[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55819-55825]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0007, Notice No. 4]
RIN 2130-AC35

Track Safety Standards; Concrete Crossties

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of
FRA's final rule published on April 1, 2011, mandating specific
requirements for effective concrete crossties, for rail fastening
systems connected to concrete crossties, and for automated inspections
of track constructed with concrete crossties. This document amends and
clarifies the final rule.

DATES: The final rule is effective November 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Office
of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Veronica Chittim, Trial Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20950 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 26, 2010, FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) as a first step to the agency's promulgation of concrete
crosstie regulations per the Congressional mandate contained in Section
403(d), of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432,
Division A) (RSIA). See 75 FR 52,490. On April 1, 2011, following
consideration of written comments received in response to the NPRM, FRA
published a final rule mandating specific requirements for effective
concrete crossties, for rail fastening systems connected to concrete
crossties, and for automated inspections of track constructed with
concrete crossties. See 76 FR 18,073. FRA received two petitions for
reconsideration in response to the final rule.
    On May 5, 2011, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) filed a
petition for reconsideration (BMWED Petition) of the final rule and on
May 27, 2011, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) filed a
petition for reconsideration (AAR Petition) of the final rule. In order
to provide sufficient time to fully consider both Petitions, FRA
delayed the effective date of the final rule until October 1, 2011. See
76 FR 34,890 (June 15, 2011).
    The specific issues raised by these petitioners and FRA's responses
to their petitions, are discussed in detail below in the ``Section-by-
Section Analysis'' portion of the preamble. The Section-by-Section
analysis also contains a detailed discussion of each provision of the
final rule which FRA has amended or clarified. The amendments contained
in this document generally clarify requirements currently contained in
the final rule or allow for greater flexibility in complying with the
rule, and are within the scope of the issues and options discussed,
considered, or raised in the NPRM.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 213

Section 213.109 Crossties
AAR Petition: Visibility of Prestressing Material
    The final rule provides that concrete crossties shall not be
``broken through or deteriorated to the extent that prestressing
material is visible.'' 49 CFR 213.109(d)(1). AAR requests that FRA
amend 49 CFR 213.109(d)(1) to state, ``broken through or deteriorated
to the extent outer prestressing strands are no longer in tension.''
AAR Petition at 3-4. In proposing such language, AAR asserts that FRA
is inconsistent with the specifications in 49 CFR 213.335(d)(1) for
Class 6 track. See AAR Petition at 3. AAR argues that ``FRA's concern
is whether the prestressing material is in tension,'' as demonstrated
by the discussion in the final rule. AAR Petition at 3.
    FRA declines to adopt AAR's recommendation to modify the language
of 49 CFR 213.109(d)(1). The intent of 49 CFR 213.109(d)(1) is to
ensure that concrete crossties with reinforcing strands that have lost
their bond to the concrete are considered defective. This intent is
clearly described in the preamble to the final rule. See 76 FR 18,077-
18,079 (Apr. 1, 2011). While a concrete crosstie that is ``broken
through or deteriorated to the extent outer prestressing strands are no
longer in tension'' would be defective, the standard that AAR proposes
is difficult to quantify in the field, as an inspector would have
difficulty knowing if the prestressing strands are no longer in
tension. AAR's proposal would add a qualifier to the standard, making
the regulation more subjective and more difficult to enforce.
    AAR suggests using the same standard for Sec.  213.109(d)(1) as
specified in Sec.  213.335(d), for Class 6 track. Section 213.335(d)
provides that the crosstie cannot be ``so deteriorated that the
prestress strands are ineffective or withdrawn into the tie at one end
and the tie exhibits structural cracks in the rail seat or in the gage
of track.'' FRA believes that the standard adopted for lower speeds of
track in Sec.  213.109(d)(1) improves upon Sec.  213.335(d) for lower
classes of track by more clearly defining what it means to be
``ineffective'' and explaining how to find ``structural cracks.'' FRA
notes that while further study would be needed to determine whether
this clarifying language would also be appropriate in higher classes of
track, any potential amendment to Sec.  213.335(d) would be outside the
scope of this proceeding, as modifications to the language in Sec.
213.335(d) was neither raised in the NPRM, nor discussed in the final
rule. However, FRA would be willing to address the language in Sec.
213.335(d) in future updates to part 213.
    AAR further states that FRA's position to reject the proposed
phrase ``completely broken through'' for Sec.  213.109 is unconvincing.
See AAR Petition at 3. Contrary to this concern, FRA's intent was to
simply provide consistency in the language used for wooden crossties
and does not find it necessary to introduce ambiguity by adopting
differing language without sufficient justification.
    Although AAR is concerned with the situations where prestressing
material is visible and yet not defective, FRA clearly explained in the
preamble to the final rule in response to AAR's comment that FRA is not
concerned with prestressing material being visible due to a wheel
impact or due to the manufacturing process. See 76 FR 18,077-18,079
(Apr. 1, 2011). FRA thoroughly explained its intent in the preamble
that by saying the material is ``visible'' it does not mean ``a
concrete tie being simply chipped due to wheel impact as opposed to
actual deterioration.'' 76 FR 18,077 (Apr. 1, 2011). FRA also clarified
that it is ``not

concerned with reinforcing material that may be left visible on the end
of a tie during the manufacturing process.'' 76 FR 18,077 (Apr. 1,
2011). While this explanatory language is not in the rule text itself,
it is clear that FRA intended to clarify in the preamble those
prestress concrete crosstie conditions that are of concern to the
agency. See Nov. 18, 2008, Concrete Crossties Task Force (CCTF) meeting
document (TSCCTF08-1118-06 CONSENSUS WG & TF CLEAN Document For
Concrete Crossties, ``NOTE: FRA wants to describe pre-stress tie
conditions, to be covered in the compliance manual or preamble''). As
FRA adequately addressed AAR's comment to the NPRM in the preamble to
the final rule, FRA declines to adopt AAR's proposed change to Sec.
213.109(d)(1).
AAR Petition: The Use of Crossties With One Fastener on a Rail
    AAR argues that Sec.  213.109(d)(6) should be amended to state:
``[c]onfigured with less than two fasteners on the same rail except (i)
as provided in Sec.  213.127(c) and (ii) where the fastenings on two
adjacent ties on class 1 and class 2 track provide the equivalent of
the fastenings on one tie, in which case the two adjacent ties shall be
counted as one tie.'' AAR Petition at 5.
    This issue was raised by AAR in previous comments and addressed by
FRA in the final rule. AAR has provided nothing new to sway the
agency's views on the issue. Thus, FRA is again declining to adopt the
proposal. See 76 FR 18,077 (Apr. 1, 2011). In response to the issue,
FRA has already stated the following:

    FRA responds that, as with nonconcrete ties, one of the safety
requirements of an effective concrete tie is that it be able to hold
fasteners. Consequently, FRA is declining to accept AAR's
recommended change to the regulatory text due to this safety
concern.

