[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58359-58362]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23007]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70426; File No. SR-Topaz-2013-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Topaz Exchange, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Schedule of Fees September 17, 2013.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 3, 2013, the Topaz Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``Topaz'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Topaz is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt volume-
based tiered rebates for adding liquidity on the Exchange (``Maker
Rebate''), and to increase the rebate for certain participant types in
Non-Penny Symbols. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site, 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 the
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Topaz is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish
volume-based rebates for adding liquidity in Regular Orders \3\ traded
on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed rebates will
incentivize firms that route orders to Topaz to increase order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange is also proposing to increase the rebates
applicable to Non-Topaz Market Maker,\4\ Firm Proprietary/Broker-
Dealer,\5\ and Professional Customer \6\ orders in Non-Penny
Symbols.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Regular Order is an order that consists of only a single
option series and is not submitted with a stock leg.
    \4\ A Non-Topaz 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, registered in the same
options class on another options exchange.
    \5\ A Firm Proprietary order is an order submitted by a Member
for its own proprietary account. A Broker-Dealer order is an order
submitted by a Member for a non-Member broker-dealer account.
    \6\ A Professional Customer is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \7\ Non-Penny Symbols are options overlying all symbols
excluding Penny Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Regular Orders in Penny Symbols \8\ and SPY the Exchange
currently pays a Maker Rebate in Standard Options of $0.48 per contract
for Priority Customer orders,\9\ $0.37 per contract ($0.39 per contract
in SPY) for Market Maker orders,\10\ and $0.25 per contract for Non-
Topaz Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional
Customer orders. For Regular Orders in Non-Penny Symbols, the Exchange
currently pays a Maker Rebate in Standard Options of $0.82 per
contracts for Priority Customer orders, $0.40 per contract for Market
Maker orders, and $0.10 per contract for Non-Topaz Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders. For
Regular Orders in Mini Options,\11\ Maker Rebates are 1/10th the rate
applicable in Standard Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Penny Symbols are options overlying all symbols listed on
Topaz that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
    \9\ A Priority Customer is 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).
    \10\ The term Market Maker refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. Market Maker
orders sent to the Exchange by an Electronic Access Member are
assessed fees and rebates at the same level as Market Maker orders.
See footnote 2, Schedule of Fees, Section I and II.
    \11\ Mini Options are options overlying ten (10) shares of AAPL,
AMZN, GLD, GOOG and SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the rebates described above so that
Maker Rebates will be based on a Member's average daily volume
(``ADV'') in a given month.\12\ In particular, the Exchange proposes to
pay a Maker Rebate based on four volume tier levels as described in the
table below. Members may qualify for each tier based on their volume in
the following categories: (i) Total Affiliated Member ADV,\13\ (ii)
Priority Customer Maker ADV, or (iii) Total Affiliated Member ADV with
a Minimum Priority Customer Maker ADV. For example, a Member can reach
Tier 2 by sending 65,000 contracts in Total Affiliated Member ADV,
20,000 contracts in Priority Customer Maker ADV, or 40,000

contracts in Total Affiliated Member ADV of which 15,000 contracts is
Priority Customer Maker volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ADV includes all volume in all symbols and order types.
    \13\ The Total Affiliated Member ADV category includes all
volume in all symbols and order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maker Rebates will be paid based on the highest tier that a Member
reaches in a given month, and this tiered rate will apply retroactively
to all eligible traded contracts for all client categories. This means,
for example, a Member with an ADV of 115,000 Priority Customer Maker
contracts would also qualify for the highest rebate tier for all Market
Maker volume it trades on the Exchange that provides liquidity.

                                           Qualifying Tier Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Total affiliated    Priority customer   Total affiliated member ADV/minimum
               Tier                    member ADV           maker ADV           priority customer maker ADV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...........................            0-64,999            0-19,999  0-39,999/0+
Tier 2...........................      65,000-149,999       20,000-64,999  40,000-114,999/15,000+
Tier 3...........................     150,000-274,999      65,000-114,999  115,000-224,999/45,000+
Tier 4...........................            275,000+            115,000+  225,000+/65,000+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volume in Standard Options and Mini Options will be combined to
calculate the tier a Member has reached. For example, a Member can
reach Tier 2 under Total Affiliated Member ADV by sending an ADV of
50,000 contracts in Standard Options and 15,000 contracts in Mini
Options. Based on the tier achieved, the Member will be rebated for
that tier for all the Standard Options traded at the Standard Option
rebate amount, and for all the Mini Options traded at the Mini Option
rebate amount. In addition, all eligible volume from affiliated Topaz
Members will be aggregated in determining applicable tiers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Each Member would be responsible for notifying the Exchange
of its affiliations so that volume of the Member and its affiliates
may be aggregated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Maker Rebates for each tier and participant type are
as follows:

