Dihalodialkylhydantoins: Environmental Hazard and Risk Assessment Page 2 of 18 1TGAI = technical grade active ingredient 2TEP = typical end use product Introduction Dihalodialkylhydantoin is an antimicrobial used to control algae and prevent slime formation in water systems. Registered uses include cooling water systems ( once through and recirculating), paper and paperboard process water, wastewater treatment, in tank toilet bowl sanitizer, greenhouse irrigation, and swimming pools. The toxicity of various dihalodialkylhydantoin compounds varies, depending on the specific halogen group added to the 5,5 dimethylhydantoin ( DMH) core. The Office of Pesticide Programs has previously determined that the moieties of toxicological concern are 5,5 dimethylhydantoin ( DMH) and 5 ethyl 5 methyl hydantoin ( EMH), and recognized that it is most appropriate to test these organic moieties as representative of the toxicity of the dihalodialkylhydantoins. Therefore, the environmental risk assessment will be conducted using DMH endpoints. However, ecological hazard data for other Halohydantoin compounds, as well as DMH, are summarized in the ecological hazard section of this document, below.

Several data requirements, necessary to support the once through cooling tower use of Halohydantoins, are not fulfilled: 72 4b/ 850.1400 Invertebrate life cycle testing  freshwater TGAI1 123 1/ 850.4225 Seedling emergence dose response in rice TEP2 123 1/ 850.4250 Vegetative vigor dose response in rice TEP 123 2/ 850.4400 Aquatic vascular plant dose response toxicity Lemna sp. TGAI or TEP 123 2/ 850.5400 Acute algal dose response toxicity  4 species TGAI or TEP Ecological Hazard Assessment:

A. Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals i. Birds, Acute and Subacute An acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient ( TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of Halohydantoins to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck ( a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail ( an upland game bird). The results of one toxicity study are provided in the following table. Page 3 of 18 Table 1. Acute Oral Toxicity of Halohydantoins to Birds Substance/% Active Ingredient ( AI) Organism Endpoints/ Results ( 95% conf. interval) mg/ kg Reference Study classification DMH/ 97.2% TGAI Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) LD50 > 2150 NOEL = 2150 Helsten, 1994 MRID 43289905 core DMH/ 96% TGAI Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus LD50 = 1839 ( 1350 2250) NOEL = 1350 Grimes, 1986 MRID # 147319 core DMH/ 99% TGAI Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus LD50 = 1070 ( 781  1542) NOEL = 250 Wildlife International., 1984 no acc or MRID # core DMH/ 60/ 27 formulated product Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus LD50 > 2250 NOEL= 1780 1984 Acc 253966 253972 core DMH 97% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) LD50 = 1715 ( 1252  2581) NOEL = 631 Fink, 1981 Acc # 253071 and 253073 core BCDMH 90% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 5620 Fink, 1981 Acc # 252719 core BCDMH 90% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 2510 Fink, 1981 Acc # 252719 core DBDMH Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 2510 Acc # 137088 supplemental DCDMH 86% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 2510 NOEL = 398 Acc# 137088 supplemental These results indicate that Halohydantoins are slightly toxic to practically non toxic to birds on an acute oral basis. The guideline requirement ( 71 1/ OPPTS 850.2100) is fulfilled.

Two subacute dietary studies using the technical grade of the active ingredient are required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck ( a waterfowl) and Northern bobwhite quail ( an upland gamebird). Results of avian subacute dietary Page 4 of 18 tests are tabulated below.

Table 2. Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity of Halohydantoins Substance/% AI Species LC50 ( ppm) ( 95 % c. i.) NOAEC ( ppm) MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification DMH/ 99.0% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 5620 1000 ( based on body weight gain) Wildlife International, 1984 No acc or MRID # core BCDMH 96.0% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 5620 3160 Grimes, 1986 acc # 147321 core DMH 97.2% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 5000 5000 Helsten, 1994 MRID # 432899 04 core DMH 97% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 5620 N. R. Fink, 1981 Acc # 253071 core DMH 96% Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) > 5620 N. R. Beavers, 1985 MRID # 147321 core DMH 97% Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos) > 5620 N. R. Fink, 1981 Acc # 253071 and 253073 core BCDMH 96% Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos) > 5620 3160 Grimes, 1986 acc # 147321 core DMH 97.2% Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos) > 5000 5000 Helsten, 1994 MRID 432899 03 core DEMH 99.4% Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos) > 5620 1780 Acc # 253996 72 core These results indicate that Halohydantoins are practically non toxic to birds on a subacute dietary basis. The guideline requirement ( 71 2/ OPPTS 850.2200) is fulfilled.

ii. Birds, Chronic Avian reproduction studies using the technical grade of the active ingredient are required for a pesticide when any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) birds may be subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the pesticide, especially preceding or during the breeding season, ( 2) the pesticide is stable in the environment to the extent that potentially toxic amounts may persist in animal feed, ( 3) the pesticide is stored or accumulated in plant or animal tissues, and/ or, ( 4) information derived from mammalian reproduction studies indicates reproduction in terrestrial vertebrates may be adversely affected by the anticipated use of the product. The currently Page 5 of 18 registered uses of Halohydantoins do not require avian reproduction testing. Page 6 of 18 iii. Mammals Wild mammal testing was not required for Halohydantoins. In most cases, rodent oral toxicity values obtained from studies conducted to support data requirements for human health risk assessment substitute for wild mammal testing. This information is discussed in the Toxicology chapter of this RED document, from which the following is excerpted:

The acute toxicity of dimethylhydantoin is low by the oral and dermal routes of exposure ( Toxicity categories III and IV, respectively). Acute lethality by the inhalation route is more significant ( Toxicity category II). The dimethylhydantoins are significant eye and skin irritants ( Toxicity category I and II, respectively). Positive dermal sensitization has also been observed.