76 FR 18,077 (Apr. 1, 2011). In the Section-by-Section analysis of the
final rule, FRA further stated the following with respect to AAR's
proposal:

    FRA contends that, as with non-concrete ties, one of the safety
requirements of an effective concrete tie is that it be able to hold
fasteners. Thus, FRA is declining to accept this suggested change to
the regulatory text due to this safety concern.

76 FR 18,079 (Apr. 1, 2011).
    As noted above, FRA believes that it responded to this issue
adequately in the preamble to the final rule and that this issue is
duplicative and need not be addressed. See 49 CFR 211.29(c). However,
FRA would like to take this opportunity to further explain its
reasoning. Although AAR argues that the rule text that disqualifies
concrete crossties under the conditions described will impose a
significant cost on the industry, FRA notes that it has not changed its
enforcement policy in the final rule and those concrete crossties that
are unable to hold fasteners would have been defective even prior to
the issuance of the final rule. The final rule did not modify the
existing requirement that any type of crosstie with a missing fastener
is considered defective in part 213. The Track Safety Standards require
that to be an effective crosstie, it must be able to hold fasteners
that can restrain the rail. The crosstie, rail, and fasteners work
together as a system to provide effective restraint.\1\ FRA concedes
that the BNSF Railway (BNSF), the only railroad known to FRA that
utilizes defective crossties in this manner, will need to spend
substantial funds to remediate any trackage that consists of these
defective crossties. However, this cost is not a new cost as a result
of the final rule, but merely the cost of compliance with part 213 as
it existed prior to the final rule. Finally, amending the rule text is
not an appropriate avenue to address one railroad's isolated and
limited practice on approximately fifty miles of non-mainline track.\2\
A more appropriate avenue would be for BNSF to seek a waiver from the
FRA Railroad Safety Board, pursuant to the procedures contained in 49
CFR part 211.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FR 18,073, 18,079 (Apr. 1, 2011):
    The rail and fastener assembly work as a system, capable of
providing electrical insulation, and adequate resistance to lateral
displacement, undesired gage widening, rail canting, rail rollover,
and abrasive or excessive compressive stresses. * * * Part of the
complexity of crosstie assessment is the fastener component. Both
crossties and fasteners act as a system to deliver the expected
performance effect. A non-compliant crosstie and defective fastener
assembly improperly maintains the rail position and support on the
crosstie and contributes to excessive lateral gage widening (rail
cant-rail rollover), and longitudinal rail movement because of loss
of toeload.
    \2\ AAR's Petition included BNSF's submission of its May 2011
findings, based on reports from a geometry car that had operated
over BNSF's Seadrift subdivision on December 14, 2010. According to
AAR, BNSF's practice of using crossties in this manner will not
hinder, but may actually improve safety. FRA notes that BNSF's
findings were based on the operation of trains at ten miles per
hour, over an eight mile segment of track designed for twenty-five
miles per hour. This data alone is insufficient to demonstrate that
this practice would prevent rollover at higher speeds and varying
conditions or apply more broadly than as shown on this particular
trackage. FRA also notes that AAR states that ``there are eight
miles of track with approximately 80 percent of the ties consisting
of ties with one defective fastener (approximately 20 percent of the
ties are new).'' AAR Petition at 5. If this description is correct,
this track generally meets the Class 1 criteria of 5 non-defective
ties per 39 feet of track.
    \3\ FRA may waive its regulatory requirements when a waiver is
in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety. In doing
so, FRA often imposes conditions designed to ensure safety. If a
railroad believes that there are some FRA requirements applicable to
it that should be waived, it may petition for a waiver under the
procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 211. Any such petition should
specify why the railroad believes it cannot comply with the
regulation and what alternative measures it will take to ensure
safety. See 49 CFR 211.9. If FRA's Railroad Safety Board determines
that a railroad can provide, through alternative procedures, the
same level of safety that the FRA regulations provide, then the
Safety Board may grant the waiver. FRA's Railroad Safety Board's
decision to restrict the exercise of FRA's regulatory authority in
no way constrains the exercise of its statutory emergency order
authority under 49 U.S.C. 20104. That authority was designed to
address imminent hazards not dealt with by existing regulations and/
or so dangerous as to require immediate, ex parte action on the
government's part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AAR Petition: Spacing of Concrete Crossties at Rail Joints
    AAR requests amending Sec.  213.109(e)(1) to add ``(50 inches in
the case of concrete ties)'' after ``48 inches'' and Sec.
213.109(e)(3) to add ``(25 inches in the case of concrete ties)'' after
``24 inches.'' AAR Petition at 6.
    The spacing requirements for crossties at rail joints contained at
Sec.  213.109(e), were not modified by the final rule. The
specifications for crossties' spacing are based on providing sufficient
support to a rail joint and are not dependent on the type of crosstie
material used, whether the crossties are made of wood or concrete. For
Class 1 and Class 2 track, the regulation provides that each rail joint
shall be supported by at least one crosstie whose centerline is within
24 inches of each rail joint location. 49 CFR 213.109(e)(1). For
Classes 3, 4, and 5, each rail joint shall by supported by either at
least one non-defective crosstie within 18 inches of the joint, or have
two crossties, one on each side of the rail joint, whose centerlines
are within 24 inches of the rail joint. 49 CFR 213.109(e)(2), (3). The
Track Safety Standards already allow for flexibility in the spacing of
crossties.\4\ Although it may be true that the industry spaces concrete
crossties further apart than wooden crossties, all crossties, wood or
concrete, must provide effective support for the rail joint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, the railroads have a range of crosstie spacing
options, between 19.5 inches and 30 inches, depending on the size of
the crosstie, the size of the rail, and the class of track. The
industry-recommended practice is to avoid placing a concrete
crosstie directly underneath the adjoining ends of two rails, making
a rail joint, as the compressive forces downward on the concrete
crosstie would deteriorate the concrete crosstie quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR's suggestion does not appear to have been previously raised in
the