                        I. Regular Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity in Standard Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Firm proprietary,
                                                                                B/D, FarMM &
                        Tier                          Priority  customer  Topaz market maker     professional
                                                                                customer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Penny Symbols and SPY Maker Rebates (per contract)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..............................................             ($0.25)             ($0.30)             ($0.25)
Tier 2..............................................              (0.40)              (0.32)              (0.25)
Tier 3..............................................              (0.45)              (0.34)              (0.25)
Tier 4..............................................              (0.48)              (0.37)              (0.25)
Tier 4 SPY..........................................              (0.48)              (0.39)              (0.25)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Non-Penny Symbols Maker Rebates (per contract)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..............................................              (0.70)              (0.40)              (0.25)
Tier 2..............................................              (0.75)              (0.42)              (0.25)
Tier 3..............................................              (0.80)              (0.44)              (0.25)
Tier 4..............................................              (0.82)              (0.46)              (0.25)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         II. Regular Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity in Mini Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Firm proprietary,
                                                                                B/D, FarMM &
                        Tier                          Priority  customer  Topaz market maker     professional
                                                                                customer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Penny Symbols and SPY Maker Rebates (per contract)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..............................................            ($0.025)            ($0.030)            ($0.025)
Tier 2..............................................             (0.040)             (0.032)             (0.025)
Tier 3..............................................             (0.045)             (0.034)             (0.025)
Tier 4..............................................             (0.048)             (0.037)             (0.025)
Tier 4 SPY..........................................             (0.048)             (0.039)             (0.025)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Non-Penny Symbols Maker Rebates (per contract)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..............................................             (0.070)             (0.040)             (0.025)
Tier 2..............................................             (0.075)             (0.042)             (0.025)
Tier 3..............................................             (0.080)             (0.044)             (0.025)
Tier 4..............................................             (0.082)             (0.046)             (0.025)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of example, under the new tiered rebate structure a Member
that executed an ADV of 20,000 Priority Customer contracts in all
classes listed on the Exchange that added liquidity in a given month
would be entitled to receive the proposed Tier 2 Maker Rebate of $0.40
per contract for Standard Options and $0.040 per contract for Mini
Options in Penny Symbols. If the Member executed an ADV of 65,000
Priority Customer contracts that added liquidity in the same month, the
Exchange would instead pay the proposed Tier 3 Maker Rebate of $0.45
per contract for Standard Options and $0.045 per contract for Mini
Options in Penny Symbols. The applicable tier reached will similarly
affect the maker rebates paid on non-Priority Customer maker volume as
reflected in the tables.
    The Exchange notes that the Maker Rebates currently being paid on
Topaz are equivalent to Tier 4 rebates under the new structure, with a
few exceptions. During the initial rollout of symbols on Topaz, the
Exchange could not adopt the proposed tiered structure due to the
impossibility of calculating appropriate ADV thresholds for each tier
when symbols were being listed on the Exchange each week. The Exchange,
therefore, opted to provide a higher introductory rate for Maker
Rebates in order to attract orders to the Exchange during the initial
rollout phase. By adopting the proposed tiered structure now, the
Exchange seeks to incentivize Members to send additional order flow to
the Exchange in order to qualify for the higher Maker Rebates.
    At this time the Exchange is not modifying the Maker Rebates
applicable to Non-Topaz Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer,
or Professional Customer orders in Penny Symbols and SPY. Although the
Exchange is adopting a tiered structure for these orders, the amount of
the applicable Maker Rebate remains unchanged from current levels of
$0.25 per contract for Standard Options and $0.025 per contract for
Mini Options, regardless of the tier achieved. In order to increase
order flow from these market participants in Non-Penny symbols, the
Exchange is increasing the Maker Rebate for these market participants
so that the rebate is now equivalent to the rebate offered in Penny
Symbols and SPY. As such, Non-Topaz Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols
will be provided an increased Maker Rebate of $0.25 per contract for
Standard Options and $0.025 per contract for Mini Options, up from
$0.10 per contract and $0.010 per contract, respectively.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rebates are reasonable and
equitably allocated because Topaz has already established Maker Rebates
for Members that provide liquidity on the Exchange, and is merely
proposing to adopt volume-based tiers designed to incentivize Members
to send additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the proposed Maker Rebates are not unfairly discriminatory because
the rebate structure is competitive with tiered rebate structures that
exist today at other options exchanges such as the NASDAQ Options
Market (``NOM'').\17\ For example, NOM provides its members with a
rebate for adding liquidity in Penny Symbols that ranges between $0.25
per contract and $0.48 per contract for customer and professional
orders, and between $0.25 per contract and $0.32 per contract for
Market Maker orders.\18\ As proposed, Topaz will also offer Priority
Customers the same range of rebates as currently provided by NOM, and
will actually offer more competitive rebates for Market Makers, from
$0.30 per contract for the base tier and as high as $0.37 per contract
for the highest tier. Topaz also compares competitively with respect to
the thresholds required to achieve higher levels of rebates. For
example, a Member executing an ADV of 275,000 contracts on Topaz would
qualify for the highest $0.48 rebate for Priority Customer orders,
whereas the same firm would have to execute an extra 50,000 contracts
in ADV to qualify for that level of rebate on NOM. Topaz also does not
separate out thresholds for different participant types, meaning that a
Member that qualifies for a higher tier in Priority Customer volume
would also earn the higher rebate amount for any Market Maker volume it
trades on the Exchange that provides liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NASDAQ Options Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing,
Section 2, NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates.
    \18\ Both Topaz and NOM provide higher rebates than those listed
here for market maker orders in certain specific symbols (e.g. SPY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange is lowering the current Maker Rebate provided to
Members that have not achieved the highest volume tier, the Exchange
believes that Members will in fact be incentivized to bring additional
order flow to the Exchange to obtain higher rebates. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed Maker Rebates are fair, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because they are consistent with rebate
differentiation that exists today at other option exchanges.
    With respect to rebates for Market Makers, the Exchange believes
that the price differentiation between the various market participants
is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers
have different requirements and obligations to the Exchange that other
market participants do not (such as quoting requirements). The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
provide a lower rebate to market participants that do not have such
requirements and obligations that Exchange Market Makers do.
    The Exchange also believes that providing higher rebates to
Priority Customer orders, and creating ADV thresholds specifically for
Members that send such orders to Topaz, attracts that order flow to the
Exchange and thereby creates liquidity to the benefit of all market
participants who trade on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes
that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide higher
rebates to Priority Customer orders than to Professional Customer
orders. A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or 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). This limitation does not apply to participants on the
Exchange whose behavior is substantially similar to that of market
professionals, including Professional Customers, who will generally
submit a higher number of orders (many of which do not result in
executions) than Priority Customers. Further, Professional Customers
engage in trading activity similar to that conducted by market makers
and proprietary traders. For example, Professional Customers join bids
and offers on the Exchange and thus compete for incoming order flow.
    The Exchange has determined to charge fees and provide rebates for
Regular Orders in Mini Options at a rate

