Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 13639 

contacting the identified DFO. 

Moreover, in view of the possibility that 

the schedule for ACRS meetings may be 

adjusted by the Chairman as necessary 

to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, 

persons planning to attend should check 

with these references if such 

rescheduling would result in a major 

inconvenience. 

If attending this meeting, please enter 

through the One White Flint North 

building, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, MD. After registering with 

security, please contact Mr. Theron 

Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be 

escorted to the meeting room. 

Dated: March 9, 2015. 

Mark L. Banks, 

Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05946 Filed 3–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

ACRS Subcommittee on Fukushima; 

Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on 

Fukushima will hold a meeting on 

March 20, 2015, Room T–2B1, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The meeting will be open to public 

attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Friday, March 20, 2015—8:30 a.m. 

Until 12:00 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will review and 

discuss the development of an Interim 

Staff Guidance in support of Order EA– 

13–109, Reliable Hardened Vents, Phase 

2. The Subcommittee will hear 

presentations by and hold discussions 

with the NRC staff and other interested 

persons regarding this matter. The 

Subcommittee will gather information, 

analyze relevant issues and facts, and 

formulate proposed positions and 

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation 

by the Full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official (DFO), Weidong Wang 

(Telephone 301–415–6279 or Email: 

Weidong.Wang@nrc.gov) five days prior 

to the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Thirty-five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided to the DFO thirty minutes 

before the meeting. In addition, one 

electronic copy of each presentation 

should be emailed to the DFO one day 

before the meeting. If an electronic copy 

cannot be provided within this 

timeframe, presenters should provide 

the DFO with a CD containing each 

presentation at least thirty minutes 

before the meeting. Electronic 

recordings will be permitted only 

during those portions of the meeting 

that are open to the public. Detailed 

procedures for the conduct of and 

participation in ACRS meetings were 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 13, 2014, (79 FR 59307). 

Detailed meeting agendas and meeting 

transcripts are available on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/acrs. Information 

regarding topics to be discussed, 

changes to the agenda, whether the 

meeting has been canceled or 

rescheduled, and the time allotted to 

present oral statements can be obtained 

from the Web site cited above or by 

contacting the identified DFO. 

Moreover, in view of the possibility that 

the schedule for ACRS meetings may be 

adjusted by the Chairman as necessary 

to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, 

persons planning to attend should check 

with these references if such 

rescheduling would result in a major 

inconvenience. 

If attending this meeting, please enter 

through the One White Flint North 

building, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, MD. After registering with 

security, please contact Mr. Theron 

Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be 

escorted to the meeting room. 

Date: March 9, 2015. 

Mark L. Banks, 

Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05988 Filed 3–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0007] 

Applications and Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses Involving 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Considerations and Containing 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Order Imposing 

Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information; Corrections 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: License amendment request; 

opportunity to comment, request a 

hearing, and petition for leave to 

intervene; order, correction. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice 

that was published in the Federal 

Register on February 3, 2015, that 

contained an amendment request for 

Perry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. This action 

is being taken to correct the date of the 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) 

accession number for the amendment 

request from FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Operating Company. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eva 

A. Brown, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–2315; email: 

Eva.Brown@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of February 3, 2015 (80 

FR 5816), FR Doc. 2015–01917, on page 

5819, in the middle of the second 

column, under ‘‘FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Operating Company, Docket No. 50– 

440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, 

Lake County, Perry Ohio,’’ after ‘‘Date of 

amendment request,’’ the date 

‘‘September 12, 2014’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘October 8, 2014.’’ 

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of March, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Eva A. Brown, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing III– 

2 and Planning and Analysis Branch, Division 

of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05944 Filed 3–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Impact of the Select Agent Regulations 

ACTION: Request for Public Comment. 

SUMMARY: Public comment is requested 

on the impact that the Select Agent 

Regulations have had on science, 

technology, and national security, and 

on the benefits, costs, and limitations of 

these regulations. Drawing on these 

comments and other information 

available to it, a Fast Track Action 

Committee under the Committee on 

Homeland and National Security of the 

National Science and Technology 

Council will review the impacts and 

consider options to address the 

identified challenges or gaps concerning 

those regulations. Comments of up to 

three pages or fewer (12,000 characters) 

are requested and must be received by 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 

5:00 p.m. ET on March 30, 2015 to be 

considered. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5:00 p.m. ET on March 30, 2015 to be 

considered. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Email: SAReview@hq.dhs.gov. 