RSAC process or in any of the comments to the NPRM. Nor has AAR
provided FRA with any data to support its contention that concrete
crossties should be treated differently from wood crossties in this
manner. Moreover, AAR has not provided any basis for why FRA must
consider these additional facts, or explained why these facts were not
presented to the Administrator within the allotted time. See 49 CFR
211.29(b). Thus, FRA is denying AAR's request. Furthermore, for the
reasons noted above, FRA believes that the issue being raised by AAR is
outside the scope of this proceeding and that it is inappropriate for
FRA to address the issue at this late stage of the rulemaking
proceeding.
Section 213.234 Automated Inspection of Track Constructed With Concrete
Crossties
AAR Petition: Whether Automated Inspection Equipment Cannot Measure
Rail Seat Deterioration as Required
    AAR argues that ``today's automated inspection equipment cannot
measure rail seat deterioration at all, let alone within \1/8\ of an
inch.'' AAR Petition at 5. Further, AAR states that ``automated
equipment is not capable of meeting the standard set forth in
subsection 213.234(d).'' AAR suggests deleting Sec.  213.234(d), (e),
and (h). See AAR Petition at 5.
    Throughout the RSAC process, the parties agreed that automated
inspections were a good approach to locating areas of rail seat
deterioration. Indeed, the NPRM states that ``[o]ther than automated
inspection, there are currently no other tools capable of aiding in the
detection of rail seat deterioration.'' 75 FR 52,497 (Aug. 26, 2010).
FRA is surprised that AAR asserts at this stage in the rulemaking
process that the technology to perform these types of automated
inspections does not exist.
    Although AAR is technically correct that automated equipment cannot
currently measure rail seat deterioration directly, today's automated
equipment can indicate locations of rail seat deterioration. Rail seat
deterioration is indicated as a result of interpolations and
calculations from rail cant measurements. The rail cant measurements
provide an indication to the designated Sec.  213.7 person that the
location should be field-verified. The railroad industry did not want
to be limited to a requirement to locate rail seat deterioration
through automated inspection using the rail cant method alone. In
response to this concern, FRA removed the provision initially proposed
in the NPRM requiring automated inspections of rail cant. Instead, FRA
chose to use ``a performance-based standard'' for automated inspections
that would indicate rail seat deterioration to the accuracy specified
by Sec.  213.234, or \1/8\ of an inch, without mandating which
technology should be used. See 76 FR 18,076-18,077, 18,080-18,081 (Apr.
1, 2011).
    The design and practicality of all automated and autonomous
geometry measurement systems is a supplement to visual inspection
efforts toward identifying locations of greatest derailment risk. It
has been FRA's objective and policy that on-the-ground visual
verification must be done by inspectors to validate not only rail seat
deterioration, but all track structure and geometry conditions
discovered by automated means. A credible gage measurement restraint
system (GRMS) is the preferred choice, however, only FRA's DOTX 218 is
properly equipped to vertically and laterally load the rails into the
crosstie seat area. FRA's other cars load vertically, but not
necessarily completely load the rails laterally to ``seat'' the rail on
the crosstie pad in all instances. FRA's rail profiling system (rail
cant method) provides a highly accurate indication (advisory) of
possible rail seat deterioration. FRA's safety strategy is to promptly
identify rail seat deterioration locations with DOTX 217, 219, and 220
cars' onboard rail profiling systems, then re-inspect those areas
indicating rail seat deterioration conditions. FRA's automated
inspection vehicle uses rail cant to indicate areas of rail seat
deterioration, to an accuracy level of within at least one degree of
rail cant, which is equivalent to \1/8\ of an inch of rail seat
deterioration.
    Additionally, there were presentations made at the CCTF meetings as
part of the RSAC process, describing technologies that can detect or
indicate rail seat abrasion. These included systems used by Georgetown
Rail Equipment Company, Holland Company LP, and ENSCO, Inc.\5\
Georgetown Rail Equipment Company represents that their ``scanning''
system utilizes laser imagery to ``see'' height differences of ties,
scanning both the inside and outside of the crosstie.\6\ FRA believes
that BNSF may use this ``scanning'' system currently on parts of its
concrete crossties trackage. AAR's Petition included geometry car
reports for a track geometry car that operated over BNSF's Seadrift
subdivision on December 14, 2010, measuring rail cant. See AAR Petition
at 5, 25, 32. While FRA's system of calculating rail cant cannot
technically ``measure'' rail seat deterioration, it does provide
indications of rail seat deterioration. FRA realizes that the rule text
is technically incorrect to require that an automated inspection
measurement system ``measure'' rail seat deterioration to within \1/8\
of an inch. FRA wishes to clarify that it is requiring the automated
measurement system to ``locate'' rail seat deterioration. It is up to
the railroad whether it will use rail cant to indicate locations of
rail seat deterioration, to utilize the scanning capability that has
been proven effective at detecting dangerous areas of rail seat
deterioration, or to use any other demonstrated effective and accurate
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g. ``Rail Seat Abrasion Detection, November 2008
Update, RSAC Meeting Nov. 19-20, 2008, by Richard Reiff, TTCI, AAR &
BNSF Cooperative Project (comparing detection systems for rail seat
abrasion, utilizing rail cant data or its equivalent). For example,
the presentation compares the BNSF TGC85 car, the Holland TrackStar,
the FRA T-20 car, the FRA T-18, and Georgetown Rail/Aurora systems.
Also note the availability of rail profile systems offered by
companies such as Plasser American, KLD Labs Inc., MERMEC Inc.,
ENSCO, Inc., Holland Company LP, and Georgetown Rail Equipment
Company.
    \6\ The scanning system measures the crosstie voids against the
nominal height of the crosstie design, usually within a tolerance of
\1/16\ of an inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA also recognizes that detecting rail cant alone will not
necessarily demonstrate all possible locations of rail seat
deterioration. For example, FRA's geometry car will not find areas of
rail seat deterioration that are due to compression forces from loads
onto the crosstie. However, FRA's geometry car will locate rail seat
deterioration due to rail cant in curved track, which are the hardest
areas to detect manually. The automated inspection provision contained
in Sec.  213.234 was never intended to require railroads to detect all
areas of rail seat deterioration, but rather to supplement manual
visual inspections.
    Automated inspection technology is able to detect rail seat
deterioration to an accuracy of \1/8\ of an inch, as demonstrated
above. Furthermore, the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis explained in
detail how FRA estimated the costs of possible upgrades to railroads'
existing technology or equipment to detect rail seat deterioration. See
document number 6 in the public docket of this proceeding, at 38. FRA
believes that all Class 1 railroads, Class 2 railroads, intercity
passenger railroads, and commuter railroads servicing a community
greater than 50,000 people currently conduct automated geometry
inspections of their

