[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50315-50317]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0973]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Savannah River, Savannah, GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters on the Savannah River in Savannah, GA from statute
mile 13 to statute mile 15. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by a boat parade. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Savannah or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on November 25,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0973 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST2 Adam White, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of
Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension
233, or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. Immediate action is needed to respond
to the potential safety hazards associated with a boat parade. The
Coast Guard received information on October 5, 2017 regarding the
operations beginning on November 25, 2017. The operation would begin
before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the
dangers posed by the parade, the safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the
event area. Therefore, it is impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to delay promulgating this rule, as it is necessary to protect
the safety of waterway users.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the boat
parade.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP Savannah has determined that potential hazards
associated with the boat parade starting November 25, 2017, will be a
safety concern for anyone on the Savannah River in Savannah, GA from
statute mile 13 to statute mile 15. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone while the parade is underway.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 4 p.m. until 11 p.m. on
November 25, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on
the Savannah River from statute mile 13 to statute mile 15. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while the parade is
underway. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone
affects only a small portion of the Savannah River for seven hours
during the evening when vessel traffic is normally lower. Moreover,
vessels and persons seeking to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area may seek authority from the COTP or a
designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notification of
the regulated area to the local maritime community by Local Notice to
Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16,
and Marine Safety Security Bulletin release.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting only seven hours that will prohibit
entry on the Savannah River in Savannah, GA from statute mile 13 to
statute mile 15. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record
of

Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegations No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0973 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0973  Safety Zone; Savannah Harbor Boat Parade, Savannah
River, Savannah, GA.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone:
All waters of the Savannah River from statute mile 13 to statute mile
15.
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast
Guard vessels or aircraft, and federal, state, and local officers
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah in
the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area of the safety zone unless authorized by the COTP
Savannah or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the safety zone may contact COTP Savannah by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
is granted by the COTP Savannah or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP Savannah or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety
Security Bulletins, and on-scene designated representatives.
    (e) Effective and enforcement period. This rule is effective and
will be enforced on November 25, 2017 from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m.

    Dated: October 24, 2017.
Norman C. Witt,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Savannah.
[FR Doc. 2017-23616 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


6.5.2 Estimate of Agency Burden and Costs Exhibit 10 depicts the burden and cost to EPA for the auction program. The CBOT incurs most of the burden and cost associated with the auction, including; the handling of bids and checks, and tabulation of the results. The burden and cost to CBOT is not included in this ICR.

Based on past experience, the burden and cost to the Agency will be about the same each year. Setting up and revising allowance tracking system ( ATS) accounts for auction participants is estimated to take 40 hours, checking and announcing the auction results is estimated to take 60 hours, and transferring allowances and proceeds is expected to require 60 hours per year. As Exhibit 10 shows, the total burden to EPA for auction activities is 160 hours at a cost of $ 6,850.

EXHIBIT 10 ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR AUCTIONS Collection Activities Burden Hours Per Year Cost Per Yeara 1. Setup ATS accounts 40 $ 1,712 2. Check and announce results 60 $ 2,569 54 3. Transfer of allowances and proceeds 60 $ 2,569 TOTAL: 160 $ 6,850 a 1998 dollars.

6.6. Allowance Allocation to Small Diesel Refineries This information collection activity involves the collection of verification data for eligibility and participation in the voluntary small diesel refiners allowance program.

EPA is assuming that all eligible refineries and units have already reviewed the final rule and preamble. For the purpose of this analysis, the burden is distributed among the management, technical, and clerical levels.

6.6.1. Estimate of Respondent Burden and Costs EPA's voluntary small diesel refinery program currently has 19 participating refineries. The labor burden and costs for this collection are a function of the number of facilities that choose to participate. EPA is assuming that all 19 refineries currently participating will be eligible and continue to participate each year through 1999.

Exhibit 11 presents the annual burden and costs to participants of applying for allowances.

EXHIBIT 11 ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR THE SMALL DIESEL REFINERY PROGRAMa Task Burden Hours per Occurrence Cost per Occurrenceb Total Burden Hoursc Total Costs Annual Application for Allowances Managerial Technical Clerical .5 1 .5 $ 33 $ 45 $ 11 9.5 19 9.5 $ 627 $ 855 $ 209 Total 2 $ 89 38 $ 1,691 a Annual burden for years 1999 and 2000, the last year of the program. b 1998 dollars. c Assumes 19 small diesel refineries apply each year.

In each year of the program, an eligible refiner must maintain the monthly EIA Form 810' s, total the desulfurized diesel fuel throughput for the year, use the total and the formula contained in 55 the Act to calculate the allowance allocation, and certify the accuracy of the information in an application cover letter to EPA.

EPA expects 19 applications to be submitted in 1999 and 2000 by small diesel refiners. Since, each application takes about 2 hours to complete, the total burden will be 38 hours per year.

6.6.2. Estimate of Agency Burden and Costs Exhibit 12 presents the Agency's burden and costs for the program annually.

EXHIBIT 12 ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR THE SMALL DIESEL REFINERY PROGRAMa Task Burden Hours per Occurrence Cost Per Occurrenceb Total Burden Hoursc Total Costs Review Annual Applications 2 $ 86 38 $ 1,634 a Annual burden for years 1999 and 2000, the last year of the program. b 1998 dollars. c Assumes 19 small diesel refineries apply each year.

EPA reviews each annual application, submitted by an eligible refiner, and determines whether or not the allowance calculations have been made properly. EPA then allocates allowances to the eligible refiners at the completion of the annual review process. To assist the refineries, EPA also announces the allocations in a Federal Register notice.

6.7 The Opt in Program This subsection describes projections for ( 1) the number and types of sources that elect to participate in the opt in program from January 1999 through January 2002, ( 2) the paperwork burden hours for both respondents and EPA associated with the program, and ( 3) the total costs of the tasks required by the opt in program.

Over the three years covered by this ICR, EPA estimates that 3 sources will opt in to the program, all will be operating sources and all will join in 1999. These figures are based on the number of opt in applications EPA has received over the past three years.

6.7.1 Respondent Burden/ Cost Estimates for The Opt in Program 56 The tasks under this program are divided into the major categories of reporting  permitting, emissions monitoring, and annual compliance certification. This section includes only the burden for these task categories for opt in sources. Those affected sources covered by the mandatory requirements of the Acid Rain Program are covered in previous sections.

A. Opt in Permit Applications EPA estimates that 3 opt in sources will submit permit applications in the first year covered by this ICR. All will be operating sources. The sources must select a designated representative, report operating and fuel consumption data from past years, and report the actual and allowable emissions rates for 1985 as well as the current allowable emission rate. The estimated total respondent burden related to opt in permit applications is 525 hours, and the estimated total respondent cost is $ 27,078. Exhibit 13 presents the respondent burden and costs associated with opt in permit applications for 1999.

