[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28251-28252]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11859]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64441; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC To Modify Fees for Non Co-Location Services

May 9, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 28, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify fees for non co-location services.
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on May 1, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is amending the Phlx Fee Schedule, Section VI entitled
``Direct Connectivity to Phlx'' to establish pricing for customers who
are not co-located in the Exchange's data center, but require shared
cabinet space and power for optional routers, switches, or modems to
support their direct circuit connections. The Exchange proposes to
assess customers who are not co-located in the Exchange's data center
monthly fees for space based on a height unit of approximately two
inches high, commonly call a ``U'' space and a maximum power of 125
Watts per U space.
    Currently, non co-located customers are assessed fees for direct
circuit connection to the Exchange, as well as installation of an
optional on-site cable router.\3\ However, there is no charge to non
co-located customers for the space and utility cost to maintain the
optional router. As more and more non co-located customers seek to
utilize the optional router, the Exchange must utilize more space and
utilities to accommodate the influx. It has become a necessity for the
Exchange to offset the space and utility cost to maintain the optional
router in the same manner as has been established for co-located
customers. Additionally, the optional router may include other networks
devices (e.g., switches or modems) to operate the customer's business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Fee Schedule, Section VI, Access
Service, Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory and Other Fees, Direct
Connectivity to Nasdaq, Release No. 62639 (August 4, 2010), 75 FR
48391 (August 10, 2010) (SR-PHLX-2010-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While co-located customers are assessed the same per U fee, the co-
located customers are assessed in increments of a 4U Block at $600 per
month. The Exchange seeks to establish and make transparent the fees
imposed for space and utility costs to non co-located customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of

the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are reasonable and equitable for the reasons below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer non co-location services as a means to facilitate the
trading activities of those customers who believe that the non co-
location services enhance the efficiency of their trading. Accordingly,
fees charged for non co-location services are constrained by the fees
charged to co-located customers, as well as fees charged by other
exchanges, taking into consideration the different costs associated
with the two service types. It should be noted, however, that the costs
associated with a co-located customer are primarily fixed costs that
include the costs of renting or owning data center space and retaining
a staff of technical personnel. Accordingly, the Exchange establishes a
range of non co-location fees with the goal of covering these same
fixed costs and covering less significant marginal costs, such as the
cost of electricity.
    The Exchange proposes the same fee for non co-located customers and
co-located customers because the space and utility cost are comparable.
If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for non co-location
services that are comparable to co-location services, affected members
will opt to terminate their non co-location arrangements with that
exchange, and pursue range of alternative trading strategies not
dependent upon the Exchange's non co-location service. Accordingly, the
exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only non co-
location revenues and any other revenues associated with the non co-
located customer's operations. Moreover, all of the Exchange's fees for
space and utility costs services are equitably allocated and non-
discriminatory in that all non co-location customers are offered the
same space and utility service as the co-located customers, and, there
is no differentiation among customers with regard to the fees charged
for such costs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-60 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-60. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-60, and should be submitted on or before June
6, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11859 Filed 5-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31199-31200]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4539-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Washington; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Washington (FEMA-4539-DR), dated April 23,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued April 23, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-
2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 23, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Washington resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides,
and mudslides during the period of January 20 to February 10, 2020,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Washington.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy B. Manner, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Washington have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Columbia, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Island, King, Lewis, Mason,
Pacific, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla
Walla, and Whatcom Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Washington are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-11105 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 22422]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6756-011]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Sugar River Power LLC; Notice
of Transfer of Exemption

    1. On March 20, 2020, Green Mountain Power Corporation, exemptee
for the Lower Valley Hydroelectric Project No. 6756, filed a letter
notifying the Commission that the project was transferred from Green
Mountain Power Corporation to Sugar River Power LLC. The exemption from
licensing was originally issued on November 9, 1982.\1\ The project is
located on the Sugar River in Sullivan County, New Hampshire. The
transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Claremont Hydro Associates, 21 FERC ] 62,216 (1982). The
project was transferred to Green Mountain Power Corporation on
August 15, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Sugar River Power LLC is now the exemptee of the Lower Valley
Hydroelectric Project No. 6756. All correspondence must be forwarded
to: Sugar River Power LLC, c/o Mr. Robert E. King, 42 Hurricane Road,
Keene, NH 03431, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 15, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08443 Filed 4-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 79496]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4566-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Delaware; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4566-DR), dated October 2, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued December 2, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Delaware is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 2, 2020.

    New Castle County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-27161 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2145-2148]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00528]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74020; File No. SR-BX-2015-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
the Extranet Access Fee