Include ‘‘SAR Comments’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Attn: Gerald L. Epstein, Ph.D., 

Co-Chair, Fast Track Action Committee, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and 

Nuclear Policy, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane 

SW., Mail Stop #0315, Washington, DC 

20528. Please allow sufficient time for 

security processing of postal mail. 

Instructions: Response to this request 

for public comment is voluntary. 

Responses exceeding 12,000 characters 

or three pages will not be considered. 

Submission via email is preferred. 

Responses to this request for public 

comment may be posted online. The 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP) therefore requests that no 

business proprietary information, 

copyrighted information, or sensitive 

personally identifiable information be 

submitted in response to this request. 

Please note that the U.S. Government 

will not pay for response preparation, or 

for the use of any information contained 

in the response. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerald Epstein, Co-Chair, Fast Track 

Action Committee, at SAReview@

hq.dhs.gov, (202) 282–9078. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

request for public comment offers the 

opportunity for interested individuals 

and organizations to comment on the 

impact that the Select Agent Regulations 

(SAR) have had on science, technology, 

and national security, and on the 

benefits, costs, and limitations of these 

regulations. The SAR (7 CFR part 331,9 

CFR part 121, and 42 CFR part 73, 

http://www.selectagents.gov/

regulations.html) address the 

possession, use, and transfer of 

biological select agents and toxins— 

those agents and toxins that have been 

determined by the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) or the 

Secretary of Agriculture as having the 

potential to pose a severe threat to 

public, animal or plant health or to 

animal or plant products. It is important 

that biological select agents and toxins 

are regulated in a way that effectively 

allows for research and development to 

enhance science, health, and national 

security. 

White House Memorandum for 

Enhancing Biosafety and Biosecurity 

Broad stakeholder engagement with 

respect to the impact of the SAR is one 

of the items called for in an August 18, 

2014, White House memo on Enhancing 

Biosafety and Biosecurity in the United 

States, which outlined a series of 

immediate and longer-term steps the 

government would take to address the 

underlying causes of a series of 

biosafety incidents at U.S. government 

laboratories earlier that year. Though 

most of the actions were directed at 

federally funded laboratories, the Memo 

recognized that many stakeholders (e.g., 

regulators, regulated, or other parties 

interested in the SAR) could provide a 

broader, deeper understanding of the 

impact of the SAR. 

Questions Regarding the Select Agent 

and Toxin Regulations 

We invite comments on any aspect of 

the SAR. Comments are sought that 

identify concrete impacts and/or 

propose recommendations to ameliorate 

or resolve identified challenges or gaps. 

We welcome comments that separately 

address the implementation of the SAR 

(including the costs, benefits and 

impacts of implementation), the 

regulations themselves, and any broader 

issues pertaining to the safety and 

security of potentially dangerous 

biological microorganisms and toxins. 

While all comments are welcome, the 

following questions may help you frame 

your response: 

1. What are the specific benefits, 

challenges, and impacts in 

implementing the SAR with respect to: 

(1) Scientific research (e.g., quality, 

breadth, international competitiveness, 

or other outcomes or consequences)?; (2) 

safety and security (e.g., 

biocontainment, biosafety, physical 

security, cybersecurity, and personnel 

suitability)?; and, 3. public or 

agricultural health and response (e.g. 

ability to respond rapidly and 

effectively to incidents and the 

development/availability of medical 

countermeasures)? 

2. What gaps exist in the SAR (e.g., 

reporting, aggregated data collection, 

ability to transfer material across 

international borders) and what specific 

recommendations would fill those gaps? 

3. Are facilities that possess, use, or 

transfer biological select agents and 

toxins in the U.S. safer than they were 

before the SAR went into effect in close 

to its current form in 2003? If so, to 

what extent are the SAR responsible? 

