[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80591-80593]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0385]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Helicopter Crash, Read Island, AK

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

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
all navigable waters within a 2 nautical miles radius of Read Island,
AK, centered at Latitude: 57[deg]06'48.3'' N, Longitude:
133[deg]11'43.4'' W, where a MH-60 Jayhawk Helicopter crashed (CG-
6016), early on Tuesday, November 14, 2023. This security zone is
needed to protect and preserve the crash site of the MH-60 Helicopter
wreck. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeast
Alaska or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from November 20,
2023, through January 13, 2024. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from November 14, 2023, through November 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0385 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LT Catherine E. Cavender, Sector Southeast Alaska
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 907-463-
2846, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Southeast Alaska
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
NM Nautical Miles
COTP Captain of the Port
DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On November 14, 2023, a Coast Guard MH-60 Jayhawk Helicopter
crashed on Read Island, AK, while responding to a disabled vessel. The
MH-60 helicopter is still on Read Island and must remain in place for
the appropriate investigations and hazardous materials cleanup to take
place. The purpose of the temporary security zone is to facilitate the
security and preserve the crash site of the MH-60 helicopter.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to
facilitate the ongoing investigation at the crash site. Publishing a
NRPM is impracticable and contrary to public interest because the
security zone must be established as soon as possible to enhance public
and maritime safety and security and to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in the navigable waters within the security zone
from potential hazards created by the MH-60 Helicopter crash site.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action to restrict
vessel traffic is needed to protect the MH-60 Helicopter crash site,
mitigate potential maritime threats, and enhance maritime safety and
security.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port Sector Southeast Alaska (COTP)
has determined that potential hazards associated with ongoing salvage
and safety investigation measures, will be a safety concern for anyone
within a 2 nautical miles radius of Read Island, centered at Latitude:
57[deg]06'48.3'' N, Longitude: 133[deg]11'43.4'' W. This rule is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the security zone from potential hazards
created by the MH-60 Helicopter crash site.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from 5 p.m. November 14,
2023, until 11:59 p.m. on January 13, 2024. The security zone is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by the hazardous materials cleanup at the MH-
60 Helicopter crash site and the ongoing safety investigation. The
security zone will cover all navigable waters within a 2 nautical miles
radius of Read Island, centered at Latitude: 57[deg]06'48.3'' N,
Longitude: 133[deg]11'43.4'' W to conduct salvage and gather evidence
pursuant to the safety investigation. The duration of the zone is
intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
these navigable waters during the hazardous materials cleanup and
during the safety investigation. No vessel or person will be permitted
to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP
or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, remote
location, and 60-day duration of the security zone. Vessel traffic will
be able to safely transit around this security zone which would impact
a designated area of Farragut Bay for 60 days when vessel traffic is
normally low due to deteriorating weather and reduced daylight. The
surrounding land and islands are owned predominantly by the United
States Forest Service via Tongass National Forest and the State of
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns Read Island. The
Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
Channel 16 about the zone, and local Coast Guard assets enforcing the
zone would reiterate the rule. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement
within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Moreover, under
certain conditions vessels may still transit through the security zone
when permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
security zone lasting only 60 days that will prohibit entry within a 2
nautical miles radius of Read Island, centered at Latitude:
57[deg]06'48.3'' N, Longitude: 133[deg]11'43.4'' W, where ongoing
salvage and safety investigation measures occur. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T017-0385 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T017-0385  Security Zone; Helicopter Crash, Read Island, AK.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All navigable
waters

within a 2 nautical miles radius of Read Island, AK, centered at
Latitude: 57[deg]06'48.3'' N, Longitude: 133[deg]11'43.4'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, the term designated
representative means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the
U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeast Alaska.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Southeast Alaska (COTP) or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into the security zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry
into the security zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the security zone must
transit at slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions
issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 5 p.m.
November 14, 2023, through 11:59 p.m. on January 13, 2024.

Darwin A. Jensen,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Southeast
Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2023-25635 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


1 MEAN 1 A 1.4 0.011 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 SD 0.96 0.96 0.0069 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 MEAN 0.8 0.8 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.000 SD 0.24 0.24 0.0045 0.0020 0.0000 0.0089 0.0000 2: N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 co 3 MEAN 1.0 1.0 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.001 SD 0.24 0.23 0.0068 0.0000 0.0000 0.0183 0.0020 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 MEAN 0.8 0.8 0.016 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.001 SD 0.33 0.33 0.0115 0.0057 0.0000 0.0040 0.0023 N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 Appendix D (Table 4) WIL 417001 Acute inhalation Toxicity (With Histopathology) Study of 1 ,1,2 Trichloroethane (1 ,1,2 TCE) in Rats Sponsor: HAP Task Force Individual Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Leukocyte Counts MALES Total Cell Large Epithelial Mitotic Group Animal Count Mononuclear Lymphocytes Neutrophils Eosinophils Cells Figures No. No. (Xl 0* 6/ ml) Cells (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml) (XlO%/ ml) (Xl O/\ s/ ml) (XlO%/ ml) (XlO%/ ml)

1 61400 1.5 1.5 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.0300 0.0000 61403 1.7 1.7 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 61404 2.3 2.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 61414 1.7 1.7 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61420 1.4 1.4 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MEAN 1.7 1.7 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 SD 0.35 0.36 0.008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0134 0.0000 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 61398 1.9 1.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61425 1.4 1.4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61435 0.9 0.8 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MEAN 1.4 1.4 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SD 0.50 0.54 0.0468 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 Appendix D (Table 4) WIL 417001 Acute Inhalation Toxicity (With Histopathology) Study of 1 ,1,2 Trichloroethane (1 ,l ,P TCE) in Rats Sponsor: HAP Task Force Individual Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Leukocyte Counts MALES Total Cell Large Epithelial Mitotic Group Animal Count Mononuclear Lymphocytes Neutrophils Eosinophils Cells Figures No. No. (Xl OS/ ml) Cells (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl OYYml) (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl w/ ml)

