control of mercury from by-product hydrogen streams without end-box
ventilation systems. NRDC provided an analysis that indicated the cost
effectiveness associated with conversion of existing mercury cell
plants to non-mercury technology ranged from $6,700 to $13,400 per
pound. NRDC noted that the $9,000 per pound cost effectiveness,
determined by the Agency to be warranted for by-product hydrogen
streams without end-box ventilation systems was within this range
calculated for conversion to nonmercury technology.
    In response to NRDC's concerns that we did not evaluate the
conversion of mercury cell chlor-alkali production plants to non-
mercury technology, we performed an analysis to determine the capital
and annual costs of this action. In performing the analysis, we used
information from all readily available sources of information. A
memorandum outlining this analysis, along with copies of all materials
used, can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The EPA test program described above showed that the fugitive
emissions from the mercury cell room averaged less than 450 g/day (or
360 pounds per year, lb/yr) per facility. Using this average figure for
fugitive emissions, and 2004 TRI emissions data for point (stack)
source emissions, we estimate that the average cost effectiveness
associated with conversion to non-mercury technology would be
approximately $14,000 per pound, as opposed to the $9,000 per pound
used by NRDC as a benchmark, which is an increase of almost 60 percent.
    Further, our analysis showed that the average capital cost of
conversion for one mercury cell chlor-alkali facility in the U.S. was
approximately $68 million per plant. Nationwide, the capital cost was
estimated to be nearly $340 million. The average annualized facility
costs for this conversion were estimated to be approximately $7.5
million or $38 million nationwide. This cost impact would be
approximately 11 percent of revenues. In contrast, during the original
rulemaking the total per-facility capital costs associated with
controlling mercury from by-product hydrogen streams, end box
ventilation systems, and mercury recovery units were estimated to be
$180,000, with the associated annual costs approximately $160,000 per
year. These values were estimated to be less than 0.3 percent of
revenues. Therefore, we are proposing to reject conversion to non-
mercury technology as a beyond-the-floor control requirement because of
the high cost impact this forced conversion would impose on the
facilities in the industry.
    While we are not proposing to require mercury cell chlor-alkali
plants to convert to mercury-free technology, we encourage owners and
operators of the remaining mercury chlor-alkali plants to continue to
explore this option. We also applaud those companies that have decided
to convert their mercury cell plants processes to membrane cells
voluntarily.

