                        Analysis of Demographic Factors
                         For Populations Living Near
                           Lime Manufacturing Plants

                                 Prepared by:

                             SC&A Incorporated

                         1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 450
                            Chapel Hill, NC  27517

                           GSA BPA No. 68HERD21A0003
                         Task Order No. 68HERH22F0003

                                 Prepared for:

                          Air Toxics Assessment Group
                   Health and Environmental Impacts Division
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                                April 11, 2022
	Disclaimer

            Although the analysis described in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under GSA contract 47QRAA20D002W / BPA 68HERD21A0003 to SC&A Incorporated, it has not been subject to the Agency's review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
                                   Contents

1.	Introduction	1
2.	Census Data	2
3.	Calculation Methods	3
3.1	Race, Ethnicity and Age Categories	3
3.2	Level of Education	4
3.3	Poverty Level	4
3.4	Linguistic Isolation	5
3.5	Defaults	5
4.	Results	6
5.	Uncertainty Discussion	9
Appendix: Analyzed Facilities	10

 Introduction
	This document provides summary results and describes the approach used to evaluate the different socio-economic demographic groups within the population living near lime manufacturing plants in the United States (U.S.). The demographic analysis is for 35 facilities identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The current analysis evaluates census blocks surrounding these facilities with census-based demographic data. This analysis presents the demographic composition of the population located within close proximity at 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of these facilities. The following demographic groups were included in this proximity analysis:

 Total population;
 White;
 Minority;
 African American (or Black);
 Native Americans;
 Other races and multiracial;
 Hispanic or Latino;
 Children 17 years of age and under;
 Adults 18 to 64 years of age;
 Adults 65 years of age and over;
 Adults 25 years of age and older without a high school diploma;
 People living below the poverty level; and
 Linguistically isolated people.

	The current analysis used the Proximity Tool to (1) identify all census blocks with centroids located within specified radii of the latitude/longitude location of each facility, and then (2) link each block with census-based demographic data. It should be noted that, if the centroid of a census block is located within the specified radius, the entire population of that census block is counted as within the radius. In addition to facility-specific demographics, the Proximity Tool also computes the demographic composition of the populations within the specified radii for all facilities as a whole (e.g., source category-wide). The source category-wide computation takes into account neighboring facilities with overlapping study areas and ensures populations in common are counted only once in this demographic analysis. Finally, this analysis compares these source category-wide demographics at each specified radius (i.e., 5 km, 50 km) to the demographic composition of the nationwide population.

	The census data used in this analysis is described in Section 2. The algorithms used to compute the population of each demographic category surrounding the facility are presented in Section 3. The summary results of this analysis are presented in Section 4. The Appendix points to a supplemental workbook of spreadsheets containing the detailed facility-specific results.
 Census Data
	The total population within a specified radius around each facility is the sum of the population for every census block within that radius, based on each block's population provided by the 2010 Decennial Census. For the demographic analysis, statistics on total population, race, ethnicity, age, education level, poverty status and linguistic isolation are obtained from the Census' American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year averages for 2015-2019. These data are provided at the block group level. A census block group contains about 28 blocks on average, or about 1,400 people. Table 1 summarizes the census data used in the analysis, showing the source of each dataset and the level of geographic resolution.

    Table 1.  Summary of Census Data used for Different Demographic Groups
Type of population category
Source of data
Level of geographic resolution
Total population (sum of block counts within radius)
2010 Census3 SF1
Census block
Total population (sum of block group counts, used for demographic percentages)
ACS4 Table B03002 (e1)
Census block group

Race/ethnicity categories (percentages):

 White (non-hispanic):
 Minority (non-white + hispanic)
 African American (non-hispanic):
 Native American (non-hispanic):
 Other & Mixed race (non-hispanic):
 Hispanic (all races):
ACS Table B03002, Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race (Tiger table X03):
 e3/e1
 (e1-e3)/e1
 e4/e1
 e5/e1
 (e6+e7+e8+e9)/e1
 e12/e1
Census block group
Age groups
ACS Table B01001, Sex by Age (Tiger table X01)
Census block group
Level of education  -  percentage of adults 25 years and older without a high school diploma
ACS Table B15002, Sex by Educational Attainment (Tiger table X15)
Census block group
Individuals living in households earning below the poverty level (percentage of individuals)
ACS Table C17002, Ratio of Income to Poverty Level (Tiger table X17): (e2+e3)/e1
Census block group
Individuals living in linguistically isolated households (percentage of households)
ACS Table C16002, Household Language by Household (Tiger table X16): (e4+e7+e10+e13)/e1
Census block group

