[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 8745]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01942]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-823-000]

Luz Solar Partners Ltd., IV; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Luz Solar Partners Ltd., IV`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 13, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic 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
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 24, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01942 Filed 1-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DATA EVALUATION RECORD
850.1025 -- ACUTE EC50 TEST WITH AN ESTUARINE/MARINE MOLLUSK
SHELL DEPOSITION STUDY

1.  CHEMICAL:   DCPAPC Code No.:  078701

2.  TEST MATERIAL:   Dacthal TechnicalPurity:  99.3%

3.  CITATION
Authors:Shaw, A.C.
Title:Dacthal: Acute Toxicity to the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Under Flow-Through Conditions, Following OCSPP Guideline 850.1025.
Study Completion Date:December 19, 2013
Laboratory:Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts, USA
Sponsor:AMVAC Chemical Corporation, Newport Beach, California, USA
Laboratory Report ID:11857.6108
MRID No.:49500701
DP Barcode:424913

4.  REVIEWED BY:  Teresa Nelis, Staff Scientist, CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV
     Signature:  Date:  10/12/2016

     APPROVED BY:  Moncie V. Wright, Environmental Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JV
Signature: Date: 10/28/2016

5.  APPROVED BY:   Christina M. Wendel, Biologist, OPP/EFED/ERB2

     Signature:Date: 11/30/2021

APPROVED BY:  Michael Wagman, Senior Scientist, OPP/EFED/ERB2

     Signature:Date: 11/29/2021

This Data Evaluation Record may have been altered by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division subsequent to signing by CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV personnel.

6.  STUDY PARAMETERS

Scientific Name of Test Organism:Crassostrea virginica
Age or Size of Test Organism:38 mm (SD +- 3.0 mm) (N = 30) at test initiation
     Definitive Test Duration:96 hours
Study Method:Flow-through
     Type of Concentrations:Mean-measured

7.  CONCLUSIONS:

     Results Synopsis
     96-hour IC50:  >0.41 mg a.i./L (>410 ug a.i./L)95% C.I.: N/A
     Probit Slope: N/A

     96-hour LC50:  >0.41 mg a.i./L (>410 ug a.i./L)95% C.I.: N/A
     Probit Slope: N/A
Endpoint(s) affected: shell growth

8.  ADEQUACY OF THE STUDY

        Classification: This study is scientifically sound and is classified as Supplemental and may be used for risk characterization.

     B.  Rationale: Issues with dissolved oxygen (DO) occurred in the presence of gentle oil-free aeration in flow-through tanks. The DO was <=60% saturation in the solvent control, 0.23 mg/L and 0.062 mg a.i./L treatment groups at 48 hours, and in the 0.13 and 0.41 mg a.i./L treatment groups at 72 hours. Although not a validity criterion in the final OCSPP guideline, this is still an uncertainty and considered a study deficiency. Additionally, although only visual comparisons could be made due to the lack of replication, and statistical analysis could not be completed, the increase in shell growth (~9%) observed in the solvent control as compared to the negative control although growth results are highly variable, could potentially be masking effects of the test substance. Based on the available standard deviations for each level, the confidence intervals of the individual measurements would overlap for all test concentrations. However, no test concentration resulted in >=50% reduction in shell growth (maximum % effect was 27%), and overall, the results of this study support the conclusion that DCPA was not acutely toxic at the solubility limit of DCPA (0.5 mg/L)

     C.  Repairability:  None

9.  GUIDELINE DEVIATIONS:  The procedures used in this test followed a protocol that meets the testing requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Ecological Effects Test Guideline OCSPP (form. OPPTS) 850.1025: Oyster Acute Toxicity Test (Shell Deposition) and OCSPP 850.1000: Special Considerations for Conducting Aquatic Laboratory Studies. The reviewer assessed the study methods and results according to OCSPP 850.1025 and 850.1000.  The following deficiencies were noted:

Dissolved oxygen (DO) was 3.9, 4.1 and 4.3 mg/L at 48 hours in the solvent control, 0.23 mg/L and 0.062 mg/L treatment groups, respectively, which correspond to DO saturation of <60% (DO saturation of 49, 52 and 54%, respectively). At 72 hours the DO saturation was 4.7 and 4.6 mg/L in the 0.13 and 0.41 mg/L treatment groups, respectively (corresponding to a DO saturation of 59, 58%, respectively). The draft OPPTS 850.1025 guideline lists DO as a validation criterion and specifies that the DO concentration should be at least 60% of air saturation throughout the test. In the final OCSPP 850.1025 guideline, DO >=60% of saturation is a recommended test parameter, and not a validity criterion. Additionally, issues with DO occurred despite the study using gentle oil-free aeration in flow-through tanks in an attempt to increase oxygenation. Therefore, this is an uncertainty and considered a study deficiency.
There was no holding period before acclimation was initiated. The draft and final OPPTS and OCSPP 850.1025 guideline suggests that oysters be held for a minimum of 10 to 15 days before testing. The oysters used in the study arrived 6 days prior to exposure initiation, and the holding and acclimation conditions were monitored for the 6 days prior to exposure initiation. No mortalities were observed during the acclimation period. This is considered a minor study deficiency.
The number of replicate test chambers (aquaria) that were used meets the draft OPPTs 850.1025 guideline, which does not explicitly recommend replication, and just uses 20 individuals per control/treatment level (each treatment level in a single aquarium). However, according to the final OCSPP 850.1025 guideline test conditions, the number of replicate test chambers per treatment level for a `multiple-concentration definitive test' is recommended to be a minimum of 2, with a minimum of 20 individuals between the 2 chambers. As the test was conducted according to the draft OCSPP 850.1025 guideline, this is considered a minor deficiency. However, the lack of replication prevents most statistical analyses, including identifying whether there are statistically significant differences in shell deposition between the solvent and negative controls.
The TOC of the dilution water was not reported. The lack of measurement in dilution water is only considered a deficiency based on the final OCSPP 850.1035 guideline. In the draft OPPTS 850.1035 guideline, the measurement of TOC was only recommended when deionized water was used to prepare artificial seawater. However, the lack of this information is considered to be a minor deficiency as the Kow and solubility of DCPA, (4.3 and 0.5 mg/L, respectively), in water would not result in an underestimation of toxicity.

