eliminating unnecessary or duplicative information would significantly
shorten the instructions and make them more useful.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and has deleted unnecessary
duplication.
    Reasonable effort: SoCal/SDG&E suggested that the instructions
should specify that a reasonable effort should be expended to generate
required estimates and that supplemental reports are only needed if
reported estimates change significantly or if new information results
in a change in reportable status of an incident.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA generally agrees and has included appropriate
guidance in the instructions.
    Cost data: NAPSR suggested that additional guidance be provided for
estimating costs associated with an accident, including the guidance
published in advisory bulletin ADB-94-01. SoCal/SDG&E asked that the
instructions specifically recognize that broad costs estimates are
acceptable when specific costs cannot be readily determined.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and has incorporated guidance from the
advisory bulletin.
    Contributing causes: IUB noted that section F instructs the
operator to complete only one cause section, but that some incidents
could have multiple contributing causes. IUB suggested that this
situation be addressed in the instructions.
    PHSMA response: Part F is intended to capture the principal cause
of an incident and, as indicated in the instructions, operators can
provide additional information in the narrative if they determine that
contributing secondary causes were important. For these reasons, PHMSA
does not believe any additional guidance is needed on this issue at
this time.
Comments on Burden Estimate, Form F 7100.2, Incident Report--Gas
Transmission and Gathering System
    Burden Hour Estimate: SoCal/SDG&E, Paiute/Southwest, and Panhandle
commented that the burden for completing the form (estimated at 7
hours) was significantly underestimated. Paiute/Southwest estimated
that the burden may be between 12 and 30 hours. Panhandle estimated 52
hours. SoCal/SDG&E suggested that the burden could be reduced by
redefining the thresholds for reporting incidents.
    PHMSA response: Even if completion of the form would require more
than the seven hours estimated, the total burden of this information
collection is still minimal. Operators need only complete the form if
they have an incident. There are approximately 75 incidents annually on
gas transmission and gathering systems. PHMSA considers that the value
of this information for future analysis of incident trends and the
factors that influence the occurrence of incidents justifies the
information collection burden. The threshold for reporting incidents is
defined in the regulations and no change to those regulations has been
proposed. Changing the threshold is beyond the scope of this
information collection request.
    Incidents significant in operator's judgment: Section 191.3 defines
an incident as an event that meets specified threshold criteria or ``is
significant, in the judgment of the operator'' even though it did not
meet those criteria. Paiute/Southwest requested that the form include
guidance on PHMSA's policy and expectations for such reports and how
they are to be submitted.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA does not consider it appropriate to provide
additional guidance for this requirement. Such guidance would likely
become an additional de facto criterion and incidents of significance
that do not conform to the guidance would likely not be reported. PHMSA
does not want to imply that operators should not report any incident
that they regard as significant, i.e., that they conclude is of
sufficient importance that the regulator should be notified. Such
incidents are to be reported using Form F 7100.1 in the same manner as
any other incident.

C. Incident Report Form PHMSA F 7000--1, Accident Report--Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Systems (Impacted Information Collection: OMB 2137-
0047)

General Comments
    Substitute form: API stated that the hazardous liquid pipeline
industry would prefer that PHMSA adopt the form used for its Pipeline
Performance Tracking System (PPTS). API noted that use of the same form
would reduce the administrative burden on reporting utilities and that
the industry has refined the PPTS form, over time, based on lessons
learned from the data.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA appreciates the value of API's PPTS and has
sought to adopt its concepts, breakdowns, and terminology to the extent
practicable. However, PHMSA cannot simply adopt the PPTS form for use
by hazardous liquid pipeline operators. Indeed, doing so would
frustrate PHMSA's objective of creating and maintaining consistency
between and among the three types of accident and incident reporting
forms.
    Excessive change: API contended that the proposed ``revisions'' on
control rooms and fatigue are so substantive in nature that they in
effect create a new regulatory requirement for industry, that such
action can only be done through the rulemaking process, and thus the
proposal is inappropriate and beyond the scope of an ICR. For example,
API contended that a fatigue investigation is required by the form for
every accident, something that is not required by regulations at this
time. As such, API stated those requirements do not meet the criterion
of necessity for an ICR and are in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act requirement for notice and comment.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has the authority to request that the owners
and operators of covered pipeline facilities submit information as
needed to ensure compliance with the nation's pipeline safety laws. 49
U.S.C. 60117(b)(1)-(2). Indeed, hazardous liquid pipelines are a
critical part of the nation's pipeline network and information on the
accidents that affect those lines is vital to ensuring public safety.
Congress has