January 9, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 2, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to add new BX Options \3\ Chapter XV, Section
3(c) (Options Market--Access Services) to the Exchange's Pricing
Schedule entitled ``Extranet Access Fee'' (``Pricing Schedule''), which
includes description about the applicability of the Extranet Access
Fee. This will conform the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to that of other
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ BX Options is a facility of BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to add new BX Options Chapter XV,
Section 3(c) entitled ``Extranet Access Fee'' to the Pricing Schedule,
which includes description about the applicability of the Extranet
Access Fee. This will conform the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to that
of other markets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') are self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs'') that are wholly owned subsidiaries of The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''). The Exchange, NOM (a facility of the
Exchange [sic]), BX Options (a facility of BX), Phlx, and PSX (a
facility of Phlx) (together with the Exchange known as the ``NASDAQ
Markets''), are independently filing proposals to conform their
respective Extranet Access Fee rules to NASDAQ Rule 7025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish the Extranet
Access Fee in proposed new BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c) to
indicate that certain non-Exchange Customer Premises Equipment
(``CPE'') Products shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per
CPE. The Exchange also proposes to conform the Extranet Access Fee to
that of another market, specifically NASDAQ Rule 7025, by also
indicating that if an extranet provider uses multiple CPE
Configurations \5\ to provide market data feeds to any recipient the
monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration; and that no
Extranet Access Fee will be charged for connectivity to market data
feeds containing only consolidated data. This proposal conforms the
Extranet Access Fee in BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c) to the
equivalent fee in NASDAQ Rule 7025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in proposed BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c),
a ``Customer Premises Equipment Configuration'' means any line,
circuit, router package, or other technical configuration used by an
extranet provider to provide a direct access connection to the
Exchange market data feeds to a recipient's site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Extranet Access Fee was introduced a decade ago on NASDAQ Rule
7025 as an equity fee.\6\ The Extranet Access Fee was introduced about
five years ago in BX Rule 7025.\7\ By this proposal, the Exchange
normalizes the cost and structure of its Extranet Access Fee on BX
Options to that of the equivalent decade-old NASDAQ fee.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50483 (October 1,
2004), 69 FR 60448 (October 8, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-118)
(establishing the Extranet Access Fee on NASDAQ); and 71199
(December 30, 2013), 79 FR 686 (January 6, 2014) (SR-NASD [sic]-
2013-159) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness increasing
the Extranet Access Fee to $1,000).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59615 (March 20,
2009), 74 FR 14604 (March 31, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-005) (establishing
the Extranet Access Fee on BX); and 71841 (April 1, 2014), 79 FR
19129 (April 7, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-015) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness describing that the Extranet Access Fee is
$750). The Extranet Access Fee was also established on PSX. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71236 (January 6, 2014), 79 FR
1906 (January 10, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-01) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness establishing the Extranet Access Fee on PSX,
and describing that no fee is charged at the time of the filing).
    \8\ As noted, BX and other NASDAQ Markets are independently
filing proposals to conform their respective Extranet Access Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Section 3(c) of the Fee Schedule indicates the same fee as
NASDAQ Rule 7025, namely $1,000 per CPE Configuration, and adds
verbatim language from NASDAQ Rule 7025 that explains the application
of the fee.\9\ As proposed, BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c) will
read as follows: ``Extranet providers that establish a connection with
the Exchange to offer direct access connectivity to market data feeds
shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per recipient Customer
Premises Equipment (``CPE'') Configuration. If an extranet provider
uses multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any
recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration.
For purposes of this Section 3, the term ``Customer Premises Equipment
Configuration'' shall mean any line, circuit, router package, or other
technical configuration used by an extranet provider to provide a
direct access connection to the Exchange market data feeds to a
recipient's site. No extranet access fee will be charged for
connectivity to market data feeds containing only consolidated data.
Extranet providers that establish a connection with the Exchange
pursuant to this Section 3 as well as a connection pursuant to BX Rule
7025 shall be assessed a total monthly access fee of $1,000 per
recipient CPE Configuration.'' The proposal thus conforms BX Options
Chapter XV, Section 3(c) to NASDAQ Rule 7025, and makes them
substantively identical.\10\ The proposal also makes it clear that if
an extranet provider establishes an Extranet connection on BX as well
as on BX Options, the extranet provider will not need to pay a double
$1,000 monthly access fee per CPE, but rather only one total monthly
access fee of $1,000 per CPE. In addition, as discussed, there is an
equity market and an options market under the BX SRO license. This
proposal brings the Extranet Access Fee per BX Rule 7025 on the equity
side to the options side per BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c) in
conformity with NASDAQ Rule 7025.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ However, the proposed Section 3(c) language does not,
because it deals with options, indicate that consolidated data
includes data disseminated by the UTP SIP (as noted in NASDAQ Rule
7025).
    \10\ The Exchange notes that while BX Options Chapter XV,
Section 3(c) and NASDAQ Rule 7025 each contain some language
particular to the relevant exchange, with this proposal the language
of the two rules is substantively identical. The Exchange notes that
the statement that Extranet providers shall be assessed a total
monthly access fee of $1,000 per recipient CPE Configuration is not
in NASDAQ Rule 7025.
    \11\ The Exchange is filing to raise the monthly access fee on
BX from $750 to $1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Extranet Access Fee will, as on NASDAQ, be used to
help support the Exchange's costs associated with maintaining multiple
extranet connections with multiple providers. These costs include those
associated with overhead and technology infrastructure, administrative,
maintenance and operational costs. Since the inception of Extranet
Access there have been numerous network