3 61407 1.8 1.8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61422 1.6 1.6 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.008 61424 1.5 1.5 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 61433 1.2 1.2 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MEAN 1.5 1.5 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.002 SD 0.25 0.25 0.0127 0.0000 0.0000 0.0076 0.0040 N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 P 4 61418 1.2 1.2 0.006 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 61423 0.7 0.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61428 1.0 0.9 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 61429 1.7 1.6 0.017 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.025 61436 1.2 1.2 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.018 0.000 MEAN 1.2 1.1 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.012 0.005 SD 0.36 0.35 0.0081 0.0066 0.0038 0.0177 0.0113 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 Appendix D (Table 4) WIL 417001 Acute Inhalation Toxicity (With Histopathology) Study of 1, l ,PTrichloroethane (1 ,1,2 TCE) in Rats Sponsor: HAP Task Force individual Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Leukocyte Counts FEMALES Total Cell Large Epithelial Mitotic Group Animal Count Mononuclear Lymphocytes Neutrophils Eosinophils Cells Figures No. No. (Xi O%/ ml) Cells (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl OS/ ml) (XlO%/ ml) (Xl m/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml)

1 61450 1.1 1.1 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61464 0.9 0.9 0.018 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 61469 3.1 3.1 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61490 1.1 1.1 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61494 0.8 0.8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MEAN 1.4 1.4 0.011 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 SD 0.96 0.96 0.0069 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 61454 0.6 0.6 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 61457 1.1 1.1 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61466 0.9 0.9 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 61487 0.5 0.5 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 61492 0.8 0.8 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MEAN 0.8 0.8 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.000 SD 0.24 0.24 0.0045 0.0020 0.0000 0.0089 0.0000 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 11 Appendix D (Table 4) WIL 417001 Acute inhalation Toxicity (With Histopathology) Study of 1 ,I ,2 Trichloroethane (1,1,2 TCE) in Rats Sponsor: HAP Task Force Individual Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Leukocyte Counts FEMALES Total Cell Large Epithelial Mitotic Group Animal Count Mononuclear Lymphocytes Neutrophils Eosinophils Cells Figures No. No. (Xl O%/ ml) Cells (Xl 0* 6/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml) (Xl O%/ ml) (X10/\ 6/ ml) (Xl @%/ ml)

3 61448 1.4 1.3 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 61463 0.8 0.8 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61468 0.9 0.9 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.005 61483 1.1 1.1 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.000 61489 0.9 0.8 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 MEAN 1.0 1.0 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.001 SD 0.24 0.23 0.0068 0.0000 0.0000 0.0183 0.0020 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 67445 1.2 1.2 0.018 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 61460 0.9 0.9 0.027 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.005 61478 0.4 0.4 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 61485 0.8 0.8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MEAN 0.8 0.8 0.016 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.001 SD 0.33 0.33 0.0115 0.0057 0.0000 0.0040 0.0023 N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 12 WL 417001 Hazardous Air Pollutant Task Force Acute Inhalation Toxicity (With Histopathology) S tudv of 1,1,2 Trichloroethane (1 .1.2 TCE) in Rats APPENDIXF Results of Phagocytosis and Respiratory Burst Assays (Gary R. Burleson, Ph. D., Burleson Research Technologies)

264 Inhalation Immunotoxicology Study STUDY NO.

BRT 20010222 (WIL  417001A)

CONDUCTED FOR:

WIL Research Laboratories. Inc. 1407 George Road Ashland. OH 44805 9281 AUTHORS:

Robin M. Palmatier. B. S. Gary R. Burleson, Ph. D.

TESTING FACILITY:

BRT  Burleson Research Technologies, Inc. 5706 Chapel Hill Rd. Raleigh, NC 27607 DATE OF REPORT:

October 26,200l BRT  Burksoa Rcsrnrcb Technologies, inc.

Study rqmn # BRT 200 10222 (WL 41700 1) Page I of 27 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This study was conducted according to U. S. FDA Good Laboratory Practices for Nonclioicai Laboratory Studies. 21 CFR Part 58.

Burlesoo Research Technologies, Inc. Management BRT  Burlesoa Research Technologies, Inc.

Study repon # BRT 200 IO222 (WIL 4 1700 I ) Page 2 of 27 266 QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT Report Title: Inhalation Immunotoxicology Study (WIL 417001A)

Sponsor: WIL Research Laboratories, Inc 1407 George Road Ashland, OH 448059281 BRT Project Number: BRT 20010222 Protocol Number: WIL Research Laboratories Study # WIL  417001A Study Monitoc Dr. Dan Kirkpatrick WIL Research Laboratories.

Phase Inspected Date of Date Report Sent Date Report Sent Inspection to Investigator to Management Sample Receipt and Log in 02/ 28/ 01 03lO2101 03/ 02/ 01 Cell Counts Phagocytosis Assay Respiratory Burst Assay 03/ 01/ 01 03/ 02/ O 1 03/ 02IOl Raw Data Audit 03/ 14/ 01 03/ 20/ 01 03/ 20/ 01 Draft & Final Report Audit 06/ 08/ 01 1 O/ 26/ 0 1 10/ 26/ 01 10/ 26/ 01 The Final Report and Data Record Audit were performed by BRT Quality Assurance To the best of my knowledge. this Final Report accurately describes the Study Methods and Rocadures used. and the reported results accurately reflect the raw data.

BRT  Burltsm Research Technologies, Inc.

