[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21340-21343]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08418]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71915; File No. SR-ISE Gemini-2014-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Schedule of Fees

April 9, 2014.
    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 April 1, 2014 ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE
Gemini'') 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

    ISE Gemini is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web
site at 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The 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 proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of
Fees. The Exchange's Schedule of Fees has separate tables for fees
applicable to Standard Options and Mini Options. The Exchange notes
that while the discussion below relates to fees for Standard Options,
the fees for Mini Options, which are not discussed below, are and shall
continue to be 1/10th of the fees for Standard Options.
1. Qualifying Tier Thresholds
    ISE Gemini currently provides volume-based maker rebates and
charges volume-based taker fees to Market Maker \3\ and Priority
Customer \4\ orders in four tiers based on a member's average daily
volume (``ADV'') in the following categories: (i) Total Affiliated
Member ADV,\5\ (ii) Priority Customer Maker ADV,\6\ and (iii) Total
Affiliated Member ADV with a Minimum Priority Customer Maker ADV, as
shown in the table below. The highest tier threshold attained by any
method below applies retroactively in a given month to all eligible
traded contracts and applies to all eligible market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
    \4\ 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).
    \5\ The Total Affiliated Member ADV category includes all volume
in all symbols and order types, including both maker and taker
volume and volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation,
and QCC mechanisms.
    \6\ The Priority Customer Maker ADV category includes all
Priority Customer volume that adds liquidity in all symbols.

                                                Table 1--Current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total affiliated member  ADV/
             Tier                  Total affiliated       Priority customer     minimum priority  customer maker
                                      member ADV              maker ADV                       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+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As outlined in the following table, the Exchange now proposes to
decrease the thresholds for achieving the four current volume tiers,
and to add an additional fifth tier for members that execute either (i)
a Total Affiliated Member ADV of at least 350,000 contracts, (ii) a
Priority Customer Maker ADV of at least 125,000 contracts, or (iii) a
Total Affiliated Member ADV of at least 250,000 contracts with a
Minimum Priority Customer Maker ADV of at least 85,000 contracts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ New maker rebates and taker fees for members that achieve
Tier 5 are described in Sections 2 and 3 below. Where not otherwise
noted in this proposed rule change, Tier 5 fees will be introduced
at the applicable Tier 4 rate.