B. Emissions Data Reporting Emissions reporting is performed only by operating sources. The tasks for opt in sources are identical to other affected sources and are listed in Exhibit 7. The burden and costs for emissions reporting from opt in sources are included in the total in Exhibit 7.

C. Annual Compliance Certification Annual compliance certification is performed by all opt in sources. Each opt in source is required to submit an annual compliance certification report and opt in utilization form. Additionally, if the source is covered by a thermal energy compliance plan, it must submit a thermal energy compliance report. If an opt in source has reduced utilization due to energy conservation or improved unit efficiency measures, it has the option of submitting an energy confirmation and improved unit efficiency confirmation report to verify the savings and offset the corresponding reduced utilization. To date none of the opt in sources have verified energy conservation or improved unit efficiency measures, so EPA is assuming no sources will do so during the three years covered by this ICR. Finally, EPA assumes that each opt in source will submit one optional allowance deduction form, which specifies the serial numbered allowances for deduction.

Total respondent burden and costs for annual compliance certification by opt in sources are an estimated 962 hours and $ 47,274, respectively. Exhibit 14 presents respondent burden and costs for annual compliance certification by opt in sources.

6.7.2. Agency Burden/ Cost Estimates for the Opt in Program In 1999 2002, the Agency's burden includes; processing opt in applications, processing quarterly emissions reports ( which is included in Exhibit 8), and reviewing and certifying annual compliance reports. The Agency's estimated total burden related to the opt in program is 308 hours 57 in 1999, and 65 hours in subsequent years. The estimated total cost is $ 13,186 in 1999 and $ 2,782 in subsequent years. Exhibit 15 presents the Agency's burden and costs for opt in program. 58 EXHIBIT 13 1999 RESPONDENT BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR OPT IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS Tasks Burden Hours per Occurrence Cost per Occurrencea Total Burden ( hours) b Total Cost 1. Select a designated representative Managerial Technical Clerical 2. Prepare opt in permit application Managerial Technical Clerical 3. Prepare thermal energy compliance planc Managerial Technical Clerical 4. Complete withdrawal notificationd Managerial Technical Clerical 28 3.5 3.5 40 90 10 15 50 5 2 2 1 $ 1,849 $ 159 $ 74 $ 2,642 $ 4,090 $ 212 $ 991 $ 2,272 $ 106 $ 132 $ 91 $ 21 84 10.5 10.5 120 270 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 5,547 $ 477 $ 222 $ 7,926 $ 12,270 $ 636 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 525 $ 27,078 a 1998 dollars. b Assumes 3 opt in sources submit permit applications in 1999. c Assumes no sources file a thermal energy compliance plan. d Assumes that sources that have made the investment to opt in will not withdraw. 59 EXHIBIT 14 ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR OPT IN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Tasks Burden Hours Per Occurrence Cost Per Occurrencea Total Burden ( Hours) Total Cost Review instructions, complete, and submit the following reports:

1. Annual compliance certification reportb Managerial Technical Clerical 2.5 4 .5 $ 165 $ 182 $ 11 32.5 52 6.5 $ 2,145 $ 2,366 $ 143 2. Opt in Utilization formb Managerial Technical Clerical 8 30 2 $ 528 $ 1,363 $ 42 104 390 26 $ 6,864 $ 17,719 $ 546 3. Thermal energy compliance report ( shutdown opt in sources and replacement units) c Managerial Technical Clerical 20 40 5 $ 1,321 $ 1,818 $ 106 80 160 20 $ 5,284 $ 7,272 $ 424 4. Allowance deduction form ( optional) d Managerial Technical Clerical 5. Energy conservation/ Improved unit efficiency confirmation reporte Managerial Technical Clerical 6. Excess emissions penalty paymente Managerial Technical Clerical 2 4.5 .5 5 24 1 4 4 1 $ 132 $ 204 $ 11 $ 330 $ 1,091 $ 21 $ 264 $ 182 $ 21 26 58.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 1,716 $ 2,652 $ 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 962 $ 47,274 a 1998 dollars. b Assumes 13 opt in sources. c Assumes 4 sources file reports. d Assumes one allowance deduction form per source. 60 e EPA assumes no sources will claim savings from energy conservation or improved unit efficiency or have excess emissions. 61 EXHIBIT 15 ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COSTS FOR THE OPT IN PROGRAM Task Burden Hours per Occurrenc e Cost per Occurrencea Total Burden Hours Total Costs 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1. Review certificates of representation and record informationb 1 $ 43 3 0 $ 129 0 2. Review permit application, issue proposed and final permit, and assign allowancesb 80 $ 3,425 240 0 $ 10,275 0 3. Review and process annual compliance certification submissionsc 2 $ 86 26 26 $ 1,118 $ 1,118 4. Deduct allowances and send reconciliation reportsc 3 $ 128 39 39 $ 1,664 $ 1,664 Total 308 65 $ 13,186 $ 2,782 a 1998 dollars. b Assumes 3 opt in sources submit permit applications in 1999. c Assumes 13 opt in sources each year.

6.8 Annual Compliance Certification 6.8.1 Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates A. Phase I Sources Annual compliance certification is performed by all Phase I affected sources in the spring of 1999 and 2000. Each Phase I affected source, which includes any source with compensating or substitution units, is required to submit an annual compliance certification report for the source and a utilization accounting form for each Phase I affected unit at the source. Based on the first three years of the program, EPA estimates that 400 units at 175 sources will be affected in 1998 and 1999 ( 261 Table 1 units at 110 sources and 139 substitution and compensating units at 65 sources).

If any unit is underutilized or is covered by a reduced utilization plan claiming shifts to sulfur free generators, then a dispatch system data report must be submitted for the dispatch system containing that unit. EPA estimates that 25 dispatch systems will need to submit the dispatch system data report each year. 62 If a unit has a reduced utilization plan covering energy conservation or improved unit efficiency measures, it has the option of submitting an energy confirmation and improved unit efficiency confirmation report to verify the savings and offset the corresponding reduced utilization. EPA estimates that 2% of the 400 units will verify energy conservation or improved unit efficiency measures.

Affected units have the option of identifying specific serial numbered allowances to be deducted by EPA. EPA assumes that each unit will submit one optional allowance deduction form each year.

A sulfur free generator that is claimed by more than one unit under reduced utilization plans will need to submit a sulfur free generator apportionment form. EPA estimates that about 20 sulfur free generators will need to submit this information.

Substitution and compensating units in a State with a " State enforced emission cap" must submit additional information. This information is to be at the operating company level. EPA expects a total of eight operating companies located in four different States to submit this information.

Total respondent burden for annual compliance certification by Phase I affected sources is estimated to total 21,339 hours, for a total cost of $ 1,039,211. Exhibit 16 presents respondent burden and costs for annual compliance certification.

B. Phase II Sources Beginning in the spring of 2001, annual compliance certification must be performed by all affected sources. Each affected source must submit an annual compliance certification report. In addition to the compliance certification report, affected units have the option of identifying specific serial numbered allowances to be deducted by EPA. EPA assumes that each unit will submit one optional allowance deduction form each year. EPA estimates that 2,300 units at 750 sources will be affected in Phase II.