also directed PHMSA to amend its accident and incident reporting forms
to require that operators provide data related to controller fatigue,
Pipeline Inspection, Protection and Safety Act (PIPES Act) of 2006,
Public Law 109-468, section 20, 120 Stat. 3498 (Dec. 29, 2006), and the
agency is coordinating its efforts to execute that mandate with its
pending rulemaking on control room management. These authorities
provide ample support for all of the information sought in the proposed
revision to the accident reporting form without notice-and-comment
rulemaking or further delay.
    Nevertheless, PHMSA has significantly reduced the level of detail
required to complete the form, particularly in the area of controller
fatigue, and positive answers to the remaining questions will provide
information indicating that further investigation of potential fatigue
issues may be warranted.
    Unnecessary information: API is concerned about the addition of
data elements that will not add value to analysis of accident trends.
For example, they noted that reporting the method by which MOP was
determined is likely to require additional research (and associated
burden) while it will not provide a commensurate benefit.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and has eliminated the proposed
element for reporting the method by which MOP was determined.
    Short form: API noted that elimination of the short form
(previously used for small releases) resulted in a significant increase
in burden for reporting accidents involving minimal impact on the
environment. They noted that many questions on the replacement form
would not be relevant for a small release and that requiring completion
of that form for all releases thus is a significant and unjustified
increase in reporting burden. API submitted a revised version of the
short form as part of their comments. API also noted that information
on PHMSA's Web site concerning accident experience focuses on larger
releases. API questioned whether PHMSA will use the data collected for
smaller releases, for which the short form was previously used, to
improve its safety programs.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA will retain the short form for the same types
of smaller releases as was done in the past.
    Unknown cause: The Pipeline Safety Trust noted its conclusion that
too many accidents have been attributed to an ``unknown'' cause. For
that reason, the Trust recommended that PHMSA require that any report
with the cause listed as ``unknown'' remain open and be updated every
60 days until a cause is determined or PHMSA concludes that all
information has been provided and there is no way to determine a cause.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has concluded that many incidents were
previously reported as ``unknown'' or ``other'' because the apparent
causes did not fit cause categories on the incident report form. PHMSA
expanded the number of sub-cause categories in its previous revision
and has seen a decrease in the number of unknown/other reports. PHMSA
has added additional sub-cause categories in this revision to attempt
to further reduce the number of such reports. PHMSA will monitor
incidents reported as ``unknown'' and will investigate as appropriate.
    Reporting threshold: The Pipeline Safety Trust noted that Alaska's
criteria for reporting hazardous liquid releases are more conservative
than those used by PHMSA.
    PHMSA response: The criteria defining an incident are established
in regulation and a rule change would be needed to change them. Such an
action is beyond the scope of this request.
Part A, Key Report Information
    Question 2, name of operator: API suggested that the on-line
reporting system automatically complete this field based on the entered
operator ID, noting that this would reduce potential errors.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and will implement this enhancement.
    Question 4, location: NAPSR suggested that location be reported by
GPS coordinates, including identification of the relevant
``projection'' to better define the latitude and longitude information.
    PHMSA response: Latitude and longitude were included by PHMSA in
the last revision of this form. We did not include this information in
the pending proposed revised form, but will restore the information to
the final form. Industry comments on the previous revision expressed
concern over requirements to specify a projection, stating that this
information would not be available to many distribution pipeline
operators and may be confusing. PHMSA elected at that time to omit a
requirement that operators specify the projection used. Since PHMSA did
not propose such a change in the September 4, 2009, notice, the
requirement to report latitude and longitude is being retained as in
the previous form, without a need to report projection.
    Question 7, commodity spilled: API noted that the revised form adds
a question concerning sulfur content of crude oil without any
explanation as to why this information is needed. API contended that
this information is not important to understanding an accident and that
there may be proprietary or other reasons not to reveal this data. API
suggested that this question be deleted unless it can be demonstrated
that the information will contribute to understanding accidents or
their consequences. API further suggested that the listed commodities
for refined products and highly volatile liquids be grouped in a more
logical fashion. NAPSR suggested that the definitions for sweet and
sour crude be moved to the instructions, and also noted that the
definitions leave it unclear how crude oil with between 0.5 and 2.5
percent sulfur is to be reported. The Pipeline Safety Trust also noted
the gap between the concentrations designated sweet and sour.
    PHMSA response: We have eliminated the ``sweet'' and ``sour''
subcategories under ``Crude'' because this information is of limited
utility in ensuring public safety. This obviates the need to address
the gap in options for percent sulfur. We have adjusted the commodity
list and groupings as API suggested.
    Question 7, biofuels: API commented that PHMSA has proposed
collecting information concerning spills of biofuels (i.e., ethanol and
biodiesel) but that the form does not provide for identification of
these commodities. In fact, they noted that the form refers to 49 CFR
195.50 as the regulatory basis for required reporting and that this
section does not refer to biofuels.
    PHMSA response: Section 195.50 requires reporting of accidents
involving ``a release of * * * hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide''
meeting certain criteria. Hazardous liquid is defined in 49 CFR 195.3
to include all petroleum products. PHMSA's policy for regulating
transport of biofuels by pipeline was described in a policy statement
published August 10, 2007 (72 FR 45002). As described more fully in
that statement, any blend of biofuels with petroleum products is
considered subject to the existing regulations in Part 195, including
Sec.  195.50, under the definition in Sec.  195.3. The policy statement
also notes that the statutory definition of hazardous liquids includes
petroleum or petroleum products and ``a substance the Secretary of
Transportation decides may pose an unreasonable risk to life or
property.'' The policy statement goes on to explain why the Secretary
has determined that ethanol is a substance that may pose an
unreasonable risk to life or property. Thus, accidents involving
release of