Study report # BRT 20010222 (WiL 417001~ Page 3 of 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE .."......... r..................................................................................... ...................... 1 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT ....... .._._................................................................................ ..... 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT.. ......... .._..............................."............................... ....... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS. .._...........................""................................................"................." ...... 4 SUMMARY .................... ..".".............".............."........."............................. ................................... 5 1.00B. rEcT1vE.. ................................. . ......... .. .................................................. ..." . ................. . . ..... 7 2.0 STUDY DESIGN .... . .................. I". .............. . ............... . ................................................................ 8 2.1 SAMPLES.. ...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION .................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 hIAGOCYTOSlS ASSAY.. ................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 RESPIRITORY Bws~ Assny.. ........................................................................................................ 9 3.0 RESULTS .............. ...". .............. . .. . ...........__............ ............ ...". ...... . .. .._... .......... . . . ....... 10 3.1 PHAGoc\ T0S1S. ........................................................................................................................... 10 Table I: Mean Phagocytic Act& <EMAIL_ADDRESS>................................................................................................ 10 Figure I: Mean Phagocytic A& vi@ ............................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Mean Phagacytic Activi@ lq Sex ...................................................................................... I I figure 2: Mean Phagocytic Acdvi@ by Sex .................................................................................... I I 3.2 RESPIRATORY Bmsr ................................................................................................................... 12 T& e 3: Mean Respiratory Bunt for Stimuioted and Non stimukted Samples.. ............................ I, 7 figure 3: Mean NonStimulmed Respiratoty Burst ....................................................................... I 7 Figure 4: Mean 9bnulmed Respiraiory Buti ............................................................................... 13 Table 4: Mean Respirmoty Burst Aaivi@ (nmoks Hfl/ ld cells) According to Ser Within Groaps  Non stimulmed and PM4 Slimulmed.. ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Mean Non stimulated Respiratory Burst A& 4@ By Ser.. ........................................... I4 figure& Mean PMA Stimuimed Respirmory Burst Actiti@  BySex.. .......................................... I4 4.0 DISCUS, 5ION ........................................ ...................................." ............................................. 15 5.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RETENTION OF DATA.. ................................................................. 16 5.1 DESCRIPTION OFCIRCUYSTANCE.! i AWECTING DATA QUALITY OR I% TECRITI.. ........................... 16 5.2 MAMTEXWCE OF RAW DATA ...................................................................................................... ! 6 5.3 DE~ IATIOSS FROM THE SWDY PLAN ............................................................................................ 16 6.0 REFERENCES ." . ..". .............. I.. ............... ..". ........................................... .. ................................ 17 APPENDIX ................ . . . ....... . . . . . .......... ". I mm......." .. ...". ........ V.." . . .................................................. 18 APPENDIX A : PHACOCXTX Anrv~ n  I% DI\ IDIJAL SAMPLE VALUES.. ...................................... 19 APPENDIX B : RESP~~ UTORY BURST ACTMIY  L~ DWIDUAL SAMPLE VALUES.. ......................... .24 KEY PERSONNEL S1CNATUR. E PAGE ................. .. I ...................................................................... 27 BRT  BurIeson Research Tecbadogies. he ~tudyrep~ ttlBRT20010222( W1L417001) Page 4 of27 SUMMARY The objecrive of this study was to evaluare the immunotoxiciry of 1.1.2~ trkhloroethane (1.1.2 TCE) in rats at various concertnations. This was aswssed by measuring phagocytosis and respiratory burst of brochoalveolar macrophages.

On February 28 and March I, 200 1, Burlescm Research Technologies received bronchoalveolar large samples collected by WIL Research Laboratories. Sample viability tanged tian 97  100%. The samples were cenuititged and resuspended at concentrations of 1 x IO' cells per ml. Phagocytosis and Respiratory Burst assays were performed on each sample individually.

Animals exposed for bronchoalveolar lavage evaluations were exposed at target 1,1,2 TCE concenaations of 0,50.200 and 1500 ppm for male rats and 0,50,200 and IO00 ppm for female rats. Actual measured concentrations were 0,60,205 and 1474 ppm and 0.45, I77 and 840 ppm. respectively. for males and females. Exposure of rats to I, I, 2 TCE by inhalation resulted in a decrease in phagocytic activity by alveolar macrophages. The alveolar macrophage phagocytic activity ofmales and females grouped together was decreased following exposures targeted at 50 ppm, 200 ppm. and 1500 or 1000 ppm compared to control animals (0 ppm).

Exposure of males to 1. 1.2 TCE resulted in a decreased phagocytic activity following exposures targeted at 50 ppm. 200 ppm. and 1500 ppm compared to control animals. However. only exposure targeted at 200 ppm appeared to affect phagocytosis in alveolar macrophages from female rats.

Exposure to I, I. 2 TCE by inhalation had no effect on the respiratory burst activity (neither stimulated nor non stimulated) by alveolar mauophages. The alveolar macrophage respiratay burst activity of males and females grouped together. or when analyzed separately for males and for females. was not affected following exposures at 50 ppm. 200 ppm. and 1500 or IO00 ppm compared to control animals (0 ppm).

The respiratory burst activity, both stimulated and non stimulated. was greater for females than males.

In summary. inhalation exposure to I, I. 2 TCE suppressed the phagocytic activity of alveolar manophages in male. but not female rats. However. the alveolar macrophage respiratory burst was not altered by exposure to 1.1.2. TCE in either male or fkmale rats. The differential modulation of phagocytic activity and respiratory bust activity has also ken observed in other immunotoxicology studies (Rodgers and Xiong,

1993: Rodgers and Xiatg, 19%) and emphasizes the need to evaluate mere than one cell function to determine the possibility of immtmotoxicity.

BRT  Burlem Research Tecboologies, inc.

Study report # BRT 20010222 (WlL 417001) Page 5 of 27 269 TITLE OF STUDY Inhalation lmmunotoxicology Study (WIL 417001A)

SPONSOR WIL Research Laboratories. Inc. 1407 George Road Ashland. OH 448059281 STUDY MATERIAL( S)

N/ A RECEIPT OF SAMPLES % ANALYSIS February 28 & tvlarch I, 2001 DATE OF DRAFT REPORT June 8.2001 DATE OF FINAL REPORT October 26.2001 lNVESTlCATWE PERSONEL Jacqueline E. Wiiliemr B. S.

Robin M. Palmatier. B. S.

BRT  Burieson Research Technologies, Inc.

Studyreport# BRT200l0222( WlL 417001) Page 6 of 27 270 1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the immunotoxicity of I. 1.2~ trichlorcethane (I, 1,2 TCE) in rats at various concenoations. Animals exposed for bronchoalveolar lavage evaluations were exposed at target I, I& TCE concentrations of 0.50.200 and 1500 ppm for male rats and 0.50.200 and 1000 ppm for female rats. Actual measured concentrations were 0,60.205 and 1474 ppm and 0.45. 177 and 840 ppm.

respectively, for malts and females. This was assessed by measuring phagocytosis and respiratory burst of lxonchoalveolar mauophages.

Phaeocvtosis: The appropriate development and function of the immune system is crucial in maintaining the overafi health status of the host. The concept of a scavenger cell ofthe extracellular environment in search of debris and unwanted material dates to the observations of Metchnikoff (190.5) who introduced the term "macrophage" for those cells that had phagocytic characteristics (Mctchnikoff. 1968). Maf~ ophages belong to the mononuclear phagocytic system (MPS). or the reticuloendothelial system. which consists of monocytes and tissue macrophages. Macrophages are present in virtually al1 tissues and exert a modulatory role in tissue homeostasis. initiation and generation of humoral and cell mediated immunological reactions.

and inflarnmatcny responses (Unanue and Allen. 1987). Thus, alteration of macrophage function may have an effect on: (I) nonspecific immtmiry. (2) inflammation. (3) cell mediated immunity. and (4) humoral immunity. Phagocytosis is a functional activity shared by neutrophils (polymorphonuclear leukocytes),

monocytes and macrophages. Measurement of the macrophage functional phagocytic activity is thus an important immunotoxicological and immunophannacological assessment (Burieson et al.. 1987). The process ofphagccytosis can be observed and quantified in these cells by following the internalization of a foreign particle such as fluorescent labeled bacteria. This technique takes advantage of the detectability ofthe intracellular fluorescence emitted by the engulfed particles (Wan et al. 1993), as well as the effective fluorescence quenching ofthe extracellular probe by trypan blue (Sahhn et al. 1983). Phagocytosis as assayed in this study utilizes fluorescein labeled &scherichiu coli (K 12 strain). quenching of extracellular label by trypan blue, and quantification using a fluorescence 96well microplate reader. The magninrde of phagocytosis is measured by the fluorescence intensity associated with the intracellular fluorescent particles.