that is 1/10th the rate of fees and rebates the Exchange currently
provides for trading in Standard Options. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable and equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess
lower fees and rebates to provide market participants an incentive to
trade Mini Options on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed
rebates are reasonable and equitable in light of the fact that Mini
Options have a smaller exercise and assignment value, specifically 1/
10th that of a standard option contract, and, as such, is providing
rebates that are 1/10th of those applicable to Standard Options.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule filing is intended to
establish Topaz as an attractive venue for market participants to
direct their order flow as the proposed rebates are competitive with
those established by other exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to another exchange if they deem rebates at a particular
exchange to be too low. For the reasons noted above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rebates are fair, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The tiered rebate structure
that the Exchange proposes to adopt here is similar to that currently
in effect on other maker/taker options exchanges such as NOM,\20\ and
will increase competition between Topaz and other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \20\ See NASDAQ Options Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing,
Section 2, NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing tiered rebates for providing liquidity, the
Exchange is not imposing any burden on intra-market competition. The
established volume tiers are transparent and offer Members a variety of
ways to reach different levels of rebates on the exchange, similar to
levels and differentials these same participants are familiar with on
several other exchanges. Volume tiers are not new to the options
industry and generally reward Members for submitting additional volume
to the Exchange, with Topaz now seeking to introduce a similar
structure.

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 Act \21\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\22\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by Topaz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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-Topaz-2013-04 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-Topaz-2013-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method.
    The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet
Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Topaz-2013-04, and should be
submitted on or before October 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23007 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32088-32089]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13184]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

EPA Board of Scientific Counselors Advisory Board; Notice of
Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, the EPA Board of
Scientific Counselors Advisory Board (BOSC) is a necessary committee
which is in the public interest. Accordingly, BOSC will be renewed for
an additional two-year period. The purpose of BOSC is to provide advice
and recommendations to the Administrator regarding science and
engineering research, programs and plans, laboratories, and research-
management practices. Inquiries may be directed to Greg Susanke, U.S.
EPA, (Mail Code 8104R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: March 6, 2012.
Lek Kadeli,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development.
[FR Doc. 2012-13184 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39386-39387]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16176]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0138; FRL-9913-60-OW]

Peer Review of the Draft Health Effects Documents for
Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate--Final List of
Peer Reviewers and Notice of the Peer Review Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final peer reviewer selection and external peer
review meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
final peer reviewers assembled by Versar, Inc., an EPA contractor, for
external peer review of the draft documents entitled ``Health Effects
Document for Perfluorooctanoic Acid'' and ``Health Effects Document for
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate.'' The peer reviewers are charged with
reviewing the scientific and technical merit of the EPA draft health
effect documents. EPA is also announcing that Versar, Inc. will
organize and conduct the external peer review meeting for the EPA draft
health effects documents on August 21 and 22, 2014 in Arlington,
Virginia. The meeting will be devoted to discussion and deliberation of
major issues identified by the peer reviewers regarding EPA's draft
health documents and will be guided by the charge questions previously
provided to the public. Versar, Inc. invites the public to register to
attend this two-day meeting as observers, either in-person or via
teleconference. Registered observers may attend and observe the peer
review deliberations, but will not be allowed to address the peer
reviewers or provide oral or written comments at the meeting.

DATES: The public external peer review meeting will be held on August
21 and 22, 2014, beginning and ending at approximately 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. (EDT) on both days. The registration deadline to attend the
meeting in-person or via teleconference is August 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The peer review meeting will be held at the Crystal City
Marriott at Reagan National Airport, located at 1999 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The phone number for the teleconference
line will be provided to registered observers prior to the meeting.
    Registration Instructions: To attend the peer review meeting as an
observer, either in-person or via teleconference, register no later
than August 18, 2014. Space is limited for in-person

attendance, and registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first-
served basis. To register for the meeting, please visit http://peerreview.versar.com/epa/pfoa/registration.html, complete the online
registration form, and submit the required information. You can also
register through U.S. Postal Service or overnight/priority mail by
sending the necessary registration information (see Registration
Information) to the Versar Meeting Coordinator, Ms. Betzy Colon,
Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151; telephone:
(703) 642-6727. Registrations sent via U.S. Postal Service or
overnight/priority mail must be received by August 18, 2014.
    Registration Information: To register for the meeting online or via
mail, please provide your full name, title, organization or
affiliation, and contact information. You must also indicate which
day(s) you plan to attend the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding logistics or
registration for the external peer review meeting should be directed to
Ms. Betzy Colon, Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA,
22151; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For additional information concerning EPA's draft health effects
documents, please contact Joyce Donohue at U.S. EPA, Office of Water,
Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Mail Code 4304T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 566-
1098; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information on the Draft Health Effects Documents

    EPA released the draft health effects documents for
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) for
purposes of public comment (scientific views) and peer review on
February 28, 2014 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-28/pdf/2014-04455.pdf), 79 FR 11429. The 60-day public comment period ended on
April 29, 2014. EPA will consider peer reviewer and public comments
when finalizing the documents. Once the health effects documents are
finalized, they will be utilized to develop lifetime health advisory
values for each chemical. The draft documents, draft charge questions,
and public comments submitted during the public comment period may be
viewed at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-
0138). The draft documents and charge questions may also be viewed at
http://peerreview.versar.com/epa/pfoa.

II. Information About the Peer Reviewers

    Consistent with guidelines for the peer review of highly
influential scientific assessments, EPA tasked a contractor (Versar,
Inc.) to assemble six to seven experts to evaluate the draft documents.
Versar, Inc. evaluated 29 candidates who were either nominated during a
previous public comment period (February 28, 2014 to March 21, 2014) or
were identified by Versar to augment the list of publically-nominated
candidates. Versar narrowed the list of potential reviewers to 15
candidates and solicited public comments on the interim list on April
30, 2014 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-30/pdf/2014-09888.pdf), 79 FR 24419. Using the selection criteria described in the
Federal Register dated February 28, 2014 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-28/pdf/2014-04455.pdf), 79 FR 11429, Versar selected the
final seven peer reviewers who, collectively, best provide expertise
spanning the multiple subject matter areas covered by the draft
documents and, to the extent feasible, best provide a balance of
perspectives. Additional information on the scientific peer reviewer
selection process can be found at: http://peerreview.versar.com/epa/pfoa.
    The final list of seven selected peer reviewers is provided below.