Total respondent burden for annual compliance certification by Phase II affected sources is estimated to total 21,350 hours, for a total cost of $ 1,066,600. Exhibit 16 presents respondent burden and costs for annual compliance certification. 63 EXHIBIT 16 ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION DURING THE PERIOD 1999 2001 Tasks Burden Hours Per Occurrence Cost Per Occurrencea Total Burden ( Hours) Total Cost 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1. Annual compliance certification reportb Managerial Technical Clerical 2.5 4 .5 $ 165 $ 182 $ 11 437.5 700 87.5 1875 3000 375 $ 28,875 $ 31,850 $ 1,925 $ 123,750 $ 136,500 $ 8,250 2. Utilization Accounting formc Managerial Technical Clerical 8 30 2 $ 528 $ 1,363 $ 42 3,200 12,000 800 NA $ 211,200 $ 545,200 $ 16,800 NA 3. Dispatch system data reportd Managerial Technical Clerical 8 16 2 $ 528 $ 727 $ 42 200 400 50 NA $ 13,200 $ 18,175 $ 1,050 NA 4. Sulfur free generator apportionment informatione Managerial Technical Clerical 3.5 10 .5 $ 231 $ 454 $ 11 70 200 10 NA $ 4,620 $ 9,080 $ 220 NA 5. Allowance deduction form ( optional) f Managerial Technical Clerical 6. Energy conservation/ Improved unit efficiency confirmation reportg Managerial Technical Clerical 7. State enforceable cap informationh Managerial Technical Clerical 8. Excess emissions penalty paymenti Managerial Technical Clerical 2 4.5 .5 5 24 1 2 15 1 4 4 1 $ 132 $ 204 $ 11 $ 330 $ 1,091 $ 21 $ 132 $ 682 $ 21 $ 264 $ 182 $ 21 800 1,800 200 40 192 8 16 120 8 0 0 0 4,600 10,350 1,150 NA NA 0 0 0 $ 52,800 $ 81,600 $ 4,400 $ 2,640 $ 8,728 $ 168 $ 1,056 $ 5,456 $ 168 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 303,600 $ 469,200 $ 25,300 NA NA $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL 21,339 21,350 $ 1,039,211 $ 1,066,600 a 1998 dollars. b Assumes 175 Phase I and 750 Phase II affected sources. c Assumes 400 Phase I and 2,300 Phase II affected units. d Assumes 25 dispatch systems must report. e Assumes 20 sulfur free generators must report information. f Assumes one allowance deduction form per unit. g Assumes 2% of Phase I affected units ( 8 units) claim savings from energy conservation or improved unit efficiency. h Assumes 8 operating companies must report information. i EPA assumes that no sources will have excess emissions. 64 6.8.2. Agency Burden and Cost Estimates The three primary tasks performed by the Agency during annual compliance certification are; reviewing and processing the annual form submissions, calculating and deducting allowances, and sending out allowance deduction or reconciliation reports to the source designated representatives. Based on the estimated 400 Phase I and 2,300 Phase II affected units, EPA expects the annual Agency burden to total 600 hours, and cost $ 25,200 in 1999 and 2000, and 3,450 hours and $ 144,900 in 2001. Exhibit 17 presents the Agency's annual burden and cost for annual compliance certification.

EXHIBIT 17 ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COSTS FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION FOR THE PERIOD ( 1999 2001)

Task Burden Hours per Occurrence Cost per Occurrencea Total Burden Hours Total Costs 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1. Review and process annual compliance certification submissionsb .5 $ 21 200 1,150 $ 8,400 $ 48,300 2. Calculate and deduct allowancesb .5 $ 21 200 1,150 $ 8,400 $ 48,300 3. Send allowance reconciliation reportsb .5 $ 21 200 1,150 $ 8,400 $ 48,300 Total 600 3,450 $ 25,200 $ 144,900 a 1998 dollars. b Assumes 400 Phase I and 2,300 Phase II affected units submit reports.

6.9 NOx Permitting This section estimates the paperwork burden and cost of revising Phase II NO x averaging plans. This is the only respondent burden for NO x permitting for the period covered by this ICR. Because Phase II No x permits were due January 1, 1998, most of the burden and costs were incurred under the previous ICR.

In order to estimate the number of expected submissions, EPA estimates that 10% of the roughly 40 averaging plans on file will be revised each year.

6.9.1 Estimate of Respondent Burden and Costs 65 Exhibit 18 presents the burden and costs to applicants for preparing and submitting a revised NO x averaging plan.

For each emissions averaging plan, EPA estimates that the applicant will require about 10 hours: 50 percent managerial labor, 40 percent technical labor, and 10 percent clerical labor. The total respondent burden for NO x permitting, as shown in Exhibit 18, is estimated to be 40 hours each year. The costs associated with NO x permitting are estimated at $ 2,132 per year.

EXHIBIT 18 RESPONDENT BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR NOx PERMITTING Tasks Burden Hours per occurrence Cost per Occurrencea Total Burden Hours Total Cost 1. Prepare emissions averaging plan revisionb Managerial Technical Clerical 5 4 1 $ 330 $ 182 $ 21 20 16 4 $ 1,320 $ 728 $ 84 Total 40 $ 2,132 a 1998 dollars. b Assumes 4 respondents revise emissions averaging plans.

6.9.2. Estimate of Agency/ Permitting Authority Burden and Costs for NOx Exhibit 19 presents the paperwork burden and costs to EPA or the permitting authority for NO x permitting. The total annual burden and cost for revising NO x averaging plans is estimated at 40 hours and $ 1,608, respectively.

The tasks involved in reviewing applications will include reviewing forms for completeness and revising the averaging plans. 66 EXHIBIT 19 AGENCY BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES FOR NO x PERMITTING Tasks Burden Hours Per Occurrence Cost Per Occurrencea Total Burden Hours Total Cost 1. Revise NO x averaging plansb 10 $ 428 40 $ 1,712 a 1998 dollars. b Assumes 4 emissions averaging plan revisions are submitted each year.

6.10 Summary of Burden Hours and Costs Exhibit 20 summarizes the aggregate burden and cost estimates to respondents from January 1999 through January 2002 for collections associated with allowance transfers, energy conservation and renewable energy allowances, permits, emissions reporting, auctions, small diesel refinery allowances, the opt in program, annual compliance certifications, and NO x permitting. Exhibit 21 summarizes the aggregate burden and cost estimates to EPA and permitting authorities for these collections.

6.11 Reasons for Change in Burden This ICR renewal reflects a few differences from the previous ICR. This section discusses the changes in burden since the last clearance.

Overall, the estimated annual burden in 1996 from the last clearance was 2,839,120 hours. This ICR estimates the annual burden in 1999 will be 1,330,327 hours, which decreases the burden by 1,508,793 hours. The reasons for this burden decrease are explained below.