B. What amendments are EPA proposing?

    The proposed rule amendments resulting from our reconsideration
efforts, as per the rationale discussed in detail above in section
III.A, are as follows:
    (1) Daily Work Practices--These would be required for all
facilities with weekly certification of the performance of these work
practices;
    (2) Mercury Monitoring--This would be required for all facilities,
with the compliance periods for implementing this requirement, as
described below, dependent upon whether the facility currently operates
such a system for compliance with the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT;
    (3) Documenting Work Practices--Detailed recordkeeping of the work
practices would be required for the time period during the semi-annual
setting and resetting of the action level of the continuous cell room
monitors;
    (4) Setting the Continuous Monitoring Action Level-- This would be
done for a minimum of 14 days and up to 30 days, at least every six
months;
    (5) Action Level--This would be set at 90th percentile of the data
acquired during the re-setting time period(s).
    (6) Compliance Period for the Amendments--All sources would be
required to continue to comply with the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT until
these new compliance dates, below:
    (a) For sources that had previously elected to comply with the cell
room monitoring program, we are proposing a compliance date 60 days
from the date the final rule amendments appear in the Federal Register.
This will allow facilities to plan and implement the work practice
requirements and to gather data to establish a new action level in
accordance with the revised requirements.
    (b) For sources that did not opt to comply with the cell room
monitoring program in the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT, we are proposing that
they will have two years from the effective date of the final rule
amendments to comply. We believe that this amount of time is necessary
for these facilities to design, purchase, and install the necessary
monitoring equipment and to develop the various aspects of the program.
    (7) Correct Compliance Errors--We are also proposing two changes to
correct errors and to improve the compliance provisions of the rule, as
follows:
    (a) The detection limit for mercury continuous emission monitor
analyzers would be changed to a capability to detect a mercury
concentration at or below 0.5 times the mercury concentration measured
during the test, or 0.1 [mu]g/m3, whichever is greater; and
    (b) The frequency of determining continuous compliance with the
emissions standard for mercury recovery units would be changed to a
daily average, as in paragraph (a)(3) of Sec.  63.8190, ``What emission
limitations must I meet?'', from an incorrect hourly average as in
found at paragraph (b) of Sec.  63.8246, ``How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice
standards?'', in the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT.
    (8) Revise Work Plan Notification of Compliance Status--In
conjunction with these new requirements, we are also proposing to
require that all plants submit a Revised Work Plan Notification of
Compliance Status report 60 days after their compliance date. This
report would include certifications that the work practices and cell
room monitoring program are being followed. The cell room monitoring
plan, including the initial action level and supporting data, would
also be required to be submitted in this report. In order that the
Revised Work Plan Notification of Compliance Status would be complete
with all information related to the work practice standards, we are
also proposing that the wash down plan and the mass of virgin mercury
added to the cells for 2001 through 2006 be re-submitted. This Revised
Work Practices Notification of Compliance Status report would not
require any information related to compliance with the emission
limitations in paragraph (a)(3) of Sec.  63.8190, ``What emission
limitations must I meet?''
    (9) Applicability of Requirements for Thermal Recovery Units at
Closed or Converted Facilities--As several mercury cell chlor-alkali
plants have closed or converted to membrane cells since the
promulgation of the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT, the question has arisen
whether the thermal recovery units that continue to operate in order to
assist in the clean up of the site after the mercury cells have ceased
to operate are subject to the emission limitations for thermal recovery
units in Sec.  63.8190,

``What emission limitations must I meet?'' specifically paragraph
(a)(3).
    In answering the question ``Am I subject to this subpart?'',
paragraph Sec.  63.8182(a) states, ``You are subject to this subpart if
you own or operate a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.'' In addressing
``What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?'', Sec.  63.8184(a)
then states: ``This subpart applies to each affected source at a plant
site where chlorine and caustic are produced in mercury cells. This
subpart applies to two types of affected sources: The mercury cell
chlor-alkali production facility, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section; and the mercury recovery facility, as defined in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.'' \b\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \b\ Sections 63.8184(a)(1) and (2) describe the affected source
types and emissions points within a ``plant site'' subject to the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, if a mercury recovery unit is being operated at a plant
site that contains both an mercury cell chlor-alkali plant and an
mercury recovery unit, the subpart clearly applies to both types of
affected sources at the plant site. However, Sec. Sec.  63.8182(a) and
63.8184(a) suggest that for the subpart to apply, there must be mercury
cell-based production of chlorine and caustic occurring at the overall
plant site. This is reinforced by the subpart's later definitions of
``mercury cell chlor-alkali plant'' and ``mercury recovery facility''
located at Sec.  63.8266, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?''.
This section defines the ``mercury cell chlor-alkali plant'' as all
contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, where
mercury cells are used to manufacture product chlorine, product
caustic, and by-product hydrogen and where mercury may be recovered
from wastes. It then defines ``mercury recovery facility'' as
consisting of all processes and associated operations needed for
mercury recovery from wastes at a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant. In
other words, for a mercury recovery unit to be subject to the rule, the
rule currently reads that it must be functioning in support of an
operating mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.
    To be consistent with EPA's mandate and intent in the 2003 Mercury
Cell MACT to control mercury emissions from mercury chlor-alkali
facilities, we believe that the mercury recovery units in this
situation should continue to comply with the requirements, and
therefore are proposing to amend the applicability provisions in Sec.
63.8182, ``Am I subject to this subpart?'', specifically paragraph (a)
and in Sec.  63.8184, ``What parts of my plant does this subpart
cover?'', specifically paragraph (a); and the definitions of ``mercury
cell chlor-alkali plant'' and ``mercury recovery facility'' in Sec.
63.8266, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', to make this
clear. Mercury recovery units that are at plants where the mercury
cells were shut down or converted prior to the date that the final rule
is published would have one year to comply.