ethanol or ethanol blends must be reported under 49 CFR 195.50. The
policy statement does not explicitly address unblended biodiesel.
Reporting of accidents involving pure biodiesel transported by
pipelines would not be required under current pipeline safety
regulations, although operators could report such releases voluntarily.
PHMSA has revised the form to include biofuels and biofuels blends.
    Question 8, unit of measure: API commented that use of two units of
measure (barrels and gallons) has caused confusion. API suggested that
data be reported only in barrels. API further suggested that if PHMSA
continues to request gallons for spills of less than one barrel, that
the on-line data entry should include a validation check that will
prevent the use of gallons for spills of more than 41 gallons. API
suggested that, in either event, data entry must allow the use of two
decimal places.
    PHMSA response: We have modified the form to accept only barrels as
the unit of measure, and to allow for the use of two decimal places.
    Questions 9 and 10, volume spilled and recovered: API commented
that it is important that these questions indicate that the reported
volumes are expected to be estimates.
    PHMSA response: We have added the word ``estimated'' to each item
on the form, and the instructions will also reflect this expectation.
    Question 13: NAPSR suggested that this question be modified to
collect the date and time of any shutdown. The Pipeline Safety Trust
also suggested that an option be provided to indicate that the pipeline
is still shut down, since a shutdown may extend beyond the time at
which the written report must be filed.
    PHMSA response: We have incorporated both of these suggestions.
    Question 17, response time: API objected to the proposed
restructuring of this sentence (to Elapsed Time from Operator's
Awareness of Accident to Arrival of Operator Personnel on Site). They
commented that ``awareness'' is too vague. They noted that response
personnel may be a contracted oil spill response organization, as
allowed by 49 CFR 194.115. They also noted that mitigating actions can
begin before response personnel arrive on site, such as via SCADA
commands. NAPSR suggested that this question be revised to collect a
time sequence of key events such as when the operator was notified,
when operator personnel arrived on site, and when the area was made
safe. Other commenters noted that the form and instructions were not
consistent for this question.
    PHSMA response: We have revised this question to request a time
sequence as NAPSR suggested. We have made a similar change to the other
incident/accident report forms. We have also revised the time line
elements to clarify our intent.
Part B, Additional Location Information
    Question 21, nearest address: API noted that determining a valid
address can be difficult for rural locations. They further noted that
the latitude and longitude information reported in question 4 will
adequately describe the location of an accident and suggested that
question 21.a be deleted.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and has deleted the nearest address
information from the form.
    Question 22, location: NAPSR suggested adding elements for
locations between station designations, segment ID, and pipeline name.
    PHMSA response: Segment ID and Pipeline name have been added. PHMSA
considers that ``between stations'' information is not needed because
the Milepost, Valve, or Station number is already requested.
    Question 23, Federal lands: The Pipeline Safety Trust questioned
why lands in National Parks are excluded from categorization as Federal
lands.
    PHMSA response: This question identifies accidents that occur on
pipeline rights-of-way on Federal lands authorized pursuant to 30
U.S.C. 185, and National Parks are specifically excluded from that
statute.
    Question 24, location: API suggested that this question refer to
the location of the accident as opposed to the location of a failure.
API also suggested that some of this information be relocated. In
particular, they suggested that information concerning whether the
incident occurred in a pipeline segment that had been identified as
able to affect a high consequence area be moved to Part D, where
consequences are addressed. They also suggested that questions
concerning crossings (i.e., bridge, rail, and road) be presented in a
separate question uniquely devoted to crossings. Finally, they would
have clarified that reported water depth for accidents that occur in a
body of water is expected to be approximate, since depth can vary over
time. NAPSR suggested capturing the name of any body of water. The
Pipeline Safety Trust suggested that an additional option was needed
for water bodies to reflect those that are intermittent/ephemeral.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has adopted all of these recommendations with
the exception of the last one. PHMSA concludes that recognized bodies
of water will include these types of intermittent/ephemeral water
flows, at least those of significance to pipeline safety.
    Question 26, origin in State waters: NAPSR suggested that area,
block/track number, and nearest county be required for incidents
originating in State waters.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has incorporated these suggestions.
    Question 27, area of failure: API again requested that the form
refer to accident as opposed to failure. They also suggested a
restructuring of the data elements to separate onshore from offshore
and reduce the need to report as ``other.'' NAPSR suggested adding a
space for operators to describe the water, building, or space. The
Pipeline Safety Trust questioned the element for above ground but under
pavement.
    PHMSA response: We have incorporated these suggestions.
Part C, Additional Facility Information
    Question 28, pipeline function: API noted that ``gathering'' and
``transmission'' are pipeline types and that the presence in this
question of choices for tanks and facility piping could be confusing.
They suggested that these additional elements be moved. They also noted
that only gathering is defined in Part 195 and they suggested that the
choices here should thus be ``gathering'' and ``trunkline/
transmission.''
    PHMSA response: We have incorporated these suggestions.
    Question 30, distance between valves: API requested that elements
30 (d) and (e) be removed. They noted that the distance between valves
cannot be used to infer adequate protection without knowledge of a
number of other pipeline factors, and that this issue had been
previously addressed through rulemaking. They are concerned that
reporting of this data will create a temptation to make meaningless
comparisons and conclusions.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees with API that the information in parts
(d) and (e) of this question would not be useful without the knowledge
of a number of other factors and has removed these elements.
    Question 31, item involved: API suggested addition of items and
modification of others to make data entry easier and reduce reporting
as ``other.''
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has made the suggested changes.
    Question 34, type of failure: API expressed concern that reference
to the type of ``separation'' could create

confusion as it implies failure of a seam. They suggested that this
question, instead, refer to the orientation of a failure as generally
longitudinal or circumferential.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has made the suggested changes.
Part D, Additional Consequence Information
    Environmental impacts: API commented that PHMSA had not included
the information that was in section F.2 of the previous form on
environmental impacts. Instead, API contended that PHMSA was collecting
environmental impact data only for those accidents for which the
release affects a high consequence area. API strongly encouraged PHMSA
to continue to collect environmental impact data on all accidents.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and restored these elements.
    Question 35, high consequence areas: NAPSR suggested combining all
of the elements for spilled commodity affecting HCAs into one question
and including commodity recovered. NAPSR also suggested adding a
question on whether animals or other species were affected. API
recommended that questions pertaining to the amount of commodity
released and recovered in an HCA be deleted. They expressed concern
that this reporting could create confusion and result in multiple
counting of released volume.
    PHMSA response: Questions pertaining to affected animals or other
species were added. The questions pertaining to volume spilled and
recovered have been eliminated.
    Question 36, costs: API suggested that this question acknowledge
that the reported amounts are expected to be estimates. API also
suggested restoring the word ``reimbursed'' and adding the word
``paid'' to the category on public or private property damages and
adding an element for ``other'' costs. NAPSR suggested capturing costs
separately for facilities directly and indirectly affected. NAPSR also
suggested additional elements to capture costs related to business
interruption (e.g., lost sales, tariffs, line down time). The Pipeline
Safety Trust suggested that PHMSA needs to specify the price to be used
to estimate the cost of lost commodity.
    PHMSA response: API's suggestions have been incorporated. PHMSA
believes that trying to segregate direct effects vs. indirect effects
would introduce a significant element of complexity and confusion, and
would not add any analytical value to the data. Also, business
interruption impacts involve proprietary information which could not be
revealed. The price of the commodity to be used in these estimates is
highly variable and location-dependent, so it would not be feasible for
PHMSA to try to specify the values to be used in all situations.
Part E, Additional Operating Information
    Question 37, special regulatory treatment: API requested that this
question be deleted. They questioned whether the fact that a pipeline
was operating under any of the listed regulatory authorizations/
restrictions at the time of an accident adds any useful information for
accident analysis and trending.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has deleted this question.
    Question 39, MOP: API questioned the usefulness of this information
to accident analysis and suggested that the method used to determine
MOP only be asked for accidents resulting from overpressurization.
    PHMSA response: We reconsidered the need for this information.
Experience has shown that an error in calculating MOP is rarely, if
ever, relevant in determining the cause of an accident. It has also
shown that such information can be more efficiently and effectively
gathered during the course of an accident investigation. For these
reasons, PHMSA has eliminated this question.
    Question 40, overpressurization: The Pipeline Safety Trust
suggested that additional information is needed concerning
overpressurizations that may have been experienced in the year
preceding the accident and that PHMSA should ask explicitly if the
operator believes that overpressurization played a factor in
contributing to the accident.
    PHMSA response: Part E includes questions that ask the estimated
pressure at the point of the incident, the MAOP, and the range of
potential overpressure. In addition, operators would report
overpressurization as the cause of an incident in Part F. PHMSA
considers this sufficient information concerning potential overpressure
events. This report is intended to collect information concerning an
incident, and it would be inappropriate to include questions that
address past operations (e.g., overpressure experiences in the
preceding year). Historical operating experience that might indicate a
systemic problem related to an incident would be appropriate for
examination during a post-incident investigation, but such
investigations are not the subject of this form.
    Question 42, initial detection: API noted that the definition of
controller in the pending proposed rule was too expansive and suggested
that reporting here be limited to controllers as defined in API-RP-
1168. They also suggested additional changes to prevent confusion
within the industry.
    PHMSA response: The definition of controller in the rulemaking
identified by API is not at issue in this information collection
request. However, PHMSA has made the additional changes API suggested.
    Questions 44-57, fatigue: API objected to inclusion of these
questions, noting that a rulemaking addressing this subject is still in
progress. API suggested revisions and deletions to individual questions
in the event PHMSA did not agree to delete them all. The suggested
changes would eliminate questions that API considers subjective (e.g.,
whether a supervisor thought a controller was fatigued) and would
reorganize questions to what API perceives as a more logical
relationship. The Pipeline Safety Trust noted that question 44 does not
seem to allow for the option of a determination that a controller did
not cause or contribute to the accident.
    PHMSA response: Consistent with a recommendation made by NTSB,
Congress ordered PHMSA to obtain specific data from owners and
operators on the role of controller fatigue in incidents reporting
forms. Pipeline Inspection, Protection and Safety Act (PIPES Act) of
2006, Public Law 109-468, Sec.  20, 120 Stat. 3498 (December 29, 2006).
Nonetheless, PHMSA has reduced the amount of information required by
these questions. The revisions allow for reporting that the facility
was not monitored by controllers or that the operator determined that a
review of controller actions was not needed. The revised form also
allows for reporting review results that determined there were no
control room/controller issues. PHMSA considers that this is the
minimum information for it to satisfy the statutory requirement.
    Question 58, drug and alcohol testing: API requested that this
question be deleted. They contended that it provides no useful
information for accident analysis and is related only to compliance.
The Pipeline Safety Trust suggested that this question be expanded to
include other covered employees. The Trust also suggested that
operators be required to state their basis for concluding that drug and
alcohol testing was not necessary, if that is the case, and to report
information concerning the tests and results if tests were
administered.