      The statistics for total minorities, age groups, educational attainment, poverty, and linguistic isolation are consistent with the demographic statistics used in EPA's EJSCREEN tool for Environmental Justice analysis. We derive our demographic statistics from the ACS, which is the source of data for EJSCREEN's statistics. For the current analysis, however, we provide the impact on different racial and ethnic groups in more detail, as Table 1 illustrates.
 Calculation Methods
	The Proximity Tool uses the census block and census block group identification codes to link each block to the appropriate ACS block group demographic statistics. This allows us to estimate the number of people in different demographic categories for each census block in a specified radius around each facility. As noted in Section 2, demographic data is available at the census block group level. To estimate more detailed block level demographic percentages for the purposes of this analysis, the demographic characteristics of a given block group  -  that is, the percentage of people in different races/ethnicities, the percentage in different age groups, the percentage without a high school diploma, the percentage that are below the poverty level, and the percentage that are linguistically isolated  -  are presumed to also describe each census block located within that block group.

	For comparison, the nationwide demographic percentages are computed from the Census' ACS 5-year averages for 2015-2019 ("2019 ACS"). The denominator for these percentages uses the total nationwide population, which is likewise computed from the 2019 ACS and determined by summing the total population of all census block groups. We also provide the total population based on the 2010 Decennial Census for comparison, because the census block populations are based on 2010 Decennial Census data, as noted in Section 2.

	Sections 3.1 through 3.4 describe calculation methods for racial, ethnic, age, education status, poverty status, and linguistic isolation demographic categories. Section 3.5 describes the gap-filling approach used when block group statistics are not available for a given block, based on computing default averages for the missing demographic(s) at the tract or county level.
    Race, Ethnicity and Age Categories

	Table B03002 (Hispanic or Latino origin by race) of the ACS data provides race/ethnicity statistics for each census block group nationwide. Table B01001 provides age statistics for the population by ranges (in years) for each census block group nationwide. For each census block in this analysis, the race/ethnicity (White, African American, Native American, Multiracial/Other, and Hispanic or Latino) and age range (0-17, 18-64 and >=65 years) for that block is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(s,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(s,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(s,b/bg) =	number of people in racial/ethnic or age subgroup "s", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(s,bg) =	percentage of people in racial/ethnic or age subgroup "s", in a block group "bg"

The number of people in each racial/ethnic and age category is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
    Level of Education

	Table B15002 (educational attainment) of the ACS provides education attainment statistics for each census block group nationwide. For each census block in this analysis, the number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(nhs,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(nhs,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(nhs,b/bg) =	number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma "nhs", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	number of people 25-years and older in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(nhs,bg) =	percentage of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma "nhs", in a block group "bg"

The number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
3.3	Poverty Level

	Table C17002 (poverty) of the ACS estimates the numbers of individuals within a Census block group who live in households where the household income is below the poverty line, and below various multiples of the poverty line. For this analysis, we calculate the fraction of individuals living in households earning incomes below the poverty level. For each census block in this analysis, the block's household income level is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

	N(hi,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(hi,bg) ∕ 100

where "hi" indicates household income below the poverty level, and:

	N(hi,b/bg) = 	number of people living in households "hi" below the poverty level, in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(hi,bg) =	percentage of people living in households "hi" below the poverty level, among the population for which poverty status is known, in block group "bg"

The number of people living in households earning below the poverty level is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
3.4	Linguistic Isolation

      Linguistic Isolation is defined by in the ACS as "a household in which all members age 14 years and over speak a non-English language and also speak English less than "very well" (have difficulty with English)." Table C16002 (Tiger table X16_language_spoken_at_home) of the ACS provides the number of households in linguistic isolation in each block group. For each census block in this analysis, the number of people living in linguistic isolation is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(li,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(li,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(li,b/bg) =	number of people living in linguistic isolation "li", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(li,bg) =	percentage of linguistically isolated households "li", in block group "bg"

The number of people living in linguistic isolation is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
 	Defaults

      Block and block group designations used in the Census may be modified to accommodate population growth in some regions. As a result, certain blocks which are based on the last Decennial Census, may not map to the block group designations used in the latest 5-year ACS survey. In addition, some statistics may not be reported in the ACS for every block group. Race, ethnicity, and age statistics are generally reported for all block groups. However, poverty, linguistic isolation, and educational attainment statistics are not available for some block groups.

      In these cases, we compute default estimates for the missing demographic statistics based on the average statistics for the tract in which the block is located. If no tract-level data are available, demographic statistics are estimated based on the overall demography of the county in which the unmatched block is located. This gap-filling exercise is performed separately for each type of demographic data. That is, in the case where some categories of data are available (for instance, race, age and ethnicity) and others are not available (educational attainment, poverty, or linguistic isolation) we only compute defaults for the categories of data that are missing.