     These deficiencies do have an impact on the acceptability of this study.

10.  SUBMISSION PURPOSE: This study was submitted to provide data on the effects of Dacthal (DCPA) on oyster (Crassostrea virginica) shell deposition following acute exposure for the purpose of registration review.

11.  MATERIALS AND METHODS

     A.  Test Organisms
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Species
Preferred species are the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
Mean valve height
25 - 50 mm along the long axis
Mean: 38 mm (SD +- 3.0 mm) (N = 30)
Supplier
Northside Shellfish, Barnstable, Massachusetts, USA
Are all oysters from same source?
Yes
Are all oysters from the same year class?
Yes

     B.  Source/Acclimation
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Acclimation Period
Minimum 10 days
6 days
The seawater oysters were held in had a temperature range of 18-20ºC; a pH range of 7.8-8.1; a DO concentration range of 83 to 96% saturation; and a salinity range of 20 to 23 ppt.
Wild caught organisms were quarantined for 7 days?
N/A
Were there signs of disease or injury?
No mortality was observed among the oyster population during the six days before exposure initiation. Oysters that appeared less than optimal were discarded prior to testing.
If treated for disease, was there no sign of the disease remaining during the 48 hours prior to testing?
No treatments for disease were described.
Amount of peripheral shell growth removed prior to testing
ca. 3-5 mm
Feeding during the acclimation
Must be fed to avoid stress.
Oysters were fed a supplementary diet of algae (Shellfish Diet 1800), an algal mixture prepared in seawater from a concentrate at least once a day.
Pretest Mortality
<3% mortality 48 hours prior to testing
0%, no mortality was observed prior to testing.

     C.  Test System
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Source of dilution water Natural unfiltered seawater from an uncontaminated source.
Natural, filtered seawater was pumped from the Cape Cod Canal, Bourne, Massachusetts (1 to 4 meters offshore at a depth of 0.5 meters). In the laboratory, the seawater was recirculated within an epoxy-coated concrete reservoir prior to use. Routine analyses of the water by GeoLabs, Braintree, Massachusetts, did not detect pesticides, PCBs, or toxic metals at concentrations that are considered toxic in agreement with ASTM (2002) standard practice. The results of these analyses were not provided in the study report for reference.
Does water support test animals without observable signs of stress?
Yes
Salinity
Artificial or natural seawater diluted with freshwater: 20%. (parts per thousand) (range +-2%. during test); Natural seawater not diluted with freshwater: >12%. (range <5%. during test)
20 - 21 ppt
Water Temperature
15°-30°C, consistent in all test vessels
20 - 22ºC
pH
7.4  -  7.9
Dissolved Oxygen
>=60% throughout
Range:  3.9  -  8.4 mg/L
3.9, 4.1 and 4.3 mg/L at 48 hours in the solvent control, 0.25 mg/L and 0.063 mg/L nominal test solutions, respectively, were <60% saturation. 4.7 and 4.6 mg/L at 72 hours in the 0.13 and 0.50 mg/L nominal test solutions, respectively, were <60% saturation.
[4.7  -  4.8 mg/L at salinities of 20-21 ppt and temperatures of 20-22ºC represent 60% of dissolved oxygen saturation]
Aeration
Gentle, oil-free aeration was initiated at test initiation in all test vessels to maintain dissolved oxygen levels at >=60% of saturation.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Not reported
Test Aquaria
Should be constructed of glass or stainless steel.
Glass aquaria measuring 49.5 x 25.5 x 29 cm (L x W x H) that were equipped with an overflow side drain positioned at a height of 14 cm which maintained a test solution volume of ca. 18 L.
Type of Dilution System
Must provide reproducible supply of toxicant
Constant-flow serial diluter with a dilution factor of 50% between concentrations, a temperature-controlled water bath with seven exposure aquaria. A Harvard Syringe pump was calibrated to deliver 0.015 mL/minute of the 5.0 mg/mL diluter stock solution into a mixing chamber that also received 150 mL/minute of dilution water. Mixing chamber was positioned over a magnetic stir plate and partially submerged in an ultrasonic water bath.