infrastructure improvements and administrative controls enacted.
Additionally, the Exchange has implemented automated retransmission
facilities for most of its data clients that benefit extranet clients
by reducing operational costs associated with retransmissions.
    As the number of extranets has increased, the management of the
downstream customers has expanded and the Exchange has had to ensure
appropriate reporting and review processes, which has resulted in a
greater cost burden on the Exchange over time. The proposed fee will
also help to ensure that the Exchange is better able to closely review
reports and uncover reporting errors via audits thus minimizing
reporting issues.\12\ The network infrastructure has increased in order
to keep pace with the increased number of products, which, in turn, has
caused an increased administrative burden and higher operational costs
associated with delivery via extranets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange will inform extranet providers of their
reporting responsibilities via its public Web site. This will
include, as an example, reporting CPE usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, subsequent to the proposal extranet providers that establish
a connection with the Exchange to offer direct access connectivity to
market data feeds shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per
CPE Configuration. If, as discussed below, an extranet provider uses
multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any
recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration.
    The Exchange proposes two new descriptions to conform the language
of BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c) to that of NASDAQ Rule 7025.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to indicate that if an extranet
provider uses multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds
to any recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE
Configuration; and that no extranet access fee will be charged for
connectivity to market data feeds containing only consolidated data.
These proposed descriptions should serve to reduce any confusion as to
the applicability of the Extranet Access Fee. Moreover, the
descriptions would make the Exchange's Extranet Access Fee in BX
Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c) work the same as the equivalent fee in
NASDAQ Rule 7025, and complete the effort to conform the two rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to add the Extranet Access
Fee in BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c), and to describe the
applicability of the Extranet Access Fee and thereby conform the fee
with the equivalent fee on NASDAQ, is consistent with the Act.
    All similarly situated extranet providers, including the Exchange
operating its own extranet, that establish an extranet connection with
the Exchange to access market data feeds from the Exchange are subject
to the same fee structure.\15\ The fee will help the Exchange to offset
some of the rising overhead and technology infrastructure,
administrative, maintenance and operational costs it incurs in support
of the service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, NASDAQ Technology Services, a subsidiary of
the Exchange [sic], pays the applicable fee(s) to the Exchange for
services covered under the Extranet Access Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If such costs are covered, the service may provide the Exchange
with a profit. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee is
reasonable and notes that this proposal conforms similarly-situated
Extranet Access Fee rules on BX options, BX equities, and NASDAQ. The
extranet costs are separate and different from the colocation facility
that is able to recoup these fees by charging for servers within the
associated data centers. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change is equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The
monthly fee is assessed uniformly to all extranet providers that
establish a connection with the Exchange to offer direct access
connectivity to market data feeds, and is the same for all at $1,000
per recipient CPE Configuration. Thus, any burden arising from the fees
is necessary in the interest of promoting the equitable allocation of a
reasonable fee. Moreover, firms make decisions on how much and what
types of data to consume on the basis of the total cost of interacting
with the Exchange or other markets and, of course, the Extranet Access
Fee is but one factor in a total platform analysis.
    Additionally, proposed BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(c) contains
description stating that if an extranet provider uses multiple CPE
Configurations to provide market data feeds to any recipient, the
monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration; and that no
Extranet Access Fee will be charged for connectivity to market data
feeds containing only consolidated data. This description should serve
to reduce any confusion as to the applicability of this fee.
    The proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other
persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or
controls, and is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
    The proposed fees are applied uniformly among extranet providers,
which are not compelled to establish a connection with the Exchange to
offer access connectivity to market data feeds. For these reasons, any
burden arising from the fees is necessary in the interest of promoting
the equitable allocation of a reasonable fee. Additionally, firms make
decisions on how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of
the total cost of interacting with the Exchange or other exchanges and,
of course, the Extranet Access Fee is but one factor in a total
platform analysis.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of

the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2015-002 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-BX-2015-002. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-002,
and should be submitted on or before February 5, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00528 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43825-43826]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                     (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet       Communities affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in  meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Webster County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Ditch (Backwater effects from     From the confluence with                +387  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                            Knoblick Creek to                             Webster County.
                                          approximately 0.93 mile
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Knoblick
                                          Creek.
Deer Creek (Backwater effects from       From the confluence with                +387  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                            East Fork Deer Creek to                       Webster County.
                                          approximately 1.5 mile
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with East
                                          Fork Deer Creek.
East Fork Deer Creek Tributary 1         From the confluence with                +387  Unincorporated Areas of
 (Backwater effects from Green River).    Deer Creek to                                 Webster County.
                                          approximately 2.7 miles
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Deer
                                          Creek.
Green River............................  At approximately 1.5 mile               +386  City of Sebree,
                                          downstream of the                             Unincorporated Areas of
                                          confluence with Groves                        Webster County.
                                          Creek.

                                         At approximately 5.2                    +388
                                          miles upstream of the
                                          confluence with Deer
                                          Creek.
Green River Tributary 219 (Backwater     From the confluence with                +387  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).               the Green River to                            Webster County.
                                          approximately 1.5 mile
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with the
                                          Green River.
Groves Creek (Backwater effects from     From the confluence with                +386  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                            the Green River to                            Webster County.
                                          approximately 5.9 miles
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with the
                                          Green River.
Knoblick Creek (Backwater effects from   From the confluence with                +387  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                            Deer Creek to                                 Webster County.
                                          approximately 2.8 miles
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Deer
                                          Creek.
Mock Roy Creek (Backwater effects from   From the confluence with                +386  City of Sebree,
 Green River).                            the Green River to                            Unincorporated Areas of
                                          approximately 2.5 miles                       Webster County.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with the
                                          Green River.
Pitman Creek (Backwater effects from     Approximately 1,690 feet                +388  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                            upstream of KY-370.                           Webster County.
                                         At approximately 3.8                    +388
                                          miles upstream of the
                                          confluence with the
                                          Green River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Sebree
Maps are available for inspection at 36 South Spring Street, Sebree, KY 42455.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Webster County
Maps are available for inspection at 35 South US Route 41A, Dixon, KY 42409.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: June 28, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-17458 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 66714]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9842-004]

Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-
Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing
Process/Alternative Licensing Procedures; Raymond F. Ward

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process Procedures.
    b. Project No.: 9842-004.
    c. Date Filed: August 31, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: Raymond F. Ward.
    e. Name of Project: Ward Mill Dam Project.
    f. Location: On the Watauga River, in Watauga County, North
Carolina. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Andrew C. Givens, Cardinal Energy service,
Inc., 620 N. West St., Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27603;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Raymond F. Ward filed his request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process Procedures on August 31, 2011. Raymond F. Ward
provided proof of the public notice of its request on October 6, 2011.
In a letter dated October 21, 2011, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Raymond F. Ward's request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106,
National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations
of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. Raymond F. Ward filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including
a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to
18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(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_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 9842. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10, each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by August 31,
2014.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: October 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27832 Filed 10-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES March 28, 2002 MEMORANDUM FROM: Kathryn Boyle, CoChair IIFG and Kerry Leifer, CoChair IIFG TO: Robert Forrest, Chief Minor Use, Inerts, and Emergency Response Branch SUBJECT: February 26 Meeting of the IIFG Decision Memo Please find attached the Inert Ingredient Focus Group recommendations for the inert ingredients associated with acetic acid and the citric acid cycle grouping. Page 2 of 16 INERT INGREDIENT FOCUS GROUP DECISION DOCUMENT for Acetic Acid and Salts Citric Acid Cycle Chemicals and Salts Petition No.: no Tolerance Reassessments?: yes Common Chemical Names: acetic acid, sodium acetate, citric acid, sodium citrate, potassium citrate, calcium citrate, malic acid, and fumaric acid Chemical Category/ Group: organic acids and their salts CAS. Reg. No.: in tables HPV Chemical? yes Data Posted? yes Use Pattern (pesticidal): Citric acid and malic acid are FIFRA 25( b) active ingredients. As an active ingredient, citric acid is used as a disinfectant, sanitizer, fungicide and scale remover for use in toilets and food processing equipment. Both citric acid and fumaric acid are in 40 CFR 180.2. Acetic acid and citric acid are used in food contact surface sanitizing solutions. As an active ingredient acetic acid is used on rights of ways, golf courses, open spaces, driveways and industrial sites at concentrations similar to that in vinegar to dessicate (dry out) plants.

Use Pattern (non pesticidal): These are naturally occurring chemicals, food acids that are found in a wide variety of unprocessed foods, especially fruits. FDA clearances exist for these chemicals allowing their use in candy, jelly, ice cream, cakes, cookies, pies, soft drinks, fruit drinks, cheese, and animal drugs and feeds. Malic acid is a flavoring agent. Fumaric acid is an antioxidant and can be a component of adhesives. Citric acid can be used in various cleaners and strippers. Page 3 of 16 1. Physical/ Chemical Properties:

Table 1. Chemical Properties of Acetic Acid and Salts Chemical Property Acetic Acid Acetic Acid, Calcium salt Acetic Acid, Magnesium salt Acetic Acid, Potassium salt Acetic Acid, Sodium salt Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 11.4 @ 20 o C 14.7 @25 o C NA 7. 08x10 7 @25 o C 7.08x10 7 @25 o C Log Kow 0.17 0.97 NA 3.72 3.72 Kd's (Koc) 0. 65 (228) Clastic mud 0.085 (6.5) muddy sand 0.046 (27) carbonate sand NA NA NA NA Water Solubility (g/ L) 50 @20 o C 430 @25 o C very soluble 2530 @25 o C 365 @20 o C pKa 4. 76 @25 o C NA NA NA NA Photodegradation 50% after 21 days NA NA NA 6.6% after 17h Biodegradation 99% after 7 days using AS * Readily biodegrades NA NA 100% after 5 days using AS Fish Acute Toxicity 96h LC50) 75mg/ L (Lowest value  Bluegill sunfish) NA NA >6100mg/ L (rainbow trout) 100mg/ L (zebra fish)

Daphnia Acute Toxicity 65mg/ L 48h EC50) NA NA 7170mg/ L 24h LC50) >1000mg/ L (48h EC50)

Algae Toxicity 4000mg/ L (8 day growth inhibition) NA NA NA 2460mg/ L after 60 h growth inhibition)

Mammal Acute Oral (LD50) 4960 mg/ kg bw (mouse) 4280mg/ kg bw (rat) 8610mg/ kg bw (rat) 3250mg/ kg bw (rat) 3530mg/ kg bw (rat)