C. What are the impacts of these proposed rule amendments?

    The proposed amendments would make the cell room monitoring program
mandatory for all mercury cell chlor-alkali plants and would
potentially impact all currently operating plants. However, the level
of these impacts will vary depending on whether a plant previously
elected to purchase and install a continuous mercury monitoring system
in its cell room to comply with the cell room monitoring program
alternative of the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT.
    The only changes that plants that are currently complying via the
cell room monitoring program alternative option would need to make
would be associated with the implementation of the work practices.
However, we believe that this will not result in any additional impacts
to these plants since we believe that plants are already doing the work
practices although they may not be keeping all the records associated
with them. Therefore, we conclude that the net result is that there
will be no appreciable impact on these plants. (At this time, all
plants except one fit into this group.) We believe the burden of
recordkeeping during setting the action level would be offset by the
reduced recordkeeping associated with changing the action level from
the 75 percentile to the proposed 90 percentile in these amendments.
    For the single plant that has elected not to purchase, install, and
operate a cell room monitoring system to comply via the cell room
monitoring program alternative, there would be measurable cost impacts
to purchase and install equipment. We estimate that the capital cost of
a monitoring system is about $120,000, and that the total annual cost
(including annualized capital cost and operation and maintenance costs)
is slightly more than $25,000 per year. We believe that this value is a
low percentage of the annual revenues for this facility (considerably
less than 1 percent) and is a reasonable cost considering the nature of
the emissions. Lacking the financial information about this one
facility, we invite comment on our assumption that this capital cost is
a reasonable percent of revenues. Any labor costs associated with the
additional recordkeeping requirements associated with the cell room
monitoring program would be offset by the reduction in the
recordkeeping and reporting that the plant is currently doing to comply
with the work practice standards of the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT. This
reduction in labor may have the additional benefit to offset the
capital costs of the new equipment.
    We do not believe that there will initially be substantial emission
reductions associated with today's amendments. However, we believe that
as these plants continue to increase their knowledge of the causes of
fugitive mercury emissions in the cell room through operation of the
cell room monitoring program, mercury emissions will continue to
steadily decrease.
    The lack of fugitive emissions information prior to the 2003
Mercury Cell MACT promulgation did not allow us to estimate the mercury
reductions associated with MACT work practices. As discussed above, we
can now estimate that these practices reduce fugitive mercury emissions
around 65 percent from the pre-MACT levels. On a nationwide basis, we
estimate that fugitive mercury emissions have been reduced by
approximately 86 percent from pre-MACT levels, including plant
closures. Our estimate of the nationwide total mercury emissions from
these plants is approximately 1 ton/yr. This represents a reduction of
88 percent from the pre-MACT levels allowed by the part 61 NESHAP,
including point source and fugitive emissions, and plant closures.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 71735, October 3, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2046.04.
    These proposed amendments result in changes to the information
collection requirements in the regulation. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with the regulation. The

required notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule are
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted
to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
three years following promulgation of these amendments is estimated to
be a total of 3,800 labor hours per year. The average annual reporting
burden is 16 hours per response, with approximately 3 responses per
facility for 5 respondents. The only capital/startup costs are
associated with the installation of a cell room monitoring system at
one facility, since we know that these systems are already in place at
the other four facilities. The total capital/startup cost annualized
over its expected useful life is $13,000. The total operation and
maintenance is $60,000 per year. There are no estimated costs
associated with purchase of services. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this action, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0017. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed
rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 11, 2008, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 11,
2008. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in these proposed
amendments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule is estimated to impact a total of five sources, with one
of the five facilities estimated to be small entity. We have estimated
that small entity compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities'
cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be less than 3 percent of
revenues. New sources are already prohibited from using the technology
of this proposed rule by virtue of the 2003 Mercury Cell MACT's
provisions; consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new
sources since this rulemaking would not impose any new requirements on
them.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. (Note: The term ``enforceable duty'' does not include
duties and conditions in voluntary federal contracts for goods and
services.) Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This
proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The nationwide standards would reduce HAP emissions
and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: May 30, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I,
part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart IIIII--[AMENDED]

    2. Section 63.8182 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8182  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a mercury
cell chlor-alkali production facility or a mercury recovery facility at
a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.8184 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8184  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to two types of affected sources at a
mercury cell chlor-alkali plant: The mercury cell chlor-alkali
production facility, as defined in Sec.  63.8266, ``What definitions
apply to this subpart,'' and the mercury recovery facility, as also
defined in Sec.  63.8266.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.8186 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8186  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the applicable provisions no later than the dates specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and in either paragraph (a)(2) or (3)
of this section.
    (1) You must comply with each emission limitation, work practice
standard, and recordkeeping and reporting requirement in this subpart
that applies to you no later than

December 19, 2006, with the exception of the requirements listed in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (4) of this section.
    (i) Section 63.8192(h) and (i);
    (ii) Section 63.8236(e) and (f);
    (iii) Section 63.8252(f); and
    (iv) Section 63.8254(e).
    (2) If you were complying with the cell room monitoring program
provisions in Sec.  63.8192(g) on June 11, 2008 as an alternative to
the work practice standards in Sec.  63.8192(a) through (d), you must
comply with the provisions in Sec.  63.8192(h) and (i) no later than 6
months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. At
the time that you are in compliance with Sec.  63.8192(h) and (i), you
will no longer be subject to the provisions of Sec.  63.8192(g).
    (3) If you were complying with the work practice standards in Sec.
63.8192(a) through (d) on June 11, 2008, you must comply with the
provisions in Sec.  63.8192(h) and (i) no later than 2 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. At the time that
you are in compliance with Sec.  63.8192(h) and (i), you will no longer
be subject to the provisions of Sec.  63.8192(a) through (d).
* * * * *
    (e) If you have a mercury recovery facility at a mercury cell
chlor-alkali plant where the mercury cell chlor-alkali production
facility ceased production of product chlorine, product caustic, and
by-product hydrogen prior to the publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, you must comply with each emission limitation, work
practice standard, and recordkeeping and reporting requirement in this
subpart that applies to your mercury recovery unit by 1 year after the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
    5. Section 63.8192 is amended by revising the introductory text;
and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8192  What work practice standards must I meet?