                                                Table 1--Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total affiliated member  ADV/
             Tier                  Total affiliated       Priority customer     minimum priority  customer maker
                                      member ADV              maker ADV                       ADV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................  0-49,999                0-19,999               0-39,999/0+
Tier 2........................  50,000-124,999          20,000-49,999          40,000-99,999/15,000+
Tier 3........................  125,000-249,999         50,000-84,999          100,000-174,999/40,000+
Tier 4........................  250,000-349,999         85,000-124,999         175,000-249,999/65,000+
Tier 5........................  350,000+                125,000+               250,000+/85,000+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to apply these tiers to fees for
all market participants when taking liquidity on ISE Gemini. Maker
rebates will continue to be based on Table 1 for Market Maker or
Priority Customer orders, and Table 2 for Firm Proprietary/Broker-
Dealer or Professional Customer orders.
2. Maker Rebates for Market Maker and Priority Customer Orders
    Currently, the Exchange provides maker rebates in Penny Symbols and
SPY to Market Maker orders as follows: $0.30 per contract (Tier 1),
$0.32 per contract (Tier 2), $0.34 per contract (Tier 3), and $0.38 per
contract (Tier 4).\8\ The Exchange now proposes to decrease the Tier 4
maker rebate for Market Maker orders in these symbols to $0.37 per
contract. Market Makers that meet the proposed volume requirements for
the new Tier 5 will receive the higher $0.38 per contract rebate
currently offered for Tier 4 Market Maker orders in Penny Symbols. The
Exchange will no longer offer an increased rebate for SPY to Market
Makers that achieve the highest volume tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This rebate is presently $0.40 per contract for SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Non-Penny Symbols the maker rebate for Market Maker orders is
currently $0.40 per contract (Tier 1), $0.42 per contract (Tier 2),
$0.44 per contract (Tier 3), and $0.47 per contract (Tier 4). As
proposed, these rates will remain unchanged. Market Makers that achieve
the new Tier 5 described above, however, will be entitled to a higher
maker rebate of $0.49 per contract for orders in Non-Penny Symbols.
    The Exchange also provides maker rebates in Penny Symbols and SPY
to Priority Customer orders as follows: $0.25 per contract (Tier 1),
$0.40 per contract (Tier 2), $0.45 per contract (Tier 3), and $0.48 per
contract (Tier 4). The Exchange now proposes to increase the Tier 3
maker rebate for Priority Customer orders in these symbols to $0.46 per
contract. In addition, Priority Customer orders executed by members
that achieve the new Tier 5 will receive a higher maker rebate of $0.50
per contract.
    For Non-Penny Symbols the maker rebate for Priority Customer orders
is currently $0.75 per contract (Tier 1), $0.80 per contract (Tier 2),
$0.82 per contract (Tier 3), and $0.85 per contract (Tier 4). The
Exchange now proposes to offer the higher maker rebate of $0.85 per
contract to Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols for members
that achieve Tier 3, Tier 4, or Tier 5.
3. Taker and Response Fees for Penny Symbols and SPY
    Currently, all Market Maker, Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker,\9\ Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer,\10\ and Professional Customer \11\ orders in
Penny Symbols and SPY pay a taker fee and a fee for responses to
Crossing Orders of $0.48 per contract. The Exchange proposes to
increase the taker fee for each of these market participants to $0.49
per contract for current Tiers 1 through 4. For members that meet the
volume requirements for the new Tier 5, Market Maker and Non-ISE Gemini
Market Maker orders will pay a discounted rate of $0.48 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the response fee, which is not
based on tiers, to $0.49 per contract for all non-Priority Customer
orders. As will remain the case, Priority Customer orders in these
symbols pay a taker fee of $0.45 per contract for Tier 1 and $0.44 per
contract for Tier 2 or higher, and a flat response fee of $0.45 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker'' 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.
    \10\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account. This proposed rule change
modifies the definition of a ``Broker-Dealer'' order as discussed in
subsection 5 below.
    \11\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Non-Substantive Layout Changes
    Currently the Schedule of Fees has a single taker fee column for
Tiers 2, 3, and 4. In order to make the fee schedule easier to read
with the addition of new tier 5 for Market Maker, Non-ISE Gemini Market
Maker, and Priority Customer orders, the Exchange proposes to break
this into three separate columns for each tier as is currently done for
maker rebates.\12\ The Exchange is not introducing any differentiation
between taker fees charged for Tiers 2 through 4 at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In addition, the Exchange notes that its maker rebate
columns are each labeled ``maker rebate/fee.'' The Exchange proposes
to take out the reference to fees from the header to these columns,
which indicate only applicable rebate numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Broker Dealer Definition
    A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is presently defined as an order
submitted by a member for a non-member broker-dealer account. In some
instances, however, a member may submit orders for the account of
another broker-dealer that is also an ISE Gemini member. Currently
these orders would not fall into any of the market participant
categories on the fee schedule. The Exchange believes that these orders
should also be marked as Broker-Dealer orders, and therefore proposes
to amend the definition of a Broker-Dealer order to include all orders
submitted by a member for a broker-dealer account that is not its own
proprietary account.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Qualifying Tier Thresholds
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly

discriminatory to decrease the volume thresholds for achieving the four
current tiers for Market Maker and Priority Customer orders as this
proposed change is designed to attract additional volume to ISE Gemini.
The Exchange already provides volume-based tiered maker rebates and
taker fees for these orders, and believes that lowering the applicable
volume thresholds to more attainable levels will incentivize members to
send additional order flow to ISE Gemini in order to receive higher
rebates and lower fees. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to introduce a
new volume tier, and to apply the volume tiers described in this filing
to taker fees for all market participants, as the Exchange is providing
additional incentives for members that bring substantial volume to ISE
Gemini.
2. Maker Rebates for Market Maker and Priority Customer Orders
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the maker
rebates provided to Market Maker and Priority Customer orders are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed
rebates are still within the range of rebates provided by other maker/
taker options exchanges. The Exchange believes that providing higher
rebates for Priority Customer orders, and for Priority Customer and
Market Maker orders for members that meet the volume requirements for
the new Tier 5, attracts that order flow to ISE Gemini and thereby
creates liquidity to the benefit of all market participants who trade
on the Exchange. Furthermore, while the Exchange is decreasing the
maker rebate currently provided to certain Market Maker orders, it is
also decreasing the volume thresholds required to achieve those rebates
as described above. The Exchange believes that the combination of maker
rebate rate changes, lower volume thresholds, and the addition of a
fifth tier will encourage greater participation from Market Makers and
Priority Customers on ISE Gemini.
3. Taker and Response Fees for Penny Symbols and SPY
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to increase the taker and response fees for
Market Maker, Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-
Dealer, and Professional Customer orders in Penny Symbols and SPY as
these fees are within the range of fees currently charged by other
maker/taker options exchanges. The Exchange further believes that it is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to offer members
that achieve new Tier 5 lower taker fees for their Market Maker and
Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker orders. As described above, this filing
introduces a new tier that applies to orders executed by members that
bring substantial volume to ISE Gemini. By offering discounted taker
fees in these symbols for members that achieve the new tier, the
Exchange is providing an incentive for these members to bring
additional order flow to ISE Gemini, which will ultimately create
liquidity to the benefit of all market participants who trade on the
Exchange. The Exchange also notes that while it is not proposing
similar fee discounts for Priority Customer orders, these orders are
entitled to a rate that is lower than the rate charged to other market
participants, and are already subject to a tiered discount for members
that achieve Tier 2 or higher. The Exchange does not believe that it is
unfairly discriminatory to limit the proposed taker fee discount to
Market Maker and Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker orders as volume from
other market participants is already sufficiently incented by the
current fees and rebates offered. Moreover, with the introduction of
tiered pricing that extends to Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker orders all
market participants that trade on ISE Gemini will now be eligible for
some form of volume based fees or rebates.
4. Non-Substantive Layout Changes
    The Exchange believes that the taker fee layout changes are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as these are
non-substantive changes intended to make the Schedule of Fees more
transparent to members and investors.
5. Broker Dealer Definition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the definition
of a Broker-Dealer order is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory as this is a technical change intended to clarify how
members should mark their orders. With this clarification, orders from
a member broker-dealer executed through another member will be properly
marked as Broker-Dealer orders, while orders submitted by a member for
its own proprietary account will continue to be marked Firm
Proprietary. This change is necessary to eliminate member confusion, as
the current definitions of market participant types do not account for
the scenario described above.
    The Exchange notes that it has determined to charge fees and
provide rebates in Mini Options at a rate that is 1/10th the rate of
fees and rebates the Exchange 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 fees and 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 fees and rebates for Mini
Options that are 1/10th of those applicable to Standard Options.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\15\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on inter-market or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will promote
competition as they are designed to allow ISE Gemini to better compete
for order flow. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct their order flow to
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,\16\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\17\ because it establishes a

due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE Gemini.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 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 No. SR-ISE Gemini-2014-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2014-12. 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 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2014-12 and
should be submitted by May 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08418 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 35840]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation
Maintenance Technical Schools

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 14, 2014, vol. 79, no. 71, page 20963. The
information collected is needed to determine applicant eligibility and
compliance for certification of Civil Aviation mechanics and operation
of aviation mechanic schools.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0040.
    Title: Aviation Maintenance Technical Schools.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8310-6.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The collection of information is necessary to ensure
that Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools meet the minimum
requirements for procedures and curriculum set forth by the FAA in FAR
Part 147. Applicants submit FAA Form 8310-6, Aviation Maintenance
Technician School certificate and Ratings Application, to the
appropriate FAA district office for review. If the application
(including supporting documentation) is satisfactory, an on-site
inspection is conducted. When all FAR Part 147 requirements have been
met, an aviation maintenance technician school certificate with
appropriate ratings is issued.
    Respondents: Approximately 174 representatives of aviation
maintenance technician schools.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3.17 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 66,134 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-14688 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 29504-29507]
[DOCID:fr21my08-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410; FRL-8568-5]

Proposed Approval of the Central Characterization Project's
Remote-Handled Waste Characterization Program at Savannah River Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or we) is announcing
the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 45 days on, the
proposed approval of the radioactive, remote-handled (RH), transuranic
(TRU) waste characterization program implemented by the Central
Characterization Project (CCP) at Savannah River Site (SRS). This
waste, which originated from the Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL), is
intended for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico.
    In accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA evaluated the
characterization of RH TRU debris waste from SRS-CCP during a baseline
inspection (and follow-up inspections) conducted the weeks of July 17-
19, 2007, July 31--August 2, 2007, and December 4-5, 2007. Using the
systems and processes developed as part of the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE's) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) program to characterize
RH TRU waste, EPA verified whether DOE could adequately characterize RH
TRU waste consistent with the Compliance Criteria. The results of EPA's
evaluation of the SRS-CCP program and its proposed approval are
described in the Agency's inspection report, which is available for
review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We will consider
public comments received on or before the due date mentioned in DATES.
    This notice summarizes the waste characterization processes
evaluated by EPA and EPA's proposed approval. As required by the 40 CFR
194.8, at the end of a 45-day comment period EPA will evaluate public
comments received, and if appropriate, finalize the reports responding
to the relevant public comments, and a final report and approval letter
to DOE.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0410, by one of the following methods:

     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0410. The Agency's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD--ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
Part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if hard
copies of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be
charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani Joglekar or Ed Feltcorn,
Radiation Protection Division, Center for Federal Regulations, Mail
Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).