A similar system was configured to deliver 0.015 mL/minute of 500 uL/mL solvent control stock solution into the diluters solvent control mixing chamber which received 0.074 L/minute of dilution water, to achieve 0.10 mL/L solvent.

The dilution water control contained dilution water only and was maintained under the same conditions as the treatment level containers but contained no treatment substance or solvent.
Flow rate
Consistent flow rate
75 mL/minute provided ca. 6 solution volume replacements/24 hours. The contents of each aquarium were continuously circulated using an impeller pump and a Teflon tube (1.75 L/minute flow rate in each test aquarium or 5.25 L/oyster/hour). The circulating system aided in evenly distributing the algae fed to the oysters and in mixing the flow of the test solution throughout each aquarium (as applicable).
Was the loading of organism such that each individual sits on the bottom with water flowing freely around it?
Yes
Photoperiod
16 hours light, 8 hours dark
16 hours light, 8 hours dark with sudden transitions between light and dark avoided. Lighting provided by Sylvania Octron(R) fluorescent bulbs with an intensity of 200 to 2200 lux.
Test conditions: light intensity ranged from 30 to 82 footcandles (320 to 880 lux).
Solvents
Not to exceed 0.5 ml/L
Solvent:  DMF at 0.10 mL/L

     D.  Test Design
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Range Finding Test
If EC50 >100 mg/L with 30 or more oysters, then no definitive test is required.
A 96-hour static-renewal acute exposure was conducted with a dilution water control, a solvent (DMF) control and nominal concentrations of 0.000050, 0.00050, 0.0050, 0.050, and 0.50 mg a.i./L. All test solutions were observed to be clear and colorless with no visible undissolved test substance present. One replicate aquarium containing ten oysters was established for the controls and each test group. Following 96-hours of exposure, shell growth reductions were 12, 27, 16, 19 and 50% in the 0.000050, 0.00050, 0.0050, 0.050, and 0.50 mg a.i./L treatment groups, respectively, compared to the dilution water control. Mortality of 10% occurred in the dilution water control. No mortality or adverse effects were observed among the oysters in the solvent control or any of the treatment levels tested. Based on these results, and in consultation with the Study Sponsor, the nominal concentrations were selected for the definitive test.
Nominal Concentrations of Definitive Test
Control & 5 treatment levels;
each conc. should be 60% of the next highest conc.; concentrations should be in a geometric series
0 (negative dilution water control and solvent control), 0.031, 0.063, 0.13, 0.25, and 0.50 mg a.i./L
Number of Test Organisms
Minimum 20 individuals per test level and in each control

20 per treatment level and controls; no replication was used (all organisms per a treatment level/control were in single aquaria)
Test organisms randomly or impartially assigned to test vessels?
Yes
Biological observations made every 24 hours?
Yes, noting visible abnormalities (excessive mucus production or failure to siphon and feed as evidenced by a lack of fecal and pseudofecal production) and other sublethal effects.
Water Parameter Measurements
1. Temperature
     Measured hourly in at least one chamber
2. DO and pH
     Measured at beginning of test and every 48 h in the high, medium, and low doses and in the control

Temperature was measured daily in each aquarium, and also monitored continuously in the nominal 0.13 mg a.i./L aquarium.
Dissolved oxygen and pH were measured daily in each aquarium.
Was chemical analysis performed to determine the concentration of the test material at the beginning and end of the test?  (Optional)
Yes; samples were collected from the controls and treated aquaria at test initiation and termination. Samples were collected from the approximate midpoint of the test vessel using a pipet. The samples were analyzed using HPLC with UV detection.
The method validation was conducted prior to test initiation (24 June 2013) and established an average recovery of 97.9 +- 4.86% for dacthal from 20 ppt filtered seawater (Appendix 2; pg. 54-66 in the study report).

12.  REPORTED RESULTS

     A.  General Results
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Quality assurance and GLP
compliance statements were
included in the report?
Yes; this study was conducted in compliance with all pertinent U.S. EPA (40 CFR, Part 160) Good Laboratory Practice Regulations with the following exception: routine food and water contaminant screening analyses were conducted using standard U.S. EPA procedures.
Control Mortality
Not more than 10% of control organisms may die or show abnormal behavior.
0% (dilution water and solvent controls)
Control Shell Deposition
Must be at least 2 mm.
3.3 mm dilution water control; 3.6 mm solvent control
Recovery of Chemical
Analytical recoveries at time 0 ranged from 92-106%, and from 70-116% at 96 hours. The coefficient of variation ranged from 6-22% (refer to copy of Excel worksheet in Appendix I). The highest nominal concentration is at the solubility limit for DCPA (0.5 mg/L), but both the stock solutions and test solutions were clear and colorless with no visible undissolved test substance throughout the test.
Limit of quantitation (LOQ) = 0.0024 mg/L
Raw data included?
Yes
Signs of toxicity (if any) were described?
Yes

 Table 1. Effect of DCPA on Shell Growtha
Concentration (mg/L)
Number Per Level
Number Dead
Mean Shell Deposition +-  SDb
(mm)
Mean % Reduction Compared to Pooled Control (Comparison to Negative Control)
[Comparison to solvent control]
Nominal
Mean-Measured

