[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43675-43676]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18530]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0647; FRL-9982-52]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Exiting Collection (EPA ICR No. 1446.12); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``PCBs, Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 1446.12 and OMB Control
No. 2070-0112, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is
scheduled to expire on November 30, 2018. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in
this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the
docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0647, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Erik Winchester, National
Programs Chemical Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used, specifically the assumptions used for
industry burden on Tables 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 found in the Supporting
Statement.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: PCBs, Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1446.12.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0112.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November
30, 2018. 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 title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 6(e)(1) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2605(e), directs EPA to regulate the marking and
disposal of PCBs. Section 6(e)(2) bans the manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs in other than a totally
enclosed manner. Section 6(e)(3) establishes a process for obtaining
exemptions from the prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs. Since 1978, EPA has promulgated
numerous rules addressing all aspects of the life cycle of PCBs as
required by the statute. The regulations are intended to prevent the
improper handling and disposal of PCBs and to minimize the exposure of
human beings or the environment to PCBs. These regulations have been
codified in the various subparts of 40 CFR 761. There are approximately
100 specific reporting, third-party reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements covered by 40 CFR 761.
    To meet its statutory obligations to regulate PCBs, EPA must obtain
sufficient information to conclude that specified activities do not
result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
EPA uses the information collected under the 40 CFR 761 requirements to
ensure that PCBs are managed in an environmentally safe manner and that
activities are being conducted in compliance with the PCB regulations.
The information collected by these requirements will update the
Agency's knowledge of ongoing PCB activities, ensure that individuals
using or disposing of PCBs are held accountable for their activities,
and demonstrate compliance with the PCB regulations. Specific uses of
the information collected include determining the efficacy of a
disposal technology; evaluating exemption requests and exclusion
notices; targeting compliance inspections; and ensuring adequate
storage capacity for PCB waste. This collection addresses the several
information reporting requirements found in the PCB regulations.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 761). Respondents may claim all or part of a response
confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim
of confidentiality only to the

extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA
section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.36
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are persons who currently possess PCB items, PCB-contaminated
equipment, or other PCB waste.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 548,298.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 745,926 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $34,581,690. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $34,581,690 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden
(745,926 hours) from that currently in the OMB inventory. The changes
in the total annual respondent reporting and recordkeeping costs are
due to updates to the most current wage rate data. The up-to-date wage
rates and the change from the previous ICR are as follows:
     Manager--new rate, $77.86; prior rate; $77.81; (less than
1 percent) percent increase).
     Clerical--new rate, $37.76; prior rate, $30.36 (24 percent
increase).
     Professional/technical--new rate, $78.33; prior rate,
$64.55 (21 percent increase).

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: August 19, 2018.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-18530 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19128-19130]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07259]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0088; FRL-9783-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to convert a conditional
approval of specified provisions of the Ohio state implementation plan
(SIP) to a full approval. Ohio submitted a request to approve revised
particulate matter (PM) rules on February 23, 2012. The PM rule
revisions being approved establish work practices for coating
operations, add a section clarifying that sources can be subject to
both stationary source and fugitive source PM restrictions, and add a
PM emission limitation exemption for jet engine testing. Pursuant to a
state commitment underlying a previous conditional approval of this
rule, the revised rule provides that any exemption from the work
practice requirements that the state grants to large coating sources
must be submitted to EPA for approval.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 28, 2013, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by April 29, 2013. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0088, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakely, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakely, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0088. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Ohio sought SIP approval of its revision of Ohio Administrative
Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17 to clarify and amend its PM rules in an
August 22, 2008, submission. EPA approved nine sections, partially
approved another section, and approved the rescission of another
section of the OAC 3745-17 PM rules in an October 26, 2010, direct
final rule (75 FR 65567). EPA conditionally approved OAC 3745-17-11 in
the October 26, 2010, rule, conditioned on Ohio making specified
revisions to the rule. The rule that EPA conditionally approved
established work practice requirements for coating sources in lieu of
PM emission limits. As written when submitted on August 22, 2008, OAC
3745-17-11 would have authorized Ohio to exempt coating sources that
are too large to meet the work practice requirements of the rule from
complying with those requirements. No EPA approval of the exemption was
required, thus the state could have unilaterally exempted coating
sources from the work practice requirements. EPA conditionally approved
OAC 3745-17-11 based on a commitment by Ohio to revise the rule to
require that any exemption of large coating sources from the work
practice requirements be submitted to EPA as a request for revision to
the SIP.
    Pursuant to its commitment, Ohio revised OAC 3475-17-11,
Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Industrial Sources, on
December 13, 2011. The revised rule was effective on December 23, 2011.
Ohio revised OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(l) to provide that any exemption
from the surface coating PM work

practice requirements for sources coating large size items, which the
state may grant when emission control would be technically infeasible,
economically unreasonable, or both, must be submitted to EPA for SIP
approval. The added language makes clear that state action to grant
such an exemption does not exempt the source from Federal enforcement
of the work practice requirements in the SIP unless and until EPA
approves the exemption.
    The version of OAC 3745-17-11 that EPA conditionally approved
included other revisions from the PM rules EPA approved into the Ohio
SIP on November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65417). Section (A)(5) states that
sources can be subject to both fugitive dust and stationary source PM
restrictions if that facility emits PM through its stacks as well as
emits fugitive dust. Section (A)(1)(m) exempts jet engine test stands
from the PM emission limits.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?

    EPA finds the revisions to OAC 3745-17-11 submitted on February 23,
2012, to be approvable.
    Although the primary emissions of concern from surface coating are
the volatile organic compound emissions that arise from solvent
evaporation, OAC 3745-17-11 establishes a particulate emission limit
for coating operations simply because OAC 3745-17-11 establishes
generic emission limits for any process handling material such as
coatings and objects being coated. However, testing of particulate
emissions from coating operations is difficult, making it difficult to
determine whether particular control measures provide for compliance.
Therefore, Ohio exempted surface coating operations from the generic
emission limits in OAC 3745-17-11 and subjected these sources instead
to a set of rules requiring a specific set of work practices that will
limit the emissions as well as an emission limit. The exemptions for
surface coaters are provided in OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(h) to (l).
    As noted in Section I., Ohio revised OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(l) to
require EPA approval, as a SIP revision, for all large item exemptions.
This satisfies EPA's concerns with director's discretion previously
expressed to Ohio regarding the August 22, 2008, submission. Therefore,
EPA is now approving OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(l), as submitted on February
23, 2012, into the Ohio SIP.
    OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(m) grants an exemption from the rule's PM
emission limits for jet engine testing. PM emissions resulting from
this exemption are expected to be small given that a small number of
engines will be tested at once and only for a limited time. Ohio stated
that the maximum PM emissions rate resulting from this exemption will
be 10 pounds per hour. EPA finds that this exemption will have de
minimis impact and thus finds OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(m) approvable.
    Another addition to OAC 3745-17-11 is section (A)(5), which states
that source can be subject to both OAC 3745-17-08 and OAC 3745-17-11.
This section applies to a source that is a fugitive dust source, as
defined by OAC 3745-17-01 (B)(7), and emits PM through one or more
stacks. Restrictions on emissions of fugitive dust are given in OAC
3745-17-08. It is logical that a source emitting PM as fugitive dust
and also through stack emissions would be subject to the PM emission
restrictions for both fugitive sources and for stationary sources.
Thus, EPA is approving this addition to the Ohio SIP.
    A final important element of Ohio's submittal is OAC 3745-17-11
(C), the requirements for surface coating processes that are exempt
under OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(h) to (l). Surface coating processes are
required by OAC 3745-17-11 (C)(1) to use a dry particulate filter,
waterwash, or equivalent control device to limit PM emission. Subject
facilities must follow the work practice requirements given in OAC
3745-17-11 (C)(2) including maintaining documentation, properly
operating the control device, and conducting periodic inspections of
the control device. This section also requires a surface coating source
to comply with any PM emission limits given in a facility's permit
instead of the previous listed requirement of OAC 3745-17-11 (C)(1) and
(2). EPA finds these requirements to be a suitable equivalent to
subjecting these sources to the generic emission limit in Ohio's
process weight rate rule.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is converting its prior conditional approval to full approval
because Ohio submitted revisions to OAC 3745-17-11 that satisfy the
conditions listed in EPA's conditional approval. EPA is approving all
of OAC 3745-17-11, as effective on December 23, 2011, into the Ohio
SIP.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 28, 2013
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by April 29, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective May
28, 2013.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 28, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 11, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(157) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (157) On February 23, 2012, Ohio submitted revisions to Ohio
Administrative Code Chapter 3745-17, Rule 3745-17-11. The revisions
contain particulate matter restriction for industrial sources in the
State of Ohio necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5, annual PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10
NAAQS.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-11 ``Restrictions on
particulate emissions from industrial processes'', effective December
23, 2011.
    (B) December 13, 2011, ``Director's Final Findings and Orders'',
signed by Scott J. Nally, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency.

Sec.  52.1919  [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.1919 is amended by removing paragraph (c).

[FR Doc. 2013-07259 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10579-10581]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4084]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66406; File No. SR-ISE-2012-07]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Fees for Certain Complex Orders Executed on the
Exchange

February 16, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on February 1, 2012, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 ISE is proposing to amend fees for certain complex orders
executed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 Exchange currently assesses a per contract transaction fee to
market participants that add or remove liquidity in the Complex Order
Book (``maker/taker fees'') in symbols that are in the Penny Pilot
program. Included therein is a subset of 101 symbols that are assessed
a slightly higher taker fee (the ``Select Symbols'').\3\ Specifically,
the Exchange charges ISE market maker orders,\4\ firm proprietary
orders and Customer (Professional Orders) \5\ $0.10 per contract for
providing liquidity on the Complex Order Book and $0.30 per contract
($0.32 per contract in the Select Symbols) for taking liquidity from
the Complex Order Book. ISE market makers who take liquidity from the
Complex Order Book by trading with orders that are preferenced to them
are charged $0.28 per contract ($0.30 per contract in the Select
Symbols). Non-ISE Market Makers \6\ are currently charged $0.20 per
contract for providing liquidity and $0.35 per contract ($0.36 per
contract in the Select Symbols) for taking liquidity from the Complex
Order Book. Priority Customer orders are not charged a fee for trading
in the Complex Order Book and receive a rebate of $0.25 per contract
($0.30 per contract in the Select Symbols) when those orders trade with
non-customer orders in the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Select Symbols are identified by their ticker symbol on
the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \4\ The term ``market makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \5\ The term ``Professional Order'' means an order that is for
the account of a person or entity that is not a Priority Customer.
See ISR [sic] Rule 100(a)(37C).
    \6\ The term ``Non-ISE Market Maker'' means a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') registered in the same options class on another
options exchange. See Schedule of Fees, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also recently adopted fees for complex orders in two
of the most actively-traded index option products, the NASDAQ 100 Index
option (``NDX'') and the Russell 2000 Index option (``RUT'').\7\
Specifically, the Exchange charges ISE market maker orders, firm
proprietary orders and Customer (Professional Orders) $0.25 per
contract for providing liquidity on the Complex Order Book in NDX and
RUT and $0.70 per contract for taking liquidity from the Complex Order
Book in NDX and RUT. Non-ISE Market Makers are charged $0.25 per
contract for providing liquidity and $0.75 per contract for taking
liquidity from the Complex Order Book in NDX and RUT. ISE market makers
who remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book in NDX and RUT by
trading with orders that are preferenced to them are charged $0.68 per
contract. Priority Customer orders are not charged a fee for trading in
the Complex Order Book in NDX and RUT and receive a rebate of $0.50 per
contract when those orders trade with non-Priority Customer orders in
the Complex Order Book in NDX and RUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66084 (January 3,
2012), 77 FR 1103 (January 9, 2012) (SR-ISE-2011-84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'')
approval, the Exchange allows market makers to enter quotations for
complex order strategies in the Complex Order Book.\8\ Given this
enhancement to the complex order functionality, and in order to
maintain a competitive fee and rebate structure for Priority Customer
orders, the Exchange recently amended fees that apply to transactions
in the Complex Order Book in the following three symbols: XOP, XLB and
EFA.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange amended its maker fees for complex
orders in these three symbols when these orders interact with Priority
Customers.\10\ In SR-ISE-2011-81, the Exchange increased its maker fee
from $0.10 per contract to $0.30 per contract in XOP ($0.32 per
contract in XLB and EFA) for ISE market maker orders, firm proprietary
orders, and Customer (Professional Orders) when these orders interact
with Priority Customer orders. The Exchange also increased its maker
fee from $0.20 per contract to $0.30 per contract in XOP ($0.32 per
contract in XLB and EFA) for Non-ISE Market Makers orders when these
orders interact with Priority Customer orders. The Exchange did not
make any change to fees for Priority Customer orders that trade in the
Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65548 (October 13,
2011), 76 FR 64980 (October 19, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-39).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65958 (December 15,
2011), 76 FR 79236 (December 21, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-81). The
Exchange notes that XOP is currently in the Penny Pilot program and
XLB and EFA are currently Select Symbols.
    \10\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account. See ISE Rule
100(a)(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for Priority Customer complex orders in XOP, the Exchange
currently provides a rebate of $0.25 per contract ($0.30 per contract
for XLB and EFA) when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer
orders in the Complex Order Book.
    Further, the Exchange provides ISE market makers with a two cent
discount when trading against orders that are preferenced to them.
Prior to SR-ISE-2011-81, this discount was only applicable when ISE
Market Makers removed liquidity from the Complex Order Book. Pursuant
to SR-ISE-2011-

81, the Exchange began to provide this fee discount when ISE Market
Makers added or removed liquidity from the Complex Order Book. As a
result, the Exchange currently provides this fee discount when ISE
market makers add or remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book in
XOP, XLB and EFA. Specifically, ISE market makers that add or remove
liquidity in XLB and EFA in the Complex Order Book are charged $0.30
per contract ($0.28 per contract in XOP) when trading with orders that
are preferenced to them.
    Additionally, to incentivize members to trade in the Exchange's
various auction mechanisms, the Exchange currently provides a per
contract rebate to those contracts that do not trade with the contra
order in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism,\11\ Price Improvement
Mechanism \12\ and Solicited Order Mechanism.\13\ This rebate currently
applies to all complex orders in symbols that are subject to the
Exchange's maker/taker fees. For the Facilitation and Solicited Order
Mechanisms, the rebate is currently $0.15 per contract. For the Price
Improvement Mechanism, the rebate is currently $0.25 per contract.
Accordingly, a per contract rebate at the current levels currently
applies to those contracts in XOP, XLB, and EFA that do not trade with
the contra order in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Price
Improvement Mechanism and Solicited Order Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61869 (April 7, 2010), 75 FR
19449 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-25).
    \12\ See Exchange Act Release No. 62048 (May 6, 2010), 75 FR
26830 (May 12, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-43). The Exchange subsequently
increased this rebate to $0.25 per contract. See Exchange Act
Release No. 63283 (November 9, 2010), 75 FR 70059 (November 16,
2010) (SR-ISE-2010-106).
    \13\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63283 (November 9, 2010), 75
FR 70059 (November 16, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to extend the fees for complex orders
adopted in SR-ISE-2011-81 to the following additional seven symbols:
AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ, and WFC.\14\ The Exchange proposes to
expand the pricing structure and fees applicable to these orders in a
manner that is gradual and measured. For that reason, the Exchange
selected symbols that have moderate trading activity. In this case,
each of the seven symbols selected by the Exchange has an average daily
trading volume in complex orders of 500 contracts to 10,000 contracts
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ, and
WFC are currently Select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase its maker fee from
$0.10 per contract to $0.32 per contract in AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA,
VZ, and WFC for ISE market maker orders, firm proprietary orders, and
Customer (Professional Orders) when these orders interact with Priority
Customer orders. The Exchange proposes to increase its maker fee from
$0.20 per contract to $0.32 per contract in AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA,
VZ, and WFC for Non-ISE Market Makers orders when these orders interact
with Priority Customer orders. The Exchange does not propose any change
to fees for Priority Customer orders that trade in the Complex Order
Book.
    Further, the Exchange provides ISE market makers with a two cent
discount when trading against orders that are preferenced to them.
Accordingly, the Exchange currently provides this fee discount when ISE
Market Makers add or remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book in
AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ, and WFC.\15\ Specifically, ISE market
makers that add or remove liquidity in AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ, and
WFC in the Complex Order Book are charged $0.30 per contract when
trading with orders that are preferenced to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ISE acknowledged that it does not currently provide this
fee discount for the seven symbols included in this proposal.
Instead, the proposal establishes this discount for these seven
symbols. Telephone conversation among Boris Ilyevsky, Managing
Director, ISE; Samir Patel, Assistant General Counsel, ISE; Victoria
Crane, Assistant Director, Commission; Yvonne Fraticelli, Special
Counsel, Commission; and Kathleen Gross, Counsel, Commission on
February 13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for Priority Customer complex orders in AA, ABX, MSFT, MU,
NVDA, VZ, and WFC, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.30
per contract when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer orders
in the Complex Order Book. The Exchange does not propose any change to
this rebate.
    Finally, as noted above, to incentivize members to trade in the
Exchange's various auction mechanisms, the Exchange currently provides
a per contract rebate to those contracts that do not trade with the
contra order in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Price
Improvement Mechanism and Solicited Order Mechanism. This rebate
currently applies to all complex orders in symbols that are subject to
the Exchange's maker/taker fees. For the Facilitation and Solicited
Order Mechanisms, the rebate is currently $0.15 per contract. For the
Price Improvement Mechanism, the rebate is currently $0.25 per
contract. Accordingly, a per contract rebate at the current levels
currently applies to those contracts in AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ,
and WFC that do not trade with the contra order in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Price Improvement Mechanism and Solicited Order
Mechanism. The Exchange does not propose any change to this rebate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using
its facilities. The impact of the proposal upon the net fees paid by a
particular market participant will depend on a number of variables,
most important of which will be its propensity to add or remove
liquidity in options overlying AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ, and WFC in
the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the fees applicable to orders
executed in the Complex Order Book when trading against Priority
Customers in AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ, and WFC is appropriate given
the new functionality that allows market makers to quote in the Complex
Order Book. Additionally, the Exchange's fees remain competitive with
fees charged by other exchanges and are therefore reasonable and
equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the
Exchange rather than to a competing exchange. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to assess a `make' fee of $0.32 per
contract for AA, ABX, MSFT, MU, NVDA, VZ, and WFC when orders in these
symbols interact with Priority Customers is reasonable and equitable
because the fee is within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges
employing similar pricing schemes. For example, the `make' fee for a
broker/dealer complex order in MSFT when trading against a Priority
Customer at NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') is $0.20 per contract \18\ while
the same order that is electronically delivered at the Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') is $0.45 per contract.\19\ Furthermore, one
of the primary goals of this fee change, as well as the fees adopted in
SR-ISE-2011-81, is to maintain the attractive and competitive economics
for Priority Customer

complex orders, while introducing an enhancement to the way complex
orders trade on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See PHLX Fee Schedule, Section I, Part B., at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/marketregulation/membership/phlx/feesched.pdf.
    \19\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 1.VI. at http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a two cent discount to ISE market makers on preferenced orders
because this will provide an incentive for market makers to quote in
the Complex Order Book. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and
equitable to continue to provide rebates for Priority Customer complex
orders because paying a rebate will continue to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange and thereby create liquidity that ultimately
will benefit all market participants who trade on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to charge
the fees proposed herein as they are already applicable to complex
orders in XOP, XLB and EFA; with this proposed rule change, the
Exchange is simply extending its current fees to an additional seven
symbols. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed
fees are consistent with price differentiation that exists today at
other options exchanges. The Exchange believes it remains an attractive
venue for market participants to trade complex orders despite its
proposed fee change as its fees remain competitive with those charged
by other exchanges for similar trading strategies. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they deem fee
levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. For the reasons noted
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\20\ At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend 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 Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2012-07 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-ISE-2012-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing 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 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-ISE-2012-07 and should be
submitted on or before March 14, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4084 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P