* AS: Activated Sludge. Page 4 of 16 Table 2. Chemical Properties of Citric Acid and Salts Chemical Property Citric Acid Citric Acid, Sodium salt Citric Acid, Tripotassium salt Citric Acid, Trisodium salt Vapor Pressure (mmHg@ 25 o C) 3.7x10 9 @25 o C NA NA 2.09x10 12 @25 o C Log Kow 1.72 NA NA 0.28 Water Solubility (g/ L @25 o C) 1330 @20 o C NA NA ~425 @25 o C pKa pK1: 3. 13; pK2: 4.76; pK3: 6.4 NA NA NA Photodegradation NA NA NA NA Biodegradation 98% after 48 h using domestic sewage NA NA 90% after 48 h using AS Fish Acute Toxicity (96h LC50) 1516mg/ L (Bluegill sunfish) NA NA >18000 32000mg/ L (guppy)

Daphnia Acute Toxicity 120mg/ L 72h EC50) NA NA 5600 10000mg/ L (48h EC50)

Algae Toxicity 640mg/ L 8 day growth inhibition) NA NA >18000 32000mg/ L (96h EC50)

Mammal Acute Oral 5790mg/ kg bw (mouse) 7100mg/ kg bw (mouse) NA NA Table 3. Chemical Properties of Fumaric and Malic Acid Chemical Property Fumaric Acid Malic Acid Vapor Pressure (mmHg@ 25 o C) 1.54x10 4 4.6x10 6 Log Kow 0.33 @23 o C 1.26 Water Solubility (g/ L @25 o C) 7 592 pKa pK1: 3. 02; pK2: 4.46 @18 o C pK1: 3. 4; pK2: 5. 05 Photodegradation 50% degradation after 7.3h 50% degradation after 2 days Page 5 of 16 Biodegradation 98% after 21 days using domestic sewage readily biodegrades Fish Acute Toxicity 245mg/ L (48h LC50 zebra fish)) NA Daphnia Acute Toxicity 212 mg/ L (48h EC50) 240mg/ L (48h EC50)

Algae Toxicity 41mg/ L (72h EC50  green algae) NA Rat Acute Oral 9300mg/ kg bw (female rat) 1600 3200mg/ kg bw (mouse, rat)

2. Introduction:

Acetic acid is produced in biological tissues by fermentation of carbohydrates and also by organic synthesis. Vinegar which is a 5 to 8 % solution of acetic acid, is also a commonly consumed food.

Citric acid is widely distributed in plants and animals and occurs naturally in foods such as citrus fruits and tomatoes in substantial quantities. It is also one of the most widely used food additives. As a dietary supplement, calcium citrate is a source of calcium.

Malic acid occurs naturally as the major acid in apples, apricots, cherries, carrots and other foods. It is also used as a flavor booster in candy, jelly fruit drinks and ice cream.

Fumaric acid occurs in apples, beans, and carrots. It is commonly used to control pH and produce light textures in such foods as cake and cookies.

The following information was used in performing this assessment: The available information consisted of information retrieved from various websites, such as, °EPA( www. epa. gov), °NIOSH,( www. cdc. gov/ niosh/ ipcsneng/ neng0000.html) and (www. cdc. gov/ niosh/ npg/ npg. html) ° TOXNET ( www. toxnet. nlm. nih. gov.), °NTP( ntp server. niehs. nih. gov.),

Additional information included the information submitted to EPA's High Production Volume Challenge Program "Assessment Plan and Robust Summaries for the Acetic Acid and Salts Category." (Submitted June 28, 2001) Citric acid was also previously evaluated by the Agency in 1992 in the Citric Acid RED. Information identified as MRID was submitted to the Agency in support of citric acid as an active ingredient.

Acetic acid, calcium citrate, citric acid, sodium acetate, and sodium citrate have also been Page 6 of 16 evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are FDA affirmed GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe). Calcium acetate is also FDA affirmed GRAS (21 CFR 184.1185). Fumaric acid is approved for use as a direct and indirect food additive "at a level not in excess of the amount reasonably required to accomplish the intended effect."

International Safety Cards gave the following information on acetic acid (aqueous form): It is a colorless liquid and a weak acid. The substance and the vapor are corrosive to the eyes, the skin and the respiratory tract. There may be effects on the gastrointestinal tract. The TLV (Threshold Limit Value) is 25 mg/ m3 or 10 ppm. Pure acetic acid is a solid below 62 o F. It's most concentrated from is known as glacial acetic acid.

According to the International Safety Cards available for the other chemicals discussed in this document, they are all solids (granules, crystalline powder or flakes). No TLVs have been established.

3. The Citric Acid Cycle:

Citric acid, malic acid and fumaric acid are produced during the Citric Acid Cycle, which is also known as the Krebs Cycle. This cycle is essential for the metabolism of glucose and other simple sugars. The cycle consists of a series of enzymatic chemical reactions. These processes occur within the cell and are responsible for the final breakdown of food molecules to form carbon dioxide, water, and energy. For risk assessment purposes an important feature of this cycle is that these acids are used over and over again, thus giving the body an effective means of processing any ingested citric, fumaric, or malic acid.

4. Role of the Cation Generally, in dealing with any acid salt, dissociation yields the anion from the acid and a cation. Generally, concerns for human and ecological health would stem from the acid moiety. Cations such as sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium. are all minerals and required for proper functioning of biological systems. For risk assessment purposes an important feature of these minerals is that the body does have an effective means of processing them..

Sodium is necessary for the nerves and muscles to function properly. It is the principal cation of extracellular fluid, and helps to maintain the body's water balance. These electrolytes, the electrically charged ions in the body fluids, consist to a great extent of sodium and potassium.

