[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2955-2959]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0032]

Fee Schedule for Processing Requests for Map Changes, for Flood
Insurance Study Backup Data, and for National Flood Insurance Program
Map and Insurance Products

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains the revised fee schedules for processing
certain types of requests for changes to National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) maps, for processing requests for Flood Insurance Study
(FIS) technical and administrative support data, and for processing
requests for particular NFIP map and insurance products. The changes in
the fee schedules will allow FEMA to reduce further the expenses to the
NFIP by recovering more fully the costs associated with processing
conditional and final map change requests; retrieving, reproducing, and
distributing technical and administrative support data related to FIS
analyses and mapping; and producing, retrieving, and distributing
particular NFIP map and insurance products.

DATES: The revised fee schedules are effective for all requests dated
February 20, 2015, or later.
    The revised fee schedule for map changes is effective for all
requests dated February 20, 2015, or later. The revised fee schedule
supersedes the current fee schedule, which was established on January
13, 2010.
    The revised fee schedule for requests for FIS backup data also is
effective for all requests dated February 20, 2015, or later. The
revised fee schedule supersedes the current fee schedule, which was
established on January 13, 2010.
    The revised fee schedule for requests for particular NFIP map and
insurance products, which are available through the FEMA Map Service
Center (MSC), is effective for all requests, including but not limited
to hardcopy, on-line, and telephone requests received on or after
February 20, 2015. The revised fee schedule supersedes the current fee
schedule, which was established on January 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Magnotti, Hydraulic Engineer,
Data and Dissemination Management Branch, Risk Analysis Division, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472; by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER> (not toll-free calls); or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains the revised fee
schedules for processing certain types of requests for changes to
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps, requests for Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) technical and administrative support data, and
requests for particular NFIP map and insurance products.
    Evaluations Performed. To develop the revised fee schedule for
conditional and final map change requests and letter of determination
review requests, FEMA evaluated the actual costs of reviewing and
processing requests for Conditional Letters of Map Amendment (CLOMAs),
Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-Fs),
Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMRs), Letters of Map Revision
Based on Fill (LOMR-Fs), Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs), and Letters
of Determination Review (LODRs).
    To develop the revised fee schedule requests for FIS technical and
administrative support data, FEMA evaluated the actual costs of
reviewing, reproducing, and distributing archived data in seven
categories. These categories are discussed in more detail below.
    To develop the revised fee schedule for requests for particular
NFIP map and insurance products, FEMA decided to eliminate fees for
digital product downloads and to discontinue its distribution of paper-
based products, as well as products on digital media (i.e. compact
disc). This decision was based on the re-architecture of the Map
Service Center (MSC), which allows for the online downloading of larger
datasets. The products covered by this notice are discussed in detail
below.
    Periodic Evaluations of Fees. A primary component of the fees is
the prevailing private-sector rates charged to FEMA for labor and
materials. Because these rates and the actual review and processing
costs may vary from year to year, FEMA will evaluate the fees
periodically and publish revised fee schedules, when needed, as notices
in the Federal Register.

Fee Schedule for Requests for Conditional Letters of Map Amendment and
Conditional and Final Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA established the following review and processing
fees, which are to be submitted with all requests:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Proposed online
             LOMC Type                 Proposed fee      submission fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-lot/single-structure CLOMA                $600               $500
 and CLOMR-F......................
Single-lot/single-structure LOMR-F                525                425

Single-lot/single-structure LOMR-F                425                325
 based on as-built information
 (CLOMR-F previously issued by
 FEMA)............................
Multiple-lot/multiple-structure                   800                700
 CLOMA............................
Multiple-lot/multiple-structure                   900                800
 CLOMR-F and LOMR[dash]F..........
Multiple-lot/multiple-structure                   800                700
 LOMR[dash]F based on as-built
 information (CLOMR-F previously
 issued by FEMA)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions, the fees for these products have been
  reduced by $100, since the costs for handling, scanning, and
  transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated with
  handling, scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions will
  continue to be recovered.

Fee Schedule for Requests for Letters of Determination Review

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA established the following review and processing
fee for requests for Letters of Determination Review, which is to be
submitted with all requests:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Product type                         Proposed fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LODR...................................................             $80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Schedule for Requests for Conditional Letters of Map Revision

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA established the following review and processing
fees, which are to be submitted with all requests that are not
otherwise exempted under 44 CFR 72.5 and/or the Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, Public Law 113-89, section 22,
Mar. 21, 2014, 128 Stat. 1028, 42 U.S.C. 4101e.:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Proposed online
            LOMC Type                Proposed fee       submission fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLOMR based on new hydrology,                $6,750              $6,500
 bridge, culvert, channel, or
 any combination thereof........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions, the fee for this product has been
  reduced by $250, since the costs for handling, scanning, and
  transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated with
  handling, scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions will
  continue to be recovered.