Resuiratorv Burst: While phagocytosis measures uptake of foreign particles. the microbicidal and tumoricidal activity of neuuophilr mcnocytes, and mauophages is accomplished by metabolic pathways including the respiratory burst. Respiratory burst is a physiologic response to soluble and particulate agonias consisting of the production of superoxide by nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (? VADPIi) oxidase. Superoxide generated by the NADPH ox& se is rapidly converted to H202 by spootaneous and mzymatic dismutation (McCord and Fridovich, 1968; McCord and Fridovich, 1969).

This s~ dy used the method of Rodgers (1995) to assess respiratory burst by measuring the production of HzOz using a fluorescent probe and a cytofluoromeuic analysis.

BRT  Borlesoa Rcsesreh Technologies, Inc.

Studyreport# BRT20010222( WlL 417001) Page 7 of 27 271 2.0 STUDY DESIGN 2.1 Samples On F& NW 28, and March I, 2001,17 and 19 alveolar macrophage samples respectively were received on cold packs via FedEx Overnight. Each tube was labeled with the WIL study number. a specimen identification number, group number, and the sex of the animal. The tubes were verified against the Specimen Identification Record smt by WIL Research Laboratories. Al1 samples received on a given day were processed that same day.

2.2 Sample Preparation Sample were centrifuged at 2000 rpm for S 15 minutes at 4 OC. Tbe supematant was discarded and the pellet resuspended in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM) with 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) and Penicillin/ Streptomycin (P& S). Cell counts were performed using a Couher Counter 21. and viability was evaluated by trypan blue exclusion. Each sample was adjusted to contain I x 10b cells/ ml. All samples had viability greater than 97%.

23 Pbagacytosis Assay One hundred (100) ul of each alveolar mauophage cell suspension (1 x 1 O6 cells per ml ) was added to the wells of a 96 well tissue culture plate, for a final cell concentration of 1 x IO5 cells/ well. 50 ul ofmedium (DMEM/ FBSP& S) was added to each well. Five wells containing only medium were used as plate blanks. Each samples or blank was run in a set of five (5)

replicates. The cells were incubated for 1 hour at 37° C and then examined under a microscope.

During the incubation period. the fluorescent hcofi K 12 bioparticle suspension (Moiecdar Probes) in Hanks Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) was prepared. The mixture was vortexed and sonicatcd. Atkr the incubation period. the plates were cemrifitged, and the supematant was aspirated by vacuum aspiration. 100 ul ofthe E. coli/ HBSS mixture was added to each well and incubated for two hours at 37'C.

Following incubation, the fluorescent E. coli bioparticles were aspirated by vacuum aspiration. and 100 ul of trypan blu& itratebalanced salt soiution (Molecular Robes) was added to each well to quench the fluorescence of extraccilular biopatticles. The trypan blue was then quickly removed by vacuum aspiration and the intracellular fluorescence generated by ingested fluorescent bioparticles was measured using a Cytofluor 4OB9 fluorescence microplate reader (Wavelengths:

excitatiat  485 run. emission  530 run).

BRT  Burlesoa Rcscnrcb Technologies, Inc.

Study report # BRT 20010222 (WlL 417OOl) Page 8 of 27 272 Data Caknlatioa The data was exported from the Cytofluor program into Microsoft Excel. From Excel the plate layout was copied then pasted into a Softmax Pro file (Molecular Devices). The mean fluorescence immsiry of the negative con~ ol wells (medium only) was calculated to obtain the plate blank value. The plate blank was then subttacted from all other wells to obtain the corrected fluorescence of each individual experimental well. The mean corrected tluorescena ofthe 5 replicates was calculated for each sample. All results are reponed in fluorescence units.

2.4 Respimtory Burst Assay Each sample was assayed in 2 sets of triplicates, with 3 wells stimulated with Phwbol Myristate Acetate (PMA) and 3 wells non simulated (no PMA added). One hundred (100) ul of each cell suspension (1 x lO'celis/ well) was added to a 96well tissue culture plate. Ninety ul of 5 uM 2.7

Dicholorofluorescein diacetate (Molecular Robes) was added to each well and the plate was incubated at 37'C to allow uptake ofthe subsnate by the cells. Following incubation, PMA (Sigma) was added to triplicate wells (PMA stimulated wells) at a concennation of IO r@ well in order to stimulate oxygen radical production. No PMA was added to the second set of triplicate (non stimulated) wells. The plate was incubated at 3PC. Following the I hour incubation. 200 ul of each 2.7 dichlorofluorescein Standard (Poiysciences) was added to the plate. The increase in fluorescent product was then measured using the Cytofluor 4000 (PerSeptive Biosystems)

fluorescence microplate reader (Wavelengths: excitation  485 nm. emission  530 nm).

Data Cakuhtioa The data was exported from the Cytofluor program into Microsoft Excel. From Excel the pIale layout was copied then pasted into a Softmax Pro file (Molecular Devices). Following plate blank subtraction (mean zero standard values). the results were determined by interpolation from the standard curve. All results are expressed as nmoles HQ / 10' cells.

BRT  BurIeson Rcsearcb Tecbaologks, Inc.

Studyrepo~# BRT20010222( WIL 417001) Page 9 of 27 273 3. ORESULTS 3.1 Pbsgacytasis Exposure to 1. 1.2 TCE by inhalation raulted in a deuease in phagocytic activity by alveolar macrophages. The alveolar macrophage phagocytic activity of males and females grouped together was decreased following exposures targeted at SO ppm. 200 ppm, and 1500/ IO00 (males/ females) ppm compared to controi animals (0 ppm) (Table I and Figure 1). The mean phagocytic activity for each sex within a group is summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2. Exposure of males to I, I. 2 TCE resulted in a decreased phagcqtic activity following exposures targeted at 50 ppm. 200 ppm. and 1500 ppm compared to control animals. However, anly exposure targeted at 200 ppm appeared to affect phagocytosis in alveolar mauophages 6om female rats flable 2 and Figure 2).