Potassium is important in regulating blood pressure, regulating cellular water content, maintaining proper pH balance, and transmission of nerve impulses. It helps to regulate the electrical activity of the heart and muscles.

Calcium is necessary for bone and teeth formation. It is also important to the proper functioning of nerves, enzymes, and muscles, and plays a role in blood clotting and the Page 7 of 16 maintenance of cell membranes.

Magnesium is also used in building bones. It plays a role in releasing energy from muscles and regulating body temperature. Page 8 of 16 5.

Toxicological Profile Table Table 4a:

Acute Toxicological Profile: acetic acid and sodium acetate Chemical CAS No.

Acute Oral LD 50 Acute Dermal LD 50 Acute Inhalation LD 50 Skin Irritation Eye irritation Acetic acid 64 19 7 LD 50 10%

solution:: 3530 mg/ kg (MRID No.

99320) LD 50 Rat:

3000mg/ kg to 3800 mg/ kg (MRID No.

33062) LD 50 Mice: 4400 to 5600mg/ kg (MRID No.

33062) LDLo Rabbit: 600 mg/ kg LD 50 :

Rat 1.05mL/ kg (MRID No.

99320) LDLo Rabbit: 1060 uL/ kg LCLo: Rat 16000ppm/

4 hours LD 50 Mice: 5620 ppm/ 1 hour Human: 50 mg/ 24 hours: Mild Rabbit: 50 mg/ 24 hours: Mild Public literature indicates strong skin irritation Human skin sensitization has occurred to concentrated acetic acid Public literature indicates strong eye irritation Sodium acetate 127 09 3 LD 50 Rat:

3500 mg/ kg LD 50 Mouse: 4960 mg/ kg Not available Not available Not available Applied continuously for 3 hours to rabbit eyes at 0. 1 M:

No disturbance of the cornea Page 9 of 16 Table 4b:

Toxicological Profile: acetic acid and sodium acetate Chemical CAS No.

Subchronic/ Chronic Toxicity Developmental/ Reproductive Toxicity Genetic Toxicity Other Relevant Information Acetic acid 64 19 7 0.

5%

acetic acid in drinking water for 2 4 months reduced the food intake of rats (MRID no.

33062) Grastric lesions were noted in rats fed 4500 mg/ kg acetic acid for 30 days. (MRID No..

33062)

Apple cider vinegar (5% acetic acid)

was administered to pregnant mice, rats, and rabbits up to 1600 mg/ kg from GD 6 15– mice and rats; GD 6 18– rabbits.

No abnormalities were observed (MRID No..

90747).

Ames test (With and without activation; Strains TA100, TA1535, TA97, TA98, TA102; Zeiger et al,

1992): Negative NIOSH has estimated that 595,000 workers are potentially exposued to acetic acid in the US Detected in 2/

12 human milk samples (Pellizzari et al, 1982) OSHA: 10 ppm per 8 hr duration. NIOSH: 10 ppm per 8 hr duration.

15 ppm per 15 min duration.

50 ppm considered `immediately dangerous to life or health' FDA:

GRAS (maximum limits listed in 21CFR184.1005) Sodium acetate 127 09 3 Not available 1.

In vitro studies suggest not teratogenic (ToxNet; MRID No.

33062) 2.

Kavlock et al (1987). CD1 mice dosed via gavage at 1000 mg/ kg/ day from GD8 12.

No adverse effects seen.

Sister chromatid exchange: negative Negative: Ames test (With and without activiation Strains TA1535, TA1537, TA1538 and D4,

MRID no. 33076)

FDA

affirmed GRAS: 21 CFR 184.1721 (not to exceed current good manufacturing practice) Page 10 of 16 Table 5a:

Acute Toxicological Profile: citric acid and salts Chemical CAS No.

Acute Oral LD 50 Acute Dermal LD 50 Acute Inhalation LD 50 Skin Irritation Eye irritation Citric acid 77 92 9 LD 50 (mouse) 5040 mg/ kg LDLo (rabbit) 7000 mg/ kg Not available Not available Rabbit: 500 mg/ 24 Hours: Miild Rabbit: 700 ug/ 24 Hours: Severe Calcium citrate 7693 13 2 Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Potassium citrate 866 84 2 Sodium citrate 68 04 2 (anhydrous) 6132 04 3 (dihydrate) 6858 44 2 pentahydrate

Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Table 5b:

Toxicological Profile: citric acid and salts Chemical CAS No.

Subchronic/ Chronic Toxicity Developmental/ Reproductive Toxicity Genetic Toxicity Other Relevant Information Citric acid 77 92 9 Not available Not available Ames test (With and without activation; Strains TA100, TA97, TA98,

TA104; Al Ani and Al

Lami et al,

1988): Negative FDA

affirmed GRAS: 21 CFR 184.1033 (no limitation) Chemical CAS No.