Some of the change in burden for this collection is due to adjustments. Adjustments stem from actions outside the Agency's control. It includes changes to the number of responses and the time it takes to respond to a particular activity. The adjustments and corresponding change in burden are as follows.

! The annual number of new allowance account applications decreased from 75 to 65 and allowance transfer submissions dropped from 2,125 to 1,500. This changed the annual burden hours for allowance transfer activities from 6,500 to 4,950. 67 ! The annual number of conservation and renewable energy reserve applications dropped from 40 to 20 and the number of applicants using EPA's conservation verification protocol fell from 4 to 1. This change decreased the burden from 1,968 hours to 952 hours.

! Permitting activities were estimated to require 6,046 burden hours in 1996. The estimated annual burden hours for permitting under this ICR are 2,435. This burden change reflects some rule requirements that were not applicable before, including industrial unit exemptions are now covered by this collection, while other tasks, such as the submission of Phase I permit modifications, submission of repowering information, and defining dispatch systems, are no longer covered by this collection.

! The estimated number of auction bids received each year increased from 200 to 220. This slightly increased the burden for annual auctions from 300 hours to 330 hours.

! The estimated number of sources applying to opt in to the Acid Rain Program was reduced from 9 to 3 and the burden for emission data reporting was shifted from the opt in section to the emissions reporting section . This results in the estimated burden dropping from 37,097 hours in 1996 to 1,487 hours in 1999.

! The burden for reporting annual compliance certification information is estimated to decrease slightly from 22,439 hours to 21,339 due to fewer sulfur free generator forms and fewer units claiming energy conservation savings.

! Because the previous collection covered the submission of all NO x compliance plans, while this collection covers only revisions to NO x averaging plans, the burden dropped from 30,786 hours to 40 hours.

! This ICR uses updated information to classify and categorize the types of units affected by Part 75 and what type of monitoring they have used to comply with Part 75. The number of sources has been increased from 727 to 728 and the number of units has been increased from 1600 to 1787 to reflect the current information in the Agency's data system used to track Part 75 monitoring information. Note, however, that the inclusion of the low mass emissions unit provisions generally eliminate any increase in burdens or costs that would be expected to occur as a result of these increases in total affected sources and units.

Burdens and costs have been refined further by the division of respondents into different categories for purposes of estimating the burdens and costs associated with QA activities. The Agency developed seven models to better explain the distribution of various monitoring methods. See section 6.4, above, for a description of each model. Also, as discussed in Section 6.4, above, EPA has modified several assumptions about the labor burdens associated with various activities based on experience in implementing the program and input from various interested parties. In the first Acid Rain Program ICR ( 1992), the burdens and costs associated with these activities were not estimated. Under the 1995 ICR, EPA included an initial estimate of average burden for QA activities of over 1360 hours per year, per unit. At that time, the 68 Agency had insufficient information to incorporate different estimates for different types of monitoring configurations and did not have detailed information from which to estimate total QA related burdens and costs. Based on information from affected sources, external studies, and the ability of this ICR to distinguish between units using CEMS and units using alternative monitoring methodologies, this number has been reduced to an average of approximately 500 hours ( see, e. g., Docket A 97 35, Item IV A 5). The net result of the adjustments to the emissions monitoring burden is a decrease of approximately 1,385,000 hours from the previous ICR.

Other changes in the burden are due to rule changes. The rule revisions create substantial changes in many aspects of the baseline, although a large part of these changes are reflected in costs, not labor burdens. The rule revisions that create these changes are summarized in Table 6 1, above.

The most significant cost ( but not burden) savings will come from the revisions to the flow monitor quality assurance provisions. Based on data provided by a group of utilities ( see Docket A 97 35, Item II D 48), the Agency estimates that replacing the annual three level RATA with a two level RATA for most units that use a flow CEMS, and a one level RATA for the remaining units that use a flow CEMS, will create an overall cost savings of approximately $ 3,500,000 per year related to test contractor cost. In addition to savings related to test contractor costs, units will realize savings in that they will not need to perform RATAs at load levels inconsistent with typical operating levels. Based on data provided by the same group of utilities, those savings are estimated at a total of about $ 25,000,000 per year. Because units would be required to perform a three load RATA at least once every five years, the net annual cost reduction ( including both test contractor and operational cost savings) associated with these revisions is estimated to be slightly more than $ 29 million. These estimates are based on the expectation that 10% of the CEMS model units/ stacks would be eligible for the reduction to the one level RATA, and the other 90% would be eligible for the reduction to the two level RATA four out of every five years.

Another set of revisions that are expected to create significant savings are the fuel flowmeter testing provisions. These changes include both changing the frequency of visual inspections from one to three years, and allowing owners or operators to use an optional fuel flow to load test in place of an annual flowmeter accuracy test. Note that a flowmeter accuracy test would still be required every five years. The net effect of these changes would be to realize some reduced labor burdens, as well as significant cost savings ( approximately $ 5 5.5 million) associated with meters that would otherwise be removed for annual calibration/ accuracy testing off site.

The fuel sampling revisions will allow oil fired units to switch from daily sampling and analysis of fuel to either weekly composite analysis or sampling at the same frequency as fuel shipments are received ( the conservative estimate used assumes weekly shipments). Based on fuel sampling and analysis costs provided by utilities, these revisions are estimated to reduce costs by over $ 3 million. In addition, the Agency also estimates that revisions to § § 75.35 and 75.36 which would allow the use of a substitute data algorithm instead of sampling procedures in certain circumstances will have a cost savings of about $ 650,000 annually. 69 There are several other rule revisions that are expected to result in savings. First, test deadlines will be based on quarters with a minimum of 168 operating hours rather than on calendar quarters. This revision will assist those sources that have insignificant operating hours in certain calendar quarters. Based on operating hour information in the Agency's database, this revision will result in a total labor burden reduction of approximately 29,800 per year and cost savings of about $ 945,000 per year, for a total savings of about $ 2,360,000.

Based on a query of the Agency's database, the Agency estimates that 150 units are currently subject to the requirement that deferred units report their status as shutdown. The rule revision eliminating this requirement will reduce the labor burden per unit by 2 hours per year, for a total savings of about 300 hours, or $ 16,725.

The Agency estimates that exempting gas fired units with SO 2 monitors from SO 2 RATAs will create an overall reduction in cost of $ 200,000, including an estimated reduction in labor hours of 500 per year and approximately $ 175,000 savings in contractor costs per year. This estimate is based on a query of the Agency's database indicating that there are 20 units that will be able to take advantage of this provision.

Under the grace periods for RATA and linearity tests, EPA estimates that about 20 units per year will not need to incur costs to startup solely to perform linearity or RATA tests. The estimated savings per affected unit is $ 75,000, based on cost estimates from a group of utilities. The total savings per year is therefore estimated at $ 1,500,000.