1. Dr. James Bruckner--University of Georgia
2. Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta--University of Rochester School of Medicine
and Dentistry
3. Dr. Jamie DeWitt--East Carolina University
4. Dr. Jeffrey Fisher--U.S. Food & Drug Administration
5. Dr. William Hayton--The Ohio State University (Emeritus)
6. Dr. Matthew Longnecker--National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
7. Dr. Angela Slitt--University of Rhode Island

    EPA requests that no individual or organization contact in any way
the contractor (Versar, Inc.) or the peer reviewers regarding the
subject of the peer review meeting, send them written materials
regarding the subject of the meeting, or make any offers or requests to
any of them that appear to be linked to their participation in the peer
review. The Contractor (Versar, Inc.) will direct the reviewers to
report any such contacts to the Contractor (Versar, Inc), who will take
appropriate action in consultation with EPA to ensure the independence
and impartiality of the peer review.

III. Information About the Peer Review Meeting

    The peer reviewers have been charged with evaluating and preparing
written comments on the draft PFOA and PFOS health effects documents.
Specifically, reviewers will provide general comments, their overall
impressions of the documents, and responses to 12 charge questions.
Reviewers will also consider the appropriateness of the quality,
accuracy, and relevance of the data in the documents. Comments
submitted to EPA's public docket (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0138)
during each document's 60-day public comment period will also be
provided to the peer reviewers ahead of the meeting for their
consideration.
    Peer reviewers will participate in the two-day peer review meeting
to discuss the scientific basis supporting EPA's draft health effects
documents. Following the peer review meeting, Versar will provide a
peer review summary report to EPA containing the comments and
recommendations from the peer reviewers. The final peer review report
will also be made available to the public. In preparing the final
health effects documents, EPA will consider Versar's report of the
comments and recommendations from the external peer review meeting, as
well as written public comments received through the official public
docket.

    Dated: July 2, 2014.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2014-16176 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80806]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

December 16, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP10-1232-001.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.203: NAESB filing to support index-based capacity
releases on a manual basis to be effective 12/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101215-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1433-001.
    Applicants: Central New York Oil And Gas, LLC.
    Description: Central New York Oil And Gas, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Central New York Oil And Gas Company, LLC--NAESB
Compliance Filing RP11-1433 to be effective 10/7/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101215-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1493-001.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Portland General Electric Company submits tariff
filing per 154.203: RP11-1493 Compliance Filing of Portland General
Electric to be effective 12/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101215-5017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-34-001.
    Applicants: WestGas InterState, Inc.
    Description: WestGas InterState, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.203: 20101215--Compliance Filing 587-U to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101215-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-75-001.
    Applicants: Arlington Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Arlington Storage Company, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Arlington Storage Company, LLC--NAESB Compliance Filing to
be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101215-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m.Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-79-001.
    Applicants: Steuben Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Steuben Gas Storage Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Steuben Gas Storage Company--NAESB Compliance Filing to be
effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101215-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-660-002.
    Applicants: North Baja Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: North Baja Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: RP10-660 Compliance to be effective 4/28/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101216-5034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32203 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


This interim final rule is a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The interim final rule is a
significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order
issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). We
completed a regulatory evaluation and placed it in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    Generally, costs associated with the provisions of this interim
final rule include costs for collecting and retaining data and
performing the mandated route safety and security analysis. We estimate
total 20-year costs to gather the data and conduct the analyses
proposed in this interim final rule to be about $20 million (discounted
at 7%).
    In addition, rail carriers and shippers may incur costs associated
with rerouting shipments or mitigating safety and security
vulnerabilities identified as a result of their route analyses. Because
the interim final rule builds on the current route evaluation and
routing practices already in place for most, if not all, railroads that
haul the types of hazardous materials covered, we do not expect rail
carriers to incur significant costs associated with rerouting. The
railroads already conduct route analyses and re-routing--in line with
what this rule would require--in accordance with the AAR comments and
Circular OT-55-I. Moreover, the smaller carriers (regionals and short
lines) are unlikely to have access to many alternative routes, and
where an alternative does exist, it is not likely to be safer and more
secure than the route they are currently using. If there is an
alternative route the carrier determines to be safer and more secure
than the one it is currently using, the carrier could well switch
routes, even in the absence of a regulatory requirement, because it
reduces the overall risk to its operations. Such reduction in risk
offers a significant economic advantage in the long run.
    Identifying and mitigating security vulnerabilities along rail
routes is currently being done by the railroads. We believe that
readily available ``high-tech'' and ``low-tech'' measures are