Non acute toxicity testing of dimethylhydantoins ( including subchronic, developmental, reproductive, and chronic toxicity testing) all show the presence of non specific toxicity only at relatively high doses of the test chemical. Developmental and reproductive toxicity data demonstrate no increase in susceptibility to the toxic effects of DMH with the exception of one study, where fetal and litter effects were observed at a lower dose level than that which resulted in maternal toxicity. However, this dose level ( 500 mg/ kg) was considered a relatively high dose for an effect level.

B. Toxicity to Freshwater Aquatic Animals i. Freshwater Fish, Acute Two fish toxicity studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to freshwater fish. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish). The results of studies submitted for Halohydantoins are provided in the following table.

Table 3. Acute Toxicity of Halohydantoins to Freshwater Fish Substance/% Active Ingredient ( AI) Organism Endpoints/ Results ( mg ai/ L) Reference Status DMH/ 97.1% Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 > 1,017 NOEC = 1,017 Murphy and Smith, 1992 MRID  423685 01 core BCDMH 90% Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 = 1.17 ( 1.05  1.30) NOEC = 0.75 Graney, 1981 Acc # 252719 core Page 7 of 18 DMH/ 97.1% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 > 972 NOEC = 972 Murphy and Smith, 1992 MRID  423736 01 core BCDMH 97.1% Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) LC 50 > 1085 NOEC = 1085 Murphy and Smith, 1992 MRID # 423747 02 core BCDMH 99% Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 = 0.36 ( 0.18 0.56) NOEC = 0.18 no acc or MRID core DCDMH 97% Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 = 2.35 ( 1.87  2.96) NOEC = 0.87 Graney, 1981. Acc # 253071 core DCEMH 99.4% Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 = 2.1 ( 0.87 3.2) NOEC = 0.87 1984, MRID # 145356 core Mixed Halohydantoins: 60% BCDMH, 27.4% DDMH, 10.6% DCEMH Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 = 1.2 NOEC = 0.9 Spare, 1982 Acc # 253074 and 253072 core Mixed Halohydantoins: 60% BCDMH, 27.4% DDMH, 10.6% DCEMH Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.5 ( 0.3  0.9) NOEC = 0.3 Spare, 1982 Acc # 253074 and 253072 core Halobrom, 96% Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 = 0.46 ( 0.37 0.59) NOEC 0.18 McAllister and Cohle, 1984 MRID # 147322 core BCDMH, 99% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.75 NOEC = 0.56 1984, no ID# core Mixed Halohydantoins Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.87 ( 0.76 0.91) NOEC = 0.3 Horne, et al., 1980 MRID # 46053 core Mixed Halohydantoins Pimephales promelas LC50 = 2.25 ( 2.05  2.48) NOEC = 1.7 Horne, et al., 1980 MRID # 46053 core Halobrom, 96% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.40 ( 0.3 0.56) NOEC = 0.18 McAllister and Cohle, 1984 MRID # 147323 core DMH, 97% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 12700 ( 11300 14200) NOEC = 5000 Horne, et al., 1980 MRID # 46053 supplement al Page 8 of 18 DMH, 97% Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) LC50 = 14200 ( 13386 14990) NOEC = 10000 Horne, et al., 1980 MRID # 46053 supplement al DCDMH, 97% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.91 ( 0.82 1.0) NOEC < 0.56 Graney, 1981 ACC # 253071 core DCEMH, 99.4% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 1.17 ( 0.97  1.3) NOEC = 0.56 1984, MRID # 145358 core BCDMH, 96% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.17 ( 0.13  0.20) NOEC = 0.04 1986, no id # core BCDMH, 90% Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.65 ( 0.58  0.74) NOEC = 0.38 Graney, 1981 ACC # 252719 core Mix, 93.9% total Halohydantoins Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) LC50 = 0.27 ( 0.22  0.41) NOEC = 0.11 Sword, et al., 1993. MRID # 431797 06 core Mix, 93.9% total Halohydantoins Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 0.16 ( 0.14  0.24) NOEC = 0.076 Sword, et al., 1993 MRID # 431797 05 core These results indicate that Halohydantoins range from highly toxic to practically non toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. DMH is practically non toxic to freshwater fish. The guideline requirement ( 72 1/ OPPTS 850.1075) is fulfilled.

ii. Freshwater Fish, Chronic A freshwater fish early life stage test using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a pesticide when it may be applied directly to water or if the end use product is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, ( 2) any aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 mg/ l, ( 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute LC50 or EC50 value, or, ( 4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less than 0.01 of any acute LC50 or EC50 value and any one of the following conditions exist: studies of other organisms indicate the reproductive physiology of fish may be affected, physicochemical properties indicate cumulative effects, or the pesticide is persistent in water ( e. g., half life greater than 4 days). The preferred test species is rainbow trout, but other species may be used. Freshwater fish early life stage testing is required for Halohydantoins in order to support oncethrough cooling tower uses. The results of one study, conducted with DMH, are summarized in the table below: Page 9 of 18 Table 4. Chronic Toxicity of DMH to Freshwater Fish Substance/% Active Ingredient ( AI) Organism Endpoints/ Results ( mg/ L) Comments Reference Status DMH/ 99.9% Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) NOEC = 14 LOEC = 29  dry weight was the most sensitive parameter Holmes and Swigert, 1993 ( MRID  427217 02) core The guideline requirement ( 72 4/ OPPTS 850.1300) is fulfilled.