Subchronic/ Chronic Toxicity Developmental/ Reproductive Toxicity Genetic Toxicity Other Relevant Information Page 11 of 16 Sodium citrate 68 04 2 (anhydrous) 6132 04 3 (dihydrate) 6858 44 2 (penta hydrate)

Not available In vitro studies suggest not teratogenic Negative: Ames test (With and without activiation Strains TA97,

TA102)

FDA

affirmed GRAS: 21 CFR 184.1751 (no limitation) Potassium citrate 866 84 2 Calcium citrate 7693 13 2 Not available Not available Ames test (With and without activation; Strains TA97, TA98TA102 TA104; Fujita et al,

1988):

Negative FDA

affirmed GRAS: 21 CFR 184.1195 (no limitation) (may be used in infant formula) Page 12 of 16 Table 6a:

Acute Toxicological Profile: fumaric acid Chemical CAS No.

Acute Oral LD 50 Acute Dermal LD 50 Acute Inhalation LD 50 Skin Irritation Eye irritation Fumaric acid 110 17 8 LD 50 Rat:

6800 10,700 mg/ kg LD 50 Mouse: 5000 mg/ kg LDLo Rabbit: 5000 mg/ kg Not available Not available Rabbit: 500 mg/ 24 Hours: Mild Rabbit: 100 mg/ 24 Hours:

Moderate Table 6b:

Toxicological Profile: fumaric acid Chemical CAS No.

Subchronic/ Chronic Toxicity Developmental/ Reproductive Toxicity Genetic Toxicity Other Relevant Information Fumaric acid 110 17 8 1.

Co

administration with a naphthyridine derivative resulted in fewer stomach and lung tumors. 2.

Co

injection with aflatoxin B1 reduced nuclear degeneration of hepatocytes 3.

Tumor inhibition study: 1%

in mouse diet for 48WK following 88 WK of thioacetamide treatment. Reduced incidence In vitro studies suggest not teratogenic 1.

Mouse lymphoma (with and without activation): Positive at 2856 8000 µg/ ml. 2.

Ames test (With and without activiation; Strains TA97, TA98,

TA100, TA102,

TA1535)

FDA:

Direct and indirect food additive "At a level not in excess of the amount reasonably required to accomplish the intended effect." Page 13 of 16 6. FDA Sponsored Developmental Toxicity Studies These studies were performed by the Food and Drug Research Laboratories in the 1970's. They have not been reviewed by the Agency, but were reported in the HPV submission.

Acetic Acid At the highest dose tested (1600 mg/ kg/ day) in the mouse, the rat, and the rabbit, there were no effects on nidation (fertilization), or on maternal or fetal survival.

Malic Acid At the only dose tested (350 mg/ kg/ day) in the rat, there were no treatment related fetal or maternal toxic effects. No increases in fetal malformations were observed.

At the only dose tested (266 mg/ kg/ day) in the mouse, there were no treatment related fetal or maternal toxic effects. No increases in fetal malformations were observed.

Citric Acid At the only dose tested (241 mg/ kg/ day) in the rat, there was no indication of adverse effects on nidation, maternal, or fetal survival..

7. Hazard Characterization:

There is no available information on any of the chemicals considered in this document indicative of a hazard, significant adverse effects, to the general public or any population subgroup. These chemicals are naturally occurring and are part of human metabolic activity.

8. Type of risk assessment: qualitative 9. Sensitivity of Infants and Children:

These chemicals have low toxic potential. In addition, humans of all ages are highly exposed to them from natural and anthropogenic sources. At this time, there is no concern for potential sensitivity to infants and children. A safety factor analysis has not been used to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

10. Fate and Ecotoxicity Assessment: Page 14 of 16 Acetic Acid and Salts Acetic acid and its salts undergo dissociation in aqueous media at pHs commonly found in the environment to the acetate anion and the respective cations. The toxicity of each compound is driven by the acetate anion with the cations paying a minor role. Data suggest that acetic acid and its salts are not persistent in the environment.

The available ecotoxicity data indicate that these compounds are slightly to practically nontoxic on an acute basis.

Citric Acid and Salts Similarly, citric acid and its salts also undergo dissociation in aqueous media in the environment to the citrate anion and the respective cations. The toxicity of each compound is driven by the citrate anion with the cations paying a minor role. The available information indicate that citric acid and its trisodium salt are readily biodegraded and modeling predicts that any citric acid released to the environment would partition to water. Therefore existing data indicates that citric acid and its salts would not be persistent in the environment.

The available ecotoxicity data indicate that these compounds are practically nontoxic on an acute basis.

Fumaric Acid Fumaric acid is highly soluble in water and has low volatility. Virtually all the fumaric acid released to the environment would partition to water. Complete biodegradation would take approximately 21 days.

The available ecotoxicity data indicate that fumaric acid is slightly to practically non toxic on an acute basis.

Malic Acid Malic acid is highly soluble in water and has a low volatility. It is considered to be readily biodegradable in soil and water. Modeling predicts that any citric acid released to the environment would partition to water. Existing data indicates that malic acid salts would not be persistent in the environment.

Based on a limited amount of data and malic acid's structural similarities to the above chemicals, malic acid is likely to be practically non toxic on an acute basis.

11. Fate and Ecotoxicity Characterization Page 15 of 16 A review of the readily available information on the chemical substances discussed in this document is sufficient to conduct a qualitative assessment of the potential exposures and risks associated with their use as pesticide inert ingredients. Environmental loadings are attributable to natural (plants and animal materials) and anthropogenic (food additives, drugs, and related products) sources. Available data indicate that they rapidly dissociate in the aquatic environment at environmentally relevant pHs to the corresponding acid (anion) and its respective cation. Anions of the respective compounds undergo aerobically mediated mineralization in days to weeks; mineralization is complete degradation to CO2 and water. Mobility of the anions is expected to be high based on adsorption estimates, however, migration to ground water should be substantially mediated through their rapid biodegradation, volatilization, or through their uptake and utilization within plant cells.