Based on cost estimates provided by a group of utilities, the Agency believes that the rule revision eliminating the requirement to report causes and cures for missing data will result in a burden savings of about 45,000 hours, or $ 2,065,000 per year.

Finally, the Agency estimates that 176 units will qualify for the revisions allowing the use of assumed, rather than measured, values for units with low mass emissions. The Agency estimates that 28 sources will consist of only low mass emissions units. The estimated reduction in burden for reporting for each affected unit is 188 hours ( divided between manager and technical hours). The total burden decrease for reporting is therefore approximately 33,090 hours per year, or $ 1,634,000. Low mass emissions units will also have decreased quality assurance costs. The annual anticipated burden decrease is about 29,750 hours and $ 1,350,000 in contractor costs. Because of the simplified reporting for these units, EPA also believes that these units will not incur burdens associated with responding to EPA generated error messages. This assumption further reduces the burden by 1,645 hours per year. Finally, because of the simplified reporting, sources that consist only of low mass emissions units will not incur burdens or costs associated with reprogramming and debugging DAHS software. This change will result in decreased labor burdens of approximately 1490 hours per year, and decreased annualized capital costs of approximately $ 63,750. The total estimated dollar savings for the rule change is therefore approximately $ 4,625,000 per year. 70 Among the rule revisions, there are a few provisions that EPA believes will lead to burden and cost increases. The most significant is the necessary reprogramming of the DAHS. The Agency believes that the costs to implement the rule revisions in the DAHS systems will consist of some inhouse labor hours, but that the majority of the cost will be the capital cost for each source to purchase upgraded software. See the line item in Exhibit 7 for an estimate of the effect of this activity. EPA estimates that, on average, a source will incur about 24 hours of in plant labor and $ 16,000 in other costs to reprogram the DAHS. The in plant labor is a burden that will only occur in 1999, and totals about 17,500 hours, or $ 913,960. The capital costs of the DAHS purchase are estimated at $ 16,000, and were annualized over a ten year period, for a per year total cost of $ 1,658,384 for all sources.

The flow/ load ratio test for flow CEMS will also lead to an increased burden, although these burdens are significantly more than offset by the reduced burdens and costs associated with the revisions to the flow RATA requirements. The reduced flow RATA requirements would not be promulgated without the new flow to load test. The Agency estimates a total cost of about $ 3,200,000 in 1999 to develop appropriate software for conducting the flow/ load test. Beginning in 2000/ 2001, the estimated total burden for conducting the test, reviewing test results and performing extra RATAs due to test failure is estimated to be approximately 21,500 labor hours and $ 162,000 in contractor costs for all sources, for a total per year beginning of 2000 of about $ 1,226,600.

EPA estimates a total burden increase to implement the new moisture monitor QA provisions of about 4,300 hours per year, and operation and maintenance costs of $ 860,000 per year. Based on analyses of data reported by affected sources, EPA estimates that approximately 107 units/ stacks would be affected by the addition of those new QA procedures. Note that this cost also will not be incurred until 2000, as this revision is not effective in 1999.

EPA has also refined the estimate in the previous ICR of time necessary to review new rule requirements. The previous Part 75 ICR assumed that there would be a per source burden of 6 managerial hours and 10 technician hours per year in the first year ( 1996) to review the instructions and requirements of the rule, while those hours decreased to 4 manager and 4 technical hours in the second and third years ( 1997 and 1998). Based on the scope of the Part 75 revisions, EPA believes that the burden for 1999, the first year the rules would be in effect, should be 24 manager hours and 24 technical hours per year. The burden after the first year would be reduced consistent with the burden estimates for this activity in years 1997 and 1998 under the existing ICR ( 4 manager and 4 technical hours per year per source for 2000/ 2001). The total increased burden due to the rule revisions is therefore approximately 23,300 hours ( 1999 only). The Agency also estimates a burden increase due to a greater demand for software debugging in the first year of implementing upgraded DAHS software. Based on the existing ICR, EPA estimates a total burden increase of about 61,800 hours in 1999. In 2000 and 2001, the burden is estimated consistent with the existing ICR ( 16 hours per source).

The Part 75 rule revisions would have the overall effect of significantly reducing the costs as well as burdens of the Acid Rain CEM Program. Without the Part 75 revisions, implementation 71 costs would be estimated at $ 236,631,210, per year, for the 1999 2001 period. With the rule revisions, the annual average estimated costs are $ 192,483,642. For labor burden, the annual average without the rule revisions would be 1,303,901 hours; with the rule revisions, the estimated annual average is 1,225,633 hours, or a decrease of 78,268 hours..

6.12 Burden Statement The respondent reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1,330,327 hours in 1999, 1,220,183 hours in 2000, and 1,220,156 hours in 2001. The burden to EPA is estimated to be 17,477 hours in 1999, 17,174 hours in 2000, and 19,986 hours in 2001. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, to the Director, Regulatory Information Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137); 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked " Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." Include the OMB control number ( 2060 0258) in any correspondence. 72 EXHIBIT 21 AGGREGATE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTIONS Program Total Burden ( Hours) Total Costsa 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1. Allowance transfers 4,950 4,950 4,950 $ 260,685 $ 260,685 $ 260,685 2. Energy conservation and renewable energy allowances 952 492 492 $ 45,446 $ 23,486 $ 23,486 3. Permits 2,435 2,435 2,435 $ 141,320 $ 141,320 $ 141,320 4. Emissions reporting 1,298,756 1,189,072 1,189,072 $ 195,611,436 $ 190,919,746 $ 190,919,746 5. Auctions 330 330 330 $ 20,460 $ 20,460 $ 20,460 6. Small diesel refinery allowances 38 38 0 $ 1,691 $ 1,691 $ 0 7. Opt inb 1,487 1,487 1,487 $ 74,352 $ 74,352 $ 74,352 8. Annual compliance certification 21,339 21,339 21,350 $ 1,039,211 $ 1,039,211 $ 1,066,600 9. NO x permitting 40 40 40 $ 2,132 $ 2,132 $ 2,132 TOTAL 1,330,327 1,220,183 1,220,156 $ 197,196,733 $ 192,483,083 $ 192,508,781 a 1998 dollars.