Fees for Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on a Levee, Berm, or
Other Structural Measure

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA has established $7,250 as the initial fee for
requests for CLOMRs based on a levee, berm, or other structural
measure. For digital submissions, the fees for this product have been
reduced by $250, since the costs for handling, scanning, and
transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated with
handling, scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions will
continue to be recovered. FEMA will also continue to recover the
remainder of the review and processing costs by invoicing the requester
before issuing a determination letter, consistent with current
practice. The prevailing private-sector labor rate charged to FEMA ($60
per hour) will continue to be used to calculate the total fees to be
submitted to FEMA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               LOMC Type                            Proposed fee                Proposed online submission fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLOMR based on a levee, berm, or other  $7,250 (plus $60/h)................  $7,000 (plus $60/h).
 structural measure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions, the fee for this product has been reduced by $250, since the costs for
  handling, scanning, and transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated with handling, scanning, and
  transportation of hardcopy submissions will continue to be recovered.

Fee Schedule for Requests for Letters of Map Revisions

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA established the following review and processing
fees, which are to be submitted with all requests that are not
otherwise exempted under 44 CFR 72.5 and/or the Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, Public Law 113-89, section 22,
Mar. 21, 2014, 128 Stat. 1028, 42 U.S.C. 4101e. Requesters must submit
the review and processing fees shown below with requests for LOMRs
dated February 20, 2015, or later that are not based on structural
measures on alluvial fans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Proposed online
             LOMC Type                 Proposed fee      submission fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOMR based on a bridge, culvert,               $8,250             $8,000
 channel, hydrology, or
 combination thereof..............
LOMR based on as-built information              8,250              8,000
 submitted as a follow-up to a
 CLOMR............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions the fees have been reduced by $250 for
  these products since there will be less handling, scanning, and
  transportation costs on these products. The higher costs associated
  with handling, scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions
  will continue to be recovered.

Fees for Final Letters of Map Revision Based on a Levee, Berm, or Other
Structural Measure

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA has established $9,250 as the initial fee for
requests for LOMRs based on levee, berm, or other structural measure.
For digital submissions, the fees for this product have been reduced by
$250, since the costs for handling, scanning, and transportation will
be lower. The higher costs associated with handling, scanning, and
transportation of hardcopy submissions will continue to be recovered.
FEMA will also continue to recover the remainder of the review and
processing costs by invoicing the requester before issuing a
determination letter, consistent with current practice. The prevailing
private-sector labor rate charged to FEMA ($60 per hour) will continue
to be used to calculate the total fees to be submitted to FEMA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               LOMC Type                            Proposed fee                Proposed online submission fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOMR based on a levee, berm, or other   $9,250 (plus $60/h)................  $9,000 (plus $60/h).
 structural measure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions, the fee for this product has been reduced by $250, since the costs for
  handling, scanning, and transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated with handling, scanning, and
  transportation of hardcopy submissions will continue to be recovered.

Fees for Conditional and Final Letters of Map Revision Based on
Structural Measures on Alluvial Fans

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA has established $7,250 as the initial fee for
requests for CLOMRs and LOMRs based on structural measures on alluvial
fans. For digital submissions, the fees for these products have been
reduced by $250, since the costs for handling, scanning, and
transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated with
handling, scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions will
continue to be recovered. FEMA will also continue to recover the
remainder of the review and processing costs by invoicing the requester
before issuing a determination letter, consistent with current
practice. The prevailing private-sector labor rate charged to FEMA ($60
per hour) will continue to be used to calculate the total fees to be
submitted to FEMA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               LOMC Type                            Proposed fee                Proposed online submission fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLOMR based on structural measures on   $7,250 (plus $60/h)................  $7,000 (plus $60/h).
 alluvial fans.
LOMR based on structural measures on    $7,250 (plus $60/h)................  $7,000 (plus $60/h).
 alluvial fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions the fees have been reduced by $250 for these products since there will be less
  handling, scanning, and transportation costs on these products. The higher costs associated with handling,
  scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions will continue to be recovered.