track at frequencies roughly twice as great as those required in the
final rule. Moreover, most major railroads with concrete crossties
already perform automatic inspections to detect rail seat deterioration
(either through the rail cant method or through the ``scanning''
method), and most of these railroads already have equipment that can
measure within \1/8\ of an inch of accuracy.\7\ Thus, FRA denies AAR's
request to delete the automated inspection requirements contained in
Sec.  213.234, but FRA clarifies that by requiring measurement of rail
seat deterioration, FRA actually meant that the technology had to
``indicate'' rail seat deterioration. Consequently, FRA amends Sec.
213.234(d) and (g) accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, CSX contracts Holland Company LP's GRMS system
to automatically inspect their concrete crossties, which can measure
rail cant up to \1/2\ of a degree (equivalent to \1/16\ of an inch).
Additionally, some regional railroads contact FRA to perform and
receive the benefit of an automated inspection, which can calculate
up to \1/2\ of a degree. The rail profile systems offered by
companies such as Plasser American, KLD Labs Inc., MERMEC Inc.,
ENSCO, Inc., Holland Company LP, Georgetown Rail Equipment Company
report a rail cant accuracy of approximately \1/16\ of an inch at
the rail base/crosstie interface. FRA believes that all Class 1
railroads equip their geometry cars with these systems to measure
undesirable rail cant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BMWED Petition: Whether FRA Should Explicitly Require All Persons Fully
Qualified Under Sec.  213.7, and Whose Territories Are Subject to Sec.
213.234 Automated Inspections, Be Provided With a Copy of the Exception
Report, or That a Copy of Such Report Be Made Readily Available to Such
Persons
    BMWED urges that FRA amend the final rule to require ``exception
report data to be provided to, or made readily available to, persons
fully qualified under Sec.  213.7, including track inspectors
responsible for performing Sec.  213.233 visual track inspection in
between automated inspection cycles.'' BMWED Petition at 5. To support
its argument, BMWED cites to other provisions in the CFR that mandate
focused dissemination and availability of reports. See BWMED Petition
at 5-6.
    FRA accepts BMWED's proposed amendment to the final rule. The final
rule states that ``[t]he automated inspection measurement system shall
produce an exception report containing a systematic listing of all
exceptions to Sec.  213.109(d)(4), identified so that an appropriate
person(s) designated as fully qualified under Sec.  213.7 can field-
verify each exception.'' 49 CFR 213.234(e). The final rule requires
that ``[e]ach exception must be located and field-verified no later
than 48 hours after the automated inspection'' and ``[a]ll field-
verified exceptions are subject to all the requirements [of part
213].'' 49 CFR 213.234(e). FRA notes that Sec.  213.234(e) implicitly
requires that persons fully qualified under Sec.  213.7 and whose
territories are subject to automated inspection under Sec.  213.234 be
provided with, or have ready access to a copy of the exception report,
because without such information being disseminated, Sec.  213.234(e)
cannot be satisfied. In short, qualified persons under Sec.  213.7
cannot logically field-verify exceptions found in the exception report
without access to the exception report. Furthermore, it is in the best
interest of the railroad to provide all track inspectors in the
relevant territory with access to the exception report so that problem
areas can be monitored and corrected.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ It is FRA's understanding that most Class 1 railroads (e.g.,
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway) already provide access to automated inspection reports to
49 CFR 213.7 inspectors in a given territory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It was FRA's intent in the final rule that the railroad would
voluntarily provide all persons fully qualified under Sec.  213.7 with
a copy of the exception report, so that both a supervisor under Sec.
213.7(a) and a track inspector under Sec.  213.7(b) would have access
to the report. It is expected that the designated Sec.  213.7 person(s)
would then act responsibly upon the information subject to the
requirements in part 213, once verified, so that appropriate remedial
action would be taken in a timely manner.
    This issue was raised in the joint comments to the NPRM of the
American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA), Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees Division (BMWED), Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(BRS), and the United Transportation Union (UTU) (Labor) and addressed
by FRA in the final rule. Labor representatives recommended that FRA
mandate that a physical copy of the exception report be given to the
person that the track owner has designated as being responsible for
frequency inspections pursuant to Sec.  213.233. In response, FRA
declined to adopt Labor's recommendation, stating that it ``refuses to
interfere with a track owner's assignment process.'' 76 FR 18,081 (Apr.
1, 2011). FRA clarified that it ``agrees that it would be a best
practice for the track owner to ensure that the person responsible for
performing the frequency inspections required by Sec.  213.233 be
provided a copy of the exception report, as all field-verified
exceptions are subject to all of FRA's Track Safety Standards.'' 76 FR
18,081 (Apr. 1, 2011).
    FRA intended to convey with its response to Labor's comment that it
would not direct the manner in which a track owner communicates and
assigns corrective action to a noncompliant condition among their
personnel. The final rule requires that an exception report be created,
but does not explicitly require that the report be given to a
particular person, as long as a fully-qualified person under Sec.
213.7 properly field-verifies any exceptions pursuant to the rule.
Persons designated under Sec.  213.7 must receive or have access to the
exception report in order to comply with the provisions of the final
rule. In other words, a designated qualified inspector is required by
the final rule to receive any noncompliant rail seat deterioration
reports, whether the reports are made accessible to or are physically
handed to the person designated under Sec.  213.7, for field-
verification and repairs purposes.
    While FRA addressed Labor's comments in the preamble to the final
rule, BWMED's Petition modified Labor's recommendation by asking that
FRA require that individuals performing frequency inspections be
provided with a copy of the automated inspection report or that a copy
of the automated inspection report be made readily available. With this
alteration, FRA believes that BWMED's request becomes less burdensome
on the railroads. Railroads have an incentive to make such automated
inspection reports available to track inspectors performing frequency-
based inspections because this practice could ensure compliance with
the regulations and could prevent worsening track conditions with
costlier repairs or potential accidents. If inspectors have been
provided with all of the relevant information, inspectors can better
monitor problematic areas. Further, as this is a good business
practice, most Class 1 railroads already make these reports available
to the relevant inspectors. Given that the benefits of making reports
available to all inspectors in the territory outweigh the slight cost
of requiring a railroad to make the report available, which many do
already, FRA is amending the final rule to explicitly require that
railroads make such reports available to all relevant Sec.  213.7
persons. The marginal increase in cost of making the report available
compared with the added benefit of allowing inspectors to note defects
earlier justify adding this requirement.
    To clarify FRA's original intent and to promote good industry
practice, FRA amends Sec.  213.234(e) to require that