Dilution Water
Negative Control
<LOQc
20
0
3.3 +- 1.6
-- [8]
Solvent Control
<LOQc
20
0
3.6 +- 1.1
--
0.031
0.035
20
0
3.5 +- 1.5
-3 (-6) [3]
0.063
0.062
20
0
3.7 +- 1.2
-7 (-12) [-3]
0.13
0.13
20
0
3.3 +- 1.3
4 (0) [8]
0.25
0.23
20
0
3.1 +- 0.9
11 (6) [14]
0.50
0.41
20
0
2.4 +- 1.1
31 (27) [33]
  a Data were obtained from Table 2 to Table 5 on pages 25 to 28 of the study report.
  b SD = Standard Deviation
  c LOQ = 0.0024 mg/L
     B.  Statistical Results

     Method: The IC50 value was visually determined due to <50% reductions in shell deposition compared to the pooled control. Geometric mean-measured concentrations were used for the analysis.

     96-hour IC50:  >0.40 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A
     Probit Slope: N/A

13.  VERIFICATION OF STATISTICAL RESULTS

The reviewer entered shell deposition and mortality data and the corresponding mean-measured concentrations into CETIS statistical software version <IP_ADDRESS> with database backend settings implemented by EFED on 10/20/15.  The toxicity values were visually determined due to a lack of effects >=50%.

Parameter
Result
Statistical Method for LC/IC50
N/A - reductions were <=27% in this study compared to negative control (max inhibition of 33% compared to solvent control)
LC/IC50 (95% C.I.)
>0.41 mg a.i./L
(based on mean-measured concentrations)
Probit Slope
N/A

14.  REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

The reviewer's and the study author's results were in agreement, when accounting for the slight differences in the reported toxicity value due to the use of geometric mean-measured versus mean-measured concentrations. Although only visually determined, as statistical analysis could not be completed due to the lack of replication, the increase in shell growth observed in the solvent control as compared to the negative control could potentially be masking effects of the test substance. However, the individual measurements of shell growth are highly variable in both the controls and treatment groups and not dose-responsive, except at the higher treatment levels; the mean and standard deviation (SD) for shell growth are presented Table 1 above. Using the standard deviations, the confidence intervals for the mean individual measurements for all test concentrations would overlap. For the negative control the individual measurements of shell growth range from 1.5  -  7.3 mm (mean 3.3 +- 1.6 mm (SD), the solvent control measurements range from 2.2  -  6.1 mm (mean 3.6 +- 1.1 mm (SD), the 0.035 mg a.i./L (lowest) treatment level range from 1.0 to 7.2 mm (mean 3.5 +- 1.5 mm (SD), 0.062 mg a.i./L  treatment level range from 1.8 to 6.7 mm (mean 3.7 +- 1.5 mm (SD), 0.13 mg a.i./L treatment level range from 1.7 to 6.0 mm (mean 3.3 +- 1.3 mm (SD), 0.23 mg a.i./L treatment level range from 1.3 to 5.5 mm (mean 3.1 +- 0.9 mm (SD), 0.41 mg a.i./L mg a.i./L (highest) treatment level range from 0.3 to 5.1 mm (mean 2.4 +- 1.1 mm (SD). No test substance concentration resulted in >=50% reduction in shell growth, but the possible solvent effect presents a potential uncertainty of the test, however the individual growth results are highly variable (as described above), even though effects on shell growth were observed in all treatment groups, effects were not dose-responsive, except at the higher treatment levels, and these could not be statistically analyzed due to the lack of replication. There were no mortalities in the controls or treatment groups and overall the results of this study support the conclusion that DCPA was not acutely toxic at the solubility limit of DCPA. The reviewer's results are reported in the Conclusions section of this DER.

Issues with DO occurred in the presence of gentle oil-free aeration in flow-through tanks. The dissolved oxygen (DO) was <=60% saturation (49, 52 and 54% saturation, respectively) in the solvent control, 0.23 mg/L and 0.062 mg a.i./L treatment groups at 48 hours, and (59, 58% saturation, respectively) in the 0.13 and 0.41 mg a.i./L treatment groups at 72 hours. Although not a validity criterion in the final OCSPP guideline, this is still an uncertainty and considered a study deficiency.

The coefficient of variation of the measured test concentrations ranged from 0 to 22% (refer to copy of Excel worksheet in Appendix I).

The study was conducted following the draft OPPTS 850.1025 (1996), and OCSPP 850.1000 (1996) guidelines, and the reviewer considered both the draft and the final OCSPP 850.1025 (2016) guideline and OCSPP 850.1000 in their evaluation of the data.

An initial definitive static-renewal acute test was initiated on August 19, 2013, exposing Eastern oysters to DCPA at nominal concentrations of 0.031, 0.063, 0.13, 0.25 and 0.50 mg/L; however, due to the low analytical results, this study was terminated. As a result, the study design was changed to a flow-through exposure in an effort to maintain the desired concentrations. The highest nominal concentration is at the solubility limit for DCPA (0.5 mg/L), and although the highest nominal concentration is at the solubility limit for DCPA, both the stock solutions and test concentrations were mixed by inversion and were clear and colorless with no undissolved test substance throughout the test. This in combination with flow-through exposure aided in the ability of keeping the test material in solution and deeming the analytical measurements to be reliable.