Fees for the Mapping of Physical Map Revisions (PMRs)

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA has established $8,250 as the initial fee for
requests to process the review of PMRs. Additional fee of $2,500 per
panel is required to create the mapping for the PMR. Requesters must
submit the review and processing fees shown below with requests for
PMRs dated February 20, 2015, or later that are not based on structural
measures on alluvial fans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               PMR Type                             Proposed fee                Proposed online submission fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMR based on a bridge, culvert,         $8,250 plus $2,500/panel...........  $8,000 plus $2,500/panel.
 channel, hydrology, or combination
 thereof.
PMR based on as-built information       $8,250 plus $2,500/panel...........  $8,000 plus $2,500/panel.
 submitted as a follow-up to a CLOMR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions the fees have been reduced by $250 for these products since there will be less
  handling, scanning, and transportation costs on these products. The higher costs associated with handling,
  scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions will continue to be recovered.

Fees for Mapping of Physical Map Revisions Based on a Levee, Berm, or
Other Structural Measure

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA has established $9,250 as the initial fee for
requests to process the review of PMRs based on levee, berm, or other
structural measure. Additional fee of $2,500 per panel is required to
create the mapping for the PMR. For digital submissions, the fees for
this product have been reduced by $250, since the costs for handling,
scanning, and transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated
with handling, scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions
will continue to be recovered. FEMA will also continue to recover the
remainder of the review and processing costs by invoicing the requester
before issuing a determination letter, consistent with current
practice. The prevailing private-sector labor rate charged to FEMA ($60
per hour) will continue to be used to calculate the total fees to be
submitted to FEMA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               PMR Type                             Proposed fee                Proposed online submission fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMR based on a levee, berm, or other    $9,250 (plus $60/h) plus $2,500/     $9,000 (plus $60/h) plus $2,500/
 structural measure.                     panel.                               panel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions, the fee for this product has been reduced by $250, since the costs for
  handling, scanning, and transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated with handling, scanning, and
  transportation of hardcopy submissions will continue to be recovered.

Fees for Physical Map Revision Based on Structural Measures on Alluvial
Fans

    Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, FEMA has established $7,250 as the initial fee for
requests to process the review of PMRs based on structural measures on
alluvial fans. Additional fee of $2,500 per panel is required to create
the mapping for the PMR. For digital submissions, the fees for these
products have been reduced by $250, since the costs for handling,
scanning, and transportation will be lower. The higher costs associated
with handling, scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions
will continue to be recovered. FEMA will also continue to recover the
remainder of the review and processing costs by invoicing the requester
before issuing a determination letter, consistent with current
practice. The prevailing private-sector labor rate charged to FEMA ($60
per hour) will continue to be used to calculate the total fees to be
submitted to FEMA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               PMR Type                             Proposed fee                Proposed online submission fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMR based on structural measures on     $7,250 (plus $60/h) plus $2,500/     $7,000 (plus $60/h) plus $2,500/
 alluvial fans.                          panel.                               panel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for digital submissions the fees have been reduced by $250 for these products since there will be less
  handling, scanning, and transportation costs on these products. The higher costs associated with handling,
  scanning, and transportation of hardcopy submissions will continue to be recovered.