iii. Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAI is required to establish the toxicity of Halohydantoin active ingredients to freshwater aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table 5. Acute Toxicity of Halohydantoins to Freshwater Invertebrates Substance/% Active Ingredient ( AI) Organism Endpoints/ Results ( mg/ L) Reference Status DMH/ 97.1% Daphnia magna EC50 > 1070 NOEC = 1070 Holmes and Smith, 1992 MRID 423736 03 core DMH, 97% Daphnia magna LC50 = 6200 ( 5300  6765) NOEC = 3000 Horne et al., 1980 MRID # 46053 supplemental BCDMH 96% Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.75 ( 0.56  1.0) NOEC = 0.32 Forbis et al., 1984 MRID # 147324 core DCDMH, 97% Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.50 ( 0.43  0.57 ) NOEC = 0.10 Graney, 1981 ACC # 253071 core Mixed Halohydantoins Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.48 ( 0.42  0.53) NOEC = 0.3 Horne, et al., 1980 ACC # 46053 core BCDMH, 90% Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.87 ( 0.81  0.93) NOEC = 0.18 Graney, 1981 ACC # 252719 core Page 10 of 18 DCEMH, 99.4% Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.95 ( 0.75  1.2) NOEC = 0.75 1984 MRID # 145357 core BCDMH, 99% Daphnia magna LC50 = 2.3 NOEC = 1.0 1984, no id # core BCDMH, 96% Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.10 NOEC = 0.022 Hoberg, 1986 no id# core Mixed, total 93.9% Halohydantoins Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.63 ( 0.42  0.94) NOEC = 0.42 Sword et al., 1993 MRID # 431797 07 core Mixed Halohydantoins: 60% BCDMH, 27.4% DCDMH, 10.6% DCEMH Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.4 ( 0.3  0.5) NOEC = 0.3 Spare, 1982 ACC# 253074 and 253072 core This study indicates that Halohydantoins range from highly toxic to practically non toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. DMH is practically non toxic to freshwater invertebrates. The guideline requirement ( 72 2/ OPPTS 850.1010) is fulfilled.

iv. Freshwater Invertebrates, Chronic A freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle test using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a pesticide if the end use product may be applied directly to water or expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, ( 2) any aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 mg/ l, or, ( 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute EC50 or LC50 value, or, ( 4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less than 0.01 of any aquatic acute EC50 or LC50 value and any of the following conditions exist: studies of other organisms indicate the reproductive physiology of invertebrates may be affected, physicochemical properties indicate cumulative effects, or the pesticide is persistent in water ( e. g., half life greater than 4 days). The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. Freshwater fish early life stage testing is required for Halohydantoins in order to support once through cooling tower uses. No data under this topic have been submitted; therefore Guideline 72 4b/ 850.1400 is not fulfilled.

v. Freshwater Field Studies Freshwater field testing is required for pesticides in cases where there are risks of concern from labeled use patterns. This testing was not required for Halohydantoins, and is reserved at the present time. Page 11 of 18 III. Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals A. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine fish using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a chemical when the end use product is intended for direct application to the marine/ estuarine environment or the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test species is sheepshead minnow.

Table 5. Acute Toxicity of Halohydantoins to Estuarine/ Marine Fish Substance/ % ai Species LC50 mg/ L ( ppm) NOAEC mg/ L ( ppm) MRID No. Author/ Year Status BCDMH 90% Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) 1.5 0.32 Sousa, 1991 MRID # 42076102 1991 and 43687301 1996 core Dantobro m RW: mixed Halohydan toins Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) 1.2 mg Br2/ L < 0.19 409931 03 core DMH, 97.1% Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) > 1006 1006 Murphy and Smith, 1992 MRID # 423747 01 core The results indicate that Halohydantoins are moderately toxic to practically non toxic to estuarine/ marine fish on an acute basis. The guideline requirement ( 72 3a/ OPPTS 850.1025) is fulfilled.

B. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic Estuarine/ marine fish early life stage testing is not required for the currently registered uses of Halohydantoins. The freshwater fish early life stage test, which is required, should provide an adequate endpoint for use in risk assessments, since freshwater fish species appear to be more sensitive to Halohydantoins than marine/ estuarine species.

C. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine invertebrates using the technical grade of the active ingredient is required for a pesticide when the end use product is intended for direct application to the marine/ estuarine environment or the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. Results of these tests are tabulated below. Page 12 of 18 Table 6: Acute Toxicity of Halohydantoins to Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates Substance/ % ai. Species 96 hour LC50/ EC50 mg/ L ( ppm) ( 95% c. i.) MRID No. Author/ Year Status BCDMH 90% Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) shell deposition 1.1 ( 1.0  1.2) NOEC = 0.73 Sousa, 1991 42076101 1991 and 43687302 1996 core DMH 90% Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia) 1.8 NOEC= 0.36 Sousa, 1991 42076103 1991 and 43687303 1996 core Mixed Halohydantoins: 60% BCDMH, 10.6% DEMH, 27.4% DCDMH Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) shell deposition EC50 = 0.86 mg Br2/ L NOEC = 0.37 mg Br2/ L Suprenant, 1988 MRID # 409931 01 core Mixed Halohydantoins: 60% BCDMH, 10.6% DEMH, 27.4% DCDMH Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia) LC50 = 0.9 mg Br2/ L NOEC = 0.10 mg Br2/ L Suprenant, 1988 MRID # 409931 01 core DMH, 97.1% Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia) LC50 > 921 ( limit test) Murphy and Smith, 1992 MRID # 423736 02 core DMH, 97.2% Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) shell deposition EC50 > 125 NOEC = 125 McElwee, 1993 MRID # 432899 02 supplemental The results indicate that Halohydantoins are highly toxic to moderately toxic to estuarine/ marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline requirements ( 72 3b and 72 3c/ OPPTS 850.1035 and 850.1045) are fulfilled.

D. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic An estuarine/ marine invertebrate life cycle toxicity test is required for a pesticide if the end use product may be applied directly to estuarine or marine waters, or is expected to be transported to these waters from the intended use site, and any of the following conditions are met: ( 1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, ( 2) any aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 mg/ l, or, ( 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute EC50 or LC50 value, or, ( 4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less than 0.01 of any aquatic acute EC50 or LC50 value and any of the following conditions exist: studies of other organisms indicate the reproductive physiology of invertebrates may be affected, physicochemical properties Page 13 of 18 indicate cumulative effects, or the pesticide is persistent in water ( e. g., half life greater than 4 days). Estuarine/ marine invertebrate life cycle testing is not required for Halohydantoins. Lifecycle testing with a freshwater invertebrate is required, and, since freshwater invertebrates are comparably sensitive to Halohydantoins on an acute basis, the freshwater life cycle endpoints will suffice for assessing risk to estuarine/ marine invertebrate species.

E. Estuarine and Marine Field Studies No estuarine or marine field study testing is currently required for Halohydantoins.

IV. Toxicity to Plants A. Terrestrial/ Semi aquatic Currently, terrestrial plant testing is not required for pesticides other than herbicides except on a case by case basis ( e. g., labeling bears phytotoxicity warnings, incidents of plant damage have been reported, or literature indicating phytotoxicity is available). The once through cooling tower use of Halohydantoins requires such testing, due to the algaecidal nature of the chemical and the likelihood of exposure to semi aquatic plants along surface waters receiving industrial facility outfall from the cooling system. Guideline 123 1/ 850/ 4225 and 850.4250, Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor testing with Rice ( Oryza sativa) is not fulfilled. An on line search of the ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002) did not provide any aquatic plant toxicity data for Halohydantoins.

B. Aquatic Aquatic plant testing was previously not required for pesticides other than herbicides except on a case by case basis ( e. g., labeling bears phytotoxicity warnings, incidents have been reported involving plants, or literature is available that indicates phytotoxicity). The once through cooling tower use of Halohydantoins requires such testing, due to the algaecidal nature of the chemical and the likelihood of exposure to aquatic plants in surface waters receiving industrial facility outfall from the cooling system. Guideline 123 2/ 850/ 4400 and 850.5400, Vascular Aquatic Plant and Algal dose response toxicity testing ( 5 species), is not fulfilled. An on line search of the ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002) did not provide any aquatic plant toxicity data for Halohydantoins.

B. Risk Assessment and Characterization Risk assessment integrates the results of the exposure and ecotoxicity data to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects. One method of integrating the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data is called the quotient method. For this method, risk quotients ( RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by ecotoxicity values, both acute and chronic:

RQ = EXPOSURE/ TOXICITY RQs are then compared to levels of concern ( LOCs). These LOCs are criteria used by OPP to Page 14 of 18 indicate potential risk to nontarget organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects on nontarget organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories: ( 1) acute high  potential for acute risk is high regulatory action may be warranted in addition to restricted use classification; ( 2) acute restricted use  the potential for acute risk is high, but this may be mitigated through restricted use classification; ( 3) acute endangered species  the potential for acute risk to endangered species is high, and regulatory action may be warranted, and ( 4) chronic risk  the potential for chronic risk is high, and regulatory action may be warranted. Currently, AD does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or chronic risks to nontarget insects, or chronic risk from granular/ bait formulations to mammalian or avian species.

The ecotoxicity test values ( i. e., measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic risk quotients are derived from the results of required studies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived from the results of short term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: ( 1) LC50 ( fish and birds) ( 2) LD50 ( birds and mammals ( 3) EC50 ( aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates) and ( 4) EC25 ( terrestrial plants). The NOEC value is used as the ecotoxicity test value in assessing chronic effects.

Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs are tabulated below.

Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals Risk Presumption RQ LOC Birds and Wild Mammals Acute High Risk EEC1/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft2 or LD50/ day3 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day ( or LD50 < 50 mg/ kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOEC 1 1 abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Concentration ( ppm) on avian/ mammalian food items 2 mg/ ft2 3 mg of toxicant consumed/ day LD50 * wt. of bird LD50 * wt. of bird Risk Presumptions for Aquatic Animals Risk Presumption RQ LOC Acute High Risk EEC1/ LC50 or EC50 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.05 Chronic Risk EEC/ MATC or NOEC 1 Page 15 of 18 1 EEC = ( ppm or ppb) in water Risk Presumptions for Plants Risk Presumption RQ LOC Terrestrial and Semi Aquatic Plants Acute High Risk EEC1/ EC25 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ EC05 or NOEC 1 Aquatic Plants Acute High Risk EEC2/ EC50 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ EC05 or NOEC 1 1 EEC = lbs ai/ A 2 EEC = ( ppb/ ppm) in water 1. Environmental Fate Assessment Summary ( excerpted from the Environmental Fate Science Chapter of this RED document):

Dihalodialkylhydantoin degrades relatively rapidly in water under abiotic conditions. However, there is environmental concern for soil or surface water contamination from the major degradate DMH, as DMH is hydrolytically and photolytically stable. No additional fate data on dimethylhydantoins are available to further assess fate of this chemical.