    PHMSA response: Whether any operator or contractor employees were
tested under DOT's post-accident requirements--and if so, how many
failed--would be pertinent for any accident report. This determination
provides information related to potential contributing causes. The form
has been modified to require that the number of persons who failed a
post-accident test, and the number that did not fail, be reported.
PHMSA does not consider it appropriate to require operators to state a
basis for not testing. That basis would be subject to PHMSA's review
under our accident investigation process.
    Integrity management and testing: NAPSR suggested that a new
section be added to the end of part E to collect information concerning
integrity management assessments and testing that is now addressed in
several other portions of the form.
    PHMSA response: Questions concerning pipeline assessment occur in
multiple sections of Part F. Operators only complete one section of
Part F, depending on the cause of the accident. Accordingly, the
assessment questions do not result in duplication of effort. In fact,
operators need not provide assessment information for causes for which
assessment is not relevant. PHMSA considers it appropriate to ask these
questions as part of the information related to causes for which
assessment may be relevant. PHMSA has thus not collected these
questions into a new section.
Part F, Cause Information
Part F, F1--Corrosion
    Type of corrosion: API noted that more than one issue may be
causing corrosion and suggested that the form allow for selection of
multiple elements to accommodate this possibility. For internal
corrosion, NAPSR suggested a question be added asking whether coupons
were used.
    PHMSA response: We have incorporated the suggested changes.
    Cathodic protection surveys: API suggested that reference to close
interval survey (CIS) or other cathodic protection surveys should be
revised to refer to cathodic protection surveys of any type, thereby
reducing the apparent importance placed on CIS.
    PHMSA response: We have expanded and clarified the questions.
    Non-destructive examinations (NDE) and assessments: API noted that
the most recent NDE for many pipelines would have been done at the time
of construction and that these records may be difficult to access.
Accordingly, requesting information about these exams could pose
significant burdens. API suggested that this data element be limited to
examinations conducted since the integrity management regulations
became effective at the end of 2001. According to API, this would
reduce the burden to retrieve this information and would make it more
useful, since reported information would reflect examination of the
pipe in service instead of at initial construction. API also requested
that the distinction between high resolution and standard resolution
magnetic flux leakage (MFL) tools be clarified or the need to report
each separately be eliminated. This comment was also made for other
sections of part F.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees that recent NDE experience is of
interest and that the effort to retrieve construction data is not
necessary. We have modified the form to request NDE-related information
only if an operator has performed an examination since 2001. PHMSA has
also eliminated the need to differentiate between standard- and high-
resolution MFL tools.
Part F, F2--Natural Forces
    Thermal stress: API suggested that guidance is needed concerning
the meaning and use of this term.
    PHMSA response: We will revise the instructions to include guidance
in this area.
    High winds: API recommended that the instructions emphasize that
damage from ``wind- or weather-induced contact by debris or boats,
barges, anchors, drilling rigs, or other objects'' should be reported
in this category rather than similar categories in F3 or F4.
    PHMSA response: A similar question was included on the draft Gas
Transmission/Gathering form. Comments submitted concerning that form
suggested that secondary impacts (i.e., impact from boats, barges, etc.
that might be moved by high winds) be reported as ``Other Outside Force
Damage.'' PHMSA desires to maintain consistency among the forms as to
how accident data is collected, as this will facilitate future
analysis. PHMSA has modified this question to capture only incidents
directly associated with High Winds, placing secondary damage such as
may be caused by drifting barges under ``Other Outside Force Damage''
as INGAA suggested. PHMSA will ensure that guidance for reporting
secondary impacts is included in the instructions.
    Natural fire: API suggested eliminating reference to natural fires
under temperature. They noted that a natural fire (e.g., forest fire)
would likely be caused by lightning, which is a separate element in
this part, and that its treatment under temperature is confusing. NAPSR
suggested making forest fires a separate sub-cause.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and has revised the form to collect
information concerning accidents caused by fires initiated by lightning
damage. Accidents resulting from man-made fires would be reported under
F4, other outside force damage.
Part F, F3--Excavation Damage
    Location: NAPSR suggested deleting ``unknown'' under damage
location, since operators should know where the damage occurred.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA generally includes ``unknown'' or ``other''
in data elements where operators select among available options. PHMSA
agrees that operators should most likely be able to select an element
from the list provided here, but has continued to provide an ``unknown/
other'' option for any situations in which the choices provided are not
sufficient.
    Damage Information Reporting Tool (DIRT): API noted that the
proposed form adopted many of the data elements used by the Common
Ground Alliance in its DIRT system, in lieu of the information
previously required for excavation damage incidents. API recommended
that this change not be made. API reported its own experience with DIRT
for consideration by PHMSA in case PHMSA did not agree to return to the
excavation damage information previously required. API noted that it
has modified its PPTS system to collect the data used in the DIRT
system and that it then uploads that data directly to DIRT for all
events reported to PPTS. API noted that requiring this information to
be submitted to PHMSA would represent unnecessary duplication unless
PHMSA also agrees to provide this information to DIRT, in which case
API would cease collecting this data for PPTS. API recommended that
PHMSA collect only that data identified in DIRT as mandatory. NAPSR
suggested additional data elements for inclusion.
    PHMSA response: The Common Ground Alliance (CGA) is the recognized
authority for preventing excavation damage of underground utilities.
The CGA has determined the information necessary to evaluate excavation
damage trends via its DIRT system. PHMSA has adopted in this form the
fields defined within the DIRT system as mandatory. Collecting
information on excavation damage consistent with DIRT will allow for
thorough analyses to identify trends related to excavation damage. It
will