      The tract level defaults are computed using weighted averages based on all of the other block groups in the tract for which data are available. Defaults are calculated as follows for race, ethnicity, and age subgroups:

		P(s,T) =  { ∑ P(s,bg/T) x N(t,bg) } ∕ {∑ N(t,bg)}
where:

	P(s,T) =	percentage of people in race, ethnicity, or age subgroup "s", in tract "T"
	∑	refers to the summation over all block groups in tract "T" for which data are available
	P(s,bg/T) =	percentage of people in race, ethnicity, or age subgroup "s", in a block group "bg" of tract "T"
	N(t,bg) =	total number of people in block group "bg"

Defaults for educational attainment, poverty, and linguistic isolation are calculated in a similar fashion, except that the population weighting term N is replaced by the population over age 25, the population for which poverty status is known, and the number of households, respectively. County level defaults are also calculated in a similar way, except that data are summed over the county instead of the tract.

      Results
	The proximity results describe the demographics of the population surrounding these facilities engaged in Lime Manufacturing. Table 2 presents the demographic composition of the population located within a close proximity of 5 km and within 50 km of the 35 facilities as a whole (source category). For context, Table 2 also provides the nationwide percentages of these various demographic groups. The detailed facility-specific results underpinning these source category-wide results are noted in the Appendix.

	The proximity results presented in Table 2 indicate that the population percentages for certain demographic groups within 5 km of the 35 facilities are greater than the corresponding nationwide percentages. The demographic percentage for populations residing within 5 km of facility operations is 18 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the Hispanic and Latino population (37% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 19% nationwide), 16 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living in linguistic isolation (21% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 5% nationwide), 14 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living below the poverty level (27% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 13% nationwide), 10 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the minority population (50% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 40% nationwide), and 5 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population 25 years old and older without a high school diploma (17% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 12% nationwide). The remaining demographic groups within 5 km of facility operations are less than, or within one percentage point of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.

      In addition, the proximity results presented in Table 2 indicate that the population percentages for certain demographic groups within 50 km of the 35 facilities are greater than the corresponding nationwide percentages. The demographic percentage for populations residing within 50 km of the facility operations is 5 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the African American population (17% within 50 km to the facilities compared to 12% nationwide), 3 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living below the poverty level (16% within 50 km of the facilities compared to 13% nationwide), and 2 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living in linguistic isolation (7% within 50 km of the facilities compared to 5% nationwide). The remaining demographic percentages within 50 km of the facilities are less than, or within one percentage point of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.

Table 2.  Summary of Demographic Assessment for Lime Manufacturing: Proximity Statistics

                               Population Basis
                             Demographic Group[1]

                                     Total
                                  Minority[2]
                               African
American
                               Native
American
                             Other and
Multiracial
                             Hispanic
or Latino[3]
                                 Ages 0
to 17
                                Ages 18
to 64
                                Ages 65
and up
                         Over 25 Without a HS Diploma
                            Below the Poverty Level

                            Linguistic Isolation[4]
Nationwide Demographics    (2015-2019 ACS)
                                 328,016,242
                                      40%
                                      12%
                                     0.7%
                                      8%
                                      19%
                                      22%
                                      62%
                                      16%
                                      12%
                                      13%
                                      5%
Nationwide Block Counts
(2010 Decennial Census)[5]
                                  312,459,649

                                 Proximity[6]
                   Population Surrounding the 35 Facilities
                              Lime Manufacturing
                                     50 km
                                  21,999,863
                                      40%
                                      17%
                                     0.3%
                                      6%
                                      17%
                                      22%
                                      62%
                                      16%
                                      12%
                                      16%
                                      7%
                              Lime Manufacturing
                                     5 km
                                    473,343
                                      50%
                                      9%
                                     0.9%
                                      3%
                                      37%
                                      23%
                                      60%
                                      17%
                                      17%
                                      27%
                                      21%
Notes:
[1] The demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey five-year averages, at the block group level, and include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population of each facility and of the entire run group are based on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Populations by demographic group for each facility and for the run group are determined by multiplying each 2010 Decennial block population within the indicated radius by the ACS demographic percentages describing the block group containing each block, and then summing over the appropriate area (facility-specific or run group-wide).
[2] Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
3 To avoid double counting, the "Hispanic or Latino" category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
[4] The linguistically isolated population is estimated at the block group level by taking the product of the block group population and the fraction of linguistically isolated households in the block group, assuming that the number of individuals per household is the same for linguistically isolated households as for the general population, and summed over all block groups.
[5] The nationwide 2010 Decennial Census population of 312,459,649 is the summation of all Census block populations within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Block level population used by the Proximity Tool will be updated based on the 2020 Decennial Census, once processed and quality-assured for these analyses.
6 The population tally and demographic analysis of the total population surrounding all facilities as a whole takes into account neighboring facilities with overlapping study areas and ensures populations in common are counted only once.