The experimental phase of the test was conducted from September 23 to September 27, 2013.

 CONCLUSIONS:

This study is scientifically sound and is classified as supplemental and may be used for risk characterization. Mortality was 0% in the dilution water negative control, the solvent control and treatment groups. Inhibitions in new shell growth ranged from -12 to 27% relative to the negative control and -3 to 33% relative to the solvent control and exhibited a dose-response at the higher treatment levels; however the individual growth results are highly variable. As there was overlap of the confidence intervals based on the standard deviations for all test concentrations. Although only visual comparisons could be made due to the lack of replication, and statistical analysis could not be completed, the apparent increase in shell growth observed in the solvent control (~9%) as compared to the negative control, although results are highly variable, could potentially be masking effects of the test substance. However, no test substance concentration resulted in >=50% reduction in shell growth (maximum % effect was 27%). Therefore, overall, the results of this study support the conclusion that DCPA was not acutely toxic at the solubility limit of DCPA (0.5 mg/L). The 96-hour LC50 value was > 0.410 mg a.i./L (>410 ug a.i./L).

     96-hour LC50:  > 0.410 mg a.i./L (>410 ug a.i./L)95% C.I.:  N/A
     Probit Slope: N/A
Endpoint(s) affected: shell growth

16.  REFERENCES:

ASTM, 2002. Standard practice for conducting acute toxicity tests with fishes, macroinvertebrates and amphibians. Standard E729-96. American Society for Testing and Substances, 100 Barr Harbor Road, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428.

Benoit, D.A., V.R. Mattson, and D.C. Olson, 1982. A continuous flow mini-diluter system for toxicity testing. Water Research. 16:457-464.

Ives, M., 2013. CETIS, Comprehensive Environmental Toxicity Information System(TM). User's Guide. Tidepool Scientific Software, McKinleyville, California.

U.S. EPA, 1996a. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Ecological Effects Test Guideline, OCSPP 850.1025. Oyster Acute Toxicity Test (Shell Deposition). "Public Draft". EPA712-C-96-115. April 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA, 1996b. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Ecological Effects Guideline, OCSPP 850.1000. Special Consideration for Conducting Aquatic Laboratory Studies. "Public Draft". EPA 712-C-96-113. April 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

APPENDIX I. Copy of Excel Worksheet with Measured Concentrations


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32467-32469]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0576]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Oswego Harborfest Water Ski Show; Oswego Harbor,
Oswego, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Oswego Harbor, Oswego, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from portions of the Oswego Harbor during the Oswego Harborfest
Water Ski Show on July 29, 2017 and July 30, 2017. This temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the
navigational hazards associated with high speed craft and water skiers.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10:45 a.m. on July 29, 2017 to 5:45
p.m. July 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0576 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 about this
rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
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

    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. The event sponsor
did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining
before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of
this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable
and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's
ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated
with a water ski show.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels near the water ski show.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
water ski show presents significant risks to public safety and
property. Such hazards include high speed craft and multiple water
skiers performing in a relatively small area. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone while the water ski show is taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 29, 2017 and July 30,
2017 from 10:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all
waters of the Oswego Harbor; Oswego, NY contained within the following
points: 43[deg]27'27.7'' N., 076[deg]30'38.1'' W., then east to
43[deg]27'28.6'' N., 076[deg]30'34.0'' W., then northwest to
43[deg]27'38.3'' N., 076[deg]30'39.6'' W., then west to
43[deg]27'38.5'' N., 076[deg]30'44.8'' W., then back to the point of
origin and 43[deg]27'50.1'' N., 076[deg]31'15.5'' W., then southwest to
43[deg]27'42.2'' N., 076[deg]31'36.0'' W., then northwest to
43[deg]27'46.1'' N., 076[deg]31'40.0'' W., then northeast to
43[deg]27'55.2'' N., 076[deg]31'17.2'' W., and returning to the point
of origin (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to
reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for
every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be
prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the
Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced only during the water ski performances.
Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable
waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels
to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within the
particular areas are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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
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 above.

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
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 it
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded
under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction,
which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

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:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0576 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0576  Safety Zone; Oswego Harborfest Water Ski Show,
Oswego Harbor, Oswego, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Oswego Harbor; Oswego, NY contained within the following points:
43[deg]27'27.7'' N., 076[deg]30'38.1'' W., then east to
43[deg]27'28.6'' N., 076[deg]30'34.0'' W., then northwest to
43[deg]27'38.3'' N., 076[deg]30'39.6'' W., then west to
43[deg]27'38.5'' N., 076[deg]30'44.8'' W., then back to the point of
origin and 43[deg]27'50.1'' N., 076[deg]31'15.5'' W., then southwest to
43[deg]27'42.2'' N., 076[deg]31'36.0'' W., then northwest to
43[deg]27'46.1'' N., 076[deg]31'40.0'' W., then northeast to
43[deg]27'55.2'' N., 076[deg]31'17.2'' W., and returning to the point
of origin (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on July
29, 2017 and July 30, 2017 from 10:45 a.m. until 5:45 p.m. while water
ski shows are occurring.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 7, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-14741 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64556-64559]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25446]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70747; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-133]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Implement Transition to Friday Expiration for Most Options Contracts