Tabk 1: Mean Pbagacytic Activity Treatment Group Mean Pbngacytic Activity SE' I (Florascence Units) 1 I Control 672 3.5 7 I  Low Concentration 490 24 3  Mid Concenuaticm 350 22 I 4 High Concenoation 446 44 1 SE: Smndird Error of rk Mean Figure 1: Mean Pbngocytic Activity Phagocytic Activity BRT  Burksoa Research Tccbaologies, Inc.

Study report # BRT 20010222 (WlL 217001) Page IO of 27 274 Tabk 2: Meoo Pbagocytic Activity by Sex Mean Pbsgoeytic 1 Treatment croup se1 Activity (Floreaccnce SE' Units) ! I 1  Control Male 806 54 1 ConUOl < Female 538 27 'r

2  Low Cmceluratim Male 456 30 i 2  Low Concenaaticm Female 510 33 3  Mid Concenaation 1 Male I 286 I 25 I 3 Mid Concentration Female 400 31 I 4  High Concenuation Male 1 443 62 /

4 High Concenuaticm Fel llele 451 63 I SE: Srandmd Error qf the .Meon Figure 2: Mean Pbagaytic Activity by Sex Phagocytic Activity BRT  Burleeoa Reseereb Technologies, ine.

Study report # ERT20010222( WL417001) Page 1 I of27 275


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15596-15597]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05296]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9923-95-OSWER]

Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Supplemental Funding for Brownfields
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grantees

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the availability of funds.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to make
available approximately $5.8 million to provide supplemental funds to
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) capitalization grants previously awarded
competitively under section 104(k)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund pilots awarded under section
104(d)(1) of CERCLA that have not transitioned to section 104(k)(3)
grants are not eligible to apply for these funds. EPA will consider
awarding supplemental funding only to RLF grantees who have
demonstrated an ability to deliver programmatic results by making at
least one loan or subgrant. The award of these funds is based on the
criteria described at CERCLA 104(k)(4)(A)(ii).
    The Agency is now accepting requests for supplemental funding from
RLF grantees. Requests for funding must be submitted to the appropriate
EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator (listed below) by April 23, 2015.
Funding requests for hazardous substances and/or petroleum funding will
be accepted. Specific information on submitting a request for RLF
supplemental funding is described below and additional information may
be obtained by contacting the EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator.

DATES: This action is effective on March 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: A request for supplemental funding must be in the form of a
letter addressed to the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator
(see listing below) with a copy to Lisa Ruhl<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Ruhl, U.S. EPA,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
the appropriate Brownfields Regional Coordinator.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act added section 104(k) to CERCLA to authorize federal financial
assistance for brownfields revitalization, including grants for
assessment, cleanup and job training. Section 104(k) includes a
provision for EPA to, among other things, award grants to eligible
entities to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds and to provide loans and
subgrants for brownfields cleanup. Section 104(k)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes
EPA to make additional grant funds available to RLF grantees for any
year after the year for which the initial grant is made (noncompetitive
RLF supplemental funding) taking into consideration:
    (I) The number of sites and number of communities that are
addressed by the revolving loan fund;
    (II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that have not
previously received a grant under this subsection;
    (III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to use the
revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and provide funds on a
continuing basis; and
    (IV) such other similar factors as the [Agency] considers
appropriate to carry out this subsection.
    Eligibility:
    In order to be considered for supplemental funding, grantees must
demonstrate that they have expended existing funds and that they have a
clear plan for quickly expending requested additional funds. Grantees
must demonstrate that they have made at least one loan or subgrant
prior to applying for this supplemental funding and have significantly
depleted existing available funds. For FY2015, EPA

defines ``significantly depleted funds'' as any grant where $400,000 or
less remains uncommitted. Additionally, the RLF recipient must have
demonstrated a need for supplemental funding based on, among other
factors, the number of sites that will be addressed; demonstrated the
ability to make loans and subgrants for cleanups that can be started
and completed expeditiously (i.e., ``shovel-ready'' projects) and will
lead to redevelopment; demonstrated the existence of additional
leveraged funds to complete the project in a timely manner and move
quickly from cleanup to redevelopment, including the use of tax
incentives such as new market tax credits, direct funding or other
resources to advance the project to completion; demonstrated the
ability to administer and revolve the capitalization funding in the RLF
grant; demonstrated an ability to use the RLF grant to address funding
gaps for cleanup; and demonstrated that they have provided a community
benefit from past and potential loan(s) and/or subgrant(s). Special
consideration may be given to those communities affected by plant
closures or other economic disruptions; can demonstrate projects that
have a clear prospect of aiding the in-sourcing of manufacturing
capacity and keeping and/or adding jobs, or otherwise creating jobs, in
the affected area; or will benefit a community that has been identified
as part of EPA's Cross Agency Strategy on Working to Make a Visible
Difference in Communities. EPA encourages innovative approaches to
maximizing revolving and leveraging with other funds, including use of
grants funds as a loan loss guarantee, combining with other government
or private sector lending resources. Applicants for supplemental
funding must contact the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator
below to obtain information on the format for supplemental funding
applications for their region. When requesting supplemental funding,
applicants must specify whether they are seeking funding for sites
contaminated by hazardous substances or petroleum. Applicants may
request both types of funding.