being quickly implemented. The development, procurement, and wide-
spread installation of the more technology-driven alternatives could
take several years, however, PHMSA's previous security rule requires
the railroads to have a security plan that includes en route security.
This existing regulatory requirement, coupled with industry efforts to
address security vulnerabilities, has caused railroads to enhance their
security posture. As with routing decisions, such reduction in risk
offers a significant economic advantage in the long run. Therefore, we
expect that the cost of mitigation attributed solely to this interim
final rule will not be significant. We note in this regard that safety
and security measures are intertwined and often complementary;
therefore, separating security costs from safety costs is not feasible.
    We do not expect this interim final rule to result in a diversion
from railroads to trucks. For the movements subject to this rule,
transportation and distribution patterns, with associated
infrastructure, tend to be well-established. For example, the vast
majority of PIH offerors ship by rail; indeed, many do not have the
infrastructure (loading racks, product transfer facilities) necessary
to utilize trucks for such transportation. Moreover, the current fleet
of cargo tank motor vehicles is insufficient to handle a significant
shift of PIH cargoes from rail to highway--for example, there are only
85 cargo tank motor vehicles used for the transportation of chlorine.
Because it takes about four tank trucks to haul the amount of product
that can be moved in a rail tank car, the industry would have to build
many more trucks to accommodate a shift in transportation from rail to
highway, necessitating a significant expansion in current tank truck
manufacturing capacity. In addition, because it takes four trucks to
transport the same amount of product as a single rail tank car, it
generally is only cost-effective to utilize trucks for relatively
limited distances. A farm cooperative or agricultural products
distributor, for example, typically receives large quantities of
anhydrous ammonia by rail car and offloads the material into storage
tanks for subsequent truck movement to local customers.
    Changing these established transportation patterns would require
substantial investment in new capacity and infrastructure, vastly
exceeding the costs of complying with the interim final rule. Under
these circumstances, we do not expect any shift in transportation mode
as a result of implementation of this interim final rule. We note in
this regard that no commenters raised this issue in their discussions
of the potential impacts of the proposals in the NPRM. Overall
transportation costs should not substantially increase because of this
interim final rule.
    Estimating the security benefits of the new requirements is
challenging. Accident causation probabilities can be estimated based on
accident histories in a way that the probability of a criminal or
terrorist act cannot. The threat of an attack is virtually impossible
to assess from a quantitative standpoint. It is undeniable that
hazardous materials in transportation are a possible target of
terrorism or sabotage. The probability that hazardous materials will be
targeted is, at best, a guess. Similarly, the projected outcome of a
terrorist attack cannot be precisely estimated. It is assumed choices
will be made to maximize consequences and damages. Scenarios can be
envisioned in which hazardous materials could be used to inflict
hundreds or even thousands of fatalities. To date, there have been no
known or specific threats against freight railroads, rail cars, or tank
cars, which makes all of these elements even more difficult to
quantify. Security plans lower risk through the identification and
mitigation of vulnerabilities. Therefore, rail carriers and the public
benefit from the development and implementation of security plans.
However, forecasting the benefits likely to result from plan
implementation requires the exercise of judgment and necessarily
includes subjective elements.
    The major benefits expected to result from this interim final rule
relate to enhanced safety and security of rail shipments of hazardous
materials. We estimated the costs of a major accident or terrorist
incident by calculating the costs of the January 2005 Graniteville,
South Carolina, accident. This accident killed nine people and injured
554 more. In addition, the accident necessitated the evacuation of more
than 5,400 people. Total costs associated with the Graniteville
accident are almost $126 million. The consequences of an intentional
release by a criminal or terrorist action, particularly in an urban
area, likely would be more severe than the Graniteville accident
because an intentional act would be designed to inflict the most damage
possible. The requirements of the interim final rule are intended to
reduce the safety and security risks associated with the transportation
of the specified hazardous materials. If the measures proposed in this
interim final rule prevent just one major accident or intentional
release over a twenty-year period, the resulting benefits would more
than justify the potential compliance costs; we believe that they
could.

C. Executive Order 13132

    This interim final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Orders 13132
(``Federalism'') and 13175 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments''). This interim final rule would not have any
direct effect on the states, their political subdivisions, or Indian
tribes; it would not impose any compliance costs; and it would not
affect the relationships between the national government and the
states, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes, or the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    Section VI.K above contains a discussion of PHMSA's conclusion that
the decision in the March 25, 2003 final rule in HM-232 to leave to
rail carriers the specifics of routing rail shipments of hazardous
materials preempts all states, their political subdivisions, and Indian
tribes from prescribing or restricting routes for rail shipments of
hazardous materials, under Federal hazardous material transportation
law (49 U.S.C. 5125) and the Federal Rail Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 20106).
In that section, we also discuss the comments on the proposed language
in the NPRM concerning the preemptive effect of HM-232 and this interim
final rule and explain the reasons for adopting revised language in 49
CFR 172.822.

D. Executive Order 13175

    We analyzed this interim final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria prescribed in Executive Order 13175
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'').
Because this interim final rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect tribes, and does not impose substantial and direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply; thus, a tribal
summary impact statement is not required.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies

    To ensure potential impacts of rules on small entities are properly
considered, we developed this interim final rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of

Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's procedures and
policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to review
regulations to assess their impact on small entities. An agency must
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and
certifies that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) permits agencies to alter
the SBA definitions for small businesses upon consultation with SBA and
in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to this authority, FRA
published a final rule (68 FR 24891; May 9, 2003) defining a ``small
entity'' as a railroad meeting the line haulage revenue requirements of
a Class III railroad. Currently, the revenue requirements are $20
million or less in annual operating revenue. This is the definition
used by PHMSA to determine the potential impact of this interim final
rule on small entities.
    Not all small railroads will be required to comply with the
provisions of this interim final rule. Most of the 510 small railroads
transport no hazardous materials. PHMSA and FRA estimate there are
about 100 small railroads--or 20% of all small railroads--that could
potentially be affected by this interim final rule. Cost impacts for
small railroads will result primarily from the costs for data
collection and analysis. PHMSA estimates the cost to each small
railroad to be $2,776.70 per year over 20 years, discounted at 7%.
Based on small railroads' annual operating revenues, these costs are
not significant. Small railroads' annual operating revenues range from
$3 million to $20 million. Thus, the costs imposed by the interim final
rule amount to between 0.01% and 0.09% of a small railroad's annual
operating revenue.
    This interim final rule will not have a noticeable impact on the
competitive position of the affected small railroads or on the small
entity segment of the railroad industry as a whole. The small entity
segment of the railroad industry faces little in the way of intramodal
competition. Small railroads generally serve as ''feeders'' to the
larger railroads, collecting carloads in smaller numbers and at lower
densities than would be economical for the larger railroads. They
transport those cars over relatively short distances and then turn them
over to the larger systems, which transport them relatively long
distances to their ultimate destination, or for handoff back to a
smaller railroad for final delivery. Although their relative interests
do not always coincide, the relationship between the large and small
entity segments of the railroad industry is more supportive and co-
dependent than competitive.
    It is also rare for small railroads to compete with each other. As
mentioned above, small railroads generally serve smaller, lower density
markets and customers. They tend to operate in markets where there is
not enough traffic to attract or sustain rail competition, large or
small. Given the significant capital investment required (to acquire
right-of-way, build track, purchase fleet, etc.), new entry in the
railroad industry is especially rare. Thus, even to the extent the
interim final rule may have an economic impact, it should have no
impact on the intramodal competitive position of small railroads.
    We did not receive any comments in opposition to our conclusion
that this rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Based on the lack of opposing
comments, the foregoing discussion, and more detailed analysis in the
regulatory evaluation for this interim final rule, I certify that the
provisions of this interim final rule, if adopted, will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule may result in an increase in annual burden
and costs under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number
2137-0612. PHMSA currently has an approved information collection under
OMB Control No. 2137-0612, ``Hazardous Materials Security Plans''
expiring May 31, 2009.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to
respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB
and displays a valid OMB control number. 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that
PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an
opportunity to comment on information and recordkeeping requests.
    This notice identifies a revised information collection request
that PHMSA submitted to OMB for approval based on the requirements in
this rule. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect changes in
this proposed rule. We estimate that the total information collection
and recordkeeping burden for the current requirements and as specified
in this rule would be as follows:

OMB No. 2137-0612, ``Hazardous Materials Security Plans''

    First Year Annual Burden:
    Total Annual Number of Respondents: 139.
    Total Annual Responses: 139.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,469.
    Total Annual Burden Cost: $3,130,859.27.
    Subsequent Year Burden:
    Total Annual Number of Respondents: 139.
    Total Annual Responses: 139.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,677.
    Total Annual Burden Cost: $831,971.91.
    Direct your requests for a copy of the information collection to
Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), East
Building, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast Washington DC, 20590, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This interim final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$120.7 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative to achieve the objective of the rule.

I. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375,
requires that federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine
whether the action will have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
order federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering:
(1) The need for the proposed action; (2) alternatives to the proposed
action; (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and
alternatives; and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the
consideration process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b).

    In accordance with the CEQ regulations, we completed an
environmental assessment for this interim final rule that considers the
potential environmental impacts of three alternatives. The
environmental assessment is available for review in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
    The provisions of this interim final rule build on current
regulatory requirements to enhance the transportation safety and
security of shipments of hazardous materials transported by rail,
thereby reducing the risks of an accidental or intentional release of
hazardous materials and consequent environmental damage. The net
environmental impact, therefore, will be moderately positive. There are
no significant environmental impacts associated with this interim final
rule.

J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you
may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 172

    Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 174

    Hazardous materials transportation, Rail carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, we are amending title 49 Chapter I,
Subchapter C, as follows:

PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.53.

0
2. Revise the title of subpart I of part 172 to read as follows:

Subpart I--Safety and Security Plans

0
3. Add new Sec.  172.820, to read as follows:

Sec.  172.820  Additional planning requirements for transportation by
rail.

    (a) General. Each rail carrier transporting in commerce one or more
of the following materials is subject to the additional safety and
security planning requirements of this section:
    (1) More than 2,268 kg (5,000 lbs) in a single carload of a
Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 explosive;
    (2) A bulk quantity of a material poisonous by inhalation, as
defined in Sec.  171.8 of this subchapter (including anhydrous
ammonia); or
    (3) A highway route-controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive)
material, as defined in Sec.  173.403 of this subchapter.
    (b) Commodity data. Not later than 90 days after the end of each
calendar year, a rail carrier must compile commodity data for the
previous calendar year for the materials listed in paragraph (a) of
this section, except that for calendar year 2008, data may be compiled
for the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2008. The following
stipulations apply to data collected:
    (1) Commodity data must be collected by route, a line segment or
series of line segments as aggregated by the rail carrier. Within the
rail carrier selected route, the commodity data must identify the
geographic location of the route and the total number of shipments by
UN identification number for the materials specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
    (2) A carrier may compile commodity data, by UN number, for all
Class 7 materials transported (instead of only highway route controlled
quantities of Class 7 materials) and for all Division 6.1 materials
transported (instead of only Division 6.1 poison inhalation hazard
materials).
    (c) Rail transportation route analysis. For each calendar year, a
rail carrier must analyze the safety and security risks for the
transportation route(s), identified in the commodity data collected as
required by paragraph (b) of this section. The route analysis must be
in writing and include the factors contained in Appendix D to this
part, as applicable.
    (1) The safety and security risks present must be analyzed for the
route and railroad facilities along the route. For purposes of this
section, railroad facilities are railroad property including, but not
limited to, classification and switching yards, storage facilities, and
non-private sidings. This term does not include an offeror's facility,
private track, private siding, or consignee's facility.
    (2) In performing the analysis required by this paragraph, the rail
carrier must seek relevant information from state, local, and tribal
officials, as appropriate, regarding security risks to high-consequence
targets along or in proximity to the route(s) utilized. If a rail
carrier is unable to acquire relevant information from state, local, or
tribal officials, then it must document that in its analysis. For
purposes of this section, a high-consequence target means a property,
natural resource, location, area, or other target designated by the
Secretary of Homeland Security that is a viable terrorist target of
national significance, the attack of which by railroad could result in
catastrophic loss of life, significant damage to national security or
defense capabilities, or national economic harm.
    (d) Alternative route analysis. (1) For each calendar year, a rail
carrier must identify practicable alternative routes over which it has
authority to operate, if an alternative exists, as an alternative route
for each of the transportation routes analyzed in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section. The carrier must perform a safety and
security risk assessment of the alternative routes for comparison to
the route analysis prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. The
alternative route analysis must be in writing and include the criteria
in Appendix D of this part. When determining practicable alternative
routes, the rail carrier must consider the use of interchange
agreements with other rail carriers. The written alternative route
analysis must also consider:
    (i) Safety and security risks presented by use of the alternative
route(s);
    (ii) Comparison of the safety and security risks of the
alternative(s) to the primary rail transportation route, including the
risk of a catastrophic release from a shipment traveling along each
route;
    (iii) Any remediation or mitigation measures implemented on the
primary or alternative route(s); and
    (iv) Potential economic effects of using the alternative route(s),
including but not limited to the economics of the commodity, route, and
customer relationship.
    (2) In performing the analysis required by this paragraph, the rail
carrier should seek relevant information from state, local, and tribal
officials, as appropriate, regarding security risks to high-consequence
targets along or in proximity to the alternative routes. If a rail
carrier determines that it is not