Since the halogen ( bromine or chlorine) is released from the Halohydantoin ring, leaving the hydrolytically and photolytically stable DMH, the moiety of concern for environmental exposure is DMH. Environmental risks from bromine and chlorine are addressed in separate Agency assessments. 2. Environmental Exposure Assessment The PDM4 Model was used to estimate exposure from once through cooling tower uses. The details of this model are found in the Environmental Modeling Chapter of this document. A lowflow power plant ( 100 + 10 million gallons per day) was used as the scenario providing the maximum concentrations of DMH in the receiving water, e. g., the " worst case" scenario. Actual concentrations in receiving waters are likely lower, and will likely not show the increasing trend indicated in Table 7, due to higher flow rates and possible degradation/ dissipation of DMH by mechanisms other than hydrolysis. A summary of the estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) over time is provided below: Page 16 of 18 Table 7: Summary of Estimated Environmental Concentrations of DMH in Rivers Receiving Outfall from Low Flow Power Plants Using Once Through Cooling Systems Time Period Modeled Peak Concentration of DMH Duration of Peak Concentration 4 days 36.0 ppb 24 hours 30 days 210 ppb 24 hours 60 days 313 ppb 24 hours The model was also used to determine the percent of days per year various " concentrations of concern" were exceeded for several power plant scenarios. Details of these results are provided in the Environmental Modeling Chapter.

3. Environmental Risk Assessment a. Terrestrial Organisms:

No model is available to estimate exposure and risk to birds and mammals from discharge of once through cooling system effluents into surface waters. The low EECs, coupled with the generally low toxicity of DMH to birds and mammals, make risk to these organisms unlikely. There are no data available to assess the phytotoxicity of DMH at this time; therefore, the risk to terrestrial/ semi aquatic plants cannot currently be assessed.

b. Aquatic Organisms:

Using the worst case scenario of a low flow power plant using Halohydantoins for once through cooling system treatment, the following risk quotients ( RQ) were calculated for aquatic organisms:

Table 8: Aquatic Organism Risk Quotients for DMH Used in Once Through Cooling of Low Flow Power Plants Endpoint Type Species Value EEC ( from Table 7) RQ ( EEC/ LC50)

Freshwater Fish Acute Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 > 972 mg/ L ( MRID  423736 01) 36.0 ppb ( 0.036 mg/ L) 0.000037 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Daphnia magna EC50 > 1070 mg/ L NOEC = 1070 mg/ L ( MRID 423736 03) 36.0 ppb ( 0.036 mg/ L) 0.000034 Freshwater Fish Chronic Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) NOEC = 14 mg/ L LOEC = 29 mg/ L ( MRID  427217 02) 313 ppb ( 0.313 mg/ L) 0.022 Page 17 of 18 Using the very conservative EECs provided by modeling the low flow power plant, no LOCs are exceeded. Expressed as number of days exceedance, using the most sensitive parameter of 14.0 mg/ L ( 14000 ppb) ( freshwater fish chronic NOEC) as the " concentration of concern" and the exceedance curve generated in the Environmental Modeling chapter, the chance of this concentration being exceeded by any of the power plant scenarios is extremely low, less than once every two years. Other uses of Halohydantoin products are indoor or contained ( e. g., swimming pool) uses, and should not result in appreciable environmental exposure when products are used as labeled. Risk to freshwater fish and aquatic invertebrates is not anticipated from the use of Halohydantoins in once through cooling systems. Marine/ estuarine fish are generally less sensitive than freshwater fish to Halohydantoins, and marine/ estuarine invertebrates are comparably as sensitive to DMH as freshwater invertebrates, so the freshwater RQ are presumed to be protective of marine/ estuarine species. Risk to aquatic plants cannot be assessed due to the lack of phytotoxicity data.

4. Endangered Species Considerations The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses to affect any particular species, EPA puts basic toxicity and exposure data developed for risk assessments into context for individual listed species and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, the geographic relationship between specific pesticide uses and species locations, and biological requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species. A determination that there is a likelihood of potential impact to a listed species may result in limitations on use of the pesticide, other measures to mitigate any potential impact, or consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/ or the National Marine Fisheries Service as necessary.

Risk to Endangered birds and mammals is not anticipated from the use of Halohydantoin products due to low exposure and low toxicity. Calculated RQs for fish and aquatic invertebrates from the once through cooling use are well below LOCs for Endangered species; other uses of Halohydantoin products are indoor or contained ( e. g., swimming pool) uses, and should not result in appreciable environmental exposure when products are used as labeled. Therefore, risk to Endangered fish and aquatic invertebrate species is not anticipated from the use of Halohydantoin products. Risk to Endangered plants cannot be addressed due to the lack of phytotoxicity data. Page 18 of 18 REFERENCES B. R. Helsten ( 1994). 14 Day Acute Oral LD 50 Study with DMH in Bobwhite Quail. Bio Life Associates, Ltd. ( Neillsville, WI). Laboratory Study No. 126 004 03, June 17, 1994. MRID# 432899 05.