12. Cumulative Exposure:

Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) 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." The citric acid cycle chemicals are structurally related; however, all are low toxicity chemicals. Therefore, the resultant risks separately and/ or combined should also be low. EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether these chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.

13. IIFG Recommendations:

By consensus there were no objections to the following:

The following tolerance exemptions are reassessed: In 40 CFR 180.2 citric acid and fumaric acid. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (c) acetic acid, calcium citrate, citric acid, potassium citrate, and sodium acetate. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (d) sodium citrate. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (e) acetic acid, citric acid, and potassium citrate.

The tolerance exemption for fumaric acid in 40 CFR 180.1001 (d) was inadvertently deleted and can be re established.

Additionally, tolerance exemptions can be established for the potassium, calcium and magnesium salts of acetic acid and malic acid.

The following List reclassifications are made:

Acetic acid: Reclassified from List 4A to List 4B. Glacial acetic acid does not meet the criteria of Page 16 of 16 a List 4A. The original intent was to establish List 4A classification for Vinegar. Vinegar (maximum of 8% acetic acid in solution): List 4A Acetic acid: sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium salts: List 4A Citric acid: List 4A, to harmonize with its use as FIFRA 25( b) active ingredient Citric acid: sodium, potassium, calcium, salts: List 4A Malic acid : List 4A, to harmonize with its use as FIFRA 25( b) active ingredient Fumaric acid: List 4A based on its similarities to malic and citric acid Attachment:

EFED review (Abel; February 28, 2002)


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52684-52686]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0648]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ocean Cup, Catalina Island, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone near Ship Rock,
Catalina Island, in support of the Ocean Cup Pacific Rum Run. This
action is necessary to protect the area near Ship Rock, Catalina
Island, public vessels, and the high-speed vessels participating in the
event. This regulation would prohibit vessels from entering into,
transiting through, or remaining within the designated area during the
enforcement period unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Los Angeles--Long Beach, or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on September 30,
2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0648 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Maria Wiener, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles--
Long Beach; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
LLNR Light List Number
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    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 it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
did not receive final details for this event until August 12, 2022.
There was insufficient time to undergo the full rulemaking process,
including providing a reasonable comment period and considering those
comments, because the Coast Guard must establish this temporary safety
zone by September 30, 2022.

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 (COTP), Los
Angeles--Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated
with event safety may arise due to the expected high concentration of
vessels in the general area along with the high-speed race vessels. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of, and reduce the risk
to, the public, and mariners around Catalina Island before, during, and
after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on
September 30, 2022. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters
from the surface to the sea floor consisting of a line connecting the
following coordinates: 33[deg]27'38'' N, 118[deg]30'09'' W;
33[deg]27'51'' N, 118[deg]29'53'' W; 33[deg]27'34'' N, 118[deg]28'54''
33[deg]27'12'' N, 118[deg]29'17'' W. The duration of the zone is
intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled race. No vessel or person will
be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.
    During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or remaining within the designated area
unless authorized by the COTP or his designated representative. The
general boating public will be notified prior to the enforcement of the
temporary safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. No vessel or
person is permitted to operate in the safety zone without obtaining
permission from COTP or the COTP's designated representative. 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 in the enforcement of the security
zone. To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los
Angeles--Long Beach on VHF-FM Channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Upon being
hailed by a Coast Guard vessel or designated representative, by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall
proceed as directed.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Commercial vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit through this safety zone, with
coordination by the Captain of the Port or their designated
representative. The Coast Guard and Vessel Traffic Service/Marine
Exchange will coordinate and mitigate all inbound and outbound
commercial traffic movements through the race course. Recreational
traffic will be able to transit around this safety zone, which is near
the Two Harbors, Catalina entrance.

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 (Public Law 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.
    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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 encompassing an area near Ship Rock, Catalina Island, for
the Ocean Cup Pacific Rum Run. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. 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.

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.T11-112 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-112  Safety Zone; Ocean Cup, Catalina, California.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters from the surface to the sea floor consisting of a line
connecting the following coordinates: 33[deg]27'38'' N, 118[deg]30'09''
W; 33[deg]27'51'' N, 118[deg]29'53'' W; 33[deg]27'34'' N,
118[deg]28'54''; 33[deg]27'12'' N, 118[deg]29'17'' W. All coordinates
displayed are referenced by North American Datum of 1983, World
Geodetic System, 1984.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, 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 Captain of the Port Los Angeles--Long Beach (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) During the enforcement period, vessels and
persons are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
remaining within the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los
Angeles--Long Beach on VHF-FM Channel 16 or call at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach will
use all appropriate means to notify the public in advance of an event
of the enforcement of this safety zone to include publishing a Notice
of Enforcement in the Federal Register and through the Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (e) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced from 7
a.m. to 10 a.m. on September 30, 2022.

    Dated: August 23, 2022.
R.D. Manning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Los Angeles--
Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2022-18513 Filed 8-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P