Fee Schedule for Flood Insurance Study Backup Data

    Non-exempt requesters of FIS technical and administrative support
data must submit the fees shown below with requests dated February 20,
2015, or later. These fees are based on the complete recovery costs to
FEMA for retrieving, reproducing, and distributing the data, as well as
maintaining the library archives, and for collecting and depositing
fees. Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Years 2010,
2011, 2012, and 2013, FEMA established the following review and
processing fees from the February 20, 2015, fee schedule, which are to
be submitted with all requests.
    All entities except the following will be charged for requests for
FIS technical and administrative support data:
     Private architectural-engineering firms under contract to
FEMA to perform or evaluate studies and restudies;
     Federal agencies involved in performing studies and
restudies for FEMA (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological
Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Tennessee Valley
Authority);
     Communities that have supplied the Digital Line Graph base
to FEMA and request the Digital Line Graph data (Category 6 below);
     Communities that request data during the statutory 90-day
appeal period for an initial or revised FIS for that community;
     Mapped participating communities that request data at any
time other than during the statutory 90-day appeal period, provided the
data are requested for use by the community and not a third-party user;
and
     State NFIP Coordinators, provided the data requested are
for use by the State NFIP Coordinators and not a third-party user.
    FEMA has established seven categories into which requests for FIS
backup data are separated. These categories are:
    (1) Category 1--Paper copies, microfiche, or diskettes of
hydrologic and hydraulic backup data for current or historical FISs;
    (2) Category 2--Paper or mylar copies of topographic mapping
developed during FIS process;
    (3) Category 3--Paper copies or microfiche of survey notes
developed during FIS process;
    (4) Category 4--Paper copies of individual Letters of Map Change
(LOMCs);
    (5) Category 5--Paper copies of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels;
    (6) Category 6--Computer tapes or CD-ROMs of Digital Line Graph
files, Digital FIRM files, or Digital LOMR attachment files; and
    (7) Category 7--Computer diskettes and user's manuals for FEMA
computer programs.
    FEMA established a flat non-refundable fee of $300 for non-exempt
requesters of FIS technical and administrative support data to initiate
a request under Categories 1, 2, and 3 above. This fee covers the costs
of 4 hours of research and retrieval. For larger requests that require
more than 4 hours of research, additional hours will be charged at $40
per hour. If the data requested are available and the request is not
cancelled, the final fee is calculated as a sum of the standard per-
product charge plus a per-case surcharge of $93, designed to recover
the cost of library maintenance and archiving. The total costs of
processing requests in Categories 1, 2, and 3 will vary based on the
complexity of the research involved in retrieving the data and the
volume and medium of the data to be reproduced and distributed. The
initial flat fee will be applied against the total costs to process the
request, and FEMA will invoice the requester for the balance plus the
per-case surcharge before the data are provided. No data will be
provided to a requester until all required fees have been paid.
    No initial fee is required to initiate a request for data under
Categories 4 through 7. Requesters will be notified by telephone about
the availability of the data and the fees associated with the requested
data.
    As with requests for data under Categories 1, 2, and 3, no data
will be provided to requesters until all required fees are paid. A flat
user fee for each of these categories of requests, shown below, will
continue to be required.
Request Under Category 4 (First Letter) $40

Request Under Category 4 (Each additional letter) $10
Request Under Category 5 (First panel) $35
Request Under Category 5 (Each additional panel) $2
Request Under Category 6 (per county/digital LOMR attachment
shapefiles) $150
Request Under Category 7 (per copy) $25

Fee Schedule for Map and Insurance Products

    The MSC distributes a variety of NFIP map and insurance products to
a wide range of customers, including Federal, State, and local
government officials; real estate professionals; insurance providers;
appraisers; builders; land developers; design engineers; surveyors;
lenders; homeowners; and other private citizens.
    FEMA decided to eliminate fees for digital product downloads and
discontinue its distribution of paper-based products, as well as
products on digital media (i.e. compact disc). This decision was based
on the re-architecture of the MSC, which allows for the online
downloading of larger datasets. All of the products produced by the
program will be housed online through the MSC. By making this change,
FEMA will no longer have any costs for reproduction, shipping, and
handling of digital media, except for the very limited fee-exempt
distribution to communities affected by map changes. FEMA will also
have virtually no variable costs associated with public distribution of
products. Whether one customer downloads a digital flood map or
thousands download it, FEMA's costs are essentially the same. Some
fixed IT costs are associated with building and maintaining the MSC
systems; however, FEMA has a statutory mandate to make the flood data
products available for free to a large percentage of the customer base.
As a result, virtually no costs can be directly attributed to a
specific delivery of a product to a specific customer.
    For more information on the map and insurance products available
from the MSC, interested parties are invited to visit the MSC Web site
at http://msc.fema.gov.

Payment Submission Requirements

    Fee payments for non-exempt requests must be made in advance of
services being rendered. These payments shall be made in the form of a
check, money order, or by credit card payment. Checks and money orders
must be made payable, in U.S. funds, to the

National Flood Insurance Program.

    FEMA will deposit all fees collected to the National Flood
Insurance Fund, which is the source of funding for providing these
services.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR
19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376; 44 CFR part 72; Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act of 2014.