Holmes, C. and G. Smith. 1992. DMH: A 48 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran ( Daphnia magna)  Final Report. Wildlife International Ltd. ( Easton, MD). Project No. 298A 101, March 24, 1992. MRID No. 423736 03.

Murphy, D. and G. Smith. 1992. DMH: A 96 Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus)  Final Report. Wildlife International Ltd. ( Easton, MD). Project No. 298A 105, June 17, 1992. MRID No. 423685 01.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 2002. ECOTOX User Guide: ECOTOXicology Database System. Version 3.0. Available: http:// www. epa. gov/ ecotox/


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 5078]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2485-077]

FirstLight Hydro Generating Company; Northfield Mountain LLC;
Notice of Comment Period Extension

February 11, 2019.
    On January 8, 2019, the Commission issued a notice setting February
7, 2019, as the end of the formal period to file comments, motions to
intervene, and protests on the application for transfer of license and
substitution of relicense applicant for the Northfield Mountain Pumped
Storage Project No. 2485. Due to the funding lapse at certain federal
agencies between December 22, 2018 and January 25, 2019, the Commission
is extending the comment period until February 25, 2019.

    Dated: February 11, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02702 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 65744]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26317]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

High End Ventures, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

October 21, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
High End Ventures, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on October 21, 2013, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on November 1, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26317 Filed 10-30-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70309-70310]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28983]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15Ba2-6T; OMB Control No. 3235-0659; SEC File No. 270-618.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in the following rule: Rule
15Ba2-6T--Temporary Registration as a Municipal Advisor; Required
Amendments; and Withdrawal from Temporary Registration (17 CFR
240.15Ba2-6T) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Paragraph (a) of Rule 15Ba2-6T requires municipal advisors, as
defined in Section 15B(e)(4) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(e)(4)), to electronically file with the Commission on the
Commission's Web site at the following link, Municipal Advisor
Registration. The information set forth in Form MA-T (17 CFR 249.1300T)
to temporarily register or withdraw from temporary registration.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15Ba2-6T requires municipal advisors to
promptly amend their temporary registration whenever information
concerning Items 1 (Identifying Information) or 3 (Disciplinary
Information) of Form MA-T becomes inaccurate in anyway.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 15Ba2-6T requires municipal advisors to
promptly amend their temporary registration whenever they wish to
withdraw from registration.
    Paragraph (c) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that every initial
registration, amendment to registration, or withdrawal from
registration filed pursuant to this rule constitutes a ``report''
within the meaning of applicable provisions of the Exchange Act.
    Paragraph (d) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that every Form MA-T,
including every amendment to or withdrawal from registration, is
considered filed with the Commission when the electronic form on the
Commission's website is completed and the Commission has sent
confirmation to the municipal advisor that the form was filed.
    Paragraph (e) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that all temporary
registrations of municipal advisors will expire on the earlier of: (1)
The date that the registration is approved or disapproved by the
Commission pursuant to a final rule adopted by the Commission
establishing another manner of registration and prescribing a form for
the registration; (2) the date on which the municipal advisor's
temporary registration is rescinded by the Commission; or (3) December
31, 2011.
    Paragraph (f) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that Rule 15Ba2-6T will
expire on December 31, 2011.
    The primary purpose of Rule 15Ba2-6T is to provide information
about municipal advisors to investors and issuers, as well as the
Commission pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act.
    Commission staff estimates that approximately 1,000 municipal
advisors will file Form MA-T. Commission staff estimates that each of
the approximately 1,000 municipal advisors will spend an average of 2.5
hours preparing each Form MA-T. Therefore, the estimated total
reporting burden associated with completing Form MA-T is 2,500 hours.
Additionally, Commission staff estimates that approximately 1,000
municipal advisors will amend their Form MA-T once during the period of
September 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 and that it will take
approximately 30 minutes to amend their form, which means the total
burden associated with amending Form MA-T is 500 hours. Therefore, the
total annual burden associated with completing and amending Form MA-T
is 3,000 hours.
    The Commission believes that some municipal advisors will seek
outside counsel to help them comply with the requirements of Rule
15Ba2-6T and Form MA-T, and assumes that each of the 1,000 municipal
advisors will consult outside counsel for one hour for this purpose.
The hourly rate for an attorney is $400, according to the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association's publication titled

Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009, as
modified by Commission staff to account for an 1,800 hour work year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits
and overhead. The Commission estimates the total cost for all 1,000
municipal advisors to hire outside counsel to review their compliance
with the requirements of Rule 15Ba2-6T and Form MA-T to be
approximately $400,000.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     November 12, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28983 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 26, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-15881

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  BRASMEX BRASIL MINAS EXPRESS LTDA.
              Date Filed:  August 6, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct, carrying property and mail, the following
operations:  A) scheduled services between the two Brazilian coterminal
points Sao Paulo and Manaus and the three U.S. coterminal points Miami,
Los Angeles and New York; and B) charter operations between Brazil and
the United States, and other cargo charters, in accordance with the
Department’s regulations (14 CFR Part 212).

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority.

Applicant representative:  Malcolm L. Benge,<PHONE_NUMBER>          DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                           Action date:  September 26,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  September 26, 2003, through
September 26, 2004.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Brazil Air Transport Services Agreement  (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:  We found, based on the record in this case
and in the applicant’s application for a foreign air carrier permit
filed in Docket OST-2003-15880, that Brasmex Brasil Minas Express is
operationally and financially qualified to conduct its proposed
operations and is substantially owned and effectively controlled by
citizens of its homeland.  Also, the FAA advised us that it knows of no
reason to withhold this authority.