b Includes permitting and annual compliance certification burdens for opt in sources. 73 EXHIBIT 22 AGGREGATE ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTIONS Program Total Burden ( Hours) Total Costsa 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1. Allowance transfers 1,500 1,500 1,500 $ 64,500 $ 64,500 $ 64,500 2. Energy conservation and renewable energy allowances 125 65 65 $ 5,354 $ 2,784 $ 2,784 3. Permits 410 410 410 $ 17,550 $ 17,550 $ 17,550 4. Emissions reporting 5. Auctions 6. Small diesel refinery allowances 7. Opt in 8. Annual compliance certification 9. NO x permitting 10. Operation & Maintenance of data systemsb 14,296 160 38 308 600 40 NA 14,296 160 38 65 600 40 NA 14,296 160 0 65 3,450 40 NA $ 612,012 $ 6,850 $ 1,634 $ 13,186 $ 25,200 $ 1,712 $ 150,000 $ 612,012 $ 6,850 $ 1,634 $ 2,782 $ 25,200 $ 1,712 $ 150,000 $ 612,012 $ 6,850 $ 0 $ 2,782 $ 144,900 $ 1,712 $ 150,000 TOTAL 17,477 17,174 19,986 $ 897,998 $ 885,024 $ 1,003,090 a 1998 dollars. 74 b Average annual operation and maintenance costs associated with running electronic data systems are assumed to be incurred by an EPA contractor. Therefore, EPA will not incur any labor burden for these activities. Appendix A : Data Items Required to be Reported Electronically Under the Recordkeeping and Reporting Sections of Part 75 This Appendix contains the Electronic Data Reporting ( EDR) Formats indicating the data elements that must be recorded and reported electronically under the following sections of the rule:

! Monitoring Plan Requirements ( § 75.53)

! General Recordkeeping Requirements ( § 75.57)

! Recordkeeping For Special Situations ( § 75.58)

! Quality Assurance Recordkeeping ( § 75.59)

! Certification Application ( § 75.63)

! Quarterly Reports ( § 75.64) 75 Appendix B: Other Data Items Required Under the Recordkeeping and Reporting Sections of Part 75 In addition to the data collected electronically in the EDR, the following additional recordkeeping and/ or reporting is required under Part 75. Items which must be recorded and kept on site, rather than reported/ submitted to the Agency, are marked with an asterisk.

Monitoring Plan Requirements ( § 75.53):

! Information, including identification of the test strategy; protocol for the relative accuracy test audit; other relevant test information; calibration gas levels for the calibration error test and linearity check; calculations for determining maximum potential concentration, maximum expected concentration, maximum potential flow rate, maximum potential NO x emission rate, and span; and apportionment strategies ! Description of site locations for each monitoring component in the continuous emission or opacity monitoring systems ! A data flow diagram denoting the complete information handling path from output signals of continuous emission monitoring system components to final reports ! A schematic diagram identifying entire gas handling system from boiler to stack for all affected units ! Stack and duct engineering diagrams showing the dimensions and location of fans, turning vanes, air preheaters, monitor components, probes, reference method sampling ports, and other equipment that affects the monitoring system location, performance, or quality control checks General Recordkeeping Requirements ( § 75.57):

! Causes of any missing data periods and the actions taken to cure such causes*

Recordkeeping For Special Situations ( § 75.58):

For units with add on SO2 or NOx emission controls following the provisions of § 75.34( a)( 1) or ( a)( 2):

! Parametric data which demonstrate the proper operation of the add on emission controls*

! A flag indicating that the add on emission controls are operating properly*

Quality Assurance Recordkeeping ( § 75.59):

For calibration error tests of continuous emission or flow monitoring systems: 76 ! Certification from the cylinder gas vendor or CEMS vendor that calibration gas, as defined in the applicable sections of Part 75, was used to conduct calibration error testing*

! Description of any adjustments, corrective actions, or maintenance following test*

For daily interference checks of flow monitoring systems:

! Description of any adjustments, corrective actions, or maintenance following test*

For relative accuracy test audits:

! Description of any adjustments, corrective actions, or maintenance following test*

! The flow polynomial equation used to linearize the flow monitor and the numerical values of the polynomial coefficients of that equation*

Other required quality assurance test data items:

! Hardcopy quality assurance relative accuracy test reports, certification reports, or recertification reports for pollutant concentration or stack flow CEMS including test results, printouts, reference method data, equations, calibration gas certificates, laboratory calibrations, test protocols, diagrams, and names of personnel involved in the testing. For each relative accuracy test audit, supporting information sufficient to substantiate compliance with all applicable sections and appendices in this Part.* ( not reported unless requested)

! An indication of which data have been excluded from the quarterly span and range evaluations of the SO 2 and NO X monitors and the reasons for excluding the data*

Excepted monitoring systems for gas fired and oil fired units:

! Test results for each transmitter or transducer accuracy test for an orifice, nozzle, or venturi type flowmeter* ( note: test summary is reported electronically)

! For units with add on SO 2 and NO x emission controls following the provisions of § 75.34( a)( 1) or ( a)( 2): a list of operating parameters for the add on emission controls, and the range of each operating parameter in the list that indicates the add on emission controls are properly operating Notifications ( § 75.61):

The DR shall submit notification for the following events on an as applicable basis:

! Initial certification tests, recertification tests, new unit/ stack, new flue gas desulfurization system operation, unit shutdown/ recommencement, use of backup fuels for Appendix E procedures, combustion of emergency fuels under Appendix D or E. 77 Certification Application ( § 75.63):

Each application for initial certification or recertification shall contain the following information, as applicable:

! Certification or recertification application form ( EPA form 7610 14)

! The results of the test( s) required by § 75.20, including the type of test conducted, testing date, information required by § 75.56 or § 75.59, as applicable, and the results of any failed tests that affect data validation ! Any changed portions of the hardcopy monitoring plan information required under § § 75.53( c) and ( d), or § § 75.53( e) and ( f), as applicable ! Designated representative signature ! If the owner or operator is applying to use the optional low mass emissions excepted methodology in § 75.19( c) in lieu of a certified monitoring system, a statement that the unit burns only natural gas or fuel oil and a list of the fuels that are burned or a statement that the unit is projected to burn only natural gas or fuel oil and a list of the fuels that are projected to be burned; a statement that the unit meets the applicability requirements in § § 75.19( a) and ( b); and any unit historical actual and projected emissions data and calculated emissions data demonstrating that the affected unit qualifies as a low mass emissions unit under § § 75.19( a) and ( b)

Quarterly Reports ( § 75.64):

! Compliance certification ( in hardcopy or optionally in electronic format)

Opacity Reports ( § 75.65):

! Excess emission of opacity ( reported to applicable State or local air pollution control agency)

Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Program ( Section 1 of Appendix B to Part 75)

! Written QA/ QC plan that describes in detail ( or that refers to separate documents containing) complete, step by step procedures and operations For preventative maintenance, quality assurance testing, fuel sampling and sample retention*

! Maintenance records of all testing, maintenance, and repair activities, including: date, time, and description of any testing, adjustment, repair, replacement, or preventive maintenance action* 78 Appendix C: Acid Rain Program Forms and Instructions


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50248-50250]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20499]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0205; FRL-9931-37-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso
Particulate Matter Contingency Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Texas. These revisions
pertain to contingency measures for particulate matter in the City of
El Paso. The affected contingency measures are the paving of alleys and
sweeping of streets.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 18,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2012-0205, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Jeffrey Riley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2012-0205. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit
electronically any information that you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If
the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects
or viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional information on
submitting comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Mr. Riley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. El Paso PM10 History

    Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the City of El Paso, Texas was
designated by operation of law as nonattainment of the 1987 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers
(PM10) and classified as a moderate nonattainment area. The
EPA approved on January 18, 1994 at 59 FR 02532, the El Paso
PM10 Attainment Demonstration SIP revision. The SIP
included, among other things, PM control measures and a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of El Paso and the State of Texas (MOU).
The EPA approved three types of PM control measures as contingency
measures because they went beyond reasonably available control measures
and were not relied upon to show attainment or reasonable further
progress (RFP). The three types of PM control measures approved as
contingency measures were prescribed burning, residential burning, and
fugitive dust control measures. The fugitive dust measures include not
only controls for roads, streets, alleys,

parking lots, construction and demolition sites, and materials
handling, but also a requirement that existing unpaved alleys be paved
at a rate of 15 miles per year and mechanical sweepers remove soil from
roads four times per year in the city limits and six times per week in
the central business district. The SIP MOU between the City of El Paso
and the State of Texas outlines the responsibilities and regulatory
requirements for both parties in implementing the dust control methods.

