measure.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval is May
29, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cayla Morgan, Federal Aviation
Administration, Seattle Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Ave. SW.,
Renton, WA, 98057-3356, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting
this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program including
Measure M-14 for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, effective May
29, 2014. Additional information can be found in the June 12, 2014
Federal Register Notice.
    The Record of Approval and the errata sheet will be available on-
line at http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on July 24, 2014.
Sarah P. Dalton,
Manager, Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-19197 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P