     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    DOE is developing the WIPP, near Carlsbad in southeastern New
Mexico, as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive
waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub.
L. No. 102-579), as amended (Pub. L. No. 104-201), TRU waste consists
of materials that have atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives
greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100
nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of
the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the
production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and
sludges.
    TRU waste is itself divided into two categories, based on its level
of radioactivity. Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste accounts for about 97
percent of the volume of TRU waste currently destined for the WIPP. It
is packaged in 55-gallon metal drums or in metal boxes and can be
handled under controlled conditions without any shielding beyond the
container itself. The maximum radiation dose at the surface of a CH TRU
waste container is 200 millirems per hour. CH waste primarily emits
alpha particles that are easily shielded by a sheet of paper or the
outer layer of a person's skin.
    Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste emits more radiation than CH TRU
waste and must therefore be both handled and transported in shielded
casks. Surface radiation levels of unshielded containers of remote-
handled transuranic waste exceed 200 millirems per hour. RH waste
primarily emits gamma radiation, which is very penetrating and requires
concrete, lead, or steel to block it.
    On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification
decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR
27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's
radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B
and C.
    The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1)
prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from a site until
EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste
characterization requirements of Sec.  194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste
generator sites is described in Sec.  194.8 (revised July 2004).

    Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification Decision requires EPA to
conduct independent inspections at DOE's waste generator/storage sites
of their TRU waste characterization capabilities before approving their
program and the waste for disposal at the WIPP. EPA's inspection and
approval process gives EPA (a) discretion in establishing technical
priorities, (b) the ability to accommodate variation in the site's
waste characterization capabilities, and (c) flexibility in scheduling
site WC inspections.
    As described in section 194.8(b), EPA's baseline inspections
evaluate each WC process component (equipment, procedures, and
personnel training/experience) for its adequacy and appropriateness in
characterizing TRU waste destined for disposal at WIPP. During an
inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU
waste(s) and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and
tracking requirements under Sec.  194.24. A baseline inspection may
describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste
characterization processes [Sec.  194.8(b)(2)(iii)]. In addition, a
baseline inspection approval must specify what subsequent WC program
changes or expansion should be reported to EPA [Sec.  194.8(b)(4)]. The
Agency is required to assign Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) to the
reportable changes depending on their potential impact on data quality.
A T1 designation requires that the site must notify EPA of proposed
changes to the approved components of an individual WC process (such as
radioassay equipment or personnel), and EPA must also approve the
change before it can be implemented. A WC element with a T2 designation
allows the site to implement changes to the approved components of
individual WC processes (such as visual examination procedures) but
requires EPA notification. The Agency may choose to inspect the site to
evaluate technical adequacy before approval. EPA inspections conducted
to evaluate T1 or T2 changes are follow-up inspections under the
authority of Sec.  194.24(h). In addition to the follow-up inspections,
if warranted, EPA may opt to conduct continued compliance inspections
at TRU waste sites with a baseline approval under the authority of
Sec.  194.24(h).
    The site inspection and approval process outlined in Sec.  194.8
requires EPA to issue a Federal Register notice proposing the baseline
compliance decision, docket the inspection report for public review,
and seek public comment on the proposed decision for a period of 45
days. The report must describe the WC processes EPA inspected at the
site, as well as their compliance with Sec.  194.24 requirements.
    EPA previously issued a preliminary approval of DOE's general
framework for characterizing RH waste on March 26, 2004 (Docket A-98-
49, Item II-B2-21). This approval requires DOE to provide site-specific
RH waste characterization plans and characterization procedures for EPA
approval prior to implementing them for characterizing RH waste.

III. Proposed Baseline Compliance Decision

    EPA has performed a baseline inspection of RH TRU waste
characterization activities at SRS-CCP (EPA Inspection No. EPA-SRS-CCP-
RH-7.07-8). The purpose of EPA's inspection was to verify that the RH
waste characterization program implemented at SRS-CCP for
characterizing RH TRU, retrievably-stored, debris waste is adequate.
The waste characterized by the SRS-CCP is RH debris waste from the
demolition of a hot cell laboratory at Battelle Columbus Laboratory
(BCL) that was shipped to SRS for characterization prior to disposal at
WIPP. EPA evaluated whether this RH waste meets the regulatory
characterization requirements at 40 CFR 194.24.
    The inspection's sole focus was to evaluate the records that had
been assembled to document RH TRU waste characterization activities,
including recently performed modeling, interpretation, and additional
calculations based on previously generated measurement data for
Battelle Columbus Laboratory Demolition Project (BCLDP) RH debris Waste
Stream No. SR-RL-BCLDP.001. Like the RH debris waste in 16 canisters
from LANL that EPA approved in February 2008 (see Air Docket No. A-98-
49, II-A4-89), this is a discrete waste stream. There will be no
further waste generation and characterization activities relative to
this waste. This proposed approval, hence, is directed to a discrete
set of 87 drum liners within this RH debris waste stream that are
currently stored at SRS, as supported by the documentation the EPA
inspection team evaluated during this inspection.
    Although these wastes are currently stored at SRS, the waste
generation and characterization activities covered by this proposed
approval were performed at the BCLDP, as stated previously. This
proposed approval is limited to RH debris waste from BCLDP only. Note
that this is a retrospective approval of the RH debris waste from
BCLDP, and no additional RH debris waste from BCLDP remains to be
characterized for WIPP disposal. Any BCLDP-related RH waste that SRS-
CCP may characterize upon the approval of WC activities discussed in
this report will require EPA approval as a Tier 1 (T1) change. Upon
approval of the RH TRU waste characterization processes discussed in
this report, if SRS-CCP embarks on characterizing RH waste other than
that generated at BCLDP for WIPP disposal, a separate baseline
inspection and approval will be necessary. That is, any SRS RH waste
destined for WIPP disposal characterized by SRS-CCP or another program
remains subject to EPA's baseline inspection and approval.
    The purpose of the SRS-CCP RH WC inspection was to evaluate the
adequacy of the site's WC programs for 87 drum liners in a single RH
debris waste stream for disposal at WIPP. The 87 drum liners of RH
debris in this waste stream were generated from the decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) of the Building JN-1 Hot Cell Laboratory at the
Jefferson North facility, which operated from 1955 until D&D began in
1988, under the BCLDP. (See page 8 for additional details of the waste
generation in Section 8.0 of the inspection report found in EPA Docket
ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410.)
    The EPA inspection team identified one finding during the July 2007
inspection (see Attachment A of the inspection report found in EPA
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410). SRS-CCP revised specific documents to
address the finding and submitted them for EPA review following the
initial July inspection. The EPA inspection team reviewed the revised
documents and subsequently met with SRS-CCP personnel in December 2007
to discuss the changes to WC documents addressing the EPA finding and
examine additional objective evidence. Upon completing their reviews,
the EPA inspection team determined that the revised documents
adequately addressed all aspects of the EPA finding. Accordingly, EPA
has determined that the records documenting SRS-CCP's RH WC program
represented activities that were technically adequate and the finding
has been resolved. EPA, therefore, is proposing to approve the SRS-CCP
RH WC program for the 87 RH TRU drum liners in SRS RH Waste Stream No.
SR-RL-BCLDP.001 evaluated during this baseline inspection that is
described and documented in the accompanying baseline inspection
report. This approval includes the following:
    (1) The acceptable knowledge (AK) process for the 87 drum liners of
RH retrievably-stored TRU debris in the

waste stream designated Waste Stream No. SRS-RL-BCLDP.001 currently
stored at the TRU storage pads in the E Area of SRS.
    (2) The radiological characterization (RC) process using dose-to-
curie (DTC) and modeling-derived scaling factors, supported by
radionuclide data from the analysis of 69 swipe samples, for assigning
radionuclide values to 87 drum liners of RH retrievably-stored TRU
debris in one waste stream, designated as SRS-RL-BCLDP.001, that is
documented in CCP-AK-LANL-501, Revision 2, and detailed in the
inspection report found in EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410.
    (3) The visual examination (VE) process to identify Waste Material
Parameters and the physical form of the waste.
    (4) The WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) to submit data for
both characterization and certification to WWIS for RH TRU waste.
    (5) The attainment of pertinent Data Quality Objectives (DQOs).
    Since no additional WC activities are expected to occur relative to
the 87 drum liners of RH debris waste, no changes to the WC activities
evaluated during the baseline inspection are anticipated. EPA,
therefore, does not expect SRS-CCP to make additional revisions to the
documents that were reviewed as part of this inspection and proposed
approval limited to the WC processes specific to the 87 drum liners
evaluated during the July, August, and December 2007 inspections. In
the event that SRS-CCP makes changes to the WC components proposed for
approval or implements them to characterize additional waste from the
BCLDP activity (e.g., solids or soil/gravel) associated with D&D
activities at Building JN-1 at the Battelle Columbus Laboratory, EPA
will consider changes that have the potential to affect WC activities
to be Tier 1 (T1) changes, as stated above. The inspection report does
not list specific T1 or Tier 2 (T2) designations relative to these 87
waste liners and the WC components proposed for the approval at this
time.

