31834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

57See supra notes 23–24 and accompanying text. 

58 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8). 

59 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

60 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

amount per broker-dealer regardless of 

the quantity of issues traded, and 

concern regarding the cost of acquiring 

the technology necessary if they opt to 

receive the TOPO Plus raw data 

stream.57 The Commission believes that, 

in the Phlx Letter, the Exchange 

addressed the commenters’ concerns in 

clarifying that the Exchange would only 

consider them to be Internal Distributors 

(and thus subject to a $4,000 monthly 

fee) if they opt to receive the TOPO Plus 

data as a raw data feed. The Exchange 

noted that the commenters could opt to 

receive TOPO Plus from an External 

Distributor, whereby they would be 

considered Professional Subscribers. In 

such a case, the proposal would charge 

an External Distributor $20 per month 

for each Professional Subscriber to 

whom it distributes the feed and Phlx 

notes that the External Distributor may 

pass through the Professional Subscriber 

fee to its subscribers, along with any 

other fees agreed upon, which should be 

significantly less than the monthly 

distributor fees proposed under the 

proposed rule change. 

Though the Commission notes the 

commenters cost concerns regarding 

receiving the TOPO Plus raw data 

stream, if the commenters choose to 

receive the raw data stream, they would 

be subject to the same technology 

constraints and costs in dealing with the 

data as other market participants. In 

addition, the Commission notes that the 

Exchange has stated that it would make 

the SOF data feed available for those 

current SOF users that may encounter 

issues beyond their control that render 

them unable to migrate to TOPO Plus 

before June 1, 2010. 

V. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the Act 

and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to a national 

securities exchange and, in particular, 

with Section 6(b)(4), (5), and (8) of the 

Act.58

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,59 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–Phlx–2010– 

48) is approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.60

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13461 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Adoption of Environmental Impact 

Statement; Availability of an 

Environmental Reevaluation 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Adoption and Recirculation of 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Notice of Availability of 

Environmental Reevaluation. 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to 

advise the public and interested 

agencies that FRA has decided to adopt 

portions of the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) issued by the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) in 2004 

for the construction of the Transbay 

Transit Center (TTC) in San Francisco, 

California, in order to satisfy FRA’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

obligations related to funding the train 

box element of the TTC. Additionally, 

FRA has made available an 

Environmental Reevaluation of the EIS, 

updating certain relevant sections of the 

environmental analysis and describing 

design modifications to the train box. 

Under applicable Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, FRA may adopt and 

recirculate the FTA’s Final EIS since 

FRA’s proposed action is substantially 

the same as the action covered by the 

FTA’s EIS, and FRA has determined that 

the FTA EIS meets the standard for an 

adequate statement under the CEQ 

Regulations. In addition, under FRA’s 

environmental procedures, FRA is 

required to issue a reevaluation of the 

adequacy, accuracy and validity of a 

final EIS in certain circumstances, 

which the agency has also done for this 

project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa DuMond, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE, MS–20, Washington, DC 20590, 

Telephone: (202) 493–6366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FTA 

and the Transbay Joint Powers 

Authority (‘‘TJPA’’) prepared a joint 

environmental impact statement/ 

environmental impact report for the 

Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown/ 

Extension Redevelopment Project 

(‘‘2004 EIS’’). The 2004 EIS included an 

analysis of the environmental impacts of 

the Caltrain Downtown Extension, the 

establishment of a redevelopment area 

plan, and the construction of the TTC 

on the site of the existing Transbay 

Terminal at First and Mission Streets in 

San Francisco, California. The purpose 

of the project is to improve public 

access to bus and rail services, 

modernize the Transbay Terminal and 

improve service, reduce non-transit 

vehicle usage, alleviate blight, and 

revitalize the Transbay Terminal area. 

The TTC will replace the existing 

Transbay Terminal, which was first 

built in 1939, because the existing 

Terminal does not currently meet 

seismic safety or space utilization 

standards. In addition to the above 

mentioned benefits, the 2004 EIS 

contemplated a future high-speed rail 

system at the TTC in the form of a rail 

box that could accommodate high-speed 

rail trains. On the basis of the 2004 EIS, 

the FTA issued a Record of Decision 

(ROD) in 2005. In response to project 

modifications and refinements, the 

TJPA adopted five addenda to the EIS, 

which are described in the 

Environmental Reevaluation. 

The Transbay Terminal project is 

divided into two construction phases, 

which have been refined through the 

five addenda to the 2004 EIS. Phase 1, 

which relates to the portion of the 2004 

EIS adopted by FRA, includes the 

above-grade portion of the TTC and 

limited below-grade structural support 

work including the train box. Phase 2 

includes the construction of the 

Downtown Extension. Under this 

notice, the FRA is adopting the portions 

of the 2004 EIS dealing with Phase 1 

construction as it directly relates to the 

FRA’s funding of the train box under the 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Program. 

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (‘‘Recovery Act’’) 

provided $8 billion to the FRA as initial 

funding for the High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail Program. The Secretary 

of Transportation selected the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority (‘‘CHSRA’’) 

to receive up to $2.25 billion from the 

Recovery Act to fund the development 

of high-speed intercity passenger rail 

service in California. As the TTC has 

been demonstrated to be the only 

feasible and practicable site in 

downtown San Francisco for the 

northern terminus of the California 

high-speed rail system, FRA proposes to 

provide up to $400 million of the 

CHSRA Recovery Act funding to the 

TJPA in order to construct the train box 

designed to accommodate the future 

high-speed rail service at the TTC. 

Constructing the train box now results 

in substantial savings over options 

involving later construction of highspeed rail facilities under an already 

completed TTC. 