                            Regional Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Address/phone number/
            Region                    States               email
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 1, Frank Gardner,    CT, ME, MA, NH,    5 Post Office Square,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>         RI, VT.            Boston, MA 02109-
                                                    3912, Phone (617)
                                                    918-1278; Fax (617)
                                                    918-1291.
EPA Region 2, Lya Theodoratos,  NJ, NY, PR, VI...  290 Broadway, 18th
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                          Floor, New York, NY
                                                    10007, Phone (212)
                                                    637-3260; Fax (212)
                                                    637-3083.
EPA Region 3, Tom Stolle,       DE, DC, MD, PA,    1650 Arch Street,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>            VA, WV.            Mail Code 3HS51,
                                                    Philadelphia,
                                                    Pennsylvania 19103,
                                                    Phone (215) 814-
                                                    3129; Fax (215) 814-
                                                    5518.
EPA Region 4, Wanda Jennings,   AL, FL, GA, KY,    Atlanta Federal
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>        MS, NC, SC, TN.    Center, 61 Forsyth
                                                    Street, S.W., 10TH
                                                    FL , Atlanta, GA
                                                    30303-8960, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 5, Keary Cragan,     IL, IN, MI, MN,    77 West Jackson
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>          OH, WI.            Boulevard, Mail Code
                                                    SE-4J, Chicago,
                                                    Illinois 60604-3507,
                                                    Phone (312) 353-
                                                    5669; Fax (312) 886-
                                                    7190.
EPA Region 6, Mary Kemp,        AR, LA, NM, OK,    1445 Ross Avenue,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>             TX.                Suite 1200 (6SF-PB),
                                                    Dallas, Texas 75202-
                                                    2733, Phone (214)
                                                    665-8358; Fax (214)
                                                    665-6660.
EPA Region 7, Susan Klein,      IA, KS, MO, NE...  11201 Renner Blvd,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                              Lenexa, Kansas
                                                    66219, Phone (913)
                                                    551-7786; Fax (913)
                                                    551-8688.
EPA Region 8, Dan Heffernan,    CO,MT, ND, SD,     1595 Wynkoop Street
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      UT, WY.            (EPR-B), Denver, CO
                                                    80202-1129, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 9, Noemi Emeric-     AZ, CA, HI, NV,    75 Hawthorne Street,
 Ford, Emeric-                   AS, GU.            WST-8, San
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                               Francisco, CA 94105,
                                                    Phone (213) 244-
                                                    1821; Fax (415) 972-
                                                    3364.
EPA Region 10, Susan Morales,   AK, ID, OR, WA...  1200 Sixth Avenue,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                            Suite 900, Mailstop:
                                                    ECL-112 Seattle, WA
                                                    98101, Phone (206)
                                                    553-7299; Fax (206)
                                                    553-0124.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
David R. Lloyd,
Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2015-05296 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 143)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43175-43178]
[DOCID:fr24jy08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. RM07-21-002]

Order Requesting Supplemental Comments

Issued July 17, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Order Requesting Supplemental Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) requests
supplemental comments on the scope and form of the reporting
requirements under the expanded blanket authorization established in
Order No. 708-A, which amends section 33.1(c)(12) of the Commission's
regulations.

DATES: Comments are due September 22, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Carla Urquhart (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Mosby Perrow (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Andrew Mosier (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
6274.
Ronald Lafferty (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly,
Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

    1. In this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) seeks supplemental comments on the narrow issue of the
scope and form of reporting requirements that would apply to the
expanded blanket authorization under section 33.1(c)(12) of the
Commission's regulations,\1\ adopted in Order No. 708-A\2\ issued
concurrently with this order and as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 33.1(c)(12).
    \2\ Blanket Authorizations Under FPA Section 203, Order No. 708,
73 FR 11003 (Feb. 29, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,265 (2008),
124 FERC ] 61,048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. In Order No. 708, the Commission amended its regulations under
section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to provide for five
additional blanket authorizations under FPA section 203(a)(1).\3\ The
Commission found that the blanket authorizations would facilitate
investment in the electric utility industry and, at the same time,
ensure that public utility customers are adequately protected from any
adverse effects of such transactions. One of the additional blanket
authorizations provided that a public utility could transfer its
outstanding voting securities to any holding company granted blanket
authorizations in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of FPA section 203, if after the
transfer, the holding company and any of its associate or affiliate
companies in aggregate would own less than 10 percent of the
outstanding voting interests of such public utility. In adopting
proposed regulation section 33.1(c)(12), the Commission rejected
requests to extend the blanket authorization to ``any person,'' on the
grounds that without increased reporting requirements, any such
extension under section 33.1(c)(12) would best be made on a case-by-
case basis.\4\ The Commission also rejected requests to expand the
reporting requirements applicable to the Commission's blanket
authorizations under section 33.1 of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824b(a)(1).
    \4\ Order No. 708, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,265 at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Order No. 708-A, the Commission granted, in part, and denied,
in part, the requests for rehearing of Order No. 708. Among other
things, the Commission expanded the blanket authorization under section
33.1(c)(12) to authorize a public utility to transfer its outstanding
voting securities to ``any person'' other than a holding company if,
after the transfer, such person and any of its associate or affiliate
companies will own less than 10 percent of the outstanding voting
interests of such public utility. The Commission stated that it would
also adopt a reporting requirement for entities transacting under that
blanket authorization. In order to properly tailor additional reporting
requirements, the Commission also stated that it would issue a request
for supplemental comments on the narrow issue of the scope and form of
the reporting requirements under the expanded blanket authorizations
under section 33.1(c)(12).

II. Discussion

    4. As the Commission stated in Order No. 708, in order to extend
the blanket authorization under section 33.1(c)(12) to include ``any
person,'' the Commission would need to establish appropriate reporting
requirements so that we could monitor transfers to non-holding
companies. The Commission explained that, although there is a
presumption that less than 10 percent of a utility's shares will not
result in a change of control, this presumption is rebuttable. In some
instances, the transfer of less than 10 percent of voting shares may
constitute a transfer of control.\5\ The Commission stated that it
recognized that it could reduce regulatory burdens and encourage
investment to allow transfers of securities not only to holding
companies but to other ``persons,'' and that such transfers would not
harm competition or customers as long as there was a sufficient ability
to monitor possible changes in control of public utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Order No. 708, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,265 at P 20; FPA
Section 203 Supplemental Policy Statement, 72 FR 42277 (Aug. 2,
2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,253, at P 58, n.48 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In Order No. 708-A, the Commission granted Financial
Institutions Energy Group's (Financial Group) request to extend the
blanket authorization under section 33.1(c)(12) to cover public utility
dispositions to non-holding companies, subject to the same ``in
aggregate'' limitations imposed on transfers to holding companies. The
Commission denied American Public Power Association's and the National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association's (APPA/NRECA) general request
for additional reporting requirements. Nevertheless, the Commission
explained that, in order to properly tailor additional reporting
requirements for the expanded blanket authorization under section
33.1(c)(12), it would issue a concurrent request for supplemental
comments that would seek comments on the narrow issue of the scope and
form of the reporting requirements under the expanded blanket
authorization.
    6. In support of its argument that the Commission should have
extended the blanket authorization under section 33.1(c)(12) to cover
public utility dispositions to non-holding companies, Financial Group
proposed reporting requirements for transactions involving non-holding
companies that it argues should be at least as helpful to the
Commission as the preexisting reporting requirements applicable to
holding companies. Because commenters did not have the opportunity to
comment on the specific reporting requirements proposed by Financial
Group, we are requesting supplemental comments on this narrow reporting
issue.
    7. Financial Group proposes that within a specified time following
consummation of the transaction (e.g., 30 days), the following
information be reported: (1) Names of all parties to the transaction;
(2) identification of both the pre-transaction and post-transaction
voting security holdings (and the percentage ownership) in the public
utility held by the acquirer and its associates or affiliate companies;
(3) the date the transaction was consummated; (4) identification of any
public utility or holding company affiliates of the parties to the
transaction; and (5) the same type of statement currently required
under section 33.2(j)(1),\6\ which describes Exhibit M to an FPA
section 203 filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 33.2(j)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. As we have granted the blanket authorization under section
33.1(c)(12) to include ``any person,'' we seek supplemental comments on
the narrow issue of the scope and form of the reporting requirements
under the expanded blanket authorization. For example, we seek comment
on whether Financial Group's proposed reporting requirement should be
adopted, as proposed or modified. If commenters do not believe that
Financial Group's proposal as to reporting requirements is appropriate,
they should explain why