appropriate to seek such relevant information, then it must explain its
reasoning for that determination in its analysis.
    (e) Route Selection. A carrier must use the analysis performed as
required by paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section to select the route
to be used in moving the materials covered by paragraph (a) of this
section. The carrier must consider any remediation measures implemented
on a route. Using this process, the carrier must at least annually
review and select the practicable route posing the least overall safety
and security risk. The rail carrier must retain in writing all route
review and selection decision documentation and restrict the
distribution, disclosure, and availability of information contained in
the route analysis to covered persons with a need-to-know, as described
in parts 15 and 1520 of this title. This documentation should include,
but is not limited to, comparative analyses, charts, graphics or rail
system maps.
    (f) Completion of route analyses. (1) The initial rail
transportation route analysis, alternative route analysis, and route
selection process required under paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section must be completed by September 1, 2009. In subsequent years,
the rail transportation route analysis, alternative route analysis, and
route selection process required under paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of
this section must be completed no later than the end of the calendar
year following the year to which the analyses apply. The initial
analysis and route selection determinations required under paragraphs
(c), (d), and (e) of this section must include a comprehensive review
of the entire system. Subsequent analyses and route selection
determinations required under paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section must include a comprehensive, system-wide review of all
operational changes, infrastructure modifications, traffic adjustments,
changes in the nature of high-consequence targets located along, or in
proximity to, the route, and any other changes affecting the safety or
security of the movements of the materials specified in paragraph (a)
of this section that were implemented during the calendar year.
    (2) A rail carrier need not perform a rail transportation route
analysis, alternative route analysis, or route selection process for
any hazardous material other than the materials specified in paragraph
(a) of this section.
    (g) Storage, delays in transit, and notification. With respect to
the materials specified in paragraph (a) of this section, each rail
carrier must ensure the safety and security plan it develops and
implements under this subpart includes all of the following:
    (1) A procedure under which the rail carrier must formally consult
with offerors and consignees in order to develop measures for
minimizing, to the extent practicable, the duration of any storage of
the material incidental to movement (see Sec.  171.8 of this
subchapter). Such measures should be implemented with mutual consent of
all parties.
    (2) Measures to prevent unauthorized access to the materials during
storage or delays in transit.
    (3) Measures to mitigate risk to population centers associated with
in-transit storage.
    (4) Measures to be taken in the event of an escalating threat level
for materials stored in transit.
    (5) Procedures for notifying the consignee in the event of a
significant delay during transportation; such notification must be
completed within 48 hours after the carrier has identified the delay
and must include a revised delivery schedule. A significant delay is
one that compromises the safety or security of the hazardous material
or delays the shipment beyond its normal expected or planned shipping
time. Notification should be made by a method acceptable to both the
rail carrier and consignee.
    (h) Recordkeeping. (1) Each rail carrier must maintain a copy of
the information specified in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of
this section (or an electronic image thereof) that is accessible at, or
through, its principal place of business and must make the record
available upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an
authorized official of the Department of Transportation or the
Department of Homeland Security. Records must be retained for a minimum
of two years.
    (2) Each rail carrier must restrict the distribution, disclosure,
and availability of information collected or developed in accordance
with paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section to covered
persons with a need-to-know, as described in parts 15 and 1520 of this
title.
    (i) Compliance and enforcement. If the carrier's route selection
documentation and underlying analyses are found to be deficient, the
carrier may be required to revise the analyses or make changes in route
selection. If DOT finds that a chosen route is not the safest and most
secure practicable route available, the FRA Associate Administrator for
Safety, in consultation with TSA, may require the use of an alternative
route. Prior to making such a determination, FRA and TSA will consult
with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) regarding whether the
contemplated alternative route(s) would be economically practicable.

0
4. Add new Sec.  172.822 to read as follows:

Sec.  172.822  Limitation on actions by states, local governments, and
Indian tribes.

    A law, order, or other directive of a state, political subdivision
of a state, or an Indian tribe that designates, limits, or prohibits
the use of a rail line (other than a rail line owned by a state,
political subdivision of a state, or an Indian tribe) for the
transportation of hazardous materials, including, but not limited to,
the materials specified in Sec.  172.820(a), is preempted. 49 U.S.C.
5125, 20106.

0
5. Add new Appendix D to part 172, to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 172--Rail Risk Analysis Factors

    A. This appendix sets forth the minimum criteria that must be
considered by rail carriers when performing the safety and security
risk analyses required by Sec.  172.820. The risk analysis to be
performed may be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of
both. In addition to clearly identifying the hazardous material(s)
and route(s) being analyzed, the analysis must provide a thorough
description of the threats, identified vulnerabilities, and
mitigation measures implemented to address identified
vulnerabilities.
    B. In evaluating the safety and security of hazardous materials
transport, selection of the route for transportation is critical.
For the purpose of rail transportation route analysis, as specified
in Sec.  172.820(c) and (d), a route may include the point where the
carrier takes possession of the material and all track and railroad
facilities up to the point where the material is relinquished to
another entity. Railroad facilities are railroad property including,
but not limited to, classification and switching yards, storage
facilities, and non-private sidings; however, they do not include an
offeror's facility, private track, private siding, or consignee's
facility. Each rail carrier must use best efforts to communicate
with its shippers, consignees, and interlining partners to ensure
the safety and security of shipments during all stages of
transportation.
    C. Because of the varying operating environments and
interconnected nature of the rail system, each carrier must select
and document the analysis method/model used and identify the routes
to be analyzed.
    D. The safety and security risk analysis must consider current
data and information as well as changes that may reasonably be
anticipated to occur during the analysis year. Factors to be
considered in the performance of this safety and security risk
analysis include:
    1. Volume of hazardous material transported;