    Prior to the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.8186(a)(2) or (3), you must meet the work practice requirements
specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section. As an
alternative to the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d)
of this section, you may choose to comply with paragraph (g) of this
section. After the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.8186(a)(2) or (3), you must meet the work practice requirements
specified in paragraphs (e), (f), (h), and (i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) You must meet the work practice standards in Tables 1 through 4
to this subpart and the associated recordkeeping requirements in Table
12 to this subpart. You must adhere to the response intervals specified
in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at all times. Nonadherence to the
intervals in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart constitutes a deviation
and must be documented and reported in the compliance report, as
required by Sec.  63.8254(b), with the date and time of the deviation,
cause of the deviation, a description of the conditions, and time
actual compliance was achieved. As provided in Sec.  63.6(g), you may
request to use an alternative to the work practice standards in Tables
1 through 4 to this subpart.
    (i) In addition to the work practice standards in paragraph (h) of
this section, you must institute a cell room monitoring program to
continuously monitor the mercury vapor concentration in the upper
portion of each cell room and to take corrective actions as quickly as
possible when elevated mercury vapor levels are detected. You must
prepare and submit to the Administrator a cell room monitoring plan
containing the elements listed in Table 11 to this subpart and meet the
requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must utilize a mercury monitoring system that meets the
requirements of Table 8 to this subpart.
    (2) You must establish action levels according to the requirements
in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must
establish an initial action level after the compliance date specified
in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or (3), and you must re-establish an action
level at least once every six months thereafter.
    (i) You must measure and record the mercury concentration for at
least 14 days and no more than 30 days using a system that meets the
requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section. For the initial
action level, this monitoring must begin on the applicable compliance
date specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or (3).
    (ii) Using the monitoring data collected according to paragraph
(i)(2)(i) of this section, you must establish your action level at the
90th percentile of the data set.
    (iii) You must submit your initial action level according to Sec.
63.8252(f) and subsequent action levels according to Sec.  63.8252(g).
    (3) Beginning on the compliance date specified for your affected
source in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or (3), you must continuously monitor the
mercury concentration in the cell room. Failure to monitor and record
the data according to Sec.  63.8256(e)(4)(iii) for 75 percent of the
time in any 6-month period constitutes a deviation.
    (4) If the average mercury concentration for any 1-hour period
exceeds the currently applicable action level established according to
paragraph (i)(2) of this section, you must meet the requirements in
either paragraph (i)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) If you determine that the cause of the elevated mercury
concentration is an open electrolyzer, decomposer, or other maintenance
activity, you must record the information specified in paragraphs
(i)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) A description of the maintenance activity resulting in elevated
mercury concentration;
    (B) The time the maintenance activity was initiated and completed;
and
    (C) A detailed explanation of how all the applicable requirements
of Table 1 to this subpart were met during the maintenance activity.
    (ii) If you determine that the cause of the elevated mercury
concentration is not an open electrolyzer, decomposer, or other
maintenance activity, you must follow the procedures specified in
paragraphs (i)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section until the mercury
concentration falls below the action level. You must also keep all the
associated records for these procedures as specified in Table 12 to
this subpart. Nonadherence to the intervals in paragraphs (i)(4)(ii)(A)
and (B) of this section constitutes a deviation and must be documented
and reported in the compliance report, as required by Sec.  63.8254(b).
    (A) Within 1 hour of the time the action level was exceeded, you
must conduct each inspection specified in Table 2 to this subpart, with
the exception of the cell room floor and the pillars and beam
inspections. You must correct any problem identified during these
inspections in accordance with the requirements in Tables 2 and 3 to
this subpart.
    (B) If the Table 2 inspections and subsequent corrective actions do
not reduce the mercury concentration below the action level, you must
inspect all decomposers, hydrogen system piping up to the hydrogen
header, and other potential locations of mercury vapor leaks using a
technique specified in Table 6 to this subpart. If a mercury vapor leak
is identified, you must take the appropriate action specified in Table
3 to this subpart.
    6. Section 63.8230 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8230  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * * *
    (b) For the applicable work practice standards in Sec.  63.8192(a)
through (g), you must demonstrate initial compliance within 30 calendar
days after the compliance date that is specified for your affected
source in Sec.  63.8186(a)(1).
    (c) For the applicable work practice standards in Sec.  63.8192(e),
(f), (h), and (i), you must demonstrate initial compliance within 60
calendar days after the applicable compliance date that is specified
for your affected source in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or (3).
    7. Section 63.8236 is amended by revising paragraph (c)
introductory text and by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8236  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