also allow comparative analyses to consider information reported to
DIRT by other underground utility operators, thereby expanding the
database and potentially affording additional insights.
Part F, F4--Other Outside Force Damage
    Vehicular damage: API suggested that the element concerning damage
by a vehicle or other equipment be modified to include damage by the
operator or its contractor. NAPSR suggested adding sub-elements to
identify if barriers were in place, the distance between the roadway
and the facility, and the location of damaged facilities.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA modified this question to collect information
as to whether the vehicle was operated by operator or operator
contractor personnel. PHMSA did not include questions concerning
vehicle barriers. Experience shows that unique circumstances are often
involved in vehicle-damage accidents, making it difficult to develop a
uniform set of questions that would collect the appropriate information
in all cases. The presence and location of vehicle barriers is more
appropriately addressed as part of an accident investigation.
    Assessment: API questioned the value of collecting data on when
inspection tools were run, noting that damage could have occurred
subsequent to an inspection. API suggested that this element be
replaced with a question asking whether the operator has reason to
believe that its most recent internal inspection was completed prior to
the damage being sustained.
    PHMSA response: We have added the question API suggested. PHMSA
also has retained the questions concerning when tools were run. PHMSA
recognizes that damage could have occurred subsequent to the last tool
run, but it is also possible that damage went unrecognized as a result
of the type of tool used or for other reasons. PHMSA considers it
important to collect information which can be used to help identify
whether assessment requirements are being effective in preventing
accidents from latent outside force damage.
    Prior damage: API noted that the instructions should explicitly
state that this section is to be completed for accidents resulting from
prior excavation damage. They further suggested that a question be
added as to whether the prior damage resulted from excavation. API
again suggested that the questions related to assessments be limited to
assessments/inspections conducted since the effective date of integrity
management regulations.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA added the word ``mechanical'' to damage,
which is more accurate than stating ``excavation'' damage. PHMSA also
added a question as to whether the prior damage resulted from
excavation. PHMSA did not limit the questions to those assessments
conducted since the effective date of the integrity management
regulations because these sorts of preventive assessments may well have
taken place prior to and without regard to whether they were required
by regulations.
Part F, F5--Material and/or Weld Failure
    Title: API noted that this redesigned section caused considerable
confusion among its members. They suggested that the section be
retitled ``material failure of pipe or weld'' which they believe will
resolve the confusion.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has made the suggested change.
    Multiple causes: API suggested that the section on cause should
include more options and should allow for multiple to be selected
(i.e., check all that apply).
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and has revised the form to indicate
that multiple choices can be made.
    Failure drivers: API noted that the distinction between
construction and original defect is not clear. They also noted that
fatigue or vibration would be a factor that would drive a construction-
related or other incipient defect to failure, rather than being a cause
unto itself. API suggested a restructuring to reflect this
relationship.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has revised the form to indicate that sub-
causes are construction-related or original manufacturing defects.
PHMSA has also reorganized the form to collect information on the
subsequent mechanism that likely drove one of these defects to failure.
Part F, F6--Equipment Failure
    Failure methods: API indicated that the hazardous liquid pipeline
industry is working hard to understand equipment failure problems. They
suggested that additional data in this section would be useful, and
provided an expanded list of failure methods to be included.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has revised the form to incorporate API's
suggestions.
    Pump failure: API noted that a motor failure cannot, alone, cause a
release from a pump. API suggested that the sub-questions for this
element be limited to body failure, crack in body, and appurtenance
failure.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and has modified the sub-questions
accordingly.
Part F, F7--Incorrect Operation
    Revisions: API suggested a different set of questions for this
section, to better understand the causes of incorrect operation.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has incorporated the API-suggested questions.
Instructions for Form 7000-1, Accident Report--Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Systems
    Inadequate instructions: API commented that the proposed
instructions were inadequate, consisting for the most part of
information duplicated from the form. API concluded that the extensive
changes to the form, plus its applicability to operators of low-stress
and rural gathering pipelines not previously subject to the regulations
makes it imperative that good and thorough instructions be provided.
API prepared and submitted a proposed draft set of instructions as part
of their comments.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA will revise the instructions to provide more
guidance and to minimize repetition of information from the form.
    Zero as a placeholder: The draft form instructed operators to enter
unknown for text fields and ``0'' for numeric fields where information
is unavailable. API suggested that numeric fields for which information
is not available should be left blank. They noted that zero can be
interpreted as actual data and that this will distort subsequent
analyses.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA agrees and will revise the instructions to so
indicate.
    Required fields: API noted that there is no indication on the draft
form as to which fields are required. They also commented that the on-
line data entry option does not indicate which fields are required
until after data entry has been completed.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has held several discussions with Trade
Association teams on general form design. Feedback from various
stakeholders will be taken into account for both hard copy and
electronic form design, including consideration of which fields are
required for both instances.
    Volume recovered: API requested that the instructions include
guidance for estimating the amount of a spill that is recovered.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA will include such guidance in instructions.