 Uncertainty Discussion

	Our analysis of the distribution of population across various demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties associated with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census forms), which are generally thought to be small, as well as the additional uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of census block group data down to the census block level.

	The methodology for our demographic analyses applies demographic data from the Census American Community Survey (ACS). While this is our best attempt to provide useful information now, our thinking is continuously advancing. The EPA has developed technical guidance for environmental justice analyses. We present these analyses, with their associated uncertainties, to EPA decision makers and the public as additional analyses to inform Risk and Technology Review decisions.

Appendix: Analyzed Facilities

A workbook of spreadsheets containing the detailed facility-specific results underpinning the source category-wide results are provided in the file entitled "Lime Manufacturing Facility-Specific Demographic Results 2022-04-11.xlsx". The dataset covering these facilities at both 5 km and 50 km makes the data more amenable to Excel(R) spreadsheets, than a Word(R) document.


Bispyribac-sodium (078906)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: April 22, 2013

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2004 to
2011.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2004 to
2011.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2010.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

April 22, 2013

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Chemical
Bispyribac-sodium (078906)

Sorted Alphabetically

(Reporting Timeframe: 2004-2011)

Percent Crop Treated

Crop	Average Annual Lbs. A.I.	Average	Maximum

1	Rice	4,000	5	10

All numbers rounded. SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33581-33583]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0169; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; South Florida

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D and Class E airspace in
the south Florida area, by updating the geographic coordinates of the
following airports; Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport,
Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport, (formerly Opa Locka Airport), North
Perry Airport, Pompano Beach Airpark, Miami International Airport,
Homestead ARB, Boca Raton Airport, Miami Executive Airport (formerly
Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport). This action would also update the
geographic coordinates of the Fort Lauderdale Very High Frequency
Omnidirectional Range Collocated with Distance Measuring Equipment
(VOR/DME), and the QEEZY Locator Outer Marker (LOM). This action would
also make an editorial change replacing the term Airport/Facility
Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal descriptions of
associated Class D and E airspace. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2021-0169; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-3, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and

subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class D and E airspace in the south Florida area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2021-0169 and Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-3) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2020-0169 Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-3.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D
and Class E surface airspace, Class E airspace designated as an
extension to a Class C surface area, and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface in the south Florida area, by
updating the geographical coordinates of several airports and
associated navigation aids. Also, the FAA proposes to update the
airport name of Miami Executive Airport (formerly Kendall-Tamiami
Executive Airport), and Miami Opa-Locka Executive Airport (formerly Opa
Locka Airport), and Homestead ARB (formerly Dade County-Homestead
Regional Airport) in the Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace,
and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.
Also, the FAA proposes to amend the Miami, Opa Locka Executive Airport,
FL Class D header, (formerly Miami, Opa Locka Airport, FL). In
addition, the FAA proposes to replace the outdated term Airport/
Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated
Class D and E airspace legal descriptions for these airports. Also,
Boca Raton Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface would exclude the reference to Pompano Beach Class D airspace,
as this is unnecessary verbiage.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000, 6002, 6003 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated
July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Hollywood, FL [Amended]

North Perry Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]00'04'' N, long. 80[deg]14'27'' W)
Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport
    (Lat. 25[deg]54'27'' N, long. 80[deg]16'42'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the North Perry Airport;
excluding the portion north of the north boundary of the Miami, FL,
Class B airspace area and that portion south of a line connecting
the 2 points of intersection with a 4.3-mile radius centered on the
Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport. This Class D airspace area is
effective during specific dates and times established in advance by
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO FL D Miami, Opa Locka Executive Airport, FL [Amended]

Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat. 25[deg]54'27'' N, long. 80[deg]16'42'' W)
North Perry Airport
    (Lat. 26[deg]00'05'' N, long. 80[deg]14'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Miami-Opa Locka Executive
Airport excluding that airspace south of 25[deg]52'09'' N, and that
portion north of a line connecting the 2 points of intersection with
a 4-mile radius centered on the North Perry Airport. This Class D
airspace area is effective during specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

ASO FL D Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, FL [Amended]

Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]11'50'' N, long. 80[deg]10'15'' W)
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]04'18'' N, long. 80[deg]08'59'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Fort Lauderdale Executive
Airport; excluding that portion within the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport, FL, Class C airspace area and that portion
northeast of a line between lat. 26[deg]15'49'' N; long.
80[deg]11'00'' W; and lat. 26[deg]12'59'' N; long. 80[deg]09'14'' W
and that portion north of a line 1 mile north of and parallel to the
extended runway centerline of Runway 8/26 at Fort Lauderdale
Executive Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO FL D Pompano Beach, FL [Amended]

Pompano Beach, Airpark, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]14'51'' N, long. 80[deg]06'40'' W)
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]11'50'' N, long. 80[deg]10'15'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Pompano Beach Airpark;
excluding that portion southwest of a line between lat.
26[deg]15'49'' N; long. 80[deg]11'00'' W; and lat. 26[deg]12'59'' N;
long. 80[deg]09'14'' W and that portion south of a line 1 mile north
of and parallel to the extended runway centerline of Runway 8/26 at
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific days and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO FL D Miami Executive Airport, FL [Amended]

Miami Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat. 25[deg]38'51'' N, long. 80[deg]26'00'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 3.5-mile radius of the Miami Executive
Airport, FL; excluding that airspace within the Miami, FL, Class B
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6003 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
C.

* * * * *

ASO FL E3 Fort Lauderdale, FL [Amended]

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]04'18'' N, long. 80[deg]08'59'' W)
Fort Lauderdale VOR/DME
    (Lat. 26[deg]04'26'' N, long. 80[deg]09'59'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.5 miles
each side of the Fort Lauderdale VOR/DME 083[deg] radial extending
from a 5-mile radius of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport to 7 miles east of the VOR/DME; excluding that portion south
of the north boundary of the Miami, FL, Class B airspace area.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Miami, FL [Amended]

Miami International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 25[deg]47'43'' N, long. 80[deg]17'24'' W)
Homestead ARB
    (Lat. 25[deg]29'19'' N, long. 80[deg]23'01'' W)
Miami Opa-Locka Executive Airport
    (Lat. 25[deg]54'27'' N, long. 80[deg]16'42'' W)
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
    (Lat. 26[deg]04'18'' N, long. 80[deg]08'59'' W)
Miami Executive Airport
    (Lat. 25[deg]38'51'' N, long. 80[deg]26'00'' W)
QEEZY LOM
    (Lat. 25[deg]38'29'' N, long. 80[deg]30'17'' W)
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport
    (Lat. 26[deg]11'50'' N, long. 80[deg]10'14'' W)
Pompano Beach Airpark
    (Lat. 26[deg]14'51'' N, long. 80[deg]06'40'' W)
North Perry Airport
    (Lat. 26[deg]00'04'' N, long. 80[deg]14'27'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Miami International Airport, Homestead
ARB, Miami Opa-Locka Executive Airport, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport, and Miami Executive Airport, and within 2.4
miles each side of the 267[deg] bearing from the QEEZY LOM extending
from the 7-mile radius to 7 miles west of the LOM, and within a 6.5-
mile radius of Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, Pompano Beach
Airpark and North Perry Airport.

ASO FL E5 Boca Raton, FL [Amended]

Boca Raton Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]22'43'' N, long. 80[deg]06'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Boca Raton Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 17, 2021.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-13274 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 10037-10038]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[FDA-2008-D-0108 (formerly Docket No. 2006D-0079)]

Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Food Safety Hazards for
Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a final guidance document entitled ``Guidance for
Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut
Fruits and Vegetables'' (the fresh-cut guidance or guidance).
Previously, FDA announced the availability of the fresh-cut guidance as
a ``draft final'' document, pending approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) of the information collection provisions in
the guidance. FDA is publishing this notice to announce that the fresh-
cut guidance is now final. The text of the guidance has not changed
from the previously published draft final version. The fresh-cut
guidance complements FDA's current good manufacturing practice (CGMP)
requirements for foods by providing specific guidance on the processing
of fresh-cut produce. The fresh-cut guidance and the CGMP regulations
are intended to assist processors in minimizing microbial food safety
hazards common to the processing of most fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables sold to consumers and retail establishments in a ready-to-
eat form.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the guidance at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the guidance document. Submit written
requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Food Safety
(HFS-317), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-
436-1700 or FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send one self-addressed adhesive label
to assist the Center in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rhoma Johnson, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER> or FAX: 301-
436-2651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables are minimally processed fruits and
vegetables that have been altered in form by peeling, slicing,
chopping, shredding, coring, or trimming, with or without washing or
other treatment, prior to being packaged for use by the consumer or a
retail establishment. The methods by which produce is grown, harvested,
and processed may contribute to its contamination with pathogens and,
consequently, the role of the produce in transmitting foodborne
illness. Factors such as the high degree of handling and mixing of the
product, the release of cellular fluids during cutting or chopping, the
high moisture content of the product, the absence of a step lethal to
pathogens, and the potential for temperature abuse in the processing,
storage, transport, and retail display all enhance the potential for
pathogens to survive and grow in fresh-cut produce.
    On March 6, 2006, FDA published in the Federal Register a notice
entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Food Safety
Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables'' (71 FR 11209) (the March
2006 notice). FDA gave interested persons 60 days to comment on the
draft guidance. The comment period closed on May 5, 2006. The draft
guidance was revised based on public comments. The draft guidance
contained information collection provisions subject to review by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of
information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and
includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public
submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires
Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting
the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, in
the March 2006 notice (71 FR 11209), FDA gave interested persons 60
days to comment on the information collection provisions in the draft
guidance. After providing the 60-day notice requesting public comment,
section 3507 of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507) requires Federal agencies to
submit the proposed collection to OMB for review and clearance. In
compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA submitted the proposed collection
of information to OMB for review and clearance.
    On March 13, 2007, FDA published in the Federal Register a notice
announcing the availability of a ``Draft Final Guidance for Industry:
Guide to Minimize Food Safety Hazards for Fresh-Cut Fruits and
Vegetables'' (72 FR 11364). This document was issued as a ``draft
final'' guidance pending OMB approval of the collection of information.
FDA announced OMB's approval of the collection of information in a
notice published on October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59295). With OMB approval,
FDA is publishing this notice announcing that the fresh-cut guidance is
final and providing an OMB control number (See section II of this
document).
    The fresh-cut guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The fresh-cut guidance
is intended to assist processors in minimizing microbial food safety
hazards common to the processing of most fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables sold to consumers and retail establishments in a ready-to-
eat form. This guidance represents FDA's current thinking on the
microbiological hazards presented by most fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables and the recommended control measures for such hazards in the
processing of such produce. It does not create or confer any rights for
or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You
may use an alternative approach if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collection of information in this guidance was approved under OMB
control number 0910-0609.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this guidance
document at any time. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or
two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may
submit one

paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance and received
comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned
to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-
wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will
be accepted by FDA through FDMS only.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance
document at the following Web site: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/
guidance.html.

    Dated: February 15, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-3417 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: February 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 11170-11173]
[DOCID:fr29fe08-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57360; File No. SR-ISE-2008-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Create a Delta Hedging Exemption from Equity Options Position
Limits

February 20, 2008.
    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 1, 2008, the International Securities

Exchange, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by ISE. The Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to create a delta hedging exemption from
equity options position limits pursuant to ISE Rule 413 (Exemptions
from Position Limits). The text of the proposed rule change is
available at ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.ise.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ISE 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. ISE 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
    All options traded on the Exchange are subject to position and
exercise limits, as provided under ISE Rules 412 and 413.\5\ Position
limits are imposed, generally, to maintain fair and orderly markets for
options and other securities by limiting the amount of control one or
more affiliated persons or entities may have over one particular
options class or the security or securities that underlie that options
class. Exchange rules also contain various hedge exemptions to allow
certain hedged positions in excess of the applicable standard position
limit.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Position limits for index options are provided separately
under Rules 2004, 2005, and 2006.
    \6\ See Rule 413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the years, ISE has increased the size of options position and
exercise limits, as well as the size and scope of available hedge
exemptions to the applicable position limits.\7\ These hedge exemptions
generally require a one-to-one hedge (i.e., one stock option contract
must be hedged by the number of shares underlying the options contract,
typically 100 shares). In practice, however, many firms do not hedge
their options positions in this manner. Instead, these firms engage in
what is commonly known as ``delta hedging.'' Delta hedging varies the
number of shares of the underlying security used to hedge an options
position based upon the relative sensitivity of the value of the option
contract to a change in the price of the underlying security.\8\ Delta
hedging is a widely accepted method for risk management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56493
(September 21, 2007), 72 FR 55266 (September 28, 2007); 56263
(August 15, 2007), 72 FR 47105 (August 22, 2007); and 56020 (July 6,
2007), 72 FR 38109 (July 12, 2007).
    \8\ To illustrate, a stock option contract with a delta of .5
will move $0.50 for every $1.00 move in the underlying stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Delta Neutral-Based Equity Hedge Exemption. The Exchange proposes
to adopt a new exemption from equity options position and exercise
limits \9\ for positions held by ISE members and certain of their
affiliates that are ``delta neutral'' \10\ under a ``permitted pricing
model'' (as defined below), subject to certain conditions
(``Exemption''). The proposed Exemption would apply only to equity
options (stock options and options on exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs'')).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule 414 establishes exercise limits for an option at the
same level as the option's position limit under Rule 412; therefore,
no changes are proposed to Rule 414.
    \10\ The term ``delta neutral'' is defined in proposed Rule
413(a)(7)(A) as referring to an equity option position that is
hedged, in accordance with a permitted pricing model, by a position
in the underlying security or one or more instruments relating to
the underlying security, for the purpose of offsetting the risk that
the value of the option position will change with incremental
changes in the price of the security underlying the option position.
    \11\ The Exchange intends to submit a separate proposed rule
change to adopt a delta neutral based hedge exemption for certain
index options and to expand the delta neutral-based hedge exemption
for ETF options to allow highly correlated instruments to be
included in any ETF option net delta calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any equity option position that is not delta neutral would be
subject to position and exercise limits, subject to the availability of
other exemptions. Only the ``option contract equivalent of the net
delta'' of such position would be subject to the appropriate position
limit.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Under proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(B), the term ``options
contract equivalent of the net delta'' is defined as the net delta
divided by the number of shares underlying the option contract, and
the term ``net delta'' is defined as, at any time, the number of
shares (either long or short) required to offset the risk that the
value of an equity option position will change with incremental
changes in the price of the security underlying the option position,
as determined in accordance with a permitted pricing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only financial instruments relating to the security underlying an
equity options position could be included in any determination of an
equity options position's net delta or whether the options position is
delta neutral. In addition, members could not use the same equity or
other financial instrument position in connection with more than one
hedge exemption. Therefore, a stock position used as part of a delta
hedging strategy could not also serve as the basis for any other equity
hedge exemption.
    Permitted Pricing Model. Under the proposed rule, the calculation
of the delta for any equity option position, and the determination of
whether a particular equity option position is delta neutral, must be
made using a permitted pricing model. A ``permitted pricing model'' is
defined in proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(C) to mean the pricing model
maintained and operated by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
and the pricing models used by (i) a member or its affiliate subject to
consolidated supervision by the Commission pursuant to Appendix E of
Rule 15c3-1; (ii) a financial holding company (``FHC'') or a company
treated as an FHC under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or its
affiliate subject to consolidated holding company group supervision;
\13\ (iii) an