IV. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report for Public Comment

    EPA has placed the report discussing the results of the Agency's
inspection of SRS-CCP in the public docket as described in ADDRESSES.
In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public 45 days to
comment on these documents. The Agency requests comments on the
proposed approval decision, as described in the inspection report. EPA
will accept public comment on this notice and supplemental information
as described in Section 1.B. above. EPA will not make a determination
of compliance before the 45-day comment period ends. At the end of the
public comment period, EPA will evaluate all relevant public comments
and revise the inspection report as necessary. If appropriate, the
Agency will then issue a final approval letter and inspection report,
both of which will be posted on the WIPP Web site.
    Information on the certification decision is filed in the official
EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in
Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in
Carlsbad, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The dockets in New
Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in
Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air Docket
since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.

    Dated: May 9, 2008.
Elizabeth Cotsworth,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
 [FR Doc. E8-11381 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32412]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0194]

Navigation Safety Advisory Council; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC). NAVSAC provides advice and
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime
collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road;
International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment,
routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to
navigation systems.

DATES: Applicants must submit a cover letter and resume on or before
July 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume via one
of the following methods:
     By mail: Mr. Mike Sollosi, Alternate Designated Federal
Officer (ADFO), Commandant (CG-NAV), U.S. Coast Guard 2100 2\ND\ Street
SW., STOP 7580, Washington, DC 20593-7580;
     By fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
     By email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Sollosi, the NAVSAC Alternate
Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax 202-
372-1991, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Burt Lahn, NAVSAC
coordinator, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NAVSAC is a federal advisory committee
authorized by Title 33 United States Code Section 2073 and chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 92-463; Title 5
U.S.C. App.). NAVSAC provides advice and recommendations to the
Secretary, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters
relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules
of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations
and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and
aids to navigation systems.
    NAVSAC is expected to meet at least twice each year, or more often
with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). All members
serve at their own expense and receive no salary from the Federal
Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided
for called meetings. The NAVSAC is comprised of not more than 21
members who shall have expertise in Inland and International vessel
navigation Rules of the Road, aids to maritime navigation, maritime
law, vessel safety, port safety, or commercial diving safety. Each
member shall be appointed to represent the viewpoints and interests of
one of the following groups or organizations, and at least one member
shall be appointed to represent each membership category:
    a. Commercial vessel owners or operators
    b. Professional mariners
    c. Recreational boaters
    d. The recreational boating industry
    e. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety
    f. The Maritime Law Association.
    Members serve as representatives and are not Special Government
Employees as defined in section 202(a) of Title 18, United States Code.
    The Coast Guard will consider applications for seven positions that
will become vacant on November 4, 2013, in the following categories:
    a. Commercial vessel owners or operators
    b. Professional mariners
    c. Recreational boaters
    d. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety.
    To be eligible, you should have experience in one of the categories
listed above.
    Members shall serve terms of office of up to three (3) years.
Members may be considered to serve up to two (2) consecutive terms. In
the event NAVSAC is terminated, all appointments to the Council shall
terminate.
    Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal advisory
committees. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with
provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-65 as amended by Title II of Pub. L. 110-81).
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in
employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital
status, disability and generic information, age, membership in an
employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to
achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment
actions.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Council, submit your complete application package to Mr. Mike Sollosi,
NAVSAC ADFO via one of the transmittal methods provided above. Indicate
the position you wish to fill and specify your area of expertise,
knowledge and experience that qualifies you for service on NAVSAC. Note
that during the pre-selection vetting process, applicants may be asked
to provide their date of birth and social security number.
    To visit our online docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov.
enter the docket number (USCG-2013-0194) in the Search box, and click
``Search''. Please do not post your resume on this site.

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Dana A. Goward,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-12776 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P