* * * * *
    (c) For each affected source, you have demonstrated initial
compliance with the applicable work practice standards in Sec.
63.8192(a) through (g) if you comply with paragraphs (c)(1) through (7)
of this section:
* * * * *
    (e) After the [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register], for each affected source, you have demonstrated initial
compliance with the applicable work practice standards in Sec.
63.8192(e), (f), (h), and (i) if you comply with paragraphs (e)(1)
through (4) of this section:
    (1) You certify in your Revised Work Practice Notification of
Compliance Status that you are operating according to the work practice
standards in Sec.  63.8192(h).
    (2) You have submitted your cell room monitoring plan as part of
your Revised Work Practice Notification of Compliance Status and you
certify in your Revised Work Practice Notification of Compliance Status
that you are operating according to the continuous cell room monitoring
program under Sec.  63.8192(i) and that you have established your
initial action level according to Sec.  63.8192(i)(2).
    (3) You have re-submitted your washdown plan as part of your
Revised Work Practice Notification of Compliance Status and you re-
certify in your Revised Work Practice Notification of Compliance Status
that you are operating according to your washdown plan.
    (4) You have re-submitted records of the mass of virgin mercury
added to cells for the 5 years preceding December 19, 2006, as part of
your Revised Work Practice Notification of Compliance Status.
    (f) You must submit the Revised Work Practice Notification of
Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance
demonstration according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8252(f).
    8. Section 63.8242 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.8242  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my continuous monitoring systems?

    (a) * * *
* * * * *
    (2) Each mercury continuous emissions monitor analyzer must have a
detector with the capability to detect a mercury concentration at or
below 0.5 times the mercury concentration level measured during the
performance test conducted according to Sec.  63.8232, or 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\, whichever is greater.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.8246 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8246   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

* * * * *
    (b) * * * (1) For each mercury thermal recovery unit vent, you must
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limit
specified in Sec.  63.8190(a)(3) by maintaining the outlet mercury
daily-average concentration no higher than the applicable limit. * * *
* * * * *
    10. Section 63.8252 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.8252   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (f) You must submit a Revised Work Practice Notification of
Compliance Status according to paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section.
    (1) You must submit a Revised Work Practice Notification of
Compliance Status before the close of business on the date 60 days
after the applicable compliance date in date Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or
(3). The Revised Work Practice Notification of Compliance Status must
contain the items in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section:
    (i) A certification that you are operating according to the work
practice standards in Sec.  63.8192(h).
    (ii) Your cell room monitoring plan, including your initial action
level determined in accordance with Sec.  63.8192(i)(2), and a
certification that you are operating according to the continuous cell
room monitoring program under Sec.  63.8192(i).
    (iii) Your washdown plan, and a certification that you are
operating according to your washdown plan under Sec.  63.8192(e).
    (2) Records of the mass of virgin mercury added to cells for the 5
years preceding December 19, 2006.
    (g) You must submit subsequent action levels determined in
accordance with Sec.  63.8192(i)(2), along with the supporting data
used to establish the action level, within 30 calendar days after
completion of data collection.
    11. Section 63.8254 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8254   What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) For each deviation from the requirements for work practice
standards in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart that occurs at an
affected source (including deviations where the response intervals were
not adhered to as described in Sec.  63.8192(b)), each deviation from
the cell room monitoring program monitoring and data recording
requirements in Sec.  63.8192(i)(3), and each deviation from the
response intervals required by Sec.  63.8192(i)(4) when an action level
is exceeded, the compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the information in
paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section. This includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
    12. Section 63.8256 is amended by revising paragraph (c)
introductory text and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8256  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (c) Records associated with the work practice standards that must
be kept prior to the applicable compliance date in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2)
or (3).
* * * * *
    (e) Records associated with the work practice standards that must
be kept after the applicable compliance date in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or
(3).
    (1) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
    (i) A weekly record certifying that you have complied with the work
practice standards in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart. This record
must, at minimum,