B. Texas' Submittals

    On March 7, 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) submitted revisions to remove the requirement to pave alleys at
the rate of 15 miles per year, and replace it with the following
requirements: (1) All new alleys must be paved; (2) unpaved alleys
cannot be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and
(3) recycled asphalt product (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of
control for unpaved alleys. The revisions also changed the street
sweeping frequency requirement from four times per year to three times
per year in the city limits and from six times per week to four times
per week in the central business district. TCEQ provided supplemental
information dated December 3, 2014 updating the unpaved alleys
inventory between 2010 through 2014.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that the EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Contingency Measures are a required element of
an attainment demonstration, to be implemented if the area fails to
attain. In this case, the City implemented early the contingency
measures for paving of alleys and street sweeping on an on-going basis
since 1991, even though not required by the EPA. Implementation of
these measures has continued even after the 1994 attainment date. To
demonstrate noninterference, Texas provided a qualitative analysis of
the emission reductions achieved by these measures coupled with
evaluation of air quality data to show that the level of emissions
provided for by the revised early implemented contingency measures
would not interfere with attainment or RFP.
    At the time of the EPA's approval of the paving of alleys as a
contingency measure, there were an estimated 89 miles of unpaved
alleys, and all unpaved roads in the city of El Paso were required to
be paved in order to reduce this source category's projected 1994
PM10 emissions by 0.5 percent. The State documents that the
inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has decreased from 66% of total
alley miles in 1991, to 16% of total alley miles in 2010, with
approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. The supplemental
information provided to the EPA shows that between 2010 through 2014,
the percentage of unpaved alleys has continued to decrease to 13% of
the total inventory, with approximately 17 miles of unpaved alleys
remaining. A total of 72 alley miles have been paved, the estimated
emissions reductions for 1994 were met in 1994, and emissions
reductions continued after that date. In the SIP submittal, the City
commits to continue paving alleys. The additional compliance option of
using RAP as a paving material helps ensure continued reduction of the
inventory of uncontrolled alleys. The EPA agrees that RAP can be
effective in suppressing dust.
    The overall inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has continued to
decrease, and thereby further reductions in PM10 levels have
occurred well beyond the decrease in inventory of unpaved alleys
approved as the contingency measures. Furthermore, there will be no
increase in unpaved alleys because the SIP revision requires that all
new alleys be paved. As a practical matter, the EPA recognizes that a
rate of 15 miles of paving per year could not be maintained unless the
City were to create unpaved alleys in order to pave them.
    As additional support for the change to the rate of paving of
alleys, the submitted revision prohibits garbage collection in unpaved
alleys; the City since 1997 stopped garbage collection in paved and
unpaved alleys. The significant paving progress, the requirement to
pave new alleys, and prohibition of garbage collection in alleys have
reduced the overall amount of fugitive dust in the El Paso area. In the
SIP submittal, the City commits to continue sweeping on a different
schedule. Because the emissions reductions from paving and street
sweeping are from already-implemented contingency measures, thus above
what was needed to show attainment, and the reductions continue, the PM
reductions from these measures are above and beyond what is required to
show continued maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The State's submittal also relied upon ambient monitoring data for
the years 2007 through 2009 to demonstrate there will be no
interference with attainment. The El Paso area continues to monitor
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS based on data for all three
years from 2011 through 2013. See the TSD for additional information on
the monitoring data.
    Because the fugitive dust controls are early implemented
contingency measures, they were not relied upon for demonstrating
attainment or RFP; paving of new alleys is required; the inventory of
pre-existing unpaved alleys has been reduced from 66% of total alleys
to 13%; and paving continues using the effective RAP, the EPA finds
that the SIP revision will not interfere with the area's ability to
continue to attain or maintain the affected NAAQS or other CAA
requirements.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain
to changes to the PM10 contingency measures in the City of
El Paso. The State's revisions submitted on March 7, 2012 amend rule 30
TAC Sec.  111.147(1)(E) by removing the requirement to pave alleys at
the rate of 15 miles/year, and replace it with the following
requirements:
    (1) All new alleys must be paved;
    (2) Alleys may not be used for trash pickup; and
    (3) The use of recycled asphalt product as defined in Sec.  111.145
and Sec.  111.147(1) may be used as an alternate means of particulate
matter control for alleys.
    We also are proposing to approve 30 TAC Sec.  111.145 and Sec.
111.147(1) that define RAP, and 30 TAC Sec.  111.147(2) that changes
the sweeping frequency requirement from four to three time per year in
the city limits and from six to four times per week in the El Paso
central business district. We have evaluated the State's submittals and
have determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act and EPA regulations, and are consistent with EPA policy.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the
Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 5, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-20499 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 74071-74074]
[DOCID:fr14de05-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52910; File No. SR-ISE-2005-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Requirements for Continued Approval of
Securities that Underlie Options Traded on the Exchange

December 7, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 21, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE.\3\ The
ISE filed