and propose alternative reporting requirements. We also seek comment as
to whether reports should be filed with the Commission on a quarterly
basis or on some other basis. We note that the expanded blanket
authorization will not become effective until the Commission's order on
reporting requirements becomes effective.

III. Information Collection Statement

    9. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and record keeping (information
collections) imposed by agency rules.\7\ Therefore, the Commission is
submitting a proposed information collection to OMB for review and
approval in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.\8\ Here, the Commission has expanded a blanket
authorization to additional entities under section 33.1(c)(12), and now
requests supplemental comments on the scope and form of the reporting
requirements for entities that transact under the expanded blanket
authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
    \8\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use
of automated information techniques.
    Burden Estimate: The public reporting burden for the proposed
reporting requirements and the records retention requirement is as
follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of       Hours per
            Data collection FERC-519                respondents      responses       response          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting.......................................              20               1               1              20
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
    Total.......................................              20               1               1              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
cost to provide this information to the Commission. It has projected
the average annualized cost of all respondents to be the following: 20
hours (reporting) @ $66 per hour = $1,320 for respondents. No capital
costs are estimated to be incurred by respondents.
    Title: FERC-519, ``Application Under the Federal Power Act, Section
203''.
    Action: Revised Collection.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0082.
    The applicant will not be penalized for failure to respond to this
information collection unless the information collection displays a
valid OMB control number or the Commission has provided justification
as to why the control number should not be displayed.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This order requesting supplemental
comments proposes codification of a limited reporting requirement for
entities taking advantage of a blanket authorization under FPA section
203(a)(1), which in turn provides for a category of jurisdictional
transactions under section 203(a)(1) for which the Commission would not
require applications seeking before-the-fact approval. The information
will enable the Commission and the public to monitor transactions that
occur under the 18 CFR 33.1(c)(12) blanket authorization, as extended
in Order No. 708-A.
    Internal Review: The Commission has conducted an internal review of
the public reporting burden associated with the collection of
information and assured itself, by means of internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for its information burden estimate.
    11. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller,
Office of the Executive Director, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (202) 273-
0873, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments on the requirements of
the order requesting supplemental comment may also be sent to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IV. Environmental Analysis

    12. Commission regulations require that an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement be prepared for any Commission
action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human
environment.\9\ No environmental consideration is necessary for
Commission action that involves information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.\10\ This request for supplemental comments seeks
comments on the scope and form of the reporting requirements under the
expanded blanket authorization under section 33.1(c)(12). Consequently,
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy Act,
52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \10\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    13. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \11\ generally
requires either a description and analysis of a rule that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most utilities to
which this reporting requirement applies would not fall within the
RFA's definition of small entity.\12\ Consequently, the Commission
certifies that this reporting requirement will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \12\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. The
Small Business Size Standards component of the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) defines a small electric
utility as one that, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged
in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and whose total electric output for the preceding
fiscal year did not exceed four million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    14. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through

FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference
Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at
888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    15. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    16. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 33

    Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16868 Filed 7-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22022-22024]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09529]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80613; File No. SR-ISE-2017-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex
Order Quoting

May 5, 2017.
    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 26, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, 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 designate that a symbol will not be
eligible for Market Maker quotes in the complex order book after the
symbol migrates to Nasdaq INET technology. In addition, that symbol
will trade in price/time priority.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.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
    Today, ISE permits Market Makers to enter quotes on certain symbols
for complex strategies on the complex order book in their appointed
options classes. Market Maker quotes for complex strategies are not
automatically executed against bids and offers on the Exchange for the
individual legs nor can they be marked for price improvement.\3\ Market
Makers are not required to enter quotes on the Exchange's complex order
book. Quotes for complex orders are not subject to any quotation
requirements that are applicable to Market Maker quotes in the regular
market for individual options series or classes, nor is any volume
executed in complex orders taken into consideration when determining
whether Market Markers are meeting quotation obligations applicable to
market maker quotes in the regular market for individual options
series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to designate that a symbol will not be
eligible for Market Maker quotes in the complex order book after the
symbol migrates to the INET platform. Specifically, the Exchange filed
a proposal to begin the system migration to Nasdaq INET in Q2 of
2017.\4\ The migration to INET will be on a symbol by symbol basis as
specified by the Exchange in a notice to Members.\5\ The Exchange is
proposing to implement this rule change on the INET platform as the
symbols migrate to that platform. Once a symbol moves to INET no
complex quoting \6\ will be available for that symbol and the symbol
will be allocated in price/time priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80432 (April 11,
2017), 82 FR 18191 (April 17, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-03) (Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to
Amend Various Rules in Connection with a System Migration to Nasdaq
INET Technology).
    \5\ The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert prior to the
migration and will specify the dates that symbols will migrate to
the INET platform.
    \6\ The Exchange notes that Phlx does not offer complex order
quoting functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INET is the proprietary core technology utilized across Nasdaq's
global markets and utilized on The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM''),
NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') and NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'') (collectively,
``Nasdaq Exchanges''). The migration of ISE to the Nasdaq INET
architecture would result in higher performance, scalability, and more
robust architecture. With this system