    Dated: December 4, 2014.
Roy Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2015-00904 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28917-28919]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11796]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66962; File No. SR-ISE-2012-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Transaction Fees and Rebates for Complex Orders
Executed on the Exchange

May 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on May 1, 2012, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the 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 ISE is proposing to amend transaction fees and rebates for
complex orders executed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently assesses per contract transaction fees and
rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from the
Exchange (``maker/taker fees and rebates'') in a number of options
classes (the ``Select Symbols'').\3\ The Exchange's maker/taker fees
and rebates are applicable to regular and complex orders executed in
the Select Symbols. The Exchange also currently assesses maker/taker
fees and rebates for complex orders in symbols that are in the Penny
Pilot program but are not a Select Symbol (Non-Select Penny Pilot
Symbols) \4\ and for complex orders in all symbols that are not in the
Penny Pilot Program (``Non-Penny Pilot Symbols'').\5\ The purpose of
this proposed rule change is to amend maker/taker fees and rebates for
complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 65724 (November 10, 2011), 76
FR 71413 (November 17, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-72).
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 66084 (January 3, 2012), 77 FR
1103 (January 9, 2012) (SR-ISE-2011-84); and 66392 (February 14,
2012), 77 FR 10016 (February 21, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols, the Exchange
currently charges a ``taker'' fee of: (i) $0.70 per contract for ISE
Market Maker,\6\ Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) \7\
orders; and (ii) $0.75 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker \8\
orders. Priority Customer \9\ orders are not charged a ``taker'' fee
for complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols. For complex orders
in these same symbols, the Exchange currently charges a ``maker'' fee
of $0.10 per contract for ISE Market Maker, Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders. Priority Customer
orders are not charged a ``maker'' fee for complex orders in these
symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \7\ A Customer (Professional) is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \8\ A Non-ISE Market Maker, or Far Away Market Maker
(``FARMM''), is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act''),
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    \9\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to increase the ``taker'' fee for complex
orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols to (i) $0.73 per contract for ISE
Market Maker, Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders; and
(ii) $0.78 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker orders.
    For responses to special orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols,\10\
ISE currently charges $0.70 per contract for ISE Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders. For Non-ISE Market
Maker orders, this fee is currently $0.75 per contract. The Exchange
now proposes to increase the fee for responses to special orders in the
Non-Penny Pilot Symbols to $0.73 per contract for ISE Market Maker,
Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders, and to $0.78 per
contract for Non-ISE Market Maker orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A response to a special order is any contra-side interest
submitted after the commencement of an auction in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Block Order
Mechanism and Price Improvement Mechanism. This fee applies to ISE
Market Maker, Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Customer
(Professional) and Priority Customer interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange currently provides volume-based tiered
rebates for Priority Customer complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot
Symbols when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer orders in
the complex order book. Specifically, the Exchange currently provides a
rebate of $0.52 per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex
orders when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex
orders in the complex order book. Additionally, Members who achieve
certain average daily volume (ADV) of Priority Customer complex order
contracts across all symbols executed during a calendar month are
provided a rebate of $0.54 per contract per leg, if a Member achieves
an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, and $0.56
per contract per leg, if a Member achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority
Customer complex order contracts. The highest rebate amount achieved by
the Member for the current calendar month applies retroactively to all
Priority Customer complex order contracts that trade with non-Priority
Customer complex orders in the complex order book executed by the
Member during such calendar month.
    In order to enhance the Exchange's competitive position and to
incentivize Members to increase the amount of Priority Customer complex
orders that