    Guidance on costs: API requested that the instructions include
explicit guidance for how costs related to an accident are to be
estimated. The proposed instructions API submitted included such
guidance.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA will include such guidance in instructions.
    Conflicts with regulations: The Pipeline Safety Trust suggested
that there were conflicts between the instructions and the regulations
concerning the definition of highly volatile liquids and treatment of
natural gas liquids.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA will address conflicts between the
instructions and the regulations concerning the definition of highly
volatile liquids and treatment of natural gas liquids in revisions to
instructions that will be posted in the docket at time of publication
of this r notice.
    Fatality: The Pipeline Safety Trust objected to the instructions
that a fatality occurring more than 30 days after an accident as a
result of an injury incurred from the accident should be reported as an
injury. They contended that all fatalities resulting from an accident
should be reported as a fatality.
    PHMSA response: This distinction is standard DOT practice. PHMSA
acknowledges the logic behind attributing any resulting fatality to an
accident, but there are practical difficulties in doing so. Accidents
may result in injuries that subsequently contribute to death, sometimes
long after the injury occurs. PHMSA cannot require pipeline operators
to maintain contact with injury victims so that they will be aware of
subsequent deaths and can modify incident reports accordingly. Thus, it
is necessary to have some practical time limit in which operators would
be expected to have this information and in which it is relatively
clear that the accident is the proximate cause of death. PHMSA has no
reason to deviate from DOT standard practice in establishing this
limit.
Comments on Burden Estimate, Form 7000-1, Accident Report--Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Systems
    Basis for estimates: API noted that PHMSA's basis for the number of
forms to be completed each year is based on the historical record of
number of accidents reported. API considered this inaccurate, since a
recent change to the regulations has made the regulations applicable to
additional pipeline mileage (low-pressure pipeline and rural gathering
lines between 6 and 8 inches in diameter). API also noted that the
burden estimate included the short form, which was eliminated in this
ICR. API reported its conclusion that the estimate of seven hours to
complete the form is significantly low.
    PHMSA response: PHMSA has restored a short form to be used for
small releases. PHMSA acknowledges that more accident reports may be
filed in the future as a result of additional pipeline mileage made
subject to Part 195. At the same time, other regulatory (and voluntary)
initiatives have been put in place that are intended to significantly
reduce the number of accidents that occur. If those initiatives are
successful, then use of the historic record could actually overestimate
the number of reports that will be submitted in the future. It is not
possible to know which outcome will occur, and PHMSA considers that use
of the historical record is most appropriate.

III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for Comments

    The forms to be revised are pipeline accident and incident
reporting forms authorized by Information Collections OMB 2137-0522,
Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators and OMB 2137-
0047, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping
and Accident Reporting. The revised burdens hours associated with these
information collections are specified as follows:
    Title of Information Collection: Transportation of Hazardous
Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0047.
    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Currently Information Collection 2137-0047 entitled
``Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and
Accident Reporting'' has an approved burden hour estimate of 51,011
hours and 200 respondents. This information collection consists of a
broad scope data collection relative to hazardous liquid pipeline
operators. This notice will affect only a portion of this information
collection for accident reports. PHMSA estimates that the currently
approved 200 respondents for this information collection should be
revised to 300 respondents. This 100 respondent increase reflects the
number of smaller entities that were previously unaccounted for due to
the fact that they did not have to pay user fees and were not inspected
by PHMSA. Therefore, this group became recognized after we began
collecting annual reports in 2004. PHMSA estimates that 150 accident
reports are submitted each year. This estimate is based on accident
reporting data that PHMSA has collected over the past decade (1999--
2008). Currently, PHMSA estimates that each form takes an estimated 6
hours to complete. This sets burden hours relative to completion of the
accident form at 1,200 hrs. (200 responses * 6 hours/response). PHMSA
estimates that the form changes relative to this notice will result in
a 2 hour increase in the amount of time necessary to complete an
accident report. However, since we estimate that 150 accident reports
are submitted each year versus 200 accident reports this 2 hour
increase in time will result in no change to the total annual burden
hours (200 * 6 = 150 * 8). The amendments specified above will result
in the following:
    Affected Public: Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Operators.

Recordkeeping

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,011 hours (no increase).
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    Title of Information Collection: Incident and Annual Reports for
Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0522.
    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Currently Information Collection 2137-0522 entitled
``Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators'' has an
approved burden hour estimate of 36,105 hours and 2,100 respondents.
This information collection consists of incident and annual reporting
for gas pipeline operators. PHMSA's approved 2137-0522 information
collection estimates that 10 percent (210) of the respondent community
(distribution and transmission operators) will submit an incident
report. Upon review of recent annual and incident report data, PHMSA
estimates the respondent community at 2,212 respondents (950
Transmission Operators and 1,262 Distribution Operators). Also, PHMSA
has reviewed the past 10 years of incident data (1999--2008) and is
revising the estimated 210 incident reports/year to an estimated 300
incident reports/year. PHMSA estimates that the current form will takes
6 hours to complete. This sets the current burden hours relative to
completion of the incident form at 1,260 hrs. (210 responses * 6 hours/
response). PHMSA estimates that the form changes relative to this
notice will result in a 2 hour increase in the amount of time necessary
to complete an incident report. This adjustment, along with the other
amendments specified above, will increase the estimated burden hours

relative to incident forms from 1,260 hours to 2,400 hours (300
responses * 8 hours/response). This will increase the total estimated
burden hours from 36,105 hours to 37,245 hours. The result of this
revision is specified as follows:
    Affected Public: Gas Pipeline Operators.

Recordkeeping

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,212.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 37,245 hours (1,140 hour
increase).
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 10, 2009.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E9-19499 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: February 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 7622]
[DOCID:fr18fe09-62]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
February 19, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The Acting General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
February 19, 2009 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 12, 2009.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3467 Filed 2-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81540-81541]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32860]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026; FRL 9940-33-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; National Water Quality Inventory Reports
(Reinstatement)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``National Water Quality
Inventory Reports (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1560.11, OMB Control No.
2040-0071) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a request for reinstatement of a previously
discontinued collection. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (80 FR 38684) on July 7, 2015 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 29,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2003-0026, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov or by mail
to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk
Officer for EPA.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Kovatch, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, Office of Water, Mail Code: 4503T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Clean Water Act Section 305(b) reports contain
information on the water quality standards attainment status of
assessed waters, and, when waters are impaired, the pollutants and
potential sources affecting water quality. This information helps track
State progress in addressing water pollution. Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act requires States to identify and rank waters that cannot
meet water quality standards (WQS) following the implementation of
technology-based controls. Under Section 303(d), States are also
required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for listed
waters not meeting standards as a result of pollutant discharges. In
developing the Section 303(d) lists, States are required to consider
various sources of water