exception reports be provided to or are made available to all persons
qualified under Sec.  213.7 and whose territories are subject to the
requirements of Sec.  213.234.
BMWED Petition: Whether FRA Should Adjust the Exception Testing
Threshold From \1/2\ of an Inch to \3/8\ of an Inch To Compensate for
the \1/8\ of an Inch Calibration Variance Allowed in Sec.
213.234(d)(1)
    BMWED asserts that ``Sec.  213.234(d)(1) has the affect [sic] of
adding up to an additional \1/8\ of an inch to the proposed maximum
depth of \1/2\ inch rail seat deterioration prescribed under Sec.
213.109(d)(4).'' BMWED Petition at 2. Thus, BMWED requests that FRA
``compensate for the \1/8\ inch calibration variance'' by requiring
``the automated exception report [to] record all `exceptions' of \3/8\
of an inch or greater, and that all such exceptions be subject to field
verification under the provisions of Sec.  213.234(e).'' BMWED Petition
at 2-3. BMWED contends that because of the \1/8\ of an inch variance
allowed by Sec.  213.234(d)(1), exceptions may reach up to \5/8\ of an
inch before automated means would detect them. See BMWED Petition at 5.
    FRA accepts BMWED's recommendation that railroads must flag
locations identified as \3/8\ of an inch or greater on the automated
exception report, but FRA declines to require field-verification of
those areas noted on the report that are less than \1/2\ of an inch.
This additional notation will serve as an alert to the inspectors of
potential problem areas to observe. Generally, railroads already note
locations on automated reports in advance of the \1/2\ of an inch
violation level. For example, BNSF already flags locations at \3/8\ of
an inch with an alert. Adding an ``alert'' to an automated exception
report would be a simple and low-cost modification. For example, Rail
Profile Measurement System (RPMS) instrumentation on FRA geometry cars
are set to flag an advisory exception when the angle exceeds four
degrees of negative or outward rail cant. See 76 FR 18,081 (Apr. 1,
2011). However, requiring field-verification of locations flagged below
\1/2\ of an inch would be inappropriate, as it would impose too high of
a cost without a corresponding benefit to safety.
    FRA estimates that there would be approximately eight times as many
locations found at \3/8\ of an inch than those found at \1/2\ of an
inch. This increase would result in eight times as many field-
verifications, and would consequently represent a significant increase
in the economic burden. Measurement errors are usually equally
distributed as positive and negative, meaning that having a target of
\3/8\ of an inch would trigger exceptions that actually measure \1/4\
of an inch as often as \1/2\ of an inch. FRA notes that this would
cause unneeded inspections for such false-positives at a high cost.
However, there are potential cost savings, as the additional field-
verification may result in the repair of an issue that would have been
more costly to repair later or could have contributed to an accident.
BMWED's Petition recommends that FRA adopt something higher than a
minimum safety standard. If FRA takes violations before the railroad is
noncompliant, it would be contrary to FRA's enforcement policy and
would be interfering with the railroad's managerial discretion.
    While railroads astutely demand higher than minimum standards, FRA
only requires the minimum for safety purposes. A location indicating
rail seat deterioration of \3/8\ of an inch would likely fall within a
railroad's maintenance standard to watch or to field-verify, but such
field-verification will not be mandated by FRA. FRA agrees with BMWED
that it would be a good practice and thus mandates that automated
inspection equipment must note all locations indicating rail seat
deterioration of \3/8\ of an inch and greater on the report, yellow-
flagging, or identifying ``alerts'' for, those areas identified between
\3/8\ and \1/2\ of an inch, and red-flagging, or identifying ``alarms''
for, those areas identified at \1/2\ of an inch and above. However,
subjecting all areas \3/8\ of an inch and above to field-verification
would add significant cost burdens without a demonstrated safety
benefit.
    In light of the preceding discussion, a new paragraph is added to
Sec.  213.234(e) to require exception reports to note an ``alert'' for
locations identified between \3/8\ of an inch and \1/2\ of an inch.
AAR Petition: Effective Date of the Rule To Accommodate Railroad
Training Cycles
    AAR asserts that ``[r]ailroads traditionally concentrate training
classes for their existing employees in the first half of the year,
with training materials prepared during the second half of the previous
year.'' AAR Petition at 7. By postponing the applicability date of the
formal training provision in Sec.  213.234(h) to July 1, 2012, these
requirements would comport with the railroads' standard training
schedule.
    In consideration of these typical railroad training cycles, FRA
will extend the applicability date of Sec.  213.234 to July 1, 2012.
Accordingly, FRA amends 49 CFR 213.234(a).

Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    Prior to issuing the April 1, 2011 final rule, FRA prepared and
placed in the docket a regulatory analysis addressing the economic
impact of the final rule. The rule was evaluated in accordance with
existing policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant
under both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT policies and
procedures. See 44 FR 11,034; February 26, 1979. For a more detailed
discussion, see 76 FR 18,082. This response to the petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule is likewise considered to be non-
significant under both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT
policies and procedures. This regulatory action generally clarifies or
makes technical amendments to the requirements contained in the final
rule or allows for greater flexibility in complying with the rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (the Act) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and Executive Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final
rules to assess their impact on small entities. Prior to issuing the
April 1, 2011 final rule, FRA prepared and placed in the docket a
regulatory flexibility analysis which assessed the small entity impact
by the rule. FRA certified in the final rule that it expects there will
be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For a more detailed discussion, see 76 FR 18,082. This
response to the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule
generally clarifies the requirements contained in the rule or allows
for greater flexibility in complying with the rule. Consequently, FRA
certifies that this regulatory action is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule and
FRA's response to petitions of reconsideration are being submitted for
approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The section
that contains the one new and current information collection
requirements is noted below, and the estimated burden time to fulfill
each requirement is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Respondent          Total annual       Average time per    Total annual
           CFR section                   universe            responses             response        burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213.234--Automated Inspection of
 Track Constructed with Concrete
 Crossties:
    --Exception Reports..........  18 Railroads.......  150 reports........  8 hours............           1,200
    --Field Verified Exception     18 Railroads.......  150 field            2 hours............             300
     Reports.                                            verifications.
    --Provision/Availability of    18 Railroads.......  150 electronic       12 minutes.........              30
     Exception Reports to                                reports.
     Designated Persons (New).
    --Records of Inspection Data   18 Railroads.......  150 records........  30 minutes.........              75
     and Exception Records.
    --Procedures for Maintaining   18 Railroads.......  18 procedures......  4 hours............              72
     Data Integrity Collected by
     Measurement System.
    --Training of Employees in     18 Railroads.......  2,000 trained        8 hours............          16,000
     Handling Seat Deterioration.                        employees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the
information collection submission sent to OMB, please contact Mr.
Robert Brogan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ms. Kimberly Toone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via e-mail at the following addresses<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office
of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, attn: FRA Desk Officer.
Comments may also be sent via e-mail to the Office of Management and
Budget at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in response to the petitions of
reconsideration of this final rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.
    FRA cannot impose a penalty on persons for violating information
collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control
number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers
for any new information collection requirements resulting from this
rulemaking action prior to the effective date of this final rule. The
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice
in the Federal Register.

D. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this action in accordance with its ``Procedures
for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR
28,545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive
Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that
this action is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 64 FR 28,547, May 26, 1999. In
accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency
has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist with
respect to this final rule that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this
regulation is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.

E. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43,255, Aug. 10,
1999), requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with
federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults
with State and local government officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism
implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with
State and local officials in the process of developing the regulation.
    As stated in the preamble to the final rule, FRA has analyzed this
final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined that this final rule has no
federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State
laws under Sec. 20106. See 76 FR 18,083. This response to the petitions
for reconsideration of the final rule generally clarifies the
requirements contained in the rule or allows for greater flexibility in
complying with the rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Sec. 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Sec. 202 of the Act (2
U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) [currently $140,800,000] in any 1
year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice
of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a
written statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. This response to the petitions for
reconsideration of the

final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$140,800,000 or more in any one year, and thus preparation of such a
statement is not required.

G. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' See
66 FR 28,355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. FRA has evaluated
this response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13211, and has determined that this
regulatory action is not a ``significant energy action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order.

H. Administrative Procedure Act

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an independent Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is not required when an agency, for good
cause, finds ``that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). FRA believes that it is making only technical
changes, clarifications, and minor amendments in response to petitions
for reconsideration of FRA's final rule. For this reason, and because
FRA believes that it has provided sufficient opportunities for notice
and comment through the NPRM, the final rule, and the petitions for
reconsideration which were all contained in the public docket,
publishing an independent NPRM is unnecessary.

I. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends part 213 of chapter
II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 213--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 213 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; Sec. 403, Div. A,
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4885; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR
1.49.

0
2. Section 213.234 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a), and revising paragraphs (d), (e), and (g), to read as
follows:

Sec.  213.234  Automated inspection of track constructed with concrete
crossties.

    (a) General. Except for track described in paragraph (c) of this
section, the provisions in this section are applicable on and after
July 1, 2012. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) Performance standard for automated inspection measurement
system. The automated inspection measurement system must be capable of
indicating and processing rail seat deterioration requirements that
specify the following:
    (1) An accuracy, to within \1/8\ of an inch;
    (2) A distance-based sampling interval, which shall not exceed five
feet; and
    (3) Calibration procedures and parameters assigned to the system,
which assure that indicated and recorded values accurately represent
rail seat deterioration.
    (e) Exception reports to be produced by system; duty to field-
verify exceptions. The automated inspection measurement system shall
produce an exception report containing a systematic listing of all
exceptions to Sec.  213.109(d)(4), identified so that an appropriate
person(s) designated as fully qualified under Sec.  213.7 can field-
verify each exception.
    (1) Exception reports must be provided to or be made available to
all persons designated as fully qualified under Sec.  213.7 and whose
territories are subject to the requirements of Sec.  213.234.
    (2) Each exception must be located and field-verified no later than
48 hours after the automated inspection.
    (3) All field-verified exceptions are subject to all the
requirements of this part.
    (4) Exception reports must note areas identified between \3/8\ of
an inch and \1/2\ of an inch as an ``alert.''
* * * * *
    (g) Procedures for integrity of data. The track owner shall
institute the necessary procedures for maintaining the integrity of the
data collected by the measurement system. At a minimum, the track owner
shall do the following:
    (1) Maintain and make available to FRA documented calibration
procedures of the measurement system that, at a minimum, specify an
instrument verification procedure that ensures correlation between
measurements made on the ground and those recorded by the
instrumentation; and
    (2) Maintain each instrument used for determining compliance with
this section such that it accurately provides an indication of the
depth of rail seat deterioration in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of
this section.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 6, 2011.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-23133 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23321-23323]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09065]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-69365; File No. SR-ISE-2013-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To List Options
on the Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index

April 11, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 13, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend certain of its rules to
provide for the listing of options on the Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 28, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68971 (February 22,
2013), 78 FR 13717 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to provide for the listing
and trading on the Exchange of options on one foreign currency index--
the Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index (the ``Dollar Index''). Options on the
Dollar Index will be settled in the same manner as the Exchange's
foreign currency options (``FX Options'') \4\ and will have European-
style exercise provisions. In addition to regular options, the Exchange
proposes also to list long-term options on the Dollar Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission previously approved the listing of FX Options
on nineteen underlying foreign currencies. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 55575 (April 3, 2007), 72 FR 17963 (April 10, 2007)
(SR-ISE-2006-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Index Design and Composition

    The Dollar Index is calculated and maintained by Dow Jones Indexes,
a unit of CME Group. The components that comprise the Dollar Index
include a subset of the modified exchange rates \5\ previously approved
by the Commission as the basis for FX Options. Specifically, the Dollar
Index is based on four currency pairs that reflect U.S. dollar
fluctuations against the following currencies: euro, British pound,
Japanese yen, and Australian dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``modified exchange rate'' means the price, for the
sale of one foreign currency for another, quoted by various
interbank foreign exchange participants, for immediate delivery
(which generally means delivery two business days following the date
on which the terms of such a sale are agreed upon), as reflected in
the foreign currency price quotations reported by the foreign
currency price quotation dissemination vendor selected by the
Exchange, which is then modified by the Exchange with a modifier of
1, 10 or 100. See ISE Rule 2201(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spot currency quotes are derived from Thomson Reuters, the same
source that the Exchange currently uses for the underlying values of
its existing FX Options. Each input value is based on the mid-point
between the bid and ask quotes. The Dollar Index has a base date of
January 1, 2011, using closing prices as of December 31, 2010. The base
value of the Dollar Index is 10,000. Spot quotes for each currency pair
on the base date are as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUR/USD...................................................        1.3370
GBP/USD...................................................        1.5601
USD/JPY...................................................       81.21
AUD/USD...................................................        1.0218
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On its base date, the Dollar Index was set to be equally-weighted
such that each constituent currency pair has equal influence on the
overall index value. This method is similar to equally-weighted stock
indexes that calculate the number of shares needed in order for each
stock constituent to have an equal position. The Dollar Index is
designed to reflect spot positions in each currency with the weighting
of each currency set as equal at inception and rebalancing events.
Rebalancing events are not scheduled. The Dollar Index would be
rebalanced if, for example, the value of any position were to fall
below $1,000 (i.e., loses 90 percent of its original $10,000 position
value), or in response to extraordinary events affecting the global
currency market.\6\ At that point, each currency is again set to an
equal position. The Exchange has represented that the total number of
components in the Dollar Index will not decrease from the number of
components in the Dollar Index at the time of its initial listing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/downloads/fact_info/Dow_Jones_FXCM_Dollar_Index_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, 78 FR at 13718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Index Calculation and Maintenance

    As noted above, the Dollar Index will be maintained and calculated
by Dow Jones. The level of the Dollar Index will reflect the current
exchange rates of the four underlying currency pairs. The Dollar Index
will be updated on a real-time basis beginning at 6:15 p.m. each day
and ending at 5:00 p.m. (New York time) the following day from Sunday
through Friday. If the value of a component's exchange rate is not
available, the last known exchange rate will be used in the
calculation.
    The Exchange represents that values of the Dollar Index will be
disseminated every 15 seconds during the Exchange's regular trading
hours to market information vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters.\8\ In the event the Dollar Index ceases to be maintained or
calculated, or its values are not disseminated every 15 seconds by a
widely available source, the Exchange would not list any additional
series for trading and would limit all transactions in such options to
closing transactions only for the purpose of maintaining a fair and
orderly market and protecting investors.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this proposal, the Exchange also is making a clarifying
change to ISE Rule 2003(b) by replacing the word ``stocks'' with
``components'' because index options listed by the Exchange are no
longer limited to having stocks as their underlying components; with
this proposed rule change, the Exchange also will list options on
indexes that have currencies as their underlying components.

Exercise and Settlement Value

    Options on the Dollar Index will expire on the Saturday following
the third Friday of the expiration month. Trading in expiring options
on the Dollar Index will normally cease at

12:00 p.m. (New York time) on the Friday preceding an expiration
Saturday. The exercise and settlement value will be calculated using
the WM Intra-day Spot rate corresponding to 12:00 p.m. New York time.
The exercise-settlement amount is equal to the difference between the
settlement value and the exercise price of the option, multiplied by
$1. Exercise will result in the delivery of cash on the business day
following expiration.