they send to the Exchange, the Exchange now proposes to increase the
base amount of the rebate to $0.57 per contract. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to increase the amount of that rebate even further,
on a month-by-month and Member-by-Member basis, if such Member achieves
an ADV of Priority Customer complex order contracts across all symbols
executed during the calendar month, as follows: if the Member achieves
an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate
amount shall be $0.59 per contract per leg; if the Member achieves an
ADV of 125,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate
amount shall be $0.61 per contract per leg.
    Additionally, ISE Market Makers who remove liquidity in the Non-
Penny Pilot Symbols from the complex order book by trading with orders
that are preferenced to them are currently charged $0.68 per contract.
With the proposed increase to the ``taker'' fees for complex orders in
the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols noted above, the Exchange also proposes to
increase the fee charged to ISE Market Makers who remove liquidity in
these symbols to $0.71 per contract when trading with orders that are
preferenced to them in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \11\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange
Act \12\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange members and
other persons using its facilities. The impact of the proposal upon the
net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend on a
number of variables, most important of which will be its propensity to
interact with and respond to certain types of orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide rebates for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders
trade with Non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order
book because paying a rebate would continue to attract additional order
flow to the Exchange and create liquidity in the symbols that are
subject to the rebate, which the Exchange believes ultimately will
benefit all market participants who trade on ISE. The Exchange already
provides these types of rebates, and is now merely proposing to
increase those rebate amounts. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rebates are competitive with rebates provided by other exchanges and
are therefore reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that
direct orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge ISE
Market Maker, Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders a
``taker'' fee of $0.73 per contract ($0.78 per contract for Non-ISE
Market Maker orders) for complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols
because the Exchange is seeking to recoup the cost associated with
paying increased rebates for Priority Customer complex orders. The
Exchange further believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge ISE
Market Maker, Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders a fee
of $0.73 per contract ($0.78 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker
orders) when such members are responding to special orders because a
response to a special order is akin to taking liquidity, thus the
Exchange is proposing an identical fee for taking liquidity in the Non-
Penny Pilot Symbols. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are also
reasonable and equitably allocated because they are within the range of
fees assessed by other exchanges employing similar pricing schemes. In
addition, the Exchange believes that charging Non-ISE Market Maker
orders a higher rate than the fee charged to ISE Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders is appropriate and not
unfairly discriminatory because Non-ISE Market Makers are not subject
to many of the non-transaction based fees that these other categories
of membership are subject to, e.g., membership fees, access fees, API/
Session fees, market data fees, etc. Therefore, it is appropriate and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess a higher transaction fee on Non-
ISE Market Makers because the Exchange incurs costs associated with
these types of orders that are not recovered by non-transaction based
fees paid by members.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a two cent discount to ISE Market Makers on preferenced orders
as an incentive for them to quote in the complex order book. The
Exchange notes that PHLX currently provides a similar discount, albeit
the differential at that exchange is five cents. Accordingly, ISE
Market Makers who remove liquidity in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols from
the complex order book will be charged $0.71 per contract when trading
with orders that are preferenced to them. The Exchange notes that with
this proposed fee change, the Exchange, while increasing this fee, will
continue to maintain a two cent differential that was previously in
place.
    The complex order pricing employed by the Exchange has proven to be
an effective pricing mechanism and attractive to Exchange participants
and their customers. The Exchange believes that increasing its complex
order rebates will attract additional complex order business. The
Exchange further believes that the Exchange's complex order rebates and
its maker/taker fees are not unfairly discriminatory because these fee
structures are consistent with fee structures that exist today at other
options exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees and rebates are fair, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed fees and rebates are consistent
with price differentiation that exists today at other option exchanges.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they
deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. With this
proposed rebate change, the Exchange believes it remains an attractive
venue for market participants to trade complex orders.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\13\ At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the

public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange 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-2012-35 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-ISE-2012-35. 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-2012-35 and should be
submitted on or before June 6, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11796 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 EPA RESPONSE TO IMCC DISCUSSION OUTLINE ( March 15, 2002 Draft)

Coal Ash Management I. Categories of Coal Ash Management The Discussion Outline identified four categories of ash management: 1. Used as product ( e. g., concrete, asphalt filler) 2. Used beneficially in the environment ( e. g., structural fill, soil additive) 3. Used beneficially in active or abandoned minesites 4. Disposal EPA's Regulatory Determination identified these same management practices but grouped them into different categories (" Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels," Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 99, May 22, 2000, pages 32214 32237; http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ other/ fossil/ ff2f fr. pdf): 1. Beneficial use, including waste stabilization, beneficial construction applications ( e. g., cement, concrete, brick and concrete products, road bed, structural fill, blasting grit, wall board, insulation, roofing materials), agricultural applications ( e. g., as a substitute for lime) and other applications ( absorbents, filter media, paints, plastics and metals manufacture, snow and ice control, waste stabilization). 2. Minefill ( i. e., placement of ash in or on land from which minerals are being or have been extracted). 3. Landfill or impoundment disposal.

EPA exempted all categories from regulation as hazardous wastes and indicated no need to discontinue any management category. EPA continues to encourage the beneficial use of ash, particularly as products ( e. g., EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines; see http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ non hw/ procure/ products/ cement. htm). However, EPA determined that regulations under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) are needed for the third category ( landfill or impoundment disposal). Also, EPA determined that regulations under RCRA Subtitle D and/ or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act ( SMCRA) are needed for situations where CCW is placed at minesites ( minefill).

In its Regulatory Determination, EPA acknowledged that placement of ash at minesites can provide significant benefits. EPA also recognized in the Regulatory Determination that, when not done properly, placement of CCW at mine sites has the potential to contaminate ground water to levels that endanger human health and the 2 environment.