The CEQ regulations allow Federal 

agencies, such as the FRA, to adopt 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31835 

environmental documents prepared by 

another Federal agency when the 

proposed actions are ‘‘substantially the 

same’’ and the adopting agency has 

concluded that the initial statement 

meets the standards for an adequate 

statement under the CEQ regulations. 40 

CFR 1506.3. Furthermore, the CEQ 

regulations state that when the actions 

are substantially the same, ‘‘the agency 

adopting the agency’s statement is not 

required to recirculate it except as a 

final statement.’’ Id. FRA has conducted 

an independent review of the 2004 EIS 

for the purpose of determining whether 

FRA could adopt it pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.3. FRA’s review concluded that 

FRA’s action in funding the train box is 

substantially the same as the action 

documented in the 2004 EIS, that the 

EIS adequately assessed the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the train box and meets the standards of 

the CEQ NEPA Regulations (40 CFR 

parts 1500 through1508), and that the 

FRA can adopt the 2004 EIS. CEQ’s 

regulations implementing NEPA 

strongly encourage agencies to reduce 

paperwork and duplication. 40 CFR 

1500.4. One of the methods identified 

by CEQ to accomplish this goal is 

adopting the environmental documents 

prepared by other agencies in 

appropriate circumstances. 40 CFR 

1500.4(n), 1500.5(h), and 1506.3. 

In order to comply with its obligations 

under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 

et seq., the FRA also intends to join the 

existing Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between the FTA and the 

California State Historic Preservation 

Officer. That MOA describes the roles 

and responsibilities of the parties and 

will allow FRA to take into account the 

potential effect of the FRA’s action on 

historic properties pursuant to the 

requirements of Section 106. In 

addition, the 2004 EIS includes a final 

determination according to the 

requirements of Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966. 49 U.S.C. 303. Section 4(f) 

requires that projects undertaken by 

DOT must avoid using parks, 

recreational areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, or public and private 

historical sites unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative, and the 

action includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to the property. By 

adopting the 2004 EIS, the FRA is also 

adopting the FTA’s Final Section 4(f) 

Evaluation and will therefore be in 

compliance with the requirements of 

that statute. 

Furthermore, FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 

FR 28545, May 26, 1999) require the 

reevaluation of a Final EIS if major steps 

toward implementation of the proposed 

action have not commenced within 

three years from the date of approval of 

the final EIS. The reevaluation is 

required to determine whether the final 

EIS is still accurate, adequate and valid. 

As described above, the train box was 

an element of the 2004 EIS; however, 

design modifications to the train box 

occurred, and the Environmental 

Reevaluation provides an update to 

those sections for which new 

information is available that is pertinent 

to the proposed action in Phase 1 of the 

Transbay Terminal project. In 

accordance with the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) requirements 

regarding the filing of EISs, FRA has 

provided the EPA with a notice of 

adoption and five copies of the FTA’s 

Final EIS and the Environmental 

Reevaluation. EPA will publish a notice 

of availability of the Final EIS in the 

Federal Register consistent with its 

usual practices. Because of the multivolume size of the FEIS and its 

continued availability in libraries in the 

affected community and on the TJPA’s 

and FRA’s Web sites, FRA is not 

republishing the document on its own. 

This would be costly, defeat CEQ’s goals 

of reducing paperwork and duplication 

of effort, and be of little or no additional 

value to other agencies or the public. 

The Environmental Reevaluation is also 

available on the TJPA’s Web site 

(www.transbaycenter.org), on the FRA’s 

Web site (http://www.fra.dot.gov), and at 

libraries in San Francisco, San Bruno, 

and Oakland, California. FRA has 

mailed a notification of FRA’s adoption 

and identified places where the 2004 

EIS and the Environmental Reevaluation 

are available to persons and parties of 

record who have participated in the 

most recent phase of the 2004 EIS 

process, as well as to elected officials, 

local transit agencies, regional agencies, 

local media, and potentially interested 

community organizations. Comments on 

the 2004 EIS or the Environmental 

Reevaluation may be submitted no later 

than June 28, 2010 to Melissa DuMond 

at the address noted above. 

The final stage in the environmental 

review process under NEPA is the 

issuance of a Record of Decision by the 

agency describing the agency’s decision 

and the basis for it. Under the timelines 

included in the CEQ regulation (40 CFR 

1506.10), a Record of Decision cannot be 

issued by an agency earlier than thirty 

days after the EPA publishes its Federal 

Register notice notifying the public of 

the availability of the final EIS. Any 

Record of Decision issued by the FRA 

will be consistent with 40 CFR 1505.2 

and section 15 of FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts. 

Accordingly, FRA has adopted and is 

recirculating the 2004 EIS and has 

issued an Environmental Reevaluation. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 

2010. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13398 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, MD 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that a prior 

Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed roadway widening and 

bridge replacement project in Calvert 

and St. Mary’s Counties, Maryland 

(Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 203; FR 

Doc. 07–5190) is being withdrawn and 

an Environmental Assessment (EA), in 

lieu of an EIS, is being prepared for this 

proposed highway project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jeanette Mar, Environmental Program 

Manager, Federal Highway 

Administration, DelMar Division Office, 

City Crescent Building, Suite 2450, 10 

South Howard Street, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21201; Telephone: (410) 779– 

7152, e-mail address: 

Jeanette.Mar@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), in cooperation with the 

Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA), is advising the 

general public that SHA conducted 

studies of the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

roadway widening and bridge 

replacement of MD 4 from MD 2 to MD 

235 in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, 

a distance of approximately 4.1 miles. 

Improvements to the corridor are 

necessary to improve existing capacity 

and traffic operations, and to increase 

vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety 

along MD 4, while supporting existing 

and planned development in the area. 

Improvements to the bridge are 

necessary due to inadequate shoulder 

widths, major traffic delays and/or 

closures currently occur along the 

Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge 

during crashes and maintenance 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES