Comments: Support for proposal. "Reynolds supports EPA's proposal to amend 40 CFR 112.7( e)( 8) to allow the use of customary business records, such as those maintained pursuant to API standards 653 and 2610, to satisfy recordkeeping and inspection requirements. Reynolds believes that the Agency has taken a sound approach in proposing streamlined reporting/ recordkeeping requirements for this important program." (10, 14, 17, 21, 28, 37, 42, 55, 56, 57, 60, 76, 80, 82, 84, L1, and L5) Support for final §112.8( c)( 3)). (30, 41, 42, 52, 57, 67, 76, 80, L5) 50 Confluence between API standards and CWA requirements. "Current regulations require that aboveground tanks be periodically inspected for signs of damage or deterioration that could cause a spill or leak. API Standard 653 is considered the predominant standard for aboveground tank inspection and API Standard 2610 concerns recordkeeping for inspections and preventive maintenance. CWA recordkeeping regulations require much the same information as the API Standards provide, therefore a company with records resulting from following the two API Standards already has the information required under the CWA." (42)

Cost, duplication. The proposed rule would eliminate the need for facilities to keep duplicate records. (37, 56, 57, 80, L5) The proposal would help larger facilities with both SPCC plan and FRP obligations or a discharge permit for a wastewater treatment plant. (17) The proposed change would provide some cost savings through the elimination of redundant inspections. (21)

Opposition to proposal.

API records inapplicable. "... API standards are not applied to Exploration and Production [E& P] tanks. The majority of E& P tanks are either bolted or welded steel tanks. Some old fields still use redwood stave tanks." (7) "Typically, E& P tanks are 200 to 1000 bbl capacity. They can be inspected under API Standard 653, however, that is not done since in old fields, the cost could not be sustained. The economic life of the field would be shortened by at least 3 years. Additionally, there is no need to make such a rigorous inspection since E& P tanks seldom sustain catastrophic failures. Most oil spills from E& P tanks are the result of storm damage or human error. Spending precious funds on wasteful inspections simply deprives the public of domestic fuel and adds to the quantity transported by ship (which are much more prone to spills)." (8) API Standards 653, 2610, 620 and 650 are "... voluntary standards and many of the records discussed concerning those standards are not commonly kept by smaller oil and gas companies. To remedy this problem, we suggest that those requirements be changed to include the phrase, `when available'." (26)

No consequence. "I am aware of no requirement in Missouri nor of any industry in Missouri which reports discharge of stormwaters from secondary containment enclosure. This provision, therefore, is of no consequence in Missouri." (7) 51 Redundancy. "GLCC appreciates EPA recognizing the redundancy of the SPCC requirements with current NPDES requirements." (56)

Form of records.

API and other voluntary standards. "...( A) note or comment should follow 40 CFR §112.7( e)( 8) stating that usual and customary business records may include those maintained pursuant to appropriate API and/ or other voluntary consensus standards. The inclusion of such guidance will make it easier, in years to come, for regulated entities to understand the intent of the Agency with respect to the recordkeeping requirements without the need to locate a copy of this Federal Register notice. Ash Grove also believes that the placement of such guidance in the rule itself will better meet the apparent intent of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (as described on page 63818 of the Proposed Rule), whether or not the Act applies in this instance." (15)

NPDES records. We should allow the use of records maintained pursuant to NPDES permits to suffice for the requirements in §112.7( e)( 8). (4, 21, 30, 42, 56, 57, 67, 80, L5)

RCRA/ SPCC confluence. "( C) omparison of the requirements under sections 112 and (40 CFR) 264/ 265 indicate that there is little difference between the requirements of these sections." (81)

UL Standards. Re integrity testing "Therefore, the methods of testing can be easily determined by referencing the method used by Underwriters Laboratories to validate both the primary and secondary containments of each assembly. The use of: pneumatic (pressure), hydrostatic, vacuum, sonar, tracer gas, any combination of two of the aforementioned methodologies or another method as determined by either the listing authority or authority having jurisdiction will be considered acceptable for purposes of this section." (73)

"... In addition to the aforementioned Standards, please accept those standards for the storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids developed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) and Underwriters Laboratories of Canada. These will include standards for construction, design, performance, testing, maintenance and all facets of storage of materials in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, including UL Standard 142 for Bare Steel Aboveground Tanks, UL Subject 2080 for Fire Resistant Tanks, UL Standard 2085 for Protected Aboveground Storage Tanks and UL Subject 2245 for At/ Below Grade Aboveground Storage Tanks (Vaults). The Agency could easily canvass this proposal by participating in the UL IAG forum previously mentioned. Please note that inclusion of these Standards and Subjects will include the use of an 52 auditing mechanism that might conceivably reduce the information collection burden/ historical difficulties for the Agency." (73)

"In addition, a new controversy relative to the merits of a UL Subject 2244, Systems Listing wherein both the storage tank and all its accessories are evaluated and certified in the form of a listing label would appear to be logically worth consideration by the US EPA. While regulatory authorities traditionally support the Systems Listing and Industry opposes the Systems Listing, perhaps the involvement of US EPA can Provide a significant input to resolving this new factor in evaluating fuel storage." (73)

Use optional. "As long as the tanks and secondary containments are inspected and maintained, the format used to document these events is not important. Utilizing an existing document, such a departmental maintenance log would be more than adequate to demonstrate that the facility has compiled with the regulatory obligations. Furthermore, using an established plant procedure will be less confusing for the individuals involved and more readily retrievable when requested." (38) "...( I) t should be clarified that facilities are not required to use the API Standards listed in the preamble. Facilities should be allowed to continue to use a format specifically designed for documenting SPCC requirements." (51)

FRP record retention period. "Since the record retention provision pertaining to Facility Response Plans (FRP) is contained in the model included in Appendix F (Section 1. 8. 1) and not in Section 112.20 itself, it is not clear whether the five year reference is a guideline or a requirement. Even assuming that the five year reference is a requirement, it is unclear as to why FRP records should be retained for a period two years longer than the SPCC records. Retention of inspection records allows EPA to review a facility's past records. As such, this retention period should not be a function of the size of the facility. The same retention period should apply to all facilities. TVA, therefore, recommends that the proposed rule clarify whether the records retention requirement is intended to apply to records generated as a result of inspections required in FRPs. If so, a three year retention period should apply to those records generated as a result of facility self inspections specified in Section 1. 8. 1 of Appendix F." (21)

Maintenance with Plan. Criticizes the provision that records must be made a part of the Plan as burdensome and no benefit to the environment. (14, 21, 27, 35, 41, 52, 58, 61, 70, 84) "PM records are much better kept in a special PM notebook, which is often equipment specific. It would be awkward and administratively burdensome for a facility, particularly a small facility, to either file the PM report in the SPCC Plan or to reproduce the PM report and physically insert it into the SPCC Plan. It would be far better to simply include in the SPCC Plan a reference to the fact that PM inspections 53 are performed, that they are usual and customary, and include the location of the completed records (e. g., maintenance supervisor's office). This issue is particularly critical for records demonstrating compliance with employee training requirements at 40 CFR 112.7( e)( 10). The best location for such records is in the employee personnel files, not an SPCC Plan." (14)

NPDES rules. Seeks clarification on proposed "adoption by reference" of NPDES rules. (23, 29, 31, 43, 47, 60, 61, 70, 83)

No SPCC regulation  NPDES instead. "AFIA believes an exception should be created for reporting and recording dike bypasses of 112.7( e)( 2)( iii)( D) relating to animal and vegetable oil storage, requiring such reporting and recording only if required by NPDES stormwater permits." (23)

No NPDES requirements either. "Release of uncontaminated rainwater from containment areas should not be subject to monitoring and notification requirements of the NPDES program." (29)

NPDES rules sometimes inapplicable. "...( T) he NPDES regulations contain requirements which should not apply to SPCC facilities, including the condition that the permittee must provide notice of a bypass event." (43)

Receipt and understanding. "...( A) s a matter of usual and customary business records that the owner/ operator of the SPCC Plan/ FRP site be required to sign a document acknowledging receipt and understanding of the appropriate plan. This would indicate that the site had been properly reviewed, the owner/ operator informed and that the liability to maintain and supervise the site had been specifically acknowledged. No cause should be promoted that an SPCC Plan is certified, forwarded to the site and placed on a shelf without review or acknowledgment." (73)

Requirement or recommendation. "EPA should clarify in the final rule that references in the preamble to requirements for periodic integrity testing of aboveground tanks and inspections are only voluntary recommendations in the current regulation and are not required. EPA erroneously refers to periodic integrity testing of aboveground tanks and inspections as required activities (see page 63815, middle column under the heading "40 CFR 112.7( e)( 2)( vi) and page 63815, right column under the heading "40 CFR 112.7( e)( 8))." (47, 61, 74)

States. "If the states maintain the regulation as it currently stands, it will only negate the Agency's current efforts in these proposed revisions to the requirement. The Company is concerned about the regulatory burden this may create if each state maintains the current regulation, or makes the decision to develop more stringent regulations." (48) 54 Usual and customary business records. Requests clarification regarding the definition of "usual and customary business records" as written in the proposed rule. (14, 15, 38, 51, 81)

Response: Support for proposal. We appreciate commenter support.

Applicability  §112.8( c)( 3). This paragraph applies to discharges of rainwater from diked areas that may contain any type of oil, including animal fats and vegetable oils. The only purpose of this paragraph is to offer a recordkeeping option so that you do not have to create a duplicate set of records for SPCC purposes, when adequate records created for NPDES purposes already exist.

Applicability  §112.9( b)( 1). We believe that this requirement must be applicable to both large and small facilities to help prevent discharges as described in §112.1( b). The risk of such a discharge and the accompanying environmental damage may be devastating whether it comes from a large or small facility. We disagree that the recordkeeping is burdensome. If you are an NPDES permittee, you may use the stormwater drainage records required pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41( j)( 2) and 122.41( m)( 3) for SPCC purposes, thereby reducing the recordkeeping burden.

Discharge records necessary  §112.8( c)( 3). Only records of discharges "that may be harmful" as described in 40 CFR part 110 are required. A discharge "that may be harmful" includes a discharge that violates applicable water quality standards, or which causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or which causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines.

Engineering methods  §112.9( b)( 1). "Equivalent" measures referenced in the rule might, depending on good engineering practice, include using structures such as stand pipes designed to handle flow through conditions at water flood oil production operations, where large volumes of water may be directed to oil storage tanks if water discharge lines on oil water separators become plugged. Any alternate measures must provide environmental protection equivalent to the rule requirement.

Form of records. Records of inspections and tests required by this rule may be maintained in electronic or any other format which is readily accessible to the facility and to EPA personnel. Usual and customary business records may be those ordinarily used in the industry, including those made under API standards, Underwriters' Laboratories standards, NPDES permits, a facility's QS 9000 or ISO 14000 system, or any other format acceptable to the Regional Administrator. If you choose to use records associated with compliance with industry standards, such as Underwriters' Laboratories standards, you must closely review the inspection, testing, and record keeping requirements of this rule to ensure that any records kept in accordance with 55 industry standards meets the intent of the rule. Some standards have limited record keeping requirements and may only address a particular aspect of container fabrication, installation, inspection, and operation and maintenance. The intent of the rule is that you will not have to maintain duplicate sets of records when one set has already been prepared under industry or regulatory purposes that also fully suffices for SPCC purposes. The use of these alternative record formats is optional; you are not required to use them, but you may use them.

FRP record retention period. We recognize that the record retention periods will differ under the revised rule for SPCC facilities as opposed to response facilities. We may consider a uniform record retention period in the future for all types of facilities.

Maintenance with Plan. We agree with commenters that it is not necessary to maintain records as part of the Plan. Therefore, today's rule allows "keeping" of the records "with" the Plan, but not as part of it. In the current rule, such records "should be made part of the SPCC Plan...." 40 CFR 112.7( e)( 8). Because you continually update these records, this change will eliminate the need to amend your Plan each time you remove old records and add new ones. You still retain the option of making these records a part of the Plan if you choose.

NPDES rules. We are not adopting the NPDES rules for SPCC purposes, but are only offering an alternative for recordkeeping. The intent of the rule is that you may, if you choose, use the NPDES stormwater discharge records in lieu of records specifically created for SPCC purposes. We are not incorporating the NPDES requirements into our rules by reference.

Receipt and understanding. The owner or operator of a facility already is responsible for Plan preparation and implementation. The Plan must have the full approval of management at a level of authority to commit the necessary resources. Such approval must be documented in the Plan by signature of the owner or operator.

Records required. The rule permits use of usual and customary business records, and covers all of the inspections and tests required by this part as well as any ancillary records. "Inspections and tests" include not only inspections and tests, but schedules, evaluations, examinations, descriptions, and similar activities required by this part. After publication of this rule, we will list all of the inspections and tests required by part 112 on our website (www. epa. gov/ oilspill). The applicability of each inspection and test will depend on the exercise of good engineering practice, because not every one will be applicable to every facility.

Requirement or recommendation. We have always interpreted and enforced our rules as mandatory requirements. 56 States. Both the States and EPA have authority to regulate containers storing or using oil. Some States have exercised that authority while others have not. We do not preempt State rules, and defer to State law that is more stringent than part 112.

Time period. We agree with commenters that maintenance of records for three years is sufficient for SPCC purposes, since that period will allow for meaningful comparisons of inspections and tests taken. We note, however, that certain industry standards, for example API Standards 570 and 653, may specify record maintenance for more than three years.

Usual and customary business records. Usual and customary business records are those records normally used in commerce. 57 9. Capacity of Facilities Storing Process Water/ Wastewater for Response Plan Purposes  proposed §112.20( f)( 4)

Background: In 1997, we proposed to add a new paragraph to §112.20( f) to provide a method for facility response plan purposes to calculate the oil storage capacity of storage containers storing a mixture of process water/ wastewater with 10% or less of oil. This proposal for certain systems that treat process water/ wastewater would be applicable at certain facilities required to prepare a facility response plan. It would have no effect on facilities required to prepare response plans because they transfer oil over water and have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons. Likewise, the proposal would have no effect on the method of calculating capacity for purposes of SPCC Plans. Under the proposal, we would not count the entire capacity of process water/ wastewater containers with 10% or less of oil in the capacity calculation to determine whether a facility must prepare a facility response plan. We only would count the oil portion of that process water/ wastewater contained in §112.20( f)( 2), and therefore response planning is not necessary.

Today, we are withdrawing the proposal because it is no longer necessary. It is unnecessary because we have exempted from part 112 any facility or part thereof (except at oil production, oil recovery, and oil recycling facilities) used exclusively for wastewater treatment and not to satisfy any requirement of part 112. See the discussion under §112.1( d)( 6). The exemption in §112.1( d)( 6) applies to the types of facilities treating wastewater that would have been allowed to calculate a reduced storage capacity if the percentage of oil in the mixture were 10 percent or less. 58 10. Facility Response Plan Format  §112.20( h)

Background: In 1997, we proposed to amend the requirements for formatting of a facility response plan to clarify that an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) or other plan format acceptable to the Regional Administrator is allowable to serve as a facility response plan if it meets all facility response plan requirements. Our intent was to track language in the SPCC rule allowing the Regional Administrator similar authority to accept differing formats for SPCC Plans. However, the Regional Administrator already has the authority to accept differing formats for response plans, and the existing facility response plan requirements already provide for cross referencing. See §112.20( h). Therefore, new rule language was unnecessary, and the proposal tracked current language. Today, we have made only a minor editorial change in rule language.

Comments: Support for proposal. "Similarly we support the Agency's proposal to allow the ICP as an FRP." (14, 41, 45, 47, 51, 56, 58, 61, 73).

Any format. Any equivalent format, not just the ICP format, should be an acceptable format for a FRP "... so long as the alternative format meets all regulatory requirements and includes an appropriate cross reference." (14, 41, 47, 51, 58, 61)

ICP format beneficial. This inclusion would simplify compliance with the FRP rules because it would "consolidate plans and eliminate duplication." (41) "...( P) reparation and use of an ICP or other format would not reduce the information collection burden of the FRP rule, but would simplify compliance with multiple applicable statutes and rules." (45) Supports "... EPA's intent for a FRP that is equivalent to the existing requirements without requiring approval from the EPA Regional Administrator." (47, 58, 61) The use of the ICP as an acceptable format for a FRP would reduce the burden on industry while maintaining the same level of environmental protection. (65)

No change. The proposed rule language did not include any changes. (14, 21, 41, 47, 58, 61)

Acceptable formats. "Because of earlier jurisdictional interpretations by EPA regional offices, EPA should clarify that the use of such an equivalent format for the SPCC Plan or FRP does not require the approval of the EPA Regional Administrator." (47, 52, 58, 61)

Editorial suggestion. "A response plan shall follow the format of the model facilityspecific response plan included in Appendix F to this part, unless (i) an equivalent response plan has been prepared to meet state or other Federal requirements, or (ii) an 59 ICP has been prepared in accordance with the notice published at 61 Fed. Reg. 28642, June 5, 1996." (21)

PE certification. Suggests revised second sentence in 40 CFR 112.3( d) to allow a PE "to more easily certify the SPCC portion of an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP)." With these changes an ICP will now "... discuss the preventive structures such as tanks, berms, containments, and process systems of the SPCC plan, which a PE can easily review, quantify, and certify in accordance with their license, as well as the imprecise response theory for oil and hazardous materials releases, fire fighting and other emergency plans which are not within the scope of a PE certification." (63) "As previously submitted relative to SPCC Plans, SPC Corp suggests that Facility Response Plans may be prepared by qualified individuals such as tank/ equipment representatives, licensed technicians, personnel with significant experience in composition of SPCC and/ or FRP Plans who submit their draft plans to independent PE's for certification in order to reduce the financial burden to the owner/ operator. The existing interpretation often requires a PE to physically inspect the site to the extent that certification fees can outweigh the purchase price of innovative and safe onsite equipment. Certainly the Agency does not want to see these "soft costs" discourage the implementation of a secure and safe sight." (73)

Response: Acceptable formats. It is not necessary for the rule to mention the ICP or any other format specifically because the rule already allows the Regional Administrator flexibility to accept any format that meets all Federal requirements. Any format that contains all the required elements of a response plan would be presumptively acceptable. See §112.20( h). You may use the ICP, a State response plan, or other format acceptable to the Regional Administrator, at your option. We do not require use of any alternative format, but merely give you the option to do so.

Editorial suggestion. We added the words "acceptable to the Regional Administrator" in the first sentence after the words "response plan."

No change. The commenters are correct that the proposed rule is identical to the current rule. The current rule allows the submission of an "equivalent response plan that has been prepared to meet State or other Federal requirements."

Partially acceptable formats. You have the option to integrate any or all parts of an ICP with your response plan. This gives you flexibility in formatting. Similar to SPCC Plans, the Regional Administrator may accept partial use of alternative formats.

PE certification. PE certification is only required for the SPCC portion of any ICP. 60 11. Supporting Analyses Background: For the 1997 proposed rule, we performed supporting regulatory analyses in accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.

Comments: Costs. Operates and maintains numerous aboveground storage tanks, of which "... approximately 20% have a storage capacity greater than 660 gallons, but less than 1, 320 gallons. The majority of U S WEST facilities only contain one AST at any particular site. When these tanks are constructed, they often remain intact for many years without a construction disturbance or a need of any repair. The average cost to the Company to develop an SPCC plan for these tanks has been approximately $2,500. U S WEST corporate policy also makes responsible environmental management a company priority. In doing so, the Company frequently inspects all tanks during operations reviews and audits." (48)

Small facilities. Costs do not vary significantly by size of facility. (31) Questions the impact of the proposed rules on small entities. (7, 52) We certified that the October 22, 1991 and the December 2, 1997 proposed rulemakings would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities and that no regulatory flexibility analysis was done. (7)

Disagreements with economic analyses.

Electrical equipment facilities. EPA does not intend to regulate substations because "... EPA has not included substations in its calculations of burden imposed by SPCC regulations for the 1991, 1996, as well as the December 19, 1997 submittal to the Office of Management and Budget." (57) We must recalculate the costs associated with compliance because we have significantly underestimated the number of electric utility facilities that would be subject to the rules if their scope included electrical equipment. (70)

Information collection  FRP rule. "( T) he Agency has previously estimated that it requires approximately 118 hours for facility personnel in a "large, consumption facility" to comply with the annual subsequent year reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the FRP rule after adjusting for compliance with other Federal and State regulations. CasChem believes this estimate to be low. CasChem is not a "large, consumption facility". For CasChem, the FRP development and approval process has been frustrating. Over the years the facility has developed a comprehensive DPCC/ SPCC/ DCR. BMP Plan to incorporate New Jersey specific and federal requirements. The Plan has been developed and maintained primarily by one environmental engineer with heavy reliance on outside consulting 61 expertise. Our current FRP is being revised at this time to improve formatting and to provide more details. This effort alone will take more than 118 hours to complete at a cost of more than $50,000. We anticipate future annual estimates for FRP maintenance to require more than 118 hours." (84)

Requests for Differentiation.

Electrical equipment facilities. "The data presented in this report suggests that it would perhaps be more appropriate to consider mineral oil dielectric fluids as more akin to food grade oils rather than to petroleum based fuels. This argument is made based on comparisons of PAH, metals and BTEX concentrations, as well as overall toxic effects exhibited by the two classes of materials. Consequently, a release of dielectric fluid to the environment does not have the same types of short term or long term impacts as less refined fuel type oils. This claim has been substantiated through observations documented during and after the response action to the August 1993 dielectric fluid release at Entergy's Roland Road substation near Little Rock, Arkansas one of the two incidents alluded to in the introduction to these comments." (18)

Requests for Use of Other Sources in Analyses.

Animal fats and vegetable oils. "It is important for EPA to recognize animal fats and vegetable oil spills can not reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment. Documented spill records indicate that animal fats and vegetable oils account for only 0. 4 percent of the oil spill incidents in U. S. waters, and only 0. 02 percent of those involved releases of over 1,000 gallons. EPA must agree the animal fats and vegetable oils industry not only has an excellent safety record, but is committed to prevention of oil spills and protecting the environment. ... ...( T) he feed industry, SIC code 2048, is regulated by EPA's stormwater runoff regulation. Feed industry facilities already administer management and engineering controls for the reduction and prevention of pollutant loading in storm water. Pollution prevention plans detail spill prevention, clean up, housekeeping and maintenance programs to safeguard stormwater becoming loaded with any pollutants from the grounds of the facility." (23)

Costs  electrical equipment facilities. Has approximately 3, 500 transmission and distribution electrical equipment installations potentially subject to the 40 CFR Part 112 rule. "Insofar as cost of compliance, generation of site specific oil spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans for these facilities has been estimated to average $4000 per facility, for a total cost for plan generation of approximately $14 million. In addition, imposing the requirement for secondary containment on Entergy's electrical equipment installations would require expenditures estimated at $30,000 per installation, for a total cost in excess of 62 $100 million. Costs of plan maintenance, including the current triennial evaluation and possible professional engineer recertification of the site specific plans, are uncertain, but would possibly approach $2 million per year. In light of the extremely low spill rates occurring from oil filled electrical devices at Entergy facilities; such costs, which would ultimately be shouldered by our customers, are unjustified. It should be noted that for the time period encompassing years 1993 through 1997, oil releases at Entergy electrical substations totaled seventy incidents. Discounting spills of less than one hundred gallons, this number drops to twenty five. Of these releases, two incidents impacted waters of the United States. These numbers translate to two occurrences per 17, 500 facility years." (18)

Dielectric fluids. We should "... consider information contained within the Electric Power Research lnstitute's Mineral Insulation Oil Characterization Report. This document was submitted with the USWAG comments. While Entergy is aware of the Agency's recently published decision document regarding regulation of vegetable oils and animal fats under the Part 112 rule, this technical information should not be discounted when evaluating what constitutes a prudent course of action for addressing releases of mineral oil dielectric fluid. The EPRI study provides an in depth comparison of the chemical/ physical characteristics of mineral oil based dielectric fluids compared with gasoline and diesel oil." (18) Our recognition that "... electrical equipment is fundamentally different from other oil storage equipment is an important step in crafting regulations appropriate to this area." (65)

Response: Costs. We recognize that electrical equipment is not bulk storage and do not regulate it as such. However, electrical equipment remains subject to the general requirements of the rule, including secondary containment. If secondary containment is not practicable, you may instead provide a contingency plan. The final rule also allows for equivalent prevention plans, which might include a multi facility plan, that will enable certain firms to economize on the preparation of plans for similar types of facilities. We are also no longer going to regulate facilities having a total oil storage capacity of 1, 320 gallons or less, but that have a single aboveground container in excess of 660 gallons. We will have a regulatory threshold of greater than 1,320 gallons instead. Nor will we regulate containers smaller than 55 gallons. Therefore, the compliance burden for the smallest facilities will end. In summary, however, we estimate the burden of the rule using a model facility approach, which differentiates compliance costs by facility size. We recognize that some facilities may actually incur higher costs, while others incur lower costs, than estimated for each model facility. We did perform a small business analysis for our 1991 proposed rulemaking, which was included in our economic impact analysis of the proposed rulemaking (January 1991). The commenter is correct, though, that we did not perform a formal regulatory flexibility analysis for our 1997 proposed 63 rulemaking because the proposed revisions were deregulatory in nature and posed no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Electrical equipment facilities. Substations are included in the scope of the SPCC rule, and we have included them in our burden calculations for the final rule. Our 1996 SPCC renewal ICR adjusted upwards the burden estimate for utilities for the number of SPCCregulated electrical equipment based on similar comments received during that renewal period.

Information collection  FRP rule. We acknowledge the final comment concerning the information collection burden for response facilities, but it is outside the scope of this final rulemaking because the proposed revision to §112.20( f) has been withdrawn. We will consider your comment in future reviews of the Information Collection Request for the FRP rule.

Requests for Differentiation. Because at the present time EPA has not proposed differentiated requirements for public notice and comment, the requirements for facilities storing or using all classes of oil will remain the same. We have, however, established separate rule sections for facilities storing animal fats and vegetable oils. We also have published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on how we might differentiate requirements for facilities storing or using the various classes of oil. 64 FR 17227, April 8, 1999. After considering these comments, if there is adequate justification for differentiation, we will propose a rule.

Requests for Use of Other Sources in Analyses Dielectric fluids. We have reviewed the document mentioned. We will also consider it in our upcoming proposed rule to consider differentiated requirements for facilities storing or using different types of oils. 64 12. Miscellaneous Comments Applicability. We should provide guidance to clarify the applicability of SPCC plan regulations at 40 CFR 112.3( a). "...( I) n relation to `due to their location, could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities into navigable waters or adjoining shore lines. ' What does `due to location' mean? What does "reasonably expected" mean?" (L4)

Applicable items. Section 112.7, "Guidelines for the preparation and implementation of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan," should read as follows: "The complete SPCC plan shall follow the sequence outline below, but listing only applicable items, unless it is in another format acceptable to the Regional Administrator, such as described in 112.2, and include a discussion of the facility's conformance with the appropriate guidelines listed." "This change is intended to clarify that SPCC plans are only required to contain a citation of all 112.7 items that are applicable, rather than list all non applicable items too and explain why. This will simplify SPCC plan preparation and avoid violation notices about missing non applicable items. (44)

Burden reduction. "In the supplemental December 1997 proposal, EPA has done so in certain respects by proposing a few amendments to the SPCC and OPA rules. While these efforts are certainly laudatory, they fail to address the basic problem with the SPCC program, which is the Agency's attempt to impose a "one size fits all" regulatory program on facilities that differ by orders of magnitude in size, characteristics, method of operation, and risk to the environment." (31) "Such burdens can be reduced a lot more by having the SPCC Plan actually written as a plan.... Simply put, a Plan should tell someone how to do something, not how it is being done or what they should consider doing or what they are not doing!" (40)

Certification by other environmental professionals. We should accept other environmental professionals for Plan certification. (33, 44, 62, 63, 64, 73) "The Environmental Professional who provides certification for review of and amendment to the SPCC Plan should be familiar with 40 CFR 112, the facility, and the facility's operations. The DFW Airport Board anticipates that the Environmental Professional responsible for implementing and maintaining the SWPPP would also be responsible for implementing and maintaining the SPCC Plan." (33) "...( I) t is also timely to consider the addition of another professional group (other than Professional Engineers) to sign off on the appropriate documentation. Specifically, we are proposing the new provisions state the inclusion of either a Professional Engineer or a Master Level Certified Hazardous Materials Manager as authorized signators." The commenter continued to describe the qualifications of a Master Level CHMM as well as point out that other Federal agencies, such as the DOE, DOT, Corps of Engineers and branches of the DOD, that have recognized the benefits of CHMMs. (62) Endorses the eligibility of other qualified individuals to certify a Plan. If a facility "... does not have a registered professional 65 engineer for a particular state, it must hire one, at some cost, to review the plans prepared by internal, non PE staff. Questar believes that this cost is unnecessary since good engineering practice, like best management practices in water pollution control, are not the exclusive province of the engineer. Questar further believes that individuals who are familiar with particular facilities and with the local meteorology, who understand the operations of the facilities and who are familiar with the requirements of 40 CFR 112, can (and should) develop spill prevention plans. The qualification of the PE, while valuable in many other respects, is unnecessary for this pursuit." (64) Suggests that the site preparation of the SPCC plan be expanded to include "... qualified individuals such as representatives of the tank manufacturer, licensed technicians, personnel with significant experience in composition of SPCC or FRP Plans who submit their draft plans to independent PE's for certification in order to reduce the financial burden to the owner/ operator. The existing interpretation often requires a PE to physically inspect the site to the extent that certification fees can outweigh the purchase price of innovative and safe equipment. Certainly the Agency does not want to see these "soft costs" discourage the implementation of a secure and safe site." (73)

Completely buried tanks. "Update portions dealing with underground storage tanks as they are now covered by other regulations." (40) "The EPA includes underground storage tank (UST) capacity in the applicability section and the bulk storage tank section of the rule. 40 CFR 112, implemented in 1973, is an above ground storage tank (AST) rule while 40 CFR 280, implemented in 1988, is a UST rule. The newer 40 CFR 280 rule very clearly establishes UST construction, spill prevention, and release detection standards which are more detailed and more stringent than the older SPCC rule. FPC requests the EPA acknowledge the replacement of the UST portions of the SPCC rule by 40 CFR 280 by removing the duplicative and confusing sections of 40 CFR 112, specifically, 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 2)( I), 112.7( e)( 2)( iv), and 112.7( e)( 2)( v) should be deleted." (63)

"Delegated" States. We should urge delegated states to change their corresponding regulations to match our regulations so that the benefits of the proposed changes in the SPCC plan can be fully realized. (67)

Endorsed comments.

API. Supports proposed revisions, refers us to API comments submitted on the 1997 proposal, which proposed additional revisions in regard to underground storage tank thresholds. (24, 50)

USWAG. Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) member endorses the comments filed on its behalf under separate cover. (35) Supports comments submitted by the USWAG, the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 66 (collectively, "USWAG"), on the subject proposed rule. Reiterates support for the USWAG comments previously submitted on the 1991 and 1993 SPCC proposals (56 Fed. Reg. 54612 and 58 Fed. Reg. 8824, respectively). (69)

FRP applicability. "For Facility Response Plans, require that the Plan identify those locations from which a release can be monitored, and those locations where access to the river can be achieved for the equipment necessary to contain and to recover a release. That way the response people/ contractor knows where to go. These locations should be identified by name, by directions from major streets (so that information can be conveyed by telephone, by map, and by the ETA after a release based on no less than three flow conditions (low flow, typical flow, high water flow). I have developed a means to estimate the center of stream flow rate at any point in time. The width of selected bridges downstream are measured and a chart prepared giving the flow rate based on how long it takes an object to float under the bridge. I recommend 6 inch pieces of 2 by 4 painted fluorescent orange along with a large flashlight and a watch with a second hand." (40) Recommends that 40 CFR 112.20( e), which requires facilities not otherwise subject to facility response planning regulation to certify non applicability, be deleted. (L4)

Inspection periods. Asks that "... this section of the regulatory text describe in more specific terms the inspection periods to be once a year. This will aid in the elimination of collapsed AST's in 2 or 3 years after the last integrity testing further reducing the threat or potential of a threat of environmental impact subject to AST's collapsing." (1)

Integrity testing. Suggests "1. A maximum interval for testing of tanks, etc. needs to be specified, such as not less than 5 years on tanks 10 years old or older; 2. It needs to be clarified if the visual inspection means an internal inspection; and, 3. It needs to be clarified if these periodic inspections must be conducted by or under the direction of a qualified professional engineer (especially when structural and foundation inspections are a part of the work  that is engineering work)." (40)

Loading areas. Disagrees with the proposed 40 CFR 112.7( h)( 2). "( V) ery few facilities provide such containment. Most facilities depend on continuous attendance during loading/ unloading and the use of drip pans or buckets to prevent spills of any size at the truck or tank car. Requiring secondary containments for tank car and tank truck loading areas is a very costly requirement especially for small businesses which has very little payback in terms of spill prevention beyond present practices." (7)

Points out two situations where the rule provisions on loading areas poses a burden on facilities: (1) An industrial facility has a 1, 500 gallon aboveground storage tank for the collection of used oil generated during equipment maintenance. A 4, 500 gallon single compartment tanker truck comes three times a year to ship the used oil to a recycler. According to U. S. EPA interpretation, the facility would have to provide 4, 500 gallons of 67 containment for a bulk tanker truck for an aboveground tank that is only 1, 500 gallons in volume.; and, (2) An industrial facility has three 500 gallon tanks to provide diesel fuel at different locations around the plant. One 500 gallon tank provides fuel to a diesel pump that is a back up system for the plant's fire protection. The other two 500 gallon tanks are used to fuel plant vehicles. Each of the three tanks is filled approximately once or twice each year from a 4, 500 gallon single compartment tanker truck. According to U. S. EPA interpretation, the facility would have to provide 4, 500 gallons of containment in three separate locations for three 500 gallon aboveground tanks. Installation of containment structures for tanker trucks is costly, requires significant space, and typically raises issues of handling collected storm water. The current rules are burdensome for these facilities where small volume transfers occur on an infrequent basis." "A requirement for written procedure regarding loading/ unloading operations could be included in the SPCC Plan in lieu of providing containment for the tanker truck ... Although this method may create additional paperwork, the overall economic burden to the facility is significantly reduced, yet a similar level of environmental protection is provided." (12)

"Clarify 112.7( e)( 4) or define "Rack". Most unloading and many loading points are not an actual rack but a coupling outside the tank containment area. Many SPCC Plans [do] not address the potential of a spill from such locations." (40) "Also regarding racks, the use of the largest compartment of the vehicle is reasonable for unloading, but may fall way short for loading considerations  the potential spill would be the capacity of the tank. The containment required for both instances should be based on the fact that such operations should be attended and controlled. The secondary containment should be a function of flow rates, time to respond, and the fail safe features of the response action." (40) Bulk petroleum loading/ unloading at trucking facilities are considered "in transport" and therefore are under USDOT regulations, not SPCC. Cities January 6, 1998 publication of the List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention; Amendments (63 FR 640). Explains that the volume of spills from such unloading operations are small, and compliance under SPCC requirements would involve enormous costs. (42)

"...( M) ember cooperatives, in addition to secondary containment for these tanks, are required to install a containment system in loading and unloading areas where there is no catchment basin, treatment facility, or a quick drainage system to handle spills as per 112.7( e)( 4)( ii). This means a concrete spill pad for company use tanks such as two 1000 gallon tanks must have the capacity to hold whatever the maximum capacity of the largest tank truck compartment (typically 600 gallons). Small tank sites are required to go through all the steps in developing a SPCC plan as would a larger petroleum storage facility. This simply does not make sense and is highly resented by the smaller operators. There needs to be a more simple, less expensive way of doing this for the small operator." (71) 68 More information. "Enforce the Rule you've got! I can't drive 40 miles without seeing tanks without secondary containment. Require the O/ O submit a letter to the EPA stating that they have a SPCC Plan for each facility over the threshold, and state who is the certifying engineer. That list can be checked against registrations of above ground tanks now required by at least some of the states. Also, it is one thing to ignore the rule, another to falsify information." (40)

Oil, definition of. We should publish a specific definition of oil to reflect the method of calculating the storage capacity for tanks containing oil/ water mixtures for potential substantial harm facilities. Wants a revised definition in order to "... clarify what types of substances actually qualify as oil under these rules. The current definition is broad and ambiguous. Manufacturing facilities use many kinds of solvents and machining fluids. Many are derived from a petroleum base. Under the current definition, such solvents as napthas, hexane, mineral spirits, toluene and xylene could be considered oil. General Motors believes that this is not the intent of the SPCC rules, and that solvents should not be included in the definition of oil." (51)

PE related issues.

Mandatory requirements, PEs. Concerned that elements of the previous proposed rules for the SPCC Program, such as the 1991 proposed rules, are "... not consistent with this tenor of conciliation and flexibility. E. g., making the guidance in 40 CFR 112.7 mandatory and requiring third party professional engineers for certification is proceeding in a direction opposite to that which the subject proposed rule goes and, we emphasize, opposite to that which we should be going." (14)

PE notification. "Require that the certifying PE be notified when a reportable spill occurs, when changes are made to the secondary containment system, when a tank or loading/ unloading point is added, or when a tank is replaced with a larger tank." (40)

Secondary containment. Surprised that the revised proposal did not address 40 CFR 112.7( c), which requires secondary containment, including the walls and floor, to be impervious to oil for 72 hours. The associated compliance costs for this proposed requirement well exceed any possible benefit and it would be a detriment. (32)

Accumulation of storm water. "Specify what `an accumulation of storm water means'. The 1991 proposed rule noted the 25 year return, 24 hour duration storm. This is on the order of 6 to 8 inches of rain at many facilities in the midwest and southeast. Many facilities only have a 12 inch curb and cannot contain more than a 2 or 3 inchrainfallwithout their secondary containment being insufficient for the largest tank." (40) 69 Available secondary containment. "Specify who is to calculate the available containment, the plant operator or the certifying engineer. Plant operators often do not deduct for the footprint of other tanks within the containment, or do not allow for precipitation off of roofs or drainage onto the site. One client installed a new culvert under railroad tracks to triple the containment capacity. The problem was that the product was asphaltic cement that would have to flow through any standing water in the pipes and equalize out before over topping the first containment area. Also, the final free board was only 1 inch." (40)

Double walled tanks. " We have recently upgraded the storage tanks at this facility. Each of the four (4) buried tanks has been removed. Each system was more than 20 years old and represented a potential source of contamination to the groundwater. Four new above ground double walled storage vaults have been installed with all the extra bells and whistles: leak detection systems, high and low level alarms, and overspill protection. The present situation is much more environmentally friendly. The potential for a spill is less today than ever before. HOWEVER, according to the proposed rule, the U. S. Army will now be required to have a "PE certified" spill plan on hand." (L3)

Impermeability. "EPA should confirm that the term "impervious" to oil for 72 hours means that the containment system ensures that oil is not discharged to navigable waters within 72 hours, a determination to be based on good engineering practice." (70)

Impracticability. "The EPA should modify the proposal to eliminate elements that are impracticable (i. e., secondary containment for electrical equipment) or that impose undue costs compared with the avoided risk (i. e., certification by an independent, rather than in house engineer; preparation of an OPA response plan where secondary containment is impractical)." (70)

Manmade structures. "The EPA should modify the risk criteria to ensure that only facilities that pose a real risk of harm to navigable waters are covered by the program (i. e., the fact that oil may create a sheen on the water is not the type of "harm" envisioned by the statute and regulatory costs should not be imposed to avoid minimal or theoretical risks; manmade structures that serve operational purposes should be considered in evaluating the risk posed by a facility)." (70)

Secondary containment, changes in. "Require that the plant operator sign off on a memo to the file whenever the capacity of the secondary containment system is decreased either temporarily or permanently. The memo should list contingency plans, temporary containment measures or mitigating measures (e. g., reduce tank volumes). This happens quite often when some construction is going on inside the 70 containment  sometimes even to the point that no significant secondary containment capacity remains in place." (40)

Sufficient freeboard. "Specify a required freeboard. Many people check the capacity but fail to recognize that if the final freeboard is only 1 or 2 inches then oil may be released." (40)

"Should to Shall to Must "Clarification. "Ford believes that absent `shall', all `should' language represents agency preference and possibly, good practice. There may be other ways to accomplish the same thing. Thus, only `shalls' indicate regulatory requirements and inflexibility." (44) "Although there is some merit to the agency's legal interpretation of this matter (in interpreting should to mean shall because of the mandatory language of 112.3) we believe that changing this language to reflect all shalls throughout the rule is unnecessary. PNM believes that such a change would eliminate the needed flexibility that implementation of this rule demands due to the differences in facility age and design." (79)

Tank manufacturer liability. "... (T) he tank manufacturer remains the most knowledgeable entity in how his/ her tank design complies with all pertinent UST or AST requirements. Therefore, failure to inform a prospective client could naturally result in a subrogated liability against the tank manufacturer. Such a movement is already taking place as demonstrated in the December 7 11, 1997 Uniform Fire Code Hearings in Tucson, Arizona." (73)

Warning lights, etc. We should reconsider 40 CFR 112.7( h)( 2). (7)

Response: Applicability. The issue of whether a facility can due to its location reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities into navigable waters or adjoining shore lines is in the first instance a judgment requiring application of good engineering practice. See §112.1( b). If the RA disagrees with the facility's determination, he may require the preparation of either a total or partial plan. See §112.1( f).

Applicable items. For a discussion on applicable items in an SPCC Plan, see §112.7( a)( 2) in the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document. See also the discussion on good engineering practice under §112.3( d).

Burden reduction. We disagree that the rule does not do anything to reduce the record keeping or the information collection burden. Burden is reduced by approximately 40% over the current rule. We believe that performance standards, rather than design standards, are preferable, because they give a facility flexibility to accomplish prevention requirements in the most efficient way. 71 Certification by other environmental professionals. See the discussion under §112.3( d) in the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Completely buried tanks. For a discussion on the applicability of the SPCC rule to completely buried tanks, see the discussion under §112.1( d)( 2)( i) in today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

"Delegated" States. We note that we do not delegate our authority under the SPCC program to States. For a discussion of State prevention rules, see §112.7( j) of today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

FRP applicability. The issue concerning §112.20( e) is covered in the Comment Response Document for the 1993 final rule.

Inspection periods. For a discussion of the merits of prescribed inspection frequencies or the use of industry standards, see section IV. J of the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Integrity testing. We address integrity testing in the preamble to today's final rule and in the 1991 Comment Response Document. See §§ 112.7( d) and 112.8( c)( 6).

Loading areas. For a discussion on loading areas, see §112.7( h) in today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document. See also 40 CFR part 112, Appendix A, section II.( I).

More information. We disagree that we should require the owner or operator to submit a letter to the EPA stating that he has an SPCC Plan for each facility over the threshold, and stating who is the certifying engineer. This information may be ascertained by onsite inspection.

Oil, definition of. Should you have any question about a specific substance, you should contact the appropriate Regional SPCC program. See also the discussion concerning the definition under §112.2 in the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

PE related issues. See the discussion under section IV. D and §112.3( d) of today's preamble and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Mandatory requirements, PEs. We disagree that we are "going in the wrong direction" by clarifying that the rules are mandatory. We note that we are not requiring a third party PE for certification. See the discussion under section IV. D and §112.3( d) of today's preamble and the 1991 Comment Response Document. 72 PE notification. We address PE related issues in the preamble to today's final rule under section IV. D and §112.3( d) and in the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Secondary containment. We address secondary containment issues in the preamble to today's final rule and in the 1991 Comment Response Document. See §§ 112.7( c), 112.7( h)( 1), 112.8( c)( 2), 112.8( c)( 11), 112.9( c)( 2), and 112.10( c).

Accumulation of storm water. Concerning "sufficient freeboard" see the discussion under §112.8( c)( 2) in today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Available secondary containment. We address secondary containment issues in the preamble to today's final rule and in the 1991 Comment Response Document. See §§ 112.7( c), 112.7( h)( 1), 112.8( c)( 2), 112.8( c)( 11), 112.9( c)( 2), and 112.10( c). See also the discussion concerning the definition of "storage capacity" at §112.2 in the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Impermeability. See the discussion under §§ 112.7( c) and 112.8( c)( 2) in the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Manmade structures. See also the discussion under §112.1( d)( 1)( i) in the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Sufficient freeboard. Concerning "sufficient freeboard" see the discussion under §112.8( c)( 2) in today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

"Should to Shall to Must "Clarification. For a discussion of the "should to shall to must" editorial clarification, see section IV. C of the preamble to today's final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Tank manufacturer liability. Tank manufacturer liability is an issue for the courts, not this rulemaking.

Warning lights, etc. We address warning lights in the preamble to today's final rule and in the 1991 Comment Response Document. See §112.7( h)( 2).


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22312]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-13-000]

Geomagnetic Disturbances to the Bulk-Power System; Notice of
Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff
will hold a Staff Technical Conference on Geomagnetic Disturbances to
the Bulk-Power System on Monday, April 30, 2012, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.
This staff-led conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be open for the public to
attend, and advance registration is not required.
    The purpose of the conference is to discuss issues related to
reliability of the Bulk-Power System as affected by geomagnetic
disturbances. The conference will explore the risks and impacts from
geomagnetically induced currents to transformers and other equipment on
the Bulk-Power System, as well as, options for addressing or mitigating
the risks and impacts.
    The agenda for this conference will be issued at a later date.
Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on
the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    Advance registration is not required, but is encouraged. You may
register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/geomagnetic-bulk-4-30-12-form.asp.
    This conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the conference
will be immediately available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters,
Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646). A free webcast of the meeting/
conference is also available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet
access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to
www.ferc.gov Calendar of Events and locating this event in the
Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol
Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and offers the
option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you
have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-
3100.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a Fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah
McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 6, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8954 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DCB: 115077 Section: 16.7 OW 2002 0014 Title: " Data listing and responses for pretreatment standards" Author: Lewis, S. USEPA Note: See DCN 115016 in Section 17.2.1 of Docket OW 2002 0014


A Comparison of Clofentezine Tolerances Among the United States, Codex, Canada and Mexico

Clofentezine (40CFR180.446; PC 125501)

  HYPERLINK "JavaScript:sortUpdate(document.sort,'2')"  Commodity 	  HYPERLINK "JavaScript:sortUpdate(document.sort,'4')"  CAS # 	  HYPERLINK "JavaScript:sortUpdate(document.sort,'9')"  Ingredient Name 	  HYPERLINK "JavaScript:sortUpdate(document.sort,'7')"  Tolerance Type 	  HYPERLINK "JavaScript:sortUpdate(document.sort,'1')"  Tolerance Granted (ppm)  Codex

(mg/kg)

plant = clofentezine

animal= all compounds containing 2-chlorobenzoyl moiety	Canada

(mg/kg)

3,6-bis(2-chlorophenyl)-

1,2,4,5-tetrazine

3,6-bis(2-chlorophenyl)-

1,2,4,5-tetrazine

including the metabolite

3-(2-chloro-4-

hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-

chlorophenyl)-1,2,4,5-tetrazine

	Mexico

(mg/kg)

clofentezine

MILK	 74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.01

	0.01 	0.01

	WALNUT	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	0.02

	CATTLE, MEAT BYPRODUCTS, EXCEPT LIVER	 	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05	0.1

(cattle edible offal)	0.05

	CATTLE, MEAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05	0.05 	0.05

	GOAT, MEAT BYPRODUCTS, EXCEPT LIVER	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	GOAT, FAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

	GOAT, MEAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	SHEEP, FAT	 	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

	SHEEP, MEAT BYPRODUCTS, EXCEPT LIVER	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	HORSE, MEAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	HORSE, FAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

	HORSE, MEAT BYPRODUCTS, EXCEPT LIVER	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	HOG, MEAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	HOG, FAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

	HOG, MEAT BYPRODUCTS, EXCEPT LIVER	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	SHEEP, MEAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

0.05

	SHEEP, FAT	74115-24-5	Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

	PERSIMMON	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	0.05

	ALMOND	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	0.5

	APPLE	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	0.5	0.5

pome fruit	0.5	1

PEAR	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	0.5	0.5

pome fruit	0.5	0.5

APRICOT

	 	3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine	Permanent Tolerance	1

	GRAPE	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	1	1

PEACH	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	1	0.2

Stone fruits	1.0

	NECTARINE	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	1	0.2

Stone fruits	1.0

	APRICOT	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	1	0.2

Stone fruits

CHERRY	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	1	0.2

Stone fruits

APPLE, POMACE, WET & DRY	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	3

	ALMOND, HULLS	74115-24-5	Clofentezine	Permanent Tolerance	5

	Citrus fruits

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance

0.5

Cucumber

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance

1

Currants

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance

0.05

Eggs

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance

0.05

Poultry meat

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance

0.05

Poultry, edible offal of

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite

	0.05

Strawberry

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance

2

Quince

Combined residue of clofentezine and

3-(2-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1,

2,4,5-tetrazine metabolite	Permanent Tolerance

0.5


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53794-53797]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21525]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72991; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to XSP and DJX Strike Price Listings

September 4, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 28, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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

    [sic] proposes to amend Rule 24.9 (Terms of Index Option
Contracts), including Interpretation and Policy .02(b) and
Interpretation and Policy .11 thereunder regarding the strike setting
regimes for Mini-S&P 500 Index (``XSP'') options and options based on
one-one hundredth of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (``DJX'') under
the End of Week/End of Month Expirations Pilot Program (``EOW/EOM Pilot
Program'') in Rule 24.9(e) and the Short Term Options Series Program
(``STOS'') in Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A). The text of the proposed rule change
is provided below.

(additions are underlined; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 24.9--Terms of Index Option Contracts

    RULE 24.9(a)-(e) No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 The procedures for adding and deleting strike prices for index
options are provided in Rule 5.5 and Interpretations and Policies
related thereto, as otherwise generally provided by Rule 24.9, and
include the following:
    (a) No change.
    (b) Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the interval between
strike prices may be no less than $0.50 for options based on one-one
hundredth of the value of the DJIA, including for series listed under
either the Short Term Options Series Program in Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A) or
the EOW/EOM Pilot Program in Rule 24.9(e).
    (c)-(m) No change.
    .02-.10 No change.
    .11 Notwithstanding Interpretations and Policies .01(a), .01(d) and
.04 to Rule 24.9, the exercise prices for new and additional series of
Mini-SPX options shall be listed subject to the following:
    (a) If the current value of the Mini-SPX is less than or equal to
20, the Exchange shall not list series with an exercise price of more
than 100% above or below the current value of the Mini-SPX;
    (b) If the current value of the Mini-SPX is greater than 20, the
Exchange shall not list series with an exercise price of more than 50%
above or below the current value of the Mini-SPX; and
    (c) The lowest strike price interval that may be listed for
standard Mini-SPX options is $1, including for LEAPS, and the lowest
strike price interval that may be listed for series of Mini-SPX listed
under either the Short Term Option Series Program in Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A)
or the EOW/EOM Pilot Program in Rule 24.9(e) is $0.50.
    .12-.14 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 24.9 (Terms of Index Option
Contracts) to allow the Exchange to list Weekly series of XSP and DJX
in $0.50 strike price intervals.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to modify Interpretation and Policy .01(b) and Interpretation and
Policy .11 to Rule 24.9 to provide that Weekly series of XSP and DJX
options listed under the STOS Program in Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A) and EOW/EOM
Pilot Program in Rule 24.9(e) may be listed in strike price intervals
of $0.50 or greater.\4\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the strike setting regimes of similar
competitive products and that the proposed rule change would make XSP
and DJX options easier for investors and traders to use and more
tailored to their investment needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange uses the term ``Weeklys'' to generally refer to
the different types of security options that expire on any Friday
other than the third Friday of the month. The Rules currently
specify two types of security options that expire on such Fridays:
STOS and EOW/EOM expirations. See Rules 5.5(d) (STOS program for
equity classes) and 24.9(a)(2)(A) (STOS program for index classes)
and Rule 24.9(e) (sets forth the terms of the EOW/EOM Pilot
Program).
    \4\ The Exchange proposes to make the changes in this filing at
the class level, i.e., DJX and XSP. Currently, weekly series on DJX
are listed under the STOS program and weekly series on XSP are
listed under the EOW/EOM Pilot Program. A noteworthy difference
between these programs is that series in the EOW/EOM Pilot Program
are P.M.-settled and series in the STOS program have the same
settlement style as standard expirations on that same class. The
Exchange is proposing to permit $0.50 strike price intervals for DJX
and XSP series listed under either program so as to create
flexibility and to conform the strike setting regimes for series of
these classes listed under either program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    XSP and DJX options track the performance of the S&P 500 Index
(``SPX'') and Dow Jones Industrial Average (``DJIA''). Whereas SPX
options reflect strike prices equal to S&P 500 Index value, the price
of XSP equals 1/10th of the price of the SPX. The DJX reflects a price
equal to 1/100th of the price of the DJIA. Accordingly, XSP strike
prices reflect a value equal to 1/10th of the value of the SPX and DJX
strike prices reflect a value equal to 1/100th of the value of the DJIA
with each having a multiplier of $100. For example, if the S&P 500
Index is at 1972.56, XSP options will have a value of 197.26 and a
notional value of $19,726. If the DJIA is at 16,569.98, DJX options
will have a value of 165.70 and a notional value of $16,570. In
general, XSP and DJX options provide retail investors and traders with
the benefit of trading the broad market in a manageably sized contract.
XSP and DJX Weekly options trade under the EOW/EOM Pilot Program in
Rule 24.9(e) and STOS Program in Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A) respectively.
    The SPX is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large cap
U.S. equities. Similarly, the DJIA is widely quoted as an indicator of
stock prices and investor confidence in the securities market. As a
result, individual investors often use SPX- and DJIA-related products
to diversify their portfolios and benefit from market trends With
respect to XSP, the Commission has noted that,

reduced-value SPX options may benefit investors by providing them
with a relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios. The
Commission also believes that the lower cost of the reduced-value
SPX options should allow investors to hedge their portfolios with a
smaller outlay of capital and may facilitate participation in the
market for SPX options, which should, in turn, help to maintain the
depth and liquidity of the market for SPX options, thereby
protecting investors and the public interest.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32893 (September 14,
1993), 58 FR 49070 (September 21, 1993) (Order approving listing of
reduced-value options on the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index) (SR-
CBOE-93-12).

    Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wide range of
SPX- and DJIA-based options affords traders and investors important
hedging and trading opportunities. The Exchange believes that not
having the proposed $0.50 strike price for series of near-term XSP and
DJX options significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading
possibilities.
    Notably, standard DJX already trade in $0.50 strike price intervals
and SPX options trade in $5.00 strike intervals, which are equivalent
to $0.50 strike price intervals in XSP. XSP, however, only trades in
intervals of $1.00 or greater. This disunity creates a situation where
certain options trading strategies cannot be executed using options
with the same underlying. For example, an XSP options investor may not
be able to roll a position to a higher strike price (equivalent to a
strike price listed in SPX), simply because of the strike setting
regime differences between the products despite the relative notional
values between standard SPX and scaled XSP options. The Exchange's
proposed rule change would remedy this situation by establishing strike
interval settings for XSP and DJX Weekly options in-line with the
strikes listed for standard SPX and DJX options products. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price
programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by
giving them increased flexibility and the ability to more closely
tailor their investment and hedging decisions to their needs. Moreover,
the proposed rule change is consistent with similar rule changes
proposed by other exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release 34-72664 (July 24,
2014), 79 FR 44231 (July 30, 2014) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to SPY and DIA
Options) (SR-Phlx-2014-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Interpretation and Policy .01(b) to Rule 24.9, the
interval between strike prices in standard series of DJX options may be
no less than $0.50. The Exchange seeks to clarify that Interpretation
and Policy .01(b) to Rule 24.9 applies to all series of the DJX
options, including DJX options listed under either the STOS Program or
EOW/EOM Pilot Program. Accordingly, the Exchange's proposal would add
language stating that the interval between strike prices may be no less
than $0.50 for options based on one-one hundredth of the value of the
DJIA, including for Weekly options listed under the STOS Program in
Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A) or EOW/EOM Pilot Program. Similarly, the Exchange
proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .11 to Rule 24.9 to allow
Weekly series XSP options to trade in $0.50 increments. Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .11(c) to Rule
24.9 to state that the Exchange may list Weekly series of XSP options
listed under either the STOS Program in Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A) or the EOW/
EOM Pilot Program in Rule 24.9(e) in $0.50 intervals.
    The Exchange believes that by having smaller strike intervals in
series XSP and DJX, investors and traders would have more efficient
hedging and trading opportunities. The proposed strike setting regime
would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect values in the
underlying S&P 500 Index and DJIA and allow investors and traders to
roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in
conjunction with the price movement of the underlying.

    With respect to DJX options, by listing Weekly series of DJX
options with $0.50 intervals between strike prices, traders and
investors would be able to more precisely hedge open positions with
$0.50 strike prices in standard options with Weekly options and roll
open positions with $0.50 strike prices in standard DJX options
uniformly into DJX Weekly options positions. With respect to XSP, the
proposed approach would achieve full harmonization between strikes in
XSP options and SPX options. For example, if there is a 1985 strike in
SPX options, the Exchange would be permitted to list a parallel 198.50
strike in XSP options. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change would allow XSP traders and investors to tailor their
investment strategies in the same manner as traders and investors in
SPX--that these changes would allow traders and investors to use XSP
options to hedge S&P 500 cash positions more precisely and in the same
manner as SPX traders and investors.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other
strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit
investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor
their investment and hedging decisions using XSP and DJX options. In
addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal would harmonize the
strike setting regimes for XSP and DJX weekly series with the strike
setting regimes for weekly series on certain exchange-trade options
(``ETF'') option classes (that track the performance of broad based
indexes such as the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average), for
which the lowest strike price interval is $0.50. A recent rule filing
proposed to amend the strike setting regimes for certain standard ETF
option classes, which would result in $0.50 strike price intervals
being permitted in STOs on those same ETF option classes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release 34-72664 (July 24,
2014), 79 FR 44231 (July 30, 2014) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to SPY and DIA
Options) (SR-Phlx-2014-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its proposal to list XSP and DJX Weekly
options in $0.50 intervals would moderately augment the potential total
number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with
this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that Trading
Permit Holders will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule
change. The Exchange further represents that it does not believe that
this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change would add consistency to
the options markets and allow investors to more easily use XSP and DJX
options. Notably, the current Rules already permit the Exchange to list
standard series of DJX options with $0.50 strike price intervals \11\
and SPX options currently trade in strike intervals equivalent to $0.50
strike price intervals in XSP. This creates a situation where traders
and investors may not be able to effectively execute certain
traditional options strategies such as, for example, rolling positions
out a month because of disunity in the strike settings of a product or
because of the smaller notional value of a scaled product relative to
the product from which it derives. This proposal remedies the situation
by establishing interval regime for Weekly XSP and DJX options that is
in line with standard DJX and SPX options products. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price
programs currently offered by the Exchange, would provide additional
flexibility in the market and benefit investors and traders. Moreover,
the proposed rule change would increase market competition and provide
traders and investors with alternatives tailored to their investment,
trading, and hedging need. Notably, the Exchanges proposal is also
consistent with proposed rule changes recently filed with the
Commission by other exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Interpretation and Policy .01(b) to Rule 24.9.
    \12\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release 34-72664 (July 24,
2014), 79 FR 44231 (July 30, 2014) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to SPY and DIA
Options) (SR-Phlx-2014-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
contribute to the robustness of the market and help ensure fair
competition between participants. Other proposed rule changes have
recently been filed with the Commission, including by CBOE, seeking to
list Weekly series of SPY and DIA options with $0.50 intervals between
strikes. XSP and DJX products compete directly with SPY and DIA options
products, which roughly track the S&P 500 Index and DJIA. Without the
ability to list XSP and DJX options with strike prices similar to those
being offered in competing series of SPY and DIA options, XSP and DJX
would be unable to compete fairly with SPY and DIA options in the
marketplace. The inability to list XSP and DJX options with finer $0.50
strikes in harmony with similar SPY and DIA products would put the
Exchange at a competitive disadvantage and ultimately, result in fewer
investment and trading opportunities for investors and traders. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would allow the
Exchange to compete on equal footing with other exchanges that may
propose to list Weekly SPY and DIA options products with finer
intervals between strike price intervals and ensure that XSP and DJX
options investors and traders are not at a disadvantage in the market.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange. The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to respond
to customer demand for finer strike prices in series of Weekly XSP and
DJX options.
    In addition, The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its

capacity and represents that it and OPRA have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with
this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will
not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.

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. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional
investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and
trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and
hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and
the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that
XSP and DJX option investors and traders will significantly benefit
from the availability of finer strike prices being listed in series of
XSP and DJX Weekly options. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes will bolster intermarket competition by allowing
the Exchange to list XSP and DJX strike prices commensurate with the
strike prices in SPY and DIA options products with which XSP and DJX
options products compete directly. The inability to list $0.50 strikes
in series of XSP and DJX Weekly options would put the Exchange at a
distinct competitive disadvantage with respect to SPY and DIA options.
As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
essential for intermarket competitive purposes and to promote a free
and open market for the benefit of investors and traders.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement would allow
the Exchange to list XSP and DJX strike prices commensurate with
available strike prices in SPY and DIA options products against which
XSP and DJX options products compete directly. The Exchange also stated
that, given the current level of the S&P 500 Index, the Exchange
believes that it is important to be able to list the requested strikes
as soon as possible so that traders and investors have appropriately
tailored products available to them to meet their needs in the current
market conditions. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest; and will allow the Exchange to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 the 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 Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-069 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-069. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-CBOE-2014-069 and should be
submitted on or before October 1, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21525 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72501-72502]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4671-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4671-DR), dated September 21,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby

amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to
have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by
the President in his declaration of September 21, 2022.

    The municipalities of Aguadilla and Carolina for permanent work
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-25761 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P