II. Coal Ash Management Principles for Beneficial Use Ash Characterization EPA, through its Regulatory Determination, exempted ash from regulation as a hazardous waste. Thus, for purposes of the federal RCRA, ash need not be characterized via the TCLP to determine whether it is a hazardous waste. However, it is appropriate to analyze ash to determine whether its placement in mines might pose a threat to human health or the environment or whether it would pose any special handling problems. Some State programs require receiving mines to characterize ash either periodically ( e. g., quarterly or semiannually) or when the source of ash changes ( e. g., ash from a different burner or ash produced from a different coal). Characterization is usually done through EPA's TCLP or some other leaching procedure using water found at the mine site or elsewhere. Presently, EPA is unclear as to how States determine whether a specific ash's characteristics are acceptable for minefill, i. e. the risk analysis procedures, risk levels, and standards which States employ in their decision making. EPA wishes to learn of ash characterization procedures which will ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment.

Placement in Mines EPA has observed several beneficial uses of mine placement of ash. Coal ash is a manageable material in a mine environment, particularly a surface mine environment, where it can be placed, spread, and compacted by heavy equipment common to the mine environment. Mine placement beneficially employs ash to occupy void space, allowing the mine site to be reclaimed close to original contours. Placement of ash in mines can be especially cost effective for power plants which have difficulty obtaining land for disposal of ash. This is particularly true for older power plants which have filled adjacent land with ash generated in past years. These power plants are often located adjacent to rivers, causing them to be land locked on at least one side; and are often in areas where adjacent land is unavailable at reasonable cost or is inappropriate ( e. g., hydrology, geology, flood plain, incompatible land uses) for ash disposal. Placement of ash in mines avoids the need to utilize green space to develop disposal facilities for ash. Additionally, alkaline ash can be placed in mine sites so as to beneficially mitigate acid mine drainage problems. Cementitious alkaline ash can also beneficially isolate acid forming spoil at mine sites, thereby preventing formation of harmful acid drainage. EPA does not believe that it can be generalized that mine environments are safe environments for disposal of ash or are geochemical environments conducive to such placement. Rather, EPA believes that this must be considered only on a case by case basis. A specifically designed, scientifically sound, decision making process, in which 3 risk is evaluated and the public has a role, should be employed in making such determinations. The decision making process, including the risk assessment, must recognize that large amounts of ash, a material foreign to the natural materials at the mine, will be placed at the mine site. Also, the process must recognize that the mine site is an extensive area which has been substantially disturbed and re formed, altering the natural hydrology, geology, and soils.

III. Coal Ash Regulatory Principles for Beneficial Use Not a Hazardous Waste EPA has formally exempted ash from regulation as a hazardous waste but believes coal ash should be properly managed so as to not adversely impact human health and the environment now and in the future. EPA has identified no documented cases of damage resulting from placement of ash in coal mines. EPA is aware that ash has caused environmental damage when placed in sand and gravel pits and in some designed disposal units, an indication of the potential for ash to cause damage. EPA is trying to better understand whether the damages identified elsewhere can occur at coal mines, and if so, what preventative measures need to be taken. EPA recognizes that mine sites are complex, disturbed environments which pose a formidable challenge to ground water modeling and monitoring efforts. As a result, EPA is uncertain whether the lack of known damage cases is due to complexities which impede monitoring, inability to discern the impacts of ash from those of mining activities, lack of or inadequate monitoring, or true absence of adverse impacts. Because mine placement is a relatively recent practice, it is possible that insufficient time has passed to be able to realize or measure adverse impacts of the practice. EPA couples this concern with the possibility that existing regulations may authorize monitoring to cease before problems become evident. In its Minefill Risk Assessment/ Modeling ( MRAM) project, EPA is working closely with a variety of stakeholders to assemble case study data on long term monitoring of a large number of facilities. This compilation and analysis of data on ground water quality and site and ash characterization should advance the state of knowledge and contribute to improved decision making.