quality related data and information, including the Section 305(b)
State water quality reports. Section 106(e) requires that states
annually update monitoring data and use it in their Section 305(b)
report. Section 314(a) requires states to report on the condition of
their publicly-owned lakes within the Section 305(b) report.
    EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) works
with its Regional counterparts to review and approve or disapprove
State Section 303(d) lists and TMDLs from 56 respondents (the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and the five Territories). Section
303(d) specifically requires States to develop lists and TMDLs ``from
time to time,'' and EPA to review and approve or disapprove the lists
and the TMDLs. EPA also collects State 305(b) reports from 59
respondents (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, five Territories,
and 3 River Basin Commissions).
    During the period covered by this ICR renewal, respondents will:
Complete their 2016 Section 305(b) reports and 2016 Section 303(d)
lists; complete their 2018 Section 305(b) reports and 2018 Section
303(d) lists; transmit annual electronic updates of ambient monitoring
data via the Water Quality Exchange; and continue to develop TMDLs
according to their established schedules. EPA will prepare biennial
updates on assessed and impaired waters for Congress and the public for
the 2016 reporting cycle and for the 2018 cycle, and EPA will review
303(d) list and TMDL submissions from respondents.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: States and Territories.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (Clean Water Act
Sections 305(b), 303(d), 314(a), and 106(e)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 59 (total).
    Frequency of response: Biennial.
    Total estimated burden: 3,740,017 (per year) hours. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $203,340,984 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR previously approved
by OMB. The EPA is currently designing the Water Quality Framework,
which is a new way of integrating the EPA's data and information
systems to more effectively support reporting and tracking water
quality protection and restoration actions. The Framework will
streamline water quality assessment and reporting by reducing
transactions associated with paper copy reviews and increasing
electronic data exchange. The Framework composts with the EPA's E-
Enterprise Initiative, which seeks to assess and reformulate the EPA's
business process to reduce burden through the improved use of
technology. The EPA expects that the Framework will reduce reporting
burden for integrated water quality inventory reports and will revise
this ICR before the new information system is implemented for the 2018
reporting cycle.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-32860 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8238-8240]
[DOCID:fr23fe07-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55301; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Permit the Listing and Trading of Quarterly Options Series

February 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 9, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. Phlx has designated this proposal as noncontroversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Phlx proposes to amend its rules, including Rule 1000
(``Applicability, Definitions and References''), Rule 1012 (``Series of
Options Open for Trading''), Rule 1000A (``Applicability and
Definitions''), Rule 1001A (``Position Limits''), and Rule 1101A
(``Terms of Option Contracts''), to permit the listing and trading of
options series that may be opened for trading on any business day and
expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar
quarter (``Quarterly Options'' or ``Quarterly Options Series''). The
pilot will commence the day the Exchange first initiates trading in a
Quarterly Options Series and will continue through July 24, 2007 (the
``Phlx Pilot'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Phlx proposal is substantially similar to a proposal by
the American Stock Exchange LLC to list Quarterly Options Series on
a pilot basis through July 24, 2007. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54137 (July 12, 2006), 71 FR 41283 (July 20, 2006) (SR-
Amex-2006-67) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness). The
Commission has approved a substantially similar Quarterly Options
Series pilot on behalf of the International Securities Exchange. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54113 (July 7, 2006), 71 FR
39694 (July 13, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-24) (order approving proposal).
In addition, the Chicago Board Options Exchange and NYSE Arca have
also filed substantially similar proposals. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 54123 (July 11, 2006), 71 FR 40558 (July 17, 2006)
(SR-CBOE-2006-65) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness) and
54166 (July 18, 2006), 71 FR 42151 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-
2006-45) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness). The Phlx
proposal also incorporates certain changes made by CBOE to its
version of the Quarterly Options Series pilot (e.g., limiting
Quarterly Options Series to five strike prices above or below the
value of an index). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54762
(November 16, 2006), 71 FR 67663 (November 22, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-
93) (order approving proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.phlx.com/exchange/phlx_rule_fil.html), at the

Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Rules, including Phlx Rules 1000, 1012, 1000A, 1001A, and 1101A, to
establish the Phlx Pilot, which would accommodate the listing of
Quarterly Options Series that would expire at the close of business on
the last business day of a calendar quarter.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In 1994, the Exchange was granted SEC approval to list and
trade narrow-based index options that expire at the end of each
quarter on several Exchange indexes: Gold and Silver (symbol
``XAU''); Utility (``UTY''); Bank (``BKX''); National Over-the-
Counter (``XOC''); and Value Line (``VLE''). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 34234 (June 17, 1994), 59 FR 32729 (June 24, 1994)
(SR-Phlx-93-45). These proved to be of limited use as quarterly
options and in fact the three remaining options (XAU, UTY, and BKX)
are currently listed and trading only on monthly expiration cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quarterly Options Series could be opened on any approved options
class \7\ on a business day (``Quarterly Options Opening Date'') and
would expire at the close of business on the last business day of a
calendar quarter (``Quarterly Options Expiration Date''). The Exchange
would list series that expire at the end of the calendar quarters of
this calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Quarterly Options Series may be opened in options on indexes
or options on ETFs that satisfy the applicable listing criteria
under Phlx rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quarterly Options Series listed on approved options classes would
be P.M.-settled and, in all other respects, would settle in the same
manner as do the monthly expiration series in the same options class.
    The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to open up to
five currently listed options classes that are options on exchange
traded funds (``ETFs''). The strike price for each series would be
fixed at a price per share, with at least two strike prices above and
two strike prices below the approximate value of the underlying
security at about the time that a Quarterly Options Series is opened
for trading on the Exchange. The Exchange may list strike prices for a
Quarterly Options Series on ETFs that are within $5 from the closing
price of the underlying security on the preceding trading day.
    With respect to Quarterly Options Series based on an underlying
index, the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to list not
more than five strike prices above and not more than five strike prices
below the value of the underlying index. The Exchange may list
additional Quarterly Options Series strike prices on indexes above the
value of the underlying index provided that the total number of strike
prices above the value of the underlying index is no greater than five.
Similarly, the Exchange may list additional Quarterly Options Series
strike prices on indexes below the value of the underlying index
provided that the total number of strike prices below the value of the
underlying index is no greater than five.
    The proposal would permit the Exchange to open for trading
additional Quarterly Options Series of the same class when the Exchange
deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer
demand, or when the current market price of the underlying security or
index moves substantially from the exercise prices of those Quarterly
Options Series that already have been opened for trading on the
Exchange. In addition, the exercise price of each Quarterly Options
Series on an underlying index would be required to be reasonably
related to the current index value of the index at or about the time
such series of options were first opened for trading on the Exchange.
For purposes of the Phlx