4. The SAR strike a balance between 

avoiding harm (e.g., preventing safety or 

security lapses) and seeking benefits 

(e.g., conducting research and public or 

agricultural health activities). Do you 

think that balance has been struck 

appropriately? If not, what specific 

aspects of the SAR should be 

emphasized more, and what should be 

emphasized less? 

5. Have the regulations unduly 

impaired research and other 

applications of select agents and toxins? 

If so, how? Please provide examples as 

appropriate, with specific sections of 

the SAR if possible. 

6. If the SAR have unduly impaired 

research, how can the research and 

other applications be further promoted, 

while still protecting against misuse and 

accidental release? Please provide 

examples as appropriate, with specific 

aspects of the SAR if possible. 

7. Have the regulations sufficiently 

protected public and agricultural health 

and safety against the misuse and 

accidental release of these agents? If so, 

or if not, how? Please provide examples 

as appropriate, with specific sections of 

the SAR if possible. 

8. If the SAR are not sufficient for 

health and safety protection, how can 

health and safety be better protected 

while still facilitating legitimate use of 

select agents and toxins? Please provide 

recommended changes to the specific 

sections of the SAR if appropriate. 

9. Describe how the overall costs of 

the SAR are or are not appropriately 

balanced with their overall benefits. 

10. The SAR regulate the use, transfer, 

or possession of a specific list of 

potentially dangerous pathogens and 

toxins. Is designing the regulations 

around a list of agents advantageous or 

disadvantageous? If disadvantageous, in 

what other way can the regulations be 

organized and implemented? 

11. Research today is a thoroughly 

international activity, with scientists 

and research materials constantly 

crossing national borders. Security 

threats today likewise extend across 

national borders. Are the SAR 

appropriately configured to 

accommodate these international 

issues? If not, how could they be 

improved? 

12. Are the SAR appropriately 

configured to accommodate changes in 

science and technology such as, but not 

limited to, advances in synthetic 

biology, genetic engineering, or viral 

systematics? If not, how can they be 

reconfigured to better do so? What 

scientific and technical advances might 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 13641 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3This includes options overlying equities, 

exchange traded funds (‘‘ETFs’’), exchange traded 

notes (‘‘ETNs’’) and indexes which are Multiply 

Listed. 

4PIXLSM is the Exchange’s price improvement 

mechanism known as Price Improvement XL or 

PIXL. See Rule 1080(n). 

5A Complex Order is any order involving the 

simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more 

different options series in the same underlying 

security, priced at a net debit or credit based on the 

relative prices of the individual components, for the 

same account, for the purpose of executing a 

particular investment strategy. Furthermore, a 

Complex Order can also be a stock-option order, 

which is an order to buy or sell a stated number 

of units of an underlying stock or ETF coupled with 

the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See 

Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary .08(a)(i) [sic]. 

6A transaction resulting from an order that was 

electronically delivered utilizes Phlx XL. See 

Exchange Rules 1014 and 1080. Electronically 

delivered orders do not include orders transacted 

on the Exchange floor. A transaction resulting from 

an order that is non-electronically-delivered is 

represented on the trading floor by a floor broker. 

See Exchange Rule 1063. All orders will be either 

electronically or non-electronically delivered. 

7The term ‘‘Customer’’ defines a person or entity 

that is neither a broker-dealer nor a direct or 

indirect affiliate of a broker-dealer, and includes a 

‘‘Professional’’ as defined in Rule 1000(b)(14). See 

Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66755 (April 

6, 2012), 77 FR 22037 (April 12, 2012) (SR–Phlx– 

2012–42) (notice of filing and immediate 

effectiveness). 

8The term ‘‘Firm’’ applies to any transaction that 

is identified by a member or member organization 

for clearing in the Firm range at The Options 

Clearing Corporation. 

9AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, TWTR, 

VXX and XLF are currently Penny Pilot options 

(together ‘‘certain Penny Options’’). The $ 0.27 per 

contract pricing proposed herein is symbol-specific 

and will continue to apply to these symbols 

whether or not they are deleted from or added to 

the Penny Pilot. 

10The term ‘‘Professional’’ means any person or 

entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, 

and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed 

options per day on average during a calendar month 

for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule 

1000(b)(14). 