Brasmex Brasil Minas Express may not conduct any charter operations
to/from the United States without prior Department approval in the form
of a Statement of Authorization.  The authority granted here is subject
to the terms, limitations and conditions of the U.S.-Brazil Agreement,
including frequency allocations for the scheduled, all-cargo services.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1193-1194]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0085]

Petition for Special Approval of Alternative Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
CFR 238.21, this provides the public notice that on October 16, 2019,
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a special approval of
alternative compliance pursuant to the requirements in 49 CFR part 238,
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2019-0085.
    Specifically, Caltrans seeks relief from 49 CFR 238.135(b), which
requires that all passenger train exterior side doors and trap doors
must be closed when a train is in motion between stations. Caltrans
seeks special approval of alternative compliance to allow variations in
the operating of boarding stair trap doors for its fleet of single-
level coach, cab cars and caf[eacute]/vending cars built by Siemens,
due to the cars' unique construction.

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility
is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by February 24, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-00126 Filed 1-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 48207-48208]
[DOCID:fr18au08-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No: ER08-54-006]

ISO New England, Inc.; Notice of Filing

August 8, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 5, 2008, ISO New England, Inc. and the
New England Power Pool submitted a transmittal letter and tariff sheets
revising Market Rule 1, on August 7, 2008, a filing was submitted
clarifying the transmittal letter.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 26, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18998 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 68214]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24652]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96251; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Options Fee
Schedule To Remove Certain Credits

November 7, 2022.
    On September 1, 2022, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to remove certain credits.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 20, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95775 (September 14,
2022), 87 FR 57544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 25, 2022, MIAX Pearl withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-PEARL-2022-35).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24652 Filed 11-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27118-27120]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12236]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WV105-6043; FRL-9961-19-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; administrative change.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the
materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the West
Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by
this update have been previously submitted by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) and approved by EPA.
This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
and the EPA Regional Office.

DATES: This action is effective June 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40
CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations:
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila K. Martinez,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to
address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to
time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised
regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968),
EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-
approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office
of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP
document, IBR procedures and ``Identification of plan'' format are
discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register
document. On February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7024), EPA published a Federal
Register document beginning the new IBR procedure for West Virginia. On
February 28, 2007 (72 FR 8903), February 10, 2009 (74 FR 6542),
December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81474) and July 25, 2013 (78 FR 44884), EPA
published updates to the IBR material for West Virginia.
    Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved into
the SIP the following regulatory changes to the following West Virginia
regulations:

A. Added Regulations

    1. EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes 6B-1-3 (West Virginia Code
6B-Ethics Standards and Financial Disclosure), sections 6B-1-3, 6B-2-6
and 6B-2-7.

B. Revised Regulations

    1. 45 CSR 8 (Ambient Air Quality Standards), sections 45-8-1
through 45-8-4.
    2. 45 CSR 13 (Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation
and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification
Requirements, Temporary Permits, General Permits, and Procedures for
Evaluation), section 45-13-1 through 45-13B.
    3. 45 CSR 14 (Permits for Construction and Major Modification of
Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration), section 45-14-1 through 45-14-26.
    4. 45 CSR 19 (Permits for Construction and Major Modification of
Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution which Cause or Contribute to
Nonattainment), section 45-19-1 through 45-19B.

C. Removed Regulations

    1. 45 CSR 8, sections 45-8-5 through 45-8-7.

II. EPA Action

    In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as
of July 1, 2016 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.2520(b).
    EPA is revising our 40 CFR part 52 ``Identification of Plan'' for
the State of West Virginia regarding incorporation by reference, Sec.
52.2520(b). EPA is revising Sec.  52.2520(b)(1) to clarify that all SIP
revisions listed in paragraphs (c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in
the most recent ``update to the SIP compilation,'' are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision,
consistent with following our ``Approval and Promulgations of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format of 40 CFR part 52 for
Materials Being Incorporated by Reference,'' effective May 22, 1997 (62
FR 27968). EPA is revising Sec.  52.2520(b)(2) to clarify references to
other portions of paragraph (b) with paragraph (b)(2). EPA is revising
paragraph (b)(3) to update address and contact information.
    EPA is also revising entries at 40 CFR 52.2520(c) in the ``State
Citation'' column for Regulation 45 CSR 8 (Ambient Air Quality
Standards) to read ``Section 45-8-1,'' ``Section 45-8-2,'' ``Section
45-8-3,'' and ``Section 45-8-4.''

III. Good Cause Exemption

    EPA has determined that this rule falls under the ``good cause''
exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes agencies to
dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows
an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the
30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This
rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter
of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the
APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are ``impractical,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Public comment is
``unnecessary'' and ``contrary to the public interest'' since the
codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR
benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table
entries.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously
EPA approved regulations promulgated by the State of West Virginia and
federally effective prior to July 1, 2016. Therefore, these materials
have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact''
section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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 rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of
the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable
to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual
component of the West Virginia SIP compilations had previously afforded
interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no
need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such
petitions for judicial review for this ``Identification of plan''
update action for West Virginia.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 21, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority for citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. Section 52.2520 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
b. In paragraph (c), in the table titled ``EPA-Approved Regulations in
the West Virginia SIP'':
0
i. Revising the entries under ``[45 CSR] Series 8 Ambient Air Quality
Standards''; and
0
ii. Removing the entries for sections 45-19-6, 45-19-10, 45-19-11, 45-
19-20, 45-19-21, and 45-19-22 under ``[45 CSR] Series 19 Permits for
Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment''.
    The revisions reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to July 1,
2016, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with the EPA
approval dates after July 1, 2016 for the State of West Virginia have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan and
for incorporation by reference into the plan as it is contained in this
section, and will be considered by the Director of the Federal Register
for approval in the next update to the SIP compilation.
    (2) EPA Region III certifies that the materials provided by EPA at
the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact
duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which
have been approved as part of the state implementation plan as of the
dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. No additional
revisions were made to paragraph (d) of this section between April 1,
2013 and July 1, 2016.
    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the
state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. To obtain the material, please call the Regional
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also inspect the material with an EPA
approval date prior to July 1, 2016 for the State of West Virginia at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (c) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
State citation [chapter 16-20 or                       State effective                           explanation/
             45 CSR]                 Title/subject           date        EPA approval date    citation at 40 CFR
                                                                                52.2565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 [45 CSR] Series 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 45-8-1..................  General............          6/1/14   9/22/14, 79 FR       Filing and
                                                                         56514.               effective dates
                                                                                are revised.
Section 45-8-2..................  Definitions........          6/1/14   9/22/14, 79 FR
                                                                         56514.
Section 45-8-3..................  Adoption of                  6/1/14   9/22/14, 79 FR       Effective date is
                                   Standards.                            56514.               revised.
Section 45-8-4..................  Inconsistency                6/1/14   9/22/14, 79 FR
                                   Between Rules.                        56514.

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-12236 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61551-61552]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-789, OMB Control No. 3235-XXXX]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-2736.

New Generic ICR:
    Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Agency Service Delivery.

ACTION: 30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval
from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the
process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the
Securities and Exchange Commission has submitted a Generic Information
Collection Request (Generic ICR): ``Generic Clearance for the
Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery'' to OMB
for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et. seq.).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery
    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner
qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving
service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the
study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to
have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other
generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
    Below is the projected average estimates for the next three years:
    Current Actions: New collection of information.
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Expected Annual Number of activities: [10].
    Respondents: [20,000].
    Annual responses: [20,000].
    Frequency of Response: Once per request.
    Average minutes per response: [10].
    Burden hours: [3500].
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: October 6, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25867 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54154-54156]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18999]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0744]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Sunset Point, San Juan Island, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the duration of a temporary
safety zone for navigable waters within a 1000-yard radius of Sunset
Point on San Juan Island, WA. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
associated with the emergency response efforts and the recovery of a
sunken vessel. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Puget
Sound.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from September 2,
2022 through September 12, 2022 at 10 p.m. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 29, 2022 at 10
p.m., until September 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0744 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Samud I. Looney, Sector Puget Sound,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-
6051, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 16, 2022, the Coast Guard issued a rulemaking that
created a temporary safety zone. The safety zone was effective August
16, 2022 to August 18, 2022. A copy of the rulemaking that ended on
August 18, 2022 is available in the docket USCG-2022-0600. On August
18, 2022, the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule establishing a
temporary safety zone in effect through August 29, 2022 (87 FR 51909).
However, additional time is needed to maintain safe navigation around
response equipment and responders while additional damage assessments
and salvage operations occur, and, as a result, the Coast Guard is
establishing through temporary regulations a safety zone that will be
in effect through September 12, 2022. The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary 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 immediate action is needed to respond to the safety
hazards associated with the emergency response measures in product
recovery of a sunken vessel. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM and
hold a reasonable comment period for this rulemaking due to the
emergent nature of the ongoing response and recovery operations.
    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. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the safety hazards associated with the emergency response
and salvage operations.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Puget
Sound (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
emergency response and recovery operations will be a safety concern for
anyone within a 1000-yard radius of Sunset Point, San Juan Island, WA.
This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the
emergency response is ongoing and during the recovery of the sunken
vessel.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule extends the effective dates of the established temporary
safety zone (87 FR 51909). The extended temporary safety zone will be
enforced from August 29, 2022 at 10 p.m. through September 12, 2022 at
10 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 1000-
yard radius of Sunset Point, San Juan Island, WA. The duration of the
zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters while the emergency response of
the sunken vessel are ongoing. No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The safety zone may be suspended early at
the discretion of COTP Sector Puget Sound.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of Sunset Point on San Juan Island for a
total of 14 days and operations may be suspended early at the
discretion of the COTP Sector Puget Sound. Moreover, the Coast Guard
will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that 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 involves a
safety zone lasting 14 days that will prohibit entry within 1000 yards
of Sunset Point while vessels, equipment, and personnel are being used
in the emergency response and removal of a sunken vessel. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60[d] of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

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:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0744 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0744  Safety Zone; Sunset Point, San Juan Island, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zones: all navigable
waters within a 1000 yard radius of the sunken vessel located at
48[deg]33'16.1'' N, 123[deg]10'28.9'' W off of Sunset Point, San Juan
Island, WA. These coordinates are based 1984 World Geodetic System (WGS
84).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, a designated
representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast
Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard
vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the COTP Sector Puget Sound in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from August
29, 2022 at 10 p.m. through September 12, 2022 at 10 p.m. unless an
earlier end is announced by Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF-FM
marine channel 16.

    Dated: August 29, 2022.
P.M. Hilbert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2022-18999 Filed 9-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P