October 23, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 11, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 amend certain procedural rules to
implement the change in the expiration date for most option contracts
to the third Friday of the expiration month instead of the Saturday
following the third Friday. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the Exchange's
principal office, 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
    On August 21, 2013, the Exchange filed to change the expiration
date for most option contracts to the third Friday of the expiration
month instead of the Saturday following the third Friday.\3\ This
proposed rule change is intended to clarify certain rule changes that
were made in the Expiration Date Filing and to amend additional
procedural and other rules intended to implement the change in
expiration date for most option contracts to the third Friday of the
expiration month instead of the Saturday following the third Friday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70260 (August 26,
2013), 78 FR 53794 (August 30, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-
112)(``Expiration Date Filing''). The changes proposed in the
Expiration Date Filing were effective on filing and became operative
on September 20, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has adopted rules to change the expiration date for
most option contracts to the third Friday of the expiration month
instead of the Saturday following the third Friday.\4\ The changes to
the expiration date apply to all standard expiration

contracts including those in which the rules are silent on the
expiration date. Option contracts having non-standard expiration dates
(``non-standard expiration contracts'') were unaffected by the proposed
rule changes, except that FLEX options having expiration dates later
than February 1, 2015 cannot expire on a Saturday unless they are
specified by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') as
grandfathered.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Chapter XIV, Index Rules, Section 2(q) (definition of
``expiration date'').
    \5\ Examples of options with non-standard expiration contracts
include: Quarterly Equity and Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (``ETFs'')
Option Series (Chapter IV, Section 6, Commentary .04), Quarterly
Options Series for indexes (Chapter XIV, Section 11(g)), Short Term
Option Series (Chapter IV, Section 6, Commentary .07) and Short Term
Option Series for indexes (Chapter XIV, Section 11(h)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is making the proposed rule changes to further
harmonize its rules in connection with a recently approved rule filing
made by OCC which made substantially similar changes.\6\ The Exchange
believes that the industry must remain consistent in expiration dates,
and, thus, is proposing to update its rules to remain consistent with
those of OCC. In addition, the Exchange understands that other
exchanges have and will be filing similar rules to effect this
industry-wide initiative.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69772 (June 17,
2013), 78 FR 37645(June 21, 2013) (order approving SR-OCC-2013-004).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70091 (August 1,
2013), 78 FR 48212 (August 7, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-073); 69996 (July
17, 2013), 78 FR 44183 (July 23, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-32); 70373
(September 11, 2013), 78 FR 57198 (September 17, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-
2013-73); 70372 (September 11, 2013), 78 FR 57186 (September 17,
2013) (SR-NYSEARCA-2013-88); and 70488 (September 24, 2013), 78 FR
59998 (September 30, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide a smooth transition to the Friday expiration,
OCC has begun to move the expiration exercise procedures to Friday for
all standard expiration contracts even though the contracts would
continue to expire on Saturday.\8\ After February 1, 2015, virtually
all standard expiration contracts will actually expire on Friday. The
only standard expiration contracts that will expire on a Saturday after
February 1, 2015 are certain options that were listed prior to the
effectiveness of the OCC rule change, and a limited number of options
that may be listed prior to necessary systems changes of the options
exchanges. The NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), along with the other
option exchanges, has agreed not to list any additional options with
Saturday expiration dates falling after February 1, 2015. NASDAQ
understands that the other exchanges are committed to the same listing
schedule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 6 supra.
    \9\ See note 7 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain option contracts have already been listed with Saturday
expiration dates as distant as January 2016 (which is the furthest out
expiration as of the date of this filing). For these contracts,
transitioning to a Friday expiration for newly listed option contracts
expiring after February 1, 2015 would create a situation under which
certain options with open interest would expire on a Saturday while
other options with open interest would expire on a Friday in the same
expiration month.
    Clearing members have expressed a clear preference to not have a
mix of options with open interest that expire on different days in a
single month.\10\ Accordingly, OCC represented in its recently approved
filing that it will not issue and clear any new option contracts with a
Friday expiration if existing option contracts of the same options
class expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the same
month. However, Friday expiration processing will be in effect for
these Saturday expiration contracts. As with standard expiration
options during the transition period, exercise requests received after
Friday expiration processing is complete but before the Saturday
contract expiration time will continue to be processed without fines or
penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the rule changes implementing the change in expiration date
apply only to new series of standard expiration contracts opened for
trading consistent with the OCC rules and having expiration dates later
than February 1, 2015, the Exchange is proposing to amend certain rules
relating to the procedures of the Exchange. The proposed changes take
into account that, during a transition period, there will be options
with open interest having both Friday and Saturday expiration dates.
    More specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend Chapter 1,
General Provisions, Section 1(a)(16) to provide that European-style
options can be exercised only on the expiration date if such day is a
business day or, in the case of option contracts expiring on a day that
is not a business day, the last business day prior to expiration.
    In addition, the Exchange seeks to amend Chapter III, Business
Conduct, Section 12(a)(ii) with respect to certain timing for
restrictions on the exercise of option contracts. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to specify that the 10 business day period referenced
in Section 12(a)(ii) includes the expiration date for an option
contract that expires on a business day. With respect to index options,
restrictions on exercise may be in effect until the opening of business
on the business day of their expiration or, in the case of an option
contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, on the last
business day before the expiration date. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to amend Section 12(a)(iii)(2) to specify that exercises of
expiring American-style, cash-settled index options would not be
prohibited on an expiration date that is a business day (i.e., for
Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on
a non-business day (as is currently the case for Saturday expirations),
on the last business day prior to expiration.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Chapter IV, Securities Traded
on NOM, Section 6(c) to differentiate between Friday and Saturday
expirations. Specifically, the Exchange would specify that, in the
event of unusual market conditions, additional series of individual
stock options may be added in the discretion of the Exchange until the
close of trading on the business day prior to expiration in the case of
an option contract expiring on a business day (i.e., Thursday for a
Friday expiration), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a
day that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for
Saturday expirations, until the close of trading on the second business
day prior to expiration (i.e., until the close of trading on Thursday
for Saturday expirations).
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Regulation
of Trading on NOM, Section 6(f)(ii) to add greater specificity
regarding the timing surrounding notifications to the Exchange of a
Catastrophic Error. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to specify
that, for transactions in an expiring options series that take place on
an expiration day that is a business day (i.e., for Friday
expirations), a party must notify MarketWatch by 5:00 p.m. ET that same
day. For transactions in an expiring options series that take place on
the business day immediately prior to a non-business expiration day
(i.e., for Saturday expirations), a party must notify MarketWatch by
5:00 p.m. ET on such business day (i.e., on Friday).
    The Exchange's proposal includes several proposed changes to
Chapter VIII, Exercises and Deliveries, Section 1 in order to
differentiate between Friday and Saturday expirations. First, the
Exchange proposes to specify in Section 1(b) that special procedures
apply to the exercise of equity options on the business day of their
expiration (i.e., for

Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on
a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for
Saturday expirations, on the last business day before their expiration.
Second, the Exchange proposes to specify in Section 1(c) that,
regarding exercise cut-off times, option holders have until 5:30 p.m.
ET on the business day of expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations),
or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a
business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, on
the business day immediately prior to the expiration date. Third, the
Exchange proposes to specify in Section 1(h) that the advance notice
described therein is applicable if provided by the Exchange on or
before 5:30 p.m. ET on the business day (i.e., on Thursday) immediately
prior to the business day of expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations),
or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a
business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday expirations,
the second business day immediately prior to the expiration date (i.e.,
Thursday for Saturday expirations). Fourth, the Exchange proposes to
amend Section 1(i) at ii. to specify that the reference therein to
``unusual circumstances'' includes, but is not limited to, a
significant news announcement concerning the underlying security of an
option contract that is scheduled to be released just after the close
on the business day the option contract expires (i.e., for Friday
expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day
that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday
expirations, the business day immediately prior to expiration. Fifth,
the Exchange proposes to amend Section 1(l)iii., v., and vii. to
correct a cross-reference. Sixth, the proposal seeks to amend Section
1(l)viii.2) to specify that exercises of expiring American-style, cash-
settled index option would not be prohibited on an expiration date that
is a business day (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an
option contract expiring on a non-business day (as is currently the
case for Saturday expirations), on the last business day prior to
expiration.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XIV, Index
Rules, Section 2(g)-(q) to reorder the defined terms into alphabetical
order. In newly renumbered Section 2(h) the definition of ``European-
style index option'' is modified to provide that the term European-
style index option means an option on an industry or market index that
can be exercised only on the expiration date if such day is a business
day or, in the case of option contracts expiring on a day that is not a
business day, the last business day prior to expiration.
    The Exchange also seeks to amend Sections 10 and 11 of Chapter XIV,
Index Rules to differentiate between Friday and Saturday expirations.
Section 10(a) would be amended to specify that transactions with
respect to the MSCI EAFE Index may be effected on NOM until 11:00 a.m.
ET on the business day of expiration, or, in the case of an option
contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, the business day
immediately prior to the last business day before the expiration date.
    The proposed rule change to Section 11(a)(5) would provide that the
last day of trading for A.M.-settled index options shall be the
business day (i.e., on Thursday) immediately prior to the business day
of expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an
option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, the
business day immediately prior to the last business day before the
expiration date (i.e., Thursday for Saturday expirations). In addition,
the current index value at the expiration of an A.M.-settled index
option would be determined on the business day of expiration (i.e., for
Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on
a day that is not a business day, on the last business day before its
expiration (i.e., Friday). The Exchange also proposes to amend Section
11(a)(5)(i) to refer to Section 10(g) in order to correct a cross-
reference. With respect to P.M.-settled index options, the proposal
would specify that the last day of trading for P.M.-settled index
options would be the business day of expiration, or, in the case of an
option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, on the
last business day before its expiration date. Additionally, it is
proposed that Section 11(c)(2) would be amended to specify that new
series of index option contracts may be added up to, but not on or
after, the fourth business day prior to expiration for an option
contract expiring on a business day (i.e., up to, but not on or after,
the opening of trading on Monday morning for Friday expirations), or,
in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a
business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday expirations,
the fifth business day prior to expiration. The Exchange also proposes
to amend Section 11(d) to more generally specify that the reported
level of the underlying index that is calculated by the reporting
authority for the purposes of determining the current index value at
expiration of an A.M.-settled index option may differ from the level of
the index that is separately calculated and reported reflecting trading
activity subsequent to the opening of trading in any of the underlying
securities.
    As stated above, the Exchange believes the proposed change will
keep the Exchange consistent with the processing at OCC and will enable
the Exchange to give effect to the industry-wide initiative. In
addition, the Exchange understands that other exchanges have filed
similar rules to differentiate between Friday and Saturday expiration
dates for standard options on listed classes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 7 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that implementing the change to Friday
expiration processing and eventually transitioning to Friday expiration
for all monthly expiration contracts would foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities. In particular, the Exchange believes that keeping its rules
consistent with those of the industry will protect all participants in
the market by eliminating confusion and would facilitate the long-term
goal of OCC and its clearing members to move the expiration process for
all monthly