Contract Specifications

    The Dollar Index is a foreign currency index, as defined in
proposed Rule 2001(h). Options on the Dollar Index are European-style
and cash-settled.\10\ The Exchange's standard trading hours for FX
Options (7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., New York time) will also apply to the
Dollar Index. The Exchange proposes to apply margin requirements for
the purchase and sale of options on the Dollar Index that are identical
to those applied for individual FX Options. Accordingly, per proposed
ISE Rule 1202(e), the margin level required for trading options on the
Dollar Index will be identical to the highest margin required for a
component foreign currency as determined in accordance with ISE Rule
1202(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange will calculate a settlement value for the
Dollar Index using the settlement values for the individual
component currencies. The settlement value for each individual
component currency is determined using the WM Intra-day Spot rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading of options on the Dollar Index will be subject to the
trading halt procedures applicable to index options traded on the
Exchange.\11\ Options on the Dollar Index will be quoted and traded in
U.S. dollars.\12\ Accordingly, all Exchange and Options Clearing
Corporation members will be able to accommodate trading, clearance, and
settlement of the Dollar Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Rule 2008(c).
    \12\ See ISE Rule 2009(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list options on the Dollar Index that may
expire at three-month intervals or in consecutive months. The Exchange
also may list up to six expiration months at any one time. The Exchange
proposes to set strike price intervals for options on the Dollar Index
at minimum intervals of 2\1/2\ points, if the strike price is less than
two hundred dollars ($200), in accordance with ISE Rule 2009(c)(1).
Further, when new series of options on the Dollar Index with a new
expiration date are opened for trading, or when additional series of
options on the Dollar Index in an existing expiration date are opened
for trading, as the current value of the Dollar Index moves
substantially from the exercise prices of series already opened, the
exercise prices of such new or additional series will be reasonably
related to the current value of the underlying index at the time such
series are first opened for trading.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ISE Rule 2009(c)(3). The term ``reasonably related to
the current index value of the underlying index'' means that the
exercise price is within thirty percent (30%) of the current index
value, as defined in ISE Rule 2009(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may open for trading additional series of the same
class of options on the Dollar Index as the current value of the
underlying index moves substantially from the exercise price of those
options on the Dollar Index that already have been opened for trading
on the Exchange. The Exchange also may open for trading additional
series of options on the Dollar Index that are more than thirty percent
(30%) away from the current index value, provided that demonstrated
customer interest exists for such series, as expressed by
institutional, corporate, or individual customers or their brokers. The
Exchange will not consider Market makers trading for their own account
when determining customer interest under this provision.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ISE Rule 2009(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt the minimum tick size of $0.01 for
options on the Dollar Index. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
amend Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 710 to permit options on
the Dollar Index to be quoted and traded in one-cent increments. The
Exchange believes that this trading increment will result in narrower
spreads for options on the Dollar Index than if traditional trading
increments are used because options on the individual foreign currency
pairs that make up the Dollar Index are quoted in $0.01 increments.\15\
The Exchange further believes that permitting the Dollar Index to be
quoted and traded in one-cent increments will promote the adoption of
trading FX-linked products on a listed and regulated market.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3, 78 FR at 13719. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57019 (December 20, 2007), 72 FR
73937 (December 28, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-120).
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, 78 FR at 13719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For options on the Dollar Index, the Exchange proposes to establish
aggregate position limits at 600,000 contracts on the same side of the
market, provided no more than 300,000 of such contracts are in the
nearest expiration month series. The Exchange notes that the proposed
positions limits for the Dollar Index are equal to or lower than the
position limits for individual FX options on the four currency pairs
comprising the Dollar Index.\17\ The same limits that apply to position
limits will apply equally to exercise limits for options on the Dollar
Index.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. See also ISE Rule 2208.
    \18\ See ISE Rule 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list options on the Dollar Index in the
three consecutive near-term expiration months plus up to three
successive expiration months in the March cycle. For example,
consecutive expirations of January, February, March, plus June,
September, and December expirations would be listed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 2009(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading of options on the Dollar Index will be subject to the
same rules that presently govern the trading of Exchange index options,
including sales practice rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and
position and exercise limits. In addition, long-term option series
having up to sixty months to expiration may be traded.\20\ The trading
of long-term options on the Dollar Index will be subject to the same
rules that govern the trading of all the Exchange's index options,
including sales practice rules, margin requirements, and trading rules.
Further, pursuant to Supplementary Material .01 and .02 to ISE Rule
2009, the Exchange also may list Short Term Option Series and Quarterly
Options Series, respectively, on the Dollar Index. Chapter 6 of the
Exchange's rules (Doing Business with the Public) applies to trading in
options on the Dollar Index.\21\ Finally, a trading license issued by
the Exchange will be required for all market makers to effect
transactions as a market maker in the

Dollar Index in accordance with ISE Rule 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 2009(b)(1).
    \21\ Specifically, ISE Rules 608(a) and (b) prohibit Members
from accepting a customer order to purchase or write an option,
including options on the Dollar Index, unless such customer's
account has been approved in writing by a designated Options
Principal of the Member. Additionally, ISE's Rule 610 regarding
suitability is designed to ensure that options, including options on
the Dollar Index, are only sold to customers capable of evaluating
and bearing the risks associated with trading in this instrument.
Further, ISE Rule 611 permits members to exercise discretionary
power with respect to trading options, including options on the
Dollar Index, in a customer's account only if the Member has
received prior written authorization from the customer and the
account had been accepted in writing by a designated Options
Principal. ISE Rule 611 also requires designated Options Principals
or Representatives of a Member to approve and initial each
discretionary order, including discretionary orders for options on
the Dollar Index, on the day the discretionary order is entered.
Finally, ISE Rule 609, Supervision of Accounts, Rule 612,
Confirmation to Customers, and Rule 616, Delivery of Current Options
Disclosure Documents and Prospectus, will also apply to trading in
options on the Dollar Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surveillance and Capacity

    The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance
program in place for options traded on the Dollar Index, and intends to
apply those same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's
other options products.\22\ Further, options on the Dollar Index will
be covered by the Exchange's existing surveillance system architecture
and processes. Additionally, the Exchange will have access to
information sharing resources in its capacity as a member of the
Intermarket Surveillance Group. The Exchange represents that it has the
necessary system capacity to support additional quotations and messages
that will result from the listing and trading of options on the Dollar
Index.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, 78 FR at 13720.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\24\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\25\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the listing and trading of options on
the Dollar Index will provide additional trading opportunities for
investors in an index that reflects U.S. Dollar fluctuations against a
basket of four highly liquid currencies (the euro, British pound,
Japanese yen, and the Australian dollar). Investors will be able to
trade this product through their existing broker-dealer on the Exchange
and will be able to benefit from any investor safeguards incorporated
into the Exchange's rules.
    In addition, the Commission believes that allowing options on the
Dollar Index to trade in penny ($0.01) increments is appropriate and
consistent with the Act.\26\ First, the spot currencies on which the
Dollar Index is based are quoted in small increments, often less than a
penny. Furthermore, there is a considerable amount of liquidity in the
spot foreign currency markets for the individual currency pairs, and
those markets generally exhibit low volatility both for the individual
currency pairs as well as the Dollar Index. These factors support
allowing options on the Dollar Index to be quoted and traded in penny
increments. Quoting in penny increments may allow market makers to
quote more competitively and with narrower spreads than they otherwise
might be able to do with an artificially larger minimum increment,
which could benefit investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Though options on the Dollar Index fall under the
Exchange's index options rules and not its FX Options rules, the
Commission notes that options on the Exchange's FX Options are
quoted in penny increments on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has represented that it has an adequate surveillance
program in place for options on the Dollar Index and intends to apply
the same procedures for surveillance that it applies to its other index
options.\27\ The options also will be subject to the trading halt
procedures applicable to index options traded on the Exchange.\28\ The
Commission notes the Exchange's representations that it has the
necessary systems capacity to support the trading of options on the
Dollar Index.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 22.
    \28\ See supra note 11.
    \29\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed listing standards require the current value of the
Dollar Index to be widely disseminated at least once every 15 seconds
by one or more major market data vendors during the time options on the
index are traded on the Exchange. The Exchange, moreover, has
represented that the total number of components in the Dollar Index
will not decrease from the number of components in the Dollar Index at
the time of its initial listing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange proposes to apply its
existing index rules regarding the listing of new series and additional
series to options on the Dollar Index. Specifically, exercise prices
will be required to be reasonably related to the value of the
underlying index and generally must be within 30% of the current index
value.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See ISE Rule 2009(c)(3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has stated that options on the Dollar
Index would be subject to the same rules that govern all Exchange index
options, including rules that are designed to protect public customer
trading.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed position and
exercise limits, strike price intervals, margin, and other aspects of
the proposed rule change are appropriate and consistent with the Act.
The Commission notes that the proposed position limits for the Dollar
Index are equal to or lower than the position limits for individual
foreign currency options on the four currency pairs comprising the
Dollar Index.\33\ In addition, the margin level required for trading
options on the Dollar Index is identical to the highest margin required
for a component foreign currency as determined in accordance with ISE
Rule 1202(d).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 17. The same limits that apply to positions
limits apply equally to
    exercise limits for options on the Dollar Index. See supra note
18.
    \34\ See ISE Rule 1202(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\35\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2013-14), be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09065 Filed 4-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 16246-16247]
[DOCID:fr09ap09-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59700; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend its Rules
Prohibiting Members From Functioning as Market Makers