SEC registered OTC derivatives dealer; \14\ and (iv) a national
bank.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The pricing model of an FHC or of an affiliate of an FHC
would have to be consistent with: (i) The requirements of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``FRB''), as amended
from time to time, in connection with the calculation of risk-based
adjustments to capital for market risk under capital requirements of
the FRB, provided that the member or affiliate of a member relying
on this exemption in connection with the use of such model is an
entity that is part of such company's consolidated supervised
holding company group; or (ii) the standards published by the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision, as amended from time to time and
as implemented by such company's principal regulator, in connection
with the calculation of risk-based deductions or adjustments to or
allowances for the market risk capital requirements of such
principal regulator applicable to such company--where ``principal
regulator'' means a member of the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision that is the home country consolidated supervisor of such
company--provided that the member or affiliate of a member relying
on this exemption in connection with the use of such model is an
entity that is part of such company's consolidated supervised
holding company group. See proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(C)(3).
    \14\ The pricing model of a Commission-registered OTC
derivatives dealer would have to be consistent with the requirements
of Appendix F to Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-4 under the Act, as amended
from time to time, in connection with the calculation of risk-based
deductions from capital for market risk thereunder. Only an OTC
derivatives dealer and no other affiliated entity (including a
member) would be able to rely on this part of the Exemption. See
proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(C)(4).
    \15\ The pricing model of a national bank would have to be
consistent with the requirements of the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, as amended from time to time, in connection with the
calculation of risk-based adjustments to capital for market risk
under capital requirements of the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency. Only a national bank and no other affiliated entity
(including a member) would be able to rely on this part of the
Exemption. See proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(C)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aggregation of Accounts. Members and non-member affiliates relying
on the Exemption would be required to ensure that the permitted pricing
model is applied to all positions in or relating to the security
underlying the relevant options position that are owned or controlled
by the member, or its affiliates.
    However, the net delta of an options position held by an entity
entitled to rely on the Exemption, or by a separate and distinct
trading unit of such entity, may be calculated without regard to
positions in or relating to the security underlying the option position
held by an affiliated entity or by another trading unit within the same
entity, provided that: (i) The entity demonstrates to the Exchange's
satisfaction that no control relationship, as defined in Rule 412(f),
exists between such affiliates or trading units, and (ii) the entity
has provided the Exchange written notice in advance that it intends to
be considered separate and distinct from any affiliate, or, as
applicable, which trading units within the entity are to be considered
separate and distinct from each other for purposes of the
Exemption.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(D)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any member or non-member affiliate relying on the Exemption must
designate, by prior written notice to the Exchange, each trading unit
or entity whose options positions are required by Exchange rules to be
aggregated with the options positions of such member or non-member
affiliate relying on the Exemption for purposes of compliance with
Exchange position or exercise limits.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(D)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obligations of Members and Affiliates. Any member relying on the
Exemption would be required to provide a written certification to the
Exchange that it is using a permitted pricing model as defined in the
rule for purposes of the Exemption. In addition, by such reliance, such
member would authorize any other person carrying for such member an
account including, or with whom such member has entered into, a
position in or relating to a security underlying the relevant option
position to provide to the Exchange or OCC such information regarding
such account or position as the Exchange or OCC may request as part of
the Exchange's confirmation or verification of the accuracy of any net
delta calculation under this Exemption.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The options positions of a non-member affiliate relying on the
Exemption must be carried by a member with which it is affiliated. A
member carrying an account that includes an equity option position for
a non-member affiliate that intends to rely on the Exemption would be
required to obtain from such non-member affiliate a written
certification that it is using a permitted pricing model as defined in
the rule for purposes of the Exemption.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In addition, the member would be required to obtain from
such non-member affiliate a written statement confirming that such
non-member affiliate: (a) Is relying on the Exemption; (b) will use
only a permitted pricing model for purposes of calculating the net
delta of its option positions for purposes of the Exemption; (c)
will promptly notify the member if it ceases to rely on the
Exemption; (d) authorizes the member to provide to the Exchange or
the OCC such information regarding positions of the non-member
affiliate as the Exchange or OCC may request as part of the
Exchange's confirmation or verification of the accuracy of any net
delta calculation under the Exemption; and (e) if the non-member
affiliate is using the OCC Model, has duly executed and delivered to
the Exchange such documents as the Exchange may require to be
executed and delivered to the Exchange as a condition to reliance on
the Exemption. See subparagraph (E)(3) of proposed Rule 413(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporting. Under proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(F), each member relying on
the Exemption would be required to report, in accordance with Rule
415\20\ (i) all equity option positions (including those that are delta
neutral) that are reportable thereunder, and (ii) on its own behalf or
on behalf of a designated aggregation unit pursuant to Rule
413(a)(7)(F), for each such account that holds an equity option
position subject to the Exemption in excess of the levels specified in
Rule 413, the net delta and the options contract equivalent of the net
delta of such position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Rule 415 requires, among other things, that members report
to the Exchange aggregate long or short positions on the same side
of the market of 200 or more contracts of any single class of
options contracts dealt in on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations are working on
modifying the Large Options Position Report system and/or OCC reports
to allow a member to indicate that an equity options position is delta
neutral.
    Records. Under proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(G), each member relying on
the Exemption would be required to (i) retain, and would be required to
undertake reasonable efforts to ensure that any non-member affiliate of
the member relying on the exemption retains, a list of the options,
securities and other instruments underlying each options position net
delta calculation reported to the Exchange hereunder, and (ii) produce
such information to the Exchange upon request.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A member would be authorized to report position information
of its non-member affiliate pursuant to the written statement
required under proposed Rule 413(a)(7)(E)(3)(ii)(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reliance on Federal Oversight. As provided under proposed Rule 413,
a permitted pricing model includes proprietary pricing models used by
members and affiliates that have been approved by the Commission, the
FRB or another federal financial regulator. In adopting the proposed
Exemption, the Exchange would be relying upon the rigorous approval
processes and ongoing oversight of a federal financial regulator. The
Exchange notes that it would not be under any obligation to verify
whether a member's or its affiliate's use of a proprietary pricing
model is appropriate or yielding accurate results.
    The Exchange will issue a regulatory circular stating the operative
date and describing the substantive terms of the proposed rule change
no later than 60 days after the Commission issues notice of the
proposed rule change. The operative date shall be such date as may be
necessary to ensure that necessary technology changes to The Options
Clearing Corporation and the Securities Industry Automation Corporation
reports used for position limit surveillance have been completed.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Telephone conversation between John Rademacher, Assistant
General Counsel, ISE, and Ira Brandriss, Special Counsel, Division
of Trading and Markets, Commission, on February 19, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the rule proposal is consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6(b) of the Act.\23\ Specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)\24\ Act
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just

and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange believes the proposed delta neutral-based hedge
exemption from equity options position and exercise limits is
appropriate in that it is based on a widely accepted risk management
method used in options trading. Also, the Commission has previously
stated its support for recognizing options positions hedged on a delta
neutral basis as properly exempted from position limits.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23,
1998), 63 FR 59362, 59380 (November 3, 1998) (adopting rules
relating to OTC Derivatives Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does no intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\28\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)\29\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the Exchange to implement the delta hedging exemption from
equity options position limits without needless delay. The Commission
notes that it recently approved a substantially similar proposal filed
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated.\30\ The Commission
believes that ISE's proposal to create a delta hedging exemption from
equity options position limits raises no new issues. For these reasons,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing
notice requirement.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56970 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72428 (December 20, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-99).
    \31\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-06. 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 official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE. 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-ISE-2008-06 and should be
submitted on or before March 21, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3842 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P