expiration contracts from Saturday to Friday night. The proposed
changes thus allow for a more orderly market by allowing all options
markets, including the clearing agencies, to have the same expiration
date for standard options and to have clarity around the procedures
that apply during the transition period when both Friday and Saturday
expirations will exist for standard options.
    In addition, the proposed changes will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities by aligning a pivotal part of the options processing to
be consistent industry wide. If the industry were to differ, investors
would suffer from confusion and be more vulnerable to inadvertent
violations of different exchange rules. The proposed changes do not
permit unfair discrimination between any members because they are
applied to all members equally. In the alternative, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes help all members by keeping the
Exchange consistent with OCC practices and those of other exchanges.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, the
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose a burden
on intramarket competition because it will be applied to all members
equally. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule
change will impose any burden to intermarket competition because it
will be applied industry-wide, apply to all market participants and is
designed to allow OCC to streamline the expiration process for all
monthly expiration contracts and increase operational efficiencies for
OCC and its clearing members.
    The proposed rule change is structured to enhance competition
because the shift from an expiration date of the Saturday following the
third Friday to the third Friday is anticipated to be adopted industry-
wide and will apply to multiple listed classes. The proposed changes in
turn will allow NOM to continue to compete with other exchanges making
similar rule changes. For the reasons above, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would impose a burden on
competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received. The Exchange
notes, however, that a favorable comment was submitted to the OCC
filing.

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

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

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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-NASDAQ-2013-133 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-NASDAQ-2013-133. 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 office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-133 and should
be submitted on or before November 19, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-25446 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43250-43251]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17936]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Ombudsman Matter Management System, SEC File No. 270-797, OMB
Control No. 3235-0748

    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'' or ``SEC'') has submitted this renewal
request for the collection of information to the Office of Management
and Budget for approval.
    In 2016, at the time of the original request for the collection of
information, members of the public who contacted the Ombudsman for
assistance did so by traditional mail, electronic mail, telephone, and
facsimile. To make it easier for retail investors and others to contact
the Ombudsman electronically, the Commission developed the Ombudsman
Matter Management System (``OMMS''), a new, electronic data collection
system for the receipt, collection, and analysis of inquiries,
complaints, and recommendations from retail investors directed to the
SEC Ombudsman and the Office of the Investor Advocate. The Commission
invites comment on OMMS.
    OMMS was launched for internal use by SEC staff in 2017. Through
OMMS, members of the public may request assistance from the Ombudsman
and staff using a web-based form (the ``OMMS Form'') tailored to gather
information about matters within the scope of the Ombudsman's function
and streamline the inquiry and response process. The OMMS Form, which
was made available to the public for use in September 2017, facilitates
communication with the Ombudsman via an electronic series of basic
questions with user-friendly and mobile-friendly response features such
as radio buttons, drop-down menu responses, pop-up explanation bubbles,
web page links, fillable narrative text fields, and document upload
options. In addition, the OMMS Form incorporates functionality that,
depending upon certain responses, pre-populates specific fields, and
prompts the user to provide additional information. By eliciting
specific information from the user, the OMMS Form facilitates
communication between the user and the Ombudsman, reduces response and
resolution times, and maximizes Ombudsman staff resources available for
recording, processing, and responding to matters. The requested
information collection is voluntary and does not change the contact
methods currently available.
    The OMMS Form is publicly available through the Commission's
website, https://www.sec.gov.
    The Commission estimates that the total reporting burden for using
the OMMS Form will be 400 hours. The calculation of this estimate
depends on how many members of the public use the form each year and
the estimated time it takes to complete the form: 800 respondents x 30
minutes = 400 burden hours. The estimates of average burden hours are
made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not
derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of
the cost of Commission rules and forms.
    The total estimated one-time cost to the federal government of
creating OMMS and the OMMS Form was $400,000. During the three-year
period covered by our prior Paperwork Reduction Act submission in 2016,
the startup costs were fully expensed and are therefore not included in
the cost calculation for this renewal.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of
Management and Budget control number.
    Written comments are invited on all aspects of this proposed
information collection renewal request, in particular: (a) Whether this
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
users, including through the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following website, 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) Charles Riddle, Acting Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email

to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of
this notice.

     Dated: August 15, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17936 Filed 8-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P