April 2, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On February 18, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to revise CBOE Rule 6.8C to
eliminate certain restrictions prohibiting members

from functioning as market makers. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on February 26, 2009.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order
approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59425 (February 19,
2009), 74 FR 8829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.8C, Prohibition Against
Members Functioning as Market Makers, to eliminate certain of its
restrictions. Rule 6.8C currently provides that a member, acting either
as principal or agent, may neither enter nor permit the entry of orders
into the Exchange's electronic order routing system if (i) the orders
are limit orders for the account or accounts of the same beneficial
owner(s); and (ii) the limit orders are entered in such a manner that
the beneficial owner(s) effectively is operating as a market maker by
holding itself out as willing to buy and sell such securities on a
regular or continuous basis. The Exchange proposes that these
restrictions be amended to apply only to customer orders (i.e., non-
broker-dealer orders) that are not Voluntary Professional orders.\4\
The restrictions would no longer be applicable to instances where a
member is acting as principal on its own behalf or is acting as agent
on behalf of other broker-dealer orders or Voluntary Professional
orders. The Exchange noted that it is retaining the restriction for
customers who are not Voluntary Professionals because such customers
have priority at any price over the bids and offers of market makers,
other broker-dealers, and Voluntary Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Voluntary Professional'' is defined in CBOE's
rules as any person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in
securities that elects, in writing, to be treated in the same manner
as a broker or dealer in securities for purposes of specified rules
relating to priority in the execution of orders, and for
cancellation fee calculation purposes. See Rule 1.1(fff) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58327 (August 7, 2008), 73 FR
47988 (August 15, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-09). As part of this proposed
rule change, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 1.1(fff) to
provide that a Voluntary Professional will be treated in the same
manner as a broker or dealer in securities for purposes of Rule
6.8C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in those instances where its restrictions are
applicable, Rule 6.8C currently provides that, in determining whether a
beneficial owner effectively is operating as a market maker, the
Exchange will consider, among other things, the simultaneous or near
simultaneous entry of limit orders to buy and sell the same security,
the entry of multiple limit orders at different prices in the same
security, and the multiple acquisition and liquidation of positions in
the security during the same day. The Exchange proposes to remove the
last condition pertaining to the multiple acquisition and liquidation
of positions from its list of factors used for determining whether a
beneficial owner is operating as a market maker. The Exchange noted
that this activity no longer should be considered as a factor in
determining whether a beneficial owner is effectively acting as a
market maker.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \5\
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in that the proposal has been designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has considered the proposed rule change's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for an
options exchange not to prohibit a user of its market from operating as
a market maker without registering as such. The Commission previously
approved rules at other options exchanges that do not impose such a
prohibition,\8\ or impose such a prohibition on customers only.\9\ The
Commission notes that while the Exchange will continue to prohibit
customers who are not Voluntary Professionals from operating as market
makers, those customers will continue to have priority over the bids
and offers of market makers, other broker-dealers, and Voluntary
Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (approving rules governing the
trading of options on the NASDAQ Options Market).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February 27,
2009), 74 FR 9843 (March 6, 2009) (approval of rules for the trading
of listed options on NYSEAlternext).
    The Commission notes that any entity that acts as ``dealer,'' as
defined in Section 3(a)(5) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(5), would be
required to register with the Commission under Section 15 of the
Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o, and the rules and regulations thereunder, or
qualify for any exception or exemption from registration. Activity
that may cause a person to be deemed a dealer includes `` `quoting a
market in or publishing quotes for securities (other than quotes on
one side of the market on a quotations system generally available to
non-broker-dealers, such as a retail screen broker for government
securities).' '' See Definitions of Terms in and Specific Exemptions
for Banks, Savings Associations, and Savings Banks Under Sections
3(a)(4) and 3(a)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47364, 68 FR 8686, 8689, note 26
(February 24, 2003) (quoting OTC Derivatives Dealers, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23, 1998), 63 FR 59362,
59370, note 61 (November 3, 1998)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the Exchange's proposal to remove
the condition pertaining to the multiple acquisition and liquidation of
positions from its list of factors used for determining whether a
beneficial owner is operating as a market maker is consistent with the
Act. The Commission believes that the remaining factors are sufficient
to enable the Exchange to determine whether a user of its market is
operating as a market maker.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-09) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8002 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 106]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-645-000]

California Ridge Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
California Ridge Wind Energy LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 11, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33633 Filed 12-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76727-76728]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31069]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form T-2; SEC File No. 270-122, OMB Control No. 3235-0111.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form T-2 (17 CFR 269.2) is a statement of eligibility of an
individual trustee under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. The
information is used to determine whether the individual is qualified to
serve as a trustee under the indenture. Form T-2 is filed on occasion.
The information required by Form T-2 is mandatory. This information is
publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-2 takes approximately 9 hours per
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 9 respondents. We
estimate that 25% of the 9 hours per response (2 hours) is prepared by
the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 18 hours (2 hours per
response x 9 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii)
Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: December 4, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31069 Filed 12-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34568]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-518-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on July 6, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in
Docket No. CP18-518-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205, and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act for authorization to abandon 12 injection/withdrawal wells and
associated pipelines and appurtenances at five of Columbia's Ohio
storage fields located in Ashland, Medina, and Richland counties, Ohio.
Columbia proposes to abandon these facilities under authorities granted
by its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda
Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration,
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas
77002-2700 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at [email protected].
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to
file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15559 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P