State and Federal Regulatory Programs EPA believes that existing SMCRA and RCRA statutory authorities can be employed to properly protect public health and safety and the environment, and no additional statutory authorities are required. EPA recognizes that States and federal agencies, specifically OSM and EPA, have existing regulatory programs which have been operating for a number of years to protect human health and safety and the environment. Varying among the States, these regulatory programs are a blending of regulatory requirements, policy memoranda, and guidelines and may involve multiple regulatory agencies. From the perspective of the public, these factors increase the 4 complexity and difficulty of discerning specific protective requirements, standards, and limits which are enforceable at facilities. It is difficult for the public to understand the performance levels which they can expect from specific facilities, how they can know whether performance levels are being met or exceeded, and where accountability rests for compliance assurance and issues such as QA/ QC of monitoring data. Placement of ash at mine sites is a permanent action which cannot feasibly be undone, should adverse impacts become apparent in the future. For this reason, especially, EPA agrees that it is imperative for State and federal regulatory agencies to cooperate in making the best use of existing regulatory and statutory authorities to protect public health and safety and the environment. Working with OSM and State regulatory agencies, EPA is currently striving to document an understanding of the State federal cooperative regulatory framework under which ash is placed at mine sites and whether this framework assures the public of adequate protection of health and the environment. Public assurance appears somewhat elusive, perhaps due to the flexibility and discretion of regulatory programs and the complexities of differing ash and minesite characteristics. EPA is being strongly encouraged by public advocacy groups to carefully ensure adequate protection of health and the environment.

Public Involvement EPA agrees that opportunity for public involvement in approval and oversight of ash placement in mine sites is necessary. Through an enforceable regulatory process in which they have a voice, the public requires assurances that: ° Characteristics of ash and the mine site are compatible for intended placement; ° Placement will not create or exacerbate problems; ° A viable mechanism exists to ensure remediation of problems, should they occur; and ° If placement is intended for a purpose beyond ash disposal ( e. g., AMD remediation, fire control, subsidence control, etc.), the intended purposes will be achieved.

Beneficial Use at Minesites EPA acknowledges that ash can be strategically placed at minesites so as to provide a benefit to mine operations and/ or reclamation. For example, ash has been placed at minesites in a manner that has beneficially mitigated mine drainage problems, controlled mine fires, prevented subsidence, achieved approximate original contours, and fostered revegetation. EPA understands that, where such beneficial uses are intended, States examine ash characteristics to determine whether the ash is compatible with the intended uses. EPA appreciates the value of these beneficial uses to mine operations and reclamation, particularly to mine operators and regulators charged with overseeing the operations and reclamation of mines. EPA's paramount interest extends beyond these benefits to the potential adverse impact of the ash on the environment. Within the framework of this interest, EPA agrees that it must be 5 determined that use of ash or disposal of ash at selected sites will not create problems or exacerbate existing problems. This determination is particularly important because placement is a permanent action not feasibly undone.

IV. Disposal/ Placement at Minesites ( including Beneficial Use)

EPA solicits the help of OSM and State regulatory agencies in providing assurances to the public that existing SMCRA and RCRA statutory authorities establish a regulatory framework which adequately ensures protection of health and the environment where ash is placed at mine sites. Drawing on the substantial experience and expertise of OSM and State regulatory agencies in overseeing ash placement at mine sites, EPA expects to document the elements of regulation appropriate to the practice such that the public can have a better understanding of, and a higher level of comfort in, the protections afforded by the regulatory programs. From discussions to date with OSM and State regulatory authorities, as well as other stakeholders, EPA agrees that potential regulatory program components would provide appropriate opportunities for public involvement and would address: ° Waste ( ash) characterization ° Site considerations ( i. e. site prohibitions; operation plans; approximate original contour; buffer zones; physical hazards; hydrologic analyses) ° Environmental controls ( i. e. volume restrictions; placement requirements; use of liners; compaction; state ground water protection plans; water quality standards; air quality standards; monitoring; reporting) ° Determination of End Points ( i. e. active mining = contemporaneous reclamation; abandoned mines = reclamation; disposal = closure) ° Assurance of Project Completion ( i. e. financial assurances ( surety bonds, insurance, etc.); enforcement authorities; clean up authorities and funds ( CERCLA); risk analysis; other regulatory controls ( BMPs, NPDES, Waste Regulations)).

V. Conclusions As described in section I, above, EPA's Regulatory Determination categorized several ash management practices as " beneficial use" and explained the Agency's view that further regulation of these practices by EPA is not needed. For landfill and impoundment disposal practices, EPA is developing RCRA Subtitle D regulations for proposal and public comment. For minefill practices, EPA continues to work with OSM and State regulatory agencies to identify desirable regulatory enhancements for promulgation under RCRA Subtitle D and/ or SMCRA to increase the public's comfort 6 with the safety of the practice. Differences in geology, climate, ash characteristics, and other factors speak to the need for flexibility in any additional federal regulations, allowing the States to build on their experience in implementing existing State and federal laws. Public availability of monitoring and inspection data and information will be important to increase public acceptance of the permanent placement of ash at minesites as a practice which is protective of human health and the environment.