    2. Rail traffic density;
    3. Trip length for route;
    4. Presence and characteristics of railroad facilities;
    5. Track type, class, and maintenance schedule;
    6. Track grade and curvature;
    7. Presence or absence of signals and train control systems
along the route (``dark'' versus signaled territory);
    8. Presence or absence of wayside hazard detectors;
    9. Number and types of grade crossings;
    10. Single versus double track territory;
    11. Frequency and location of track turnouts;
    12. Proximity to iconic targets;
    13. Environmentally sensitive or significant areas;
    14. Population density along the route;
    15. Venues along the route (stations, events, places of
congregation);
    16. Emergency response capability along the route;
    17. Areas of high consequence along the route, including high
consequence targets as defined in Sec.  172.820(c);
    18. Presence of passenger traffic along route (shared track);
    19. Speed of train operations;
    20. Proximity to en-route storage or repair facilities;
    21. Known threats, including any non-public threat scenarios
provided by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of
Transportation for carrier use in the development of the route
assessment;
    22. Measures in place to address apparent safety and security
risks;
    23. Availability of practicable alternative routes;
    24. Past incidents;
    25. Overall times in transit;
    26. Training and skill level of crews; and
    27. Impact on rail network traffic and congestion.

PART 174--CARRIAGE BY RAIL

0
6. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 49 CFR 1.53.

0
7. Revise Sec.  174.9 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.9  Safety and security inspection and acceptance.

    (a) At each location where a hazardous material is accepted for
transportation or placed in a train, the carrier must inspect each rail
car containing the hazardous material, at ground level, for required
markings, labels, placards, securement of closures, and leakage. These
inspections may be performed in conjunction with inspections required
under parts 215 and 232 of this title.
    (b) For each rail car containing an amount of hazardous material
requiring placarding in accordance with Sec.  172.504 of this
subchapter, the carrier must visually inspect the rail car at ground
level for signs of tampering, including closures and seals, for
suspicious items or items that do not belong, and for other signs that
the security of the car may have been compromised, including the
presence of an improvised explosive device. As used in this section, an
improvised explosive device is a device fabricated in an improvised
manner incorporating explosives or destructive, lethal, noxious,
pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals in its design, and generally
includes a power supply, a switch or timer, and a detonator or
initiator. The carrier should be particularly attentive to signs that
security may have been compromised on rail cars transporting materials
covered by Sec.  172.820 of this subchapter, rail carload quantities of
ammonium nitrate or ammonium nitrate mixtures in solid form, or
hazardous materials of interest based on current threat information.
    (c) If a rail car does not conform to the safety and security
requirements of this subchapter, the carrier may not forward or
transport the rail car until the deficiencies are corrected or the car
is approved for movement in accordance with Sec.  174.50.
    (d) Where an indication of tampering or suspicious item is found, a
carrier must take appropriate action to ensure the security of the rail
car and its contents have not been compromised before accepting the
rail car for further movement. If the carrier determines that the
security of the rail car has been compromised, the carrier must take
action, in conformance with its existing security plan (see subpart I
of part 172 of this subchapter) to address the security issues before
forwarding the rail car for further movement.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 11, 2008, under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Carl T. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-8185 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 36802-36803]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-154]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60334; File No. SR-ISE-2009-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fee Changes

July 17, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 1, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 its Schedule of Fees. 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 purpose of the rule change is to charge the same execution fees
for all customer orders, i.e., for all orders that are not for the
account of a broker-dealer. Currently, there are two sub-

categories of customer orders for which the Exchange charges broker-
dealer execution fees: Voluntary Professional orders; \3\ and
Professional Orders.\4\ Each of these order categories is also treated
the same as broker-dealer orders for the purposes of specified Exchange
execution priority rules. The ISE currently is the only market center
that has these order categories for non-broker-dealer orders, and
charging broker-dealer execution fees makes it more costly to execute
these orders on the ISE as compared to the other options exchanges.
Therefore, in order to remain competitive, the Exchange proposes to
amend its fee schedule \5\ and rules \6\ so that all non-broker-dealer
orders are subject to the same execution fee. This fee change will
effectively result in a fee decrease for the execution of these
orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Voluntary Professional orders are orders for a customer that
has elected to be treated in the same manner as a broker-dealer in
securities for purposes of specified execution priority rules and
with respect to the ISE fee schedule. ISE Rule 100(a)(37A).
    \4\ Earlier this year the SEC approved an ISE rule change to
distinguish between priority customers and professional customers
for purposes of specified execution priority rules and with respect
to the ISE fee schedule. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287
(Jan. 23, 2009), 74 FR 5694 (Jan. 30, 2009) (``Professional Order
Filing''). Professional Orders are orders for the account of a non-
broker-dealer that enters more than 390 orders per day on average
during a month during a calendar quarter. To assure member firms are
given sufficient time to implement any necessary systems changes,
this rule change is being implemented in two stages: (1) Members are
required to start measuring the number of orders their customers
enter on average per day during the third quarter 2009; and (2)
members are required to start identifying professional customer
orders entered on the ISE at the beginning of the fourth quarter
2009.
    \5\ The Exchange adopted definitional changes to its fee
schedule that resulted in Professional Orders being charged the same
fees as broker-dealer orders. However, because the rule change is
being phased-in, and to avoid confusion in the interim, the ISE fee
schedule posted on the Exchange's Web site does not yet reflect
these definitional changes.
    \6\ The imposition of broker-dealer fees is imbedded in the
definition of a Voluntary Professional rather than being separately
identified on the ISE fee schedule. Therefore, the Exchange proposes
to modify the definition of Voluntary Professional in order to
accomplish the fee change.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that Voluntary Professional orders and
Professional Orders currently are not subject to the Exchange's
cancellation fee. The Exchange is not proposing to change this
aspect of the fee schedule. Such orders will not be subject to the
cancellation fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities. In particular, this proposed
rule change would lower fees for the execution of Voluntary
Professional orders and Professional 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 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) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2009-47 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-2009-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-2009-47 and
should be submitted on or before August 14, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17635 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P