list each general requirement specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A)
through (D) of this section. Figure 1 to this subpart provides an
example of this record.
    (A) The design, operation, and maintenance requirements in Table 1
to this subpart;
    (B) The required inspections in Table 2 to this subpart;
    (C) The required actions for liquid mercury spills and
accumulations and hydrogen and mercury vapor leaks in Table 3 to this
subpart; and
    (D) The requirements for mercury liquid collection in Table 4 to
this subpart.
    (ii) The records specified in Table 12 to this subpart related to
mercury and hydrogen leaks.
    (2) You must maintain a copy of your current washdown plan and
records of when each washdown occurs.
    (3) You must maintain records of the mass of virgin mercury added
to cells for each reporting period.
    (4) You must keep your current cell room monitoring plan and the
records specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Records of the monitoring conducted in accordance with Sec.
63.8192(i)(2)(i) to establish your action levels, and records
demonstrating the development of these action levels.
    (ii) During each period that you are gathering cell room monitoring
data in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.8192(i)(2)(i),
records specified in Table 9 to this subpart.
    (iii) Records of the cell room mercury concentration monitoring
data collected.
    (iv) Instances when the action level is exceeded.
    (v) Records specified in Sec.  63.8192(i)(4)(i) for maintenance
activities that cause the mercury vapor concentration to exceed the
action level.
    (vi) Records of all inspections and corrective actions taken in
response to a non-maintenance related situation in which the mercury
vapor concentration exceeds the action level as specified in Table 12
of this subpart.
    13. Section 63.8266 is amended by revising the definitions of
``Mercury cell chlor-alkali plant'' and ``Mercury recovery facility''
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8266   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Mercury cell chlor-alkali plant means all contiguous or adjoining
property that is under common control, where a mercury cell chlor-
alkali production facility and/or a mercury recovery facility is
located. A mercury cell chlor-alkali plant includes a mercury recovery
facility at a plant where the mercury cell chlor-alkali production
facility ceases production.
* * * * *
    Mercury recovery facility means an affected source consisting of
all processes and associated operations needed for mercury recovery
from wastes generated by a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.
* * * * *
    14. Subpart IIIII of Part 63 is amended by revising the table
heading for table 5 to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart IIIII--Required Elements of Floor-Level Mercury
Vapor Measurement and Cell Room Monitoring Plans Prior to the
Applicable Compliance Date Specified in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or (3)

    15. Subpart IIIII of Part 63 is amended by revising the
introductory text of table 9 to read as follows:

Table 9 To Subpart IIIII of Part 63--Required Records for Work Practice
Standards

    As stated in Sec.  63.8256(c), you must keep the records (related
to the work practice standards) specified in the following table prior
to the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.8186(a)(2) or
(3). After the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.8186(a)(2) or (3), you must keep the records (related to the work
practice standards) specified in the following table during the period
when you are collecting cell room monitoring data in accordance with
Sec.  63.8192(i)(2)(i) to establish your action level:
    16. Subpart IIIII of Part 63 is amended by adding table 11 to read
as follows:

Table 11 to Subpart IIIII.--Required Elements Cell Room Monitoring Plans
 After the Applicable Compliance Date Specified in Sec.   63.8186(a)(2)
                                 OR (3)
    Your Cell Room Monitoring Plan required by Sec.   63.8192(i) must
           contain the elements listed in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   You must specify in your cell room
         monitoring plan * * *               Additional requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Details of your mercury monitoring    ...............................
 system.
2. How representative sampling will be   Include some pre-plan
 conducted.                               measurements to demonstrate
                                          the profile of mercury
                                          concentration in the cell room
                                          and how the selected sampling
                                          locations ensure conducted
                                          representativeness.
3. Quality assurance/quality control     Include a description of how
 procedures for your mercury monitoring   you will keep records or other
 system.                                  means to demonstrate that the
                                          system is operating properly.
4. Your current action level...........  Include the background data
                                          used to establish your current
                                          level. Records of previous
                                          action levels must be kept for
                                          5 years in accordance with
                                          Sec.   63.8258, but are not
                                          required to be included as
                                          part of your cell room
                                          monitoring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Subpart IIIII of Part 63 is amended by adding table 12 to read
as follows:

    Table 12 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63.--Required Records for Work
  Practice Standards After the Applicable Compliance Date Specified in
                       Sec.   63.8186(a)(2) OR (3)
As stated in Sec.   63.8256(e)(1), you must keep the records (related to
     the work practice standards) specified in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          You must record the following
             For each * * *                     information * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Liquid mercury spill or accumulation  a. Location of the liquid
 identified during an inspection          mercury spill or accumulation.
 required by Table 2 to this subpart or  b. Method you use to clean up
 at any other time.                       the liquid mercury spill or
                                          accumulation.
                                         c. Date and time when you clean
                                          up the liquid mercury spill or
                                          accumulation.

                                         d. Source of the liquid mercury
                                          spill or accumulation.
                                         e. If the source of the liquid
                                          mercury spill or accumulation
                                          is not identified, the time
                                          when you reinspect the area.
2. Liquid mercury leak or hydrogen leak  a. Location of the leak.
 identified during an inspection         b. Date and time you identify
 required by Table 2 to this subpart or   the leak.
 at any other time.                      c. If the leak is a liquid
                                          mercury leak, the date and
                                          time that you successfully
                                          contain the dripping liquid
                                          mercury.
                                         d. Date and time you
                                          successfully stop the leak and
                                          repair the leaking equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Subpart IIIII of Part 63 is amended by adding figure 1 as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN08.002

[FR Doc. E8-12618 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 9840-9841]
[DOCID:fr06mr09-63]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59475; File No. SR-BX-2009-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Zero Bid Orders on the
Boston Options Exchange Facility

February 27, 2009.
    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 26, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Section 14 (Order Entry)
of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') to
clarify the treatment of certain Zero Bid Orders.\3\ The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/
NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings set forth in the BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter V,
Section 14 of the BOX Rules to clarify the treatment of Market Orders
to sell and BOX-Top Orders to sell when the highest bid on BOX is zero
in the options series for a particular order (``Zero Bid Order'').
Currently, Section 14 states, in part, that: ``[i]n the case where the
lowest offer for any options contract is $.05, and an Options
Participant enters a Market Order to sell that series, any such Market
Order shall be considered a Limit Order to sell at a price of $.05.''
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Chapter V, Section 14 of the BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to amend Chapter V, Section 14 of the BOX Rules
to (1) clarify the specific circumstances under which an order will be
considered a Zero Bid Order, (2) address the treatment of Zero Bid
Orders in options classes that trade in other than $.05 increments, and
(3) address the treatment of Zero Bid Orders that would cause a locked
or crossed market.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 14 so that it will apply
equally to Market Orders to sell and BOX-Top Orders to sell when the
highest bid on BOX is zero in the options series. In this case such
Zero Bid Orders shall be considered a Limit Order to sell at a price,
above zero, that is equal to the minimum trading increment applicable
to that particular options series.
    Consequently, where the BOX market displays a zero bid and the
options

series is subject to the Penny Pilot Program,\5\ the Zero Bid Order
will be considered a Limit Order to sell at a price of $.01. If the
options series is not subject to the Penny Pilot Program, the Zero Bid
Order will be considered a Limit Order to sell at a price of $.05 or
$.10, depending upon the minimum trading increment for the specific
options series of the Zero Bid Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ BOX may trade options contracts in one-cent increments in
certain approved issues through March 27, 2009, as part of the Penny
Pilot Program. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56566
(September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56400 (October 3, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-
40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also seeks to clarify that if the resulting Limit
Order would cause either a locked or crossed market, then the original
Market Order or BOX-Top Order will be rejected by the Trading Host.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed amendments will give greater
clarification to Options Participants regarding the handling of Zero
Bid Orders and provide enhanced treatment of such orders on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(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 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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-014. 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 Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and
3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-014 and should be submitted on
or before March 27, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-4769 Filed 3-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P