the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\4\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In one part of the proposal, ISE Rule 504(d)(6) is
erroneously referenced, instead of current ISE Rule 503(b)(6). The
staff corrected this reference, as per telephone conversation
between Samir Patel, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Christopher
Chow, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, December
5, 2005.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE proposes to amend certain of its rules governing the
requirements for and the withdrawal of approval of securities
underlying options traded on the Exchange. The text of the proposed
rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed
deletions are in [brackets].
Rule 502. Criteria for Underlying Securities
    (a) Underlying securities with respect to which put or call options
contracts are approved for listing and trading on the Exchange must
meet the following criteria:
    (1) The security must be registered and be an ``NMS stock'' as
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act [(i)
listed on a national securities exchange; or (ii) traded through the
facilities of a national securities association and reported as a
``national market system'' (``NMS'') security as set forth in Rule
11Aa3-1 under the Exchange Act]; and
    (2) No change.
    (b)-(j) No change.
Rule 503. Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities
    (a) No change.
    (b) Absent exceptional circumstances, an underlying security will
not be deemed to meet the Exchange's requirements for continued
approval whenever any of the following occur:
    (1)-(4) No change.
    [(5) The issuer has failed to make timely reports as required by
applicable requirements of the Exchange Act, and such failure has not
been corrected within thirty (30) days after the date the report was
due to be filed.]
    [(6)] (5) The underlying security ceases to be an ``NMS stock'' as
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. [The
issuer, in the case of an underlying security that is principally
traded on a national securities exchange, is delisted from trading on
that exchange and neither meets NMS criteria nor is traded through the
facilities of a national securities association, or the issue, in the
case of an underlying security that is principally traded through the
facilities of a national securities association, is no longer
designated as an NMS security.] [(7)] (6) If an underlying security is
approved for options listing and trading under the provisions of Rule
502(c), the trading volume and price history of the Original Security
(as therein defined) prior to but not after the commencement of trading
in the Restructure Security (as therein defined), including ``when-
issued'' trading, may be taken into account in determining whether the
trading volume and market price requirements of (3) and (4) of this
paragraph (b) are satisfied.
    (c)-(j) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate ISE Rule 503(b)(5) pertaining to
the continued approval of securities that underlie options traded on
the Exchange. ISE Rule 503(b) sets forth various situations under which
an underlying security previously approved for options trading will in
usual circumstances be deemed to no longer meet Exchange requirements
for the continuance of such approval. In such circumstances, ISE Rule
503(a) provides that the Exchange will not open for trading any
additional series of options in that class and may also limit any new
opening transactions in those options series that have already been
opened.
    Currently, ISE Rule 503(b)(5) provides that an underlying security
will no longer be approved for options trading on the Exchange when:

    ``(5) The issuer has failed to make timely reports as required
by applicable requirements of the Exchange Act, and such failure has
not been corrected within thirty (30) days after the date the report
was due to be filed.''

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate this provision because (i) it
limits investors' ability to use options to hedge existing equity
positions in such securities, and (ii) it is not necessary in the
context of the rest of ISE Rule 503(b).
    First, ISE Rule 503(b)(5) can and does impact investors' interests
by preventing investors from using new options series to hedge
positions that they may hold in the underlying security of companies
that fail to make timely reports required by the Act. ISE believes such
a restriction is inconsistent with the rules and regulations in the
markets for the underlying securities because no similar trading
restriction is placed upon the trading of the underlying security
itself. Thus, ISE Rule 503(b)(5) only serves to limit the abilities of
shareholders in such companies who may wish to hedge their positions
with new options series, at a time when the ability to hedge may be
particularly important.
    ISE believes that ISE Rule 503(b)(5) has outlived any usefulness
and now serves to unnecessarily burden and confuse the investing
public. ISE believes this provision was appropriate when it was first
implemented in or around 1976 when the listing and trading of
standardized options was still in its infancy and information
pertaining to public companies was not readily available to the general
investing public. The Exchange believes that today's listed options
market, however, is a mature one with investors who have access to a
significant amount of real-time market information to assist them in
making informed investment decisions, including information as to
whether companies have timely filed reports as required by the Exchange
Act, and if not, why not. Therefore, ISE believes that there is no
reason to continue limiting investors' ability to trade in options
classes, including new series within those classes, simply because a
company is not timely in filing its reports. The Exchange further
states that this restriction is further misplaced, considering that
investors are not similarly restricted from buying or selling shares of
the underlying security in the equity markets.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that ISE Rule 503(b)(5) limits an
investor's ability to hedge his underlying stock positions at a time
when he may be in most need to protect his investment. The failure of a
public company to comply with its reporting requirements under the Act
could cause a significant movement in the price of that

company's stock. Restricting the Exchange from opening new options
series may leave investors without means to hedge their positions with
options contracts at strike prices that more accurately reflect the
contemporaneous price trends of the underlying stock.
    The ISE states that new options series on a security should not be
permitted to be opened if the underlying security ceases to be an ``NMS
stock'' within the meaning of Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS.\6\
Typically, the Exchange becomes aware of issues that may impact the
continued listing of a security well before that security is delisted
from its primary market. Exchange staff routinely monitors daily press
releases and informational releases disseminated by various entities,
such as, the primary listing market of a security and private news
services, in an effort to monitor the activities and news items
pertaining to the issuers of securities that underlie options traded on
the Exchange. In many cases, when an issuer fails to comply with its
reporting requirements under the Act, the issuer is given a substantial
amount of time to cure this deficiency before the primary listing
market actually delists the issuer's security. Many times, the issuer
is able to comply without its security ever being delisted. During this
period, ISE staff continually monitors the status of the issuer's
compliance with its reporting requirements to determine whether the
security may be delisted. Finally, the primary listing market typically
issues a press release well in advance of delisting an issuer's
security to give investors and other market participants adequate
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the availability of data and information relating to public
issuers of securities in today's markets, and in light of the extensive
amount of additional continued listing standards under ISE Rule 503(b),
waiting until a security is actually delisted by its primary listing
market is the appropriate point at which to restrict the issuance of
new options series in an options class. Accordingly, the Exchange
hereby proposes to eliminate ISE Rule 503(b)(5).
    Additionally, as a matter of ``housekeeping,'' the Exchange also
proposes to clarify the texts of ISE Rules 502(a)(1) and 503(b)(6),\7\
which govern the criteria for the initial and continued listing of
options on a particular security, respectively. Both of these
provisions include as part of the criteria, a requirement that the
underlying security must be a national market system security (``NMS
security''). As part of the recently adopted Regulation NMS,\8\ among
other things, the Commission revised the definition of an NMS security.
Specifically, Rule 600(b)(46) under Regulation NMS defines an NMS
security as ``any security or class of securities for which transaction
reports are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective national market
system plan for reporting transactions in listed options.'' As such,
each of these ISE Rules will be amended to reflect these new terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ISE Rule 503(b)(6) would become ISE Rule 503(b)(5) to
correspond with the elimination of current ISE Rule 503(b)(5), as
discussed above.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The ISE believes that the basis under the Act for this proposed
rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in that the elimination of ISE
Rule 503(b)(5), which is both burdensome to investors and unnecessary
for their protection, will serve to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a
self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least 5
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
    The ISE has asked the Commission to waive the 5-day pre-filing
notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay. The Commission
waives the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement. Additionally, the
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change is based upon a recently approved rule
change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''),\9\ which was published for notice and comment.\10\ For this
reason, the Commission designates that the proposal has become
effective and operative immediately upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52562 (October 4,
2005), 70 FR 59382 (October 12, 2005) (notice for SR-CBOE-2004-037)
and 52779 (November 16, 2005), 70 FR 70902 (November 23, 2005)
(approval order for SR-CBOE-2004-037).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-ISE-2005-052 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-0903.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2005-052. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-ISE-2005-052 and should be submitted on or before January
4, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7303 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P