Pilot, the term ``reasonably related to the current index value of the
underlying index'' means that the exercise price is within 30 per cent
of the current index value. The Exchange would also be permitted to
open for trading additional Quarterly Options Series on an underlying
index that are more than 30 per cent 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.\8\ Market-makers trading for their own account shall not be
considered when determining customer interest under this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ``within 30 per cent'' requirement is proposed
specifically for the Phlx Pilot and is not otherwise in the
Exchange's options rules. See Rule 1000 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because monthly options series expire on the third Friday of their
expiration month, a Quarterly Options Series (which would expire on the
last business day of the quarter) could never expire in the same week
in which a monthly options series in the same class expires. That is
not the case, however, for Short Term Option Series. Quarterly Options
Series and Short Term Option Series on the same options class could
potentially expire concurrently under the proposal.\9\ Therefore, to
avoid any confusion in the marketplace, the proposal stipulates that
the Exchange may not list a Short Term Option Series that expires at
the end of the day on the same day as a Quarterly Options Series in the
same class expires. In other words, the proposed rules would not permit
the Exchange to list a P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series on an ETF
or an index that would expire on a Friday that is the last business day
of a calendar quarter if a Quarterly Options Series on that ETF or
index were scheduled to expire on that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange does not currently have any Short Term Option
Series listed for trading but believes it is prudent to leave the
Short Term Option concept in its proposed rule text so that all of
the quarterly option pilots are similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would, however, permit the Exchange to list an
A.M.-settled Short Term Option Series and a P.M.-settled Quarterly
Options Series in the same options class that both expire on the same
day (i.e., on a Friday that is the last business day of the calendar
quarter). The Exchange believes that the concurrent listing of an A.M.-
settled Short Term Option Series and a P.M.-settled Quarterly Options
Series on the same underlying ETF or index that expire on the same day
would not tend to cause the same confusion as would P.M.-settled short
term and quarterly series in the same options class and would provide
investors with an additional hedging mechanism.
    Additionally, the interval between strike prices on Quarterly
Options Series would be the same as the interval for strike prices for
series in the same options class that expires in accordance with the
normal monthly expiration cycles.
    The Exchange believes that Quarterly Options Series would provide
investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure,
minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of
events affecting the securities that underlie option contracts. At the
same time, the Exchange is cognizant of the need to be cautious in
introducing a product that can increase the number of outstanding
strike prices. For that reason, the Exchange is proposing a limited
pilot program for Quarterly Options Series. Under the terms of the Phlx
Pilot, the Exchange could select up to five option classes on which
Quarterly Options Series may be opened on any Quarterly Options Opening
Date. The Exchange would also be allowed to list those Quarterly
Options Series on any options class that is selected by another
securities exchange with a similar Pilot Program under its rules. The
Exchange believes that limiting the number of options classes in which
Quarterly Options Series may be opened would help to ensure that the
addition of the new series through the Phlx Pilot will have only a
negligible impact on the Exchange's and the Option Price Reporting
Authority's (``OPRA'') quoting capacity. Also, limiting the term of the
Pilot Program to a finite period will allow the Exchange and the
Commission to determine whether the program should be extended,
expanded, and/or made permanent.
    If the Exchange were to propose an extension or an expansion of the
pilot, or were to propose to make the Phlx Pilot permanent, along with
any filing proposing such amendments, the Exchange would submit a Phlx
Pilot report (``Report'') that would provide an analysis of the pilot
program covering the entire period during which the Phlx Pilot was in
effect. The Report would include, at a minimum: (1) Data and written
analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for
which Quarterly Options Series were opened; (2) an assessment of the
appropriateness of the options classes selected for the Phlx Pilot; (3)
an assessment of the impact of the Phlx Pilot on the capacity of Phlx,
OPRA, and on market data vendors (to the extent data from market data
vendors is available); (4) any capacity problems or other problems that
arose during the operation of the Phlx Pilot and how Phlx addressed
such problems; (5) any complaints that the Phlx received during the
operation of the Phlx Pilot and how the Phlx addressed them; and (6)
any additional information that would assist in assessing the operation
of the Phlx Pilot. The Report must be submitted to the Commission at
least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Phlx Pilot.
    Alternatively, at the end of the Phlx Pilot, if the Exchange
determines not to propose an extension or an expansion of the Phlx
Pilot, or if the Commission determines not to extend or expand the Phlx
Pilot, the Exchange would no longer list any additional Quarterly
Options Series and would limit all existing open interest in Quarterly
Options Series to closing transactions only.
    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems
capacity to support new options series that will result from the
introduction of Quarterly Options Series.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to list and trade Quarterly
Options Series will satisfy institutional demand for such options and
provide additional flexibility and risk management and hedging tools to
investors. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78 f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6)(iii) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \13\ because the foregoing proposed rule change (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which
it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ The Exchange provided the Commission with pre-filing notice
of the proposal, as required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to waive the operative
delay if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed rule change
immediately operative, so that the Exchange can have quarterly options
pilot rules that are similar to that of other options exchanges. The
Exchange believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes that the proposal is substantially identical to
the CBOE's pilot program for quarterly option series, previously
published for comment \15\ and approved by the Commission,\16\ and is
substantially similar to existing pilot programs currently in place at
other SROs.\17\ Thus, Phlx's proposal raises no new issues of
regulatory concern. Moreover, waiving the operative delay will allow
Phlx to immediately compete with other exchanges that list and trade
quarterly options under similar programs, and consequently will benefit
the public. Therefore, the Commission has determined to waive the 30-
day delay and allow the proposed rule change to become operative upon
filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54123 (July 11,
2006), 71 FR 40558 (July 17, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-65) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness for CBOE's quarterly option
series pilot program).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Releases No. 54762 (November
16, 2006), 71 FR 67663 (November 22, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-93) (order
approving certain amendments to CBOE's quarterly option series pilot
program).
    \17\ See supra note 5.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay of this
proposal, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed
rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Phlx-2007-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2007-08 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3070 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P