migration, the Exchange intends to adopt certain trading functionality
currently utilized at Nasdaq Exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See note 4 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is staging the re-platform to provide maximum benefit
to its Members while also ensuring a successful rollout. As symbols
migrate to the INET functionality, the symbols that are currently
enabled for Market Maker Quotes will become ineligible for complex
quoting. This will provide the Exchange additional time to test and
implement this functionality on the INET platform. The Exchange will
issue an Options Trader Alert to all Members notifying them that
complex order quoting functionality will no longer be available after a
symbol migrates to INET.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Even though the complex quoting functionality will not be
available, Market Makers will still be able to submit complex
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within a year from the date of filing this rule change, the
Exchange will offer complex quoting functionality on the ISE INET
platform. Thereafter, Exchange may offer the complex quoting from time
to time with notice to members. At the time the Exchange designates a
symbol as available for complex quoting, it will also designate the
allocation methodology for that symbol pursuant to ISE Rule
722(b)(3)(i).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 because the Exchange desires to rollout the complex order
quoting functionality at a later date to allow additional time to
rebuild this technology on the new platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not offering the Market Maker quotes in the complex order book with
the symbol migration to INET, will allow the Exchange additional time
to test and implement this functionality. The Exchange will provide
Members with ample notice of the turn-off of this functionality in an
Options Trader Alert. The Exchange will continue to provide
notification to Members to ensure clarity about the availability of
this functionality with the symbol migration.
    The Exchange is proposing to implement this rule change on the INET
platform as the symbols migrate to that platform. Once a symbol moves
to INET, no complex quoting \11\ will be available for that symbol and
the Exchange will specify that the allocation methodology for that
symbol will be price/time. Within a year from the date of filing this
rule change, the Exchange will offer complex quoting functionality on
the ISE INET platform. Thereafter, the Exchange may offer the complex
quoting for specified symbols from time to time with notice to members.
At the time the Exchange designates a symbol as available for complex
quoting, it will also designate the allocation methodology for that
symbols pursuant to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that Phlx does not offer complex order
quoting functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though the complex quoting functionality will not be
available, Market Makers will still be able to submit complex orders.
The Exchange does not anticipate any significant impact with respect to
execution quality. The Exchange notes that Phlx does not offer complex
order quoting functionality.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Phlx Rule 1098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impact the intense competition that
exists in the options market. Members will be able to continue to
submit complex orders on ISE; however Market Maker quotes in the
complex order book will not be available after a symbol migrates to
INET. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intra-market competition because all Members
uniformly will not be able to submit Market Maker quotes in the complex
order book.
    The Exchange is proposing to implement this rule change on the INET
platform as the symbols migrate to that platform. Once a symbol moves
to INET, no complex quoting \13\ will be available for that symbol and
the Exchange will specify the allocation methodology for that symbol as
price/time. Within a year from the date of filing this rule change, the
Exchange will offer complex quoting functionality on the ISE INET
platform. Thereafter, the Exchange may offer the complex quoting for
specified symbols from time to time with notice to members. At the time
the Exchange designates a symbol as available for complex quoting, it
will also designate the allocation methodology for that symbol pursuant
to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that Phlx does not offer complex order
quoting functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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-ISE-2017-37 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-ISE-2017-37. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-37 and should be
submitted on or before June 1, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09529 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 48323]
[DOCID:fr10au10-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-1-002]

Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Filing

August 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on August 3, 2010, pursuant to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) December 17, 2009 Order on
Petition for Declaratory Order, Southern California Edison Co., 129
FERC ] 61,246 (2009) (December 17, Order), Southern California Edison
Company filed a compliance filing demonstrating satisfaction of the
condition set forth in the Commission's December 17 Order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 24, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19671 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10490-10491]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05312]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0408; FRL-9989-18-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; EPA's WaterSense Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), EPA's WaterSense Program (EPA ICR
No. 2233.07, OMB Control No. 2040-0272), to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which
is currently approved through March 31, 2019. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on August 28, 2018 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 22,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2006-0408, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara O'Hare, WaterSense Branch, Water
Infrastructure Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of
Water, (Mail Code 4204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-
8836; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: WaterSense is a voluntary program designed to create
self-sustaining markets for water-efficient products and services via a
common label. The program provides incentives for manufacturers and
builders to design, produce, and market water-efficient products and
homes. The program also encourages consumers and commercial and
institutional purchasers of water-using products and systems to choose
water-efficient products and use water-efficient practices. As part of
strategic planning efforts, EPA encourages programs to develop
meaningful performance measures, set ambitious targets, and link budget
expenditures to results. Data collected under this ICR will assist
WaterSense in demonstrating results and carrying out evaluation efforts
to ensure continual program improvement. In addition, the data will
help EPA estimate water and energy savings and inform future product
categories and specifications. All shipment and sales data submitted by
WaterSense manufacturer and retailer/distributor partners are collected
as confidential business information (CBI) using the procedures
outlined in the WaterSense CBI security plan under the Clean Water Act.
    Form Numbers: *Forms not yet finalized in italics.

Partnership Agreement
     Builders 6100-19
     Licensed Certification Providers 6100-20
     Manufacturers 6100-13
     Professional Certifying Organizations 6100-07
     Promotional partners 6100-06
     Retailers/distributors 6100-12
Application for Professional Certifying Organization Approval
     Professional Certifying Organizations 6100-X3
Annual Reporting Form
     Builders 6100-09
     Professional Certifying

Organizations 6100-09
     Promotional partners 6100-09
Annual Reporting Form--Online and Hard-copy Confidential Business
Information (CBI) Forms
     Plumbing Manufacturers 6100-09
     Non-plumbing Manufacturers 6100-09
     Retailers/Distributors 6100-09
Provider Quarterly Reporting Form
     Licensed Certification Providers 6100-09
Award Application Form
     Builders 6100-17
     Licensed Certification Providers 6100-17
     Manufacturers 6100-17
     Professional Certifying Organizations 6100-17
     Promotional Partners 6100-17
     Retailers/Distributors 6100-17
Consumer Awareness Survey
     Survey form 6100-X2

    Respondents/affected entities: WaterSense partners and participants
in the consumer survey, which include product manufacturers;
professional certifying organizations; retailers; distributors;
utilities; federal, state, and local governments; home builders;
licensed certification providers; and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,649.
    Frequency of response: Once, annually, quarterly, occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 3,212 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $293,189 (per year), includes $905 of
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 898 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to changes in program
requirements including using online forms for all non-CBI related data,
discontinuing the individual irrigation partner category, and
simplifying the quarterly provider reporting requirements, which have
reduced operation & maintenance costs and lowered the estimated burden.
EPA also better understands how long it takes partners to complete
program forms and has better historical data to project new partners/
forms over the next three years.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-05312 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P