11The term ‘‘Broker-Dealer’’ applies to any 

transaction which is not subject to any of the other 

transaction fees applicable within a particular 

category. 

12The Penny Pilot was established in January 

2007 and was last extended in 2014. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 

2007), 72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR–Phlx– 

2006–74) (notice of filing and approval order 

establishing Penny Pilot); and 73688 (November 25, 

2014), 79 FR 71484 (December 2, 2014) (SR–Phlx– 

2014–77) (notice of filing and immediate 

effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot through 

June 30, 2015). All Penny Pilot Options listed on 

the Exchange can be found at http://

www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlx. 

13A Specialist is an Exchange member who is 

registered as an options specialist pursuant to Rule 

1020(a). 

14A ‘‘Market Maker’’ includes Registered Options 

Traders (Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes 

Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) 

and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule 

1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market 

makers. 

15Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a 

‘‘Monthly Market Maker Cap’’ of $500,000 for: (i) 

Electronic and floor Option Transaction Charges; 

(ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange 

Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 

1064(e)); and (iii) fees related to an order or quote 

that is contra to a PIXL Order or specifically 

responding to a PIXL auction [sic]. The trading 

activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker 

member organizations is aggregated in calculating 

the Monthly Market Maker Cap if there is Common 

Ownership between the member organizations. All 

dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and 

conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy 

executions (as defined in Section II) are excluded 

from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. 

16The term ‘‘Common Ownership’’ shall mean 

members or member organizations under 75% 

common ownership or control. 

improve the function or lessen the costs 

and burdens of the SAR? 

Ted Wackler, 

Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05906 Filed 3–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–F5–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74460; File No. SR–Phlx– 

2015–21] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

Customer Rebate Program, Multiply 

Listed Options, PIXL Pricing 

March 10, 2015. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February 

26, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC 

(‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed 

rule change as described in Items I, II, 

and III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of the Substance 

of the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to modify the 

Phlx Pricing Schedule (‘‘Pricing 

Schedule’’). Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to amend pricing in Section B, 

entitled ‘‘Customer Rebate Program,’’ 

Section II, entitled ‘‘Multiply Listed 

Options Fees,’’ 3 and Section IV, Part A, 

entitled ‘‘PIXL Pricing,’’ 4 of the Pricing 

Schedule. The Exchange proposes these 

amendments in order to: (i) Establish a 

cap on rebates specifically for electronic 

Simple PIXL and Complex 5 PIXL 

Orders and not pay rebates when 

electronic 6 Customer 7 Complex PIXL 

Orders execute against electronic 

Complex PIXL Initiating Orders; (ii) 

increase the assessment of fees for 

electronic Firm 8 Simple Orders 

underlying options in AAPL, BAC, 

EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, TWTR, VXX 

and XLF; 9 (iii) increase the assessment 

of fees for electronic Complex Orders for 

Professionals,10 Firms and BrokerDealers; 11 (iv) increase the assessment 

of fees for adding liquidity in Penny 

Pilot Options 12 for Specialists 13 and 

Market Makers; 14 (v) clarify that the fee 

for Specialists and Market Makers that 

have reached their Monthly Market 

Maker Cap 15 in a non-complex 

electronic auction will include 

transactions which execute against an 

order for which the Exchange broadcast 

an order exposure alert; (vi) amend the 

Initiating Order Fee for Simple PIXL 

and Complex PIXL Initiating Orders; 

and (vii) amend the requirements to 

receive the PIXL Initiating Order Fee 

discount to require a member or 

member organization under Common 

Ownership 16 to qualify for a Tier 4 or 

Tier 5 Customer Rebate in Section B of 

the Pricing Schedule. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://

nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at 

the principal office of the Exchange, and 

at the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

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 this filing is to modify 

the Pricing Schedule to specifically 

amend fees in Section B, entitled 

‘‘Customer Rebate Program,’’ Section II, 

entitled ‘‘Multiply Listed Options Fees,’’ 

and Section IV, Part A, entitled ‘‘PIXL 

Pricing.’’ The Exchange proposes 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES