[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27815-27816]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0199; FRL-9963-64--Region 5]

Minnesota: Notice of Determination of Adequacy of Minnesota's
Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On May 10, 2016, EPA issued a revision to the regulations
allowing RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed
to six, for a total permit term of up to 21 years (40 CFR 258.4).
    On March 24, 2017, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking federal approval of
its current RD&D permitting program (Minnesota Rules (Minn. R.)
7035.0450), which incorporates by reference the changes to 40 CFR
258.4. Subject to public review and comment, this notice approves
Minnesota's RD&D permit requirements.

DATES: This determination of adequacy of Minnesota's RD&D permitting
program will become effective August 18, 2017 unless adverse comments
are received. If adverse comments are received, EPA will review those
comments and publish another Federal Register document responding to
those comments and either affirm or revise EPA's initial decision.
Comments on this action must be received on or before July 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
RCRA-2017-0199, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. 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 submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille Lukey, U.S. EPA Region 5, Land
and Chemicals Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard LM-16J, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the MSWLF
criteria in 40 CFR 258 to allow for RD&D permits (69 FR 13242). This
rule allows for variances from specified criteria for a limited period
of time, to be implemented through state-issued RD&D permits. RD&D
permits are available only in states with approved MSWLF permit
programs that have been modified to incorporate RD&D permit authority.
On May 10, 2016, the EPA issued a revision to the regulations allowing
RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed to six,
for a total permit term of up to 21 years (40 CFR 258.4).
    While states are not required to incorporate this new provision,
those states interested in providing RD&D permits must seek approval
from EPA before issuing such permits. On February 15, 2005, Minnesota
received approval of its RD&D permit program (Minn. R. 7035.0450). On
March 24, 2017, MPCA submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking
Federal approval of its RD&D requirements per the procedures in 40 CFR
239.12. Minnesota's rules authorizing RD&D permits (Minn. R. 7035.0450)
do not establish a specific term in years and instead incorporate by
reference 40 CFR 258.4. Therefore, Minn. R. 7035.0450 automatically
updates with the additional permit renewal revision in 40 CFR 258.4.

B. Decision

    EPA has made a determination that the Minnesota RD&D permit
provisions as set out in Minn. R.7035.0450 comply with the Federal
criteria, as set forth in 40 CFR 258.4.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: May 24, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-12740 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Supporting Statement

for

Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int’l), and

Additional Response Requirements for Prince William Sound, Alaska

OMB No.: 1625-0066

COLLECTION INSTRUMENT: CG-6083 & VRP Express Search Tool

A.  Justification

1.  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

Facility Response Plan (FRP):  Section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OPA 90) amended section 311(j) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWCPA)(33 U.S.C. 1321 et. seq.).  It requires the
owner or operator of a facility to prepare and submit “a plan for
responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case
discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge of oil or
hazardous substances.”  This requirement applies to any offshore
facility and to an onshore facility that "because of its location, could
reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by
discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or
the exclusive economic zone."  FRP requirements are found in Title 33
CFR 154 subparts F, H and I.

Vessel Response Plan (VRP):  Section 4202(a)(6) of the OPA 90 amended
section 311(j) of the FWPCA.  It requires that vessels carrying oil in
bulk as cargo and operating in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction
prepare and submit a written response plan for a worst case discharge of
oil or hazardous substances.  VRP requirements are found in 33 CFR 155
subparts D, F, G and I.

Nontank Vessel Response Plan (NTVRP):  Section 701 of the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293), as amended by
section 608 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006
(Pub. L. 109-241) (CG&MTA 2004/2006), amended section 311(a) and (j) of
the FWPCA.  It requires that nontank vessels of 400 gross tons and above
which carry oil as fuel for propulsion and operating in navigable waters
of the U.S. prepare and submit a written NTVRP for a worst case
discharge.  NTVRP requirements are found in 33 CFR 155 subpart J.

Prince William Sound (PWS):  Section 5005 of the OPA 90 establishes
requirements for a tanker operating in PWS and loading cargo at the
Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), in addition to those required by
section 4202(a)(6) of OPA 90.  This rule ensures that response plans
provide for pre-positioned oil spill containment and removal equipment,
an oil spill removal organization, training of local residents in oil
spill removal and containment techniques, practice exercises, and
periodic testing and certification of equipment.  PWS requirements are
found in 33 CFR 154 subpart G and 33 CFR 155 subpart E.

Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan/Shipboard Marine Pollution
Emergency Plan (SOPEP/SMPEP):  The information collection requirements
described below are necessary to comply with the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1901 et. seq.).  This section
implements Regulation 37 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 for United States
flag ships.  It requires every oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above
and every ship other than an oil tanker of 400 gross tons and above to
carry on board an approved SOPEP.  The SOPEP requirements are found in
33 CFR 151.26-28.  Additionally, this section implements Regulation 17
of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 for United States flag ships.  It requires
every ship of 150 gross tons and above that carries noxious liquid
substances (NLS) in bulk to carry on board an approved SMPEP. The SMPEP
requirements are found in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) 03-04.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Protection

Recovery

Coast Guard

Maritime Safety

Protection of the Natural Resources

Prevention Policy & Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Safety:  Eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
commercial maritime operations.

Human and Natural Environment:  Eliminate environmental damage
associated with maritime transportation and operations on and around the
nation’s waterways.

2.  Purpose of the information collection.

FRP, VRP and NTVRP:  The purpose of OPA 90 is to reduce the number of
oil and hazardous substance spills and to minimize the impact of the oil
and hazardous substance spills when they do occur in U.S. waters.  The
requirements for preparation, submission, and approval of FRPs, VRPs and
NTVRPs are central to the contingency planning elements of the FWPCA.
The FRP, VRP & NTVRP requirements are necessary to ensure that vessels
entering U.S. waters and certain facilities are adequately prepared to
respond in the event of an incident involving the spill of oil or a
hazardous substance.  Without the requirements some operators may not
maintain the necessary internal resources (effective planning, training,
drilling, etc.) or external resources (adequate response capability) to
meet a major intent of FWPCA—to reduce the consequences of an oil or
hazardous substance spill when it occurs.

Submission of response plans to the Coast Guard (CG) for approval is
considered the most efficient way to ensure compliance and necessary for
the CG to meet its obligations under OPA 90/FWPCA.

PWS:  The additional requirements in section 5005 of OPA 90, for trained
personnel and pre-positioned response equipment, reflect the particular
environmental sensitivity of PWS.  Without these requirements for
tankers operating in PWS and loading cargo at TAPS, it is believed that
sufficient response resources would not be available or be properly
maintained to clean up a future oil spill.  Certification and testing of
response equipment helps ensure the readiness of this equipment for a
future response.

SOPEP/SMPEP:  The purpose of the requirements is to improve response
capabilities and minimize the environmental impact of oil or NLS
discharges from ships.  Without the requirements, there is a greater
likelihood of a vessel which is not prepared to handle an unauthorized
discharge of oil having a spill and causing a major environmental
incident.  The submission and approval of these plans ensures that
vessels have in place an appropriate plan that deals with such an
occurrence.

3.  Consideration of the use of improved technology.

For FRP and PWS, information may be submitted by mail, fax or
electronically via e-mail to the Captain of the Port (COTP) at the local
CG Sector Office.  Contact info for CG Sector Offices can be found at—
  HYPERLINK "http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/"
http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/ .  For VRP, NTVRP and SOPEP/SMPEP,
information may be submitted to CG Headquarters by mail, fax or
electronically via e-mail or a website.  E-submissions are via
HYPERLINK "http://www.Homeport.uscg.mil/vrpexpress"
www.Homeport.uscg.mil/vrpexpress .  At this time, we estimate that 98%
of reporting requirements are done electronically.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

FRP:  In addition to the CG’s marine transportation-related (MTR) FRP
requirements, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has FRP
regulations.  EPA response plan requirements affect certain
non-transportation-related facilities that have the potential to
discharge oil into the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of the
U.S. and meet certain storage capacity thresholds.  EPA's regulations do
not apply to equipment or operations of onshore marine
transportation-related facilities that are subject to the authority and
control of the Department of Homeland Security (delegated to the CG).
However, certain businesses have both transportation-related and
non-transportation-related components, such as petroleum bulk terminals
that have storage tanks and transfer petroleum to and from vessels.
These businesses are subject to both the CG and EPA regulation.  These
facilities are designated complexes.  To avoid duplicative paperwork
burdens on complexes, the CG and EPA work together to ensure that their
response plan requirements and response plan formats are consistent.  As
a result, facilities are able to comply with both response plan
requirements with a single response plan, thereby mitigating duplication
of paperwork related burdens.

PWS:  The information being required is unique.  There is no known
duplication of filing requirements with other Federal information
collections.

NTVRP:  The information required is unique.  Section 701 of the CG&MTA
2004/2006 amended 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(a) and (j) requiring that NTVRPs
be submitted consistent with other plans required by the FWPCA.

SOPEP/SMPEP and VRP:  The information required is unique.  MARPOL 73/78
requires specific response planning.  These requirements work in
conjunction with, and not in duplication of, the VRP requirements
discussed elsewhere in this supporting statement.

5.  Methods to minimize the burden to small businesses if involved.

FRP:  Although the CG regulation has certain reduced requirements for
smaller facilities, these are primarily not paperwork related.  However,
because of the nature of the information collection requirements, the
level of effort to prepare the FRP is estimated to vary directly with
the size and complexity of the facility.  As a result, smaller
facilities should incur a lesser burden than larger facilities.

Furthermore, in drafting OPA 90, it was clearly Congress' intent that
certain small facilities be subject to the same response planning
requirements as large facilities.  Specifically, in discussing the
selection of facilities that could cause "substantial harm" to the
environment (i.e., those subject to the information collection
activities), the OPA Conference report states:

The criteria should not result in the selection of facilities based
solely on the size or age of storage tanks.  Specifically, the selection
criteria should not necessarily omit those smaller facilities that are
near major drinking water supplies or that are near environmentally
sensitive areas. H. Rep. No. 101-653, 101st Cong. 2nd Sess. 1990, p.
150.

VRP:  Due to the nature of the industry, smaller entities tend to own
smaller vessels, e.g., barges rather than large tankers.  The reporting
requirements should be less for smaller vessels; vessels that have fewer
personnel, carry less cargo, and require less response capability.
Vessels that carry oil as secondary cargo, i.e., fishing vessels,
offshore supply vessels and towing vessels, require a less comprehensive
VRP and have reduced resubmission requirements.

NTVRP:  The FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)) as amended by CG&MTA 2004/2006
requires the same level of information from these vessels.

PWS:  The requirements for smaller vessels are less because they have
fewer personnel on board, carry less oil, and will require less response
equipment than larger vessels.  In addition, non-TAPS vessels (most of
which are smaller) are eliminated from the requirements.

SOPEP/SMPEP:  The small business burden should be minimized as few small
entities own ships of the gross tonnage to which this regulation
applies.

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were done less
frequently.

FRP, VRP and NTVRP:  The CG recognizes the need to minimize the burden
of any information collection to the extent permitted under the
requirements of the FWPCA as amended by OPA 90 and the CG&MTA 2004/2006.
 Section 4202(a)(6) of OPA 90 requires facilities and vessels to update
the response plan periodically, and resubmit for approval of each
significant change.  Under the regulation, facilities and vessels would
be required to: conduct an annual review of the response plan and submit
changes to the CG; or, if no changes are necessary, submit a letter
stating that the review has taken place.

The CG has determined that requiring facilities and vessels to review
and update their response plans less frequently than once a year would
undermine the intent of the FWPCA, which is to ensure that all
facilities and vessels have an up-to-date plan at all times.  For
example, contact lists of spill response personnel may require revision
every year, and possibly more frequently.  Because the majority of
information collection activities (in terms of both hours and cost)
would involve initial preparation of the response plan, reducing the
frequency of the annual information collection activities would not
significantly reduce the overall burden of the information collection
activities required under these regulations.

PWS:  Less frequent oversight and review of plans and equipment may
result in inadequate equipment and poorly trained personnel.

SOPEP/SMPEP:  Because the plan must be used in an emergency, less
frequent review and submission could result in outdated information
impeding a response.

7.  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimate of annual hour and cost burdens to respondents.

The estimated number of annual respondents is 8,235.

The estimated number of annual responses is 8,271.

The estimated hour burden is 75,395 hours.

The estimated cost burden is $6,453,238.

FRP:  There are a number of MTR oil transfer facilities in the U.S. that
are subject to the FRP requirements.  It is assumed that the number of
facilities remains constant due to the mature nature of the industry.
However, facilities are sold and new ones are built as older ones are
taken out of service, thus we assume that 10% of the facility population
will submit new FRPs each year.  The FRP paperwork requirements consist
of the preparation and submission of new FRPs, the annual review of
existing FRPs, and the 5-year resubmit of existing FRPs.  We assume it
takes 100 hours for a new plan, 10 hours for an annual review and 15
hours for a 5-year resubmit.  The calculations for the FRP
reporting/recordkeeping elements are found in Appendix A.

VRP & NTVRP:  There are a number of tank and nontank vessels that are
subject to the VRP requirements.  It is assumed that the number of
vessels remains constant due to the mature nature of the industry.
However, vessels are sold and new ones are built as older ones are taken
out of service, thus we assume that 10% of the vessel population will
submit new VRPs each year.  The VRP paperwork requirements consist of
the preparation and submission of new VRPs, the annual review of
existing VRPs, and the 5-year resubmit of existing VRPs.  We assume it
takes 80 hours for a new plan, 8 hours for an annual review and 12 hours
for a 5-year resubmit.

The VRP paperwork includes documentation of salvage and marine
firefighting (SMFF) resources/equipment.  Some SMFF resource providers
have voluntarily elected to annually submit SMFF resource/equipment
information to the CG to pre-vet their companies.  These SMFF resource
providers also undergo a voluntary quarterly review/verification of
their resources/equipment.  We assume it takes 1,200 hours for an annual
submission and 300 hours for a quarterly review/verification per SMFF
resource provider.  For VRP planholders that reference a SMFF resource
provider’s documentation in place of selecting and documenting SMFF
resources on their own, we assume that the VRP burden is reduced.  In
this instance, we assume it takes 60 hours for a new plan, 6 hours for
an annual review and 9 hours for a 5-year resubmit.  In addition to the
above VRP elements, the regulations also permit certain
alternatives/waivers.  There are one-time port waivers (33 CFR
155.1025(e)), Alternative Planning Criteria (33 CFR 155.1065(f)) and
SMFF Waivers (33 CFR 155.4055).  We assume it take 1 hour, 5 hours and 2
hours respectively.  Additionally, the VRP Express has a Search Tool to
allow individuals to find VRP data.  We estimate that the tool is used
10 times per day and that it takes about 10 minutes (0.167 hours) to
use.  The calculations for all the VRP reporting/recordkeeping elements
are found in Appendix B.

PWS:  It is assumed that there is one spill response organization
working in PWS.  It serves the TAPS traffic and includes large tankers
receiving oil at the Valdez terminal.  The calculations for the PWS
reporting/recordkeeping elements are found in Appendix C.

SOPEP/SMPEP:  There are a number of tank and nontank vessels that are
subject to these requirements.  It is assumed that the number of vessels
remains constant due to the mature nature of the industry.  However, as
vessels are sold and new ones are built as older ones are taken out of
service, there we assume that 10% of the vessel population will submit
new plans each year.  The paperwork requirements consist of the
preparation and submission of new plans, the annual review of existing
plans, and the 5-year resubmit of existing plans.  We assume it takes 40
hours for a new plan, 4 hours for an annual review and 6 hours for a
5-year resubmit.  For VRP planholders that voluntarily elect to submit a
combined VRP with their SOPEP/SMPEP, we assume that there is no added
burden for the VRP and that the burden is reduced for the SOPEP/SMPEP.
In this instance, we assume it takes 20 hours for a new plan, 2 hours
for an annual review and 3 hours for a 5-year resubmit.  The
calculations for the SOPEP/SMPEP reporting/recordkeeping elements are
found in Appendix D.

Form CG-6083:  The CG created form “Application for Approval/Revision
of Vessel Response Plans” (CG-6083) to provide for an easier and
clearer method to request a specific CG review on a VRP or SOPEP/SMPEP.
We estimate that approximately 50% of submissions voluntarily use this
form.  It takes approximately 10 minutes to complete form.  However, as
use of the form replaces the need to draft a letter explaining what
action is requested, there is no change in the VRP or SOPEP/SMPEP burden
related to the form.

Summary:  A summary of respondents, responses, hour and cost burden is
found in Appendix E.

13.  Total annualized capital and start-up costs.

There are no annualized capital and start-up costs associated with this
information collection.

14.  Estimates of annualized Federal Government costs.

FRP:  The CG estimates about 18 full time equivalents (FTE) are utilized
annually for this program to process, review, and approve FRPs.  This
includes the time incurred to conduct inspections, oversee drills, and
perform other tasks to implement the program.

VRP, NTVRP and SOPEP/SMPEP:  The CG estimates that to administer the
VRP, NTVRP and SOPEP/SMPEP program, the CG utilizes 3 FTE and a private
support contract for administrative and technical requirements.

PWS:  The CG estimates the cost to administer the PWS requirements is
about .2 FTE annually.

Summary:  The Federal government cost is $4,600,400.  A summary is found
in Appendix F.

15.  Explain the reasons for the change in burden.

The change in burden is an ADJUSTMENT.  The decrease in burden is
primarily due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of FRP
respondents.  The change is based on a new population screening criteria
to eliminate duplicative and inactive bulk liquid waterfront facilities.
 The increase in responses is primarily due to the inclusion of
responses related to the VRP Express Search Tool.  The search tool
feature allows the public to obtain VRP-related info via a webpage.  The
VRP Express Search Tool is new voluntary reporting element.  The
methodology for calculating burden remains unchanged.

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The CG will display the expiration date for OMB approval of this
information collection.

18.   Exception to the certification statement.

The CG does not request an exception to the certification of this
information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

  Assumed to be 2,000 hours per FTE for a Lieutenant (O-3) with wage
rates (in-gov’t) taken from COMDTINST 7310.1(series).

  Assumed to be 2,000 hours each for one Lieutenant Commander (O-4), one
GS-13 and  one E-6 with wage rates (in-gov’t) taken from COMDTINST
7310.1(series).

  Assumed to be 400 hours for a Lieutenant (O-3) assigned to the CG
Marine Safety Unit in Valdez with wage rates (in-gov’t) taken from
COMDTINST 7310.1(series).

1625-0066

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  6


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 76 (Monday, April 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 21874]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4493-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 1 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-4493-DR), dated March 27,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on April 7, 2020.

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 Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas Von
Essen, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Alexis Amparo as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(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.)

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-08220 Filed 4-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

AIR QUALITY PROGRAM

Subject:	Review Memo for BART Application			May 8, 2008

		Eastman Chemical Resins, Inc.

		P.O. Box 567

		West Elizabeth, PA 15088-0567

Operating Permit #: 95-0058

To:		James Thompson

		Acting Air Quality Program Manager

          		Allegheny County Health Department

From:		Tom Lattner, Air Pollution Control Engineer

Through:	Jayme Graham

		Supervisor Planning Section

		Air Quality Program

          		Allegheny County Health Department

		Sandra Etzel

		Chief Engineer

		Air Quality Program

          		Allegheny County Health Department

1.		Background:   Eastman Chemical Resins is a chemical process plant.   It had 75 units that were initially determined to be BART eligible.  The company decided to retire four of those units (four tanks) in order to reduce potential emissions to below 250 tpy for all eligible pollutants.

2.		Process Description:  The Source ID numbers of the BART eligible units at this facility are listed on the attached table.

3.		Regulatory Analysis:

Eastman Chemical Resins has sources at this facility which were originally constructed between 1962 and 1977.  To address the BART requirements, the company elected to retire four tanks.  Tanks 17, 18, 61 and 63 (corresponding to Sources S202, S202, S224 and S226) have been retired from service and the company has removed them from its Operating Permit Application.  To memorialize the company’s decision to retire these tanks, the Allegheny County Health Department issued an Order on April 24, 2008, stating that “Eastman shall immediately and permanently render volatile organic storage tanks 17, 18, 61 & 63 unusable for the storage of VOCs.”  (Even before this Order, the ACHD had conducted an inspection of the tanks in November, 2007, and found that one had large holes cut into it and the that the piping and instrumentation had been removed from the others, making it impossible for the tanks to be placed back into service without making major modifications.)  As a result, total emissions do not exceed 250 tpy for any of the eligible pollutants.  Thus the plant’s units are not subject to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements that are a part of the Regional Haze rules specified in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P Protection of Visibility.  Finally, were those units subject to the BART requirements, there currently is not adequate technology available to determine visibility impairment by individual sources of VOCs.

BART Analysis:  Not required.

cc:	Nancy Herb, PA DEP, Harrisburg

Eastman Chemicals (Tax I.D. 62-1837994)

Jefferson Site (Facility I.D. 00265)

	BART Category 21 - Chemical Process Plant

	Emissions data taken from Form K of the June 29, 2001 Operating Permit Application

Type of controls:

	Units within the 1962 - 1977 timeframe

Point	Process Unit	Emission Source	Installation Date	VOCs Potential

 To Emit

(lb/yr)	VOCs Actual (lb/yr)	PM10 Potential

To Emit (lb/yr)	PM10 Actual (lb/yr)	NOx Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	NOx Actual (lb/yr)	SO2 Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	SO2 Actual (lb/yr)

F029	WWPT	PRIMARY CLARIFIER	1976	400	400	*	*	*	*	*	*

F033	WWPT	702-A TANK	1977	3040	2533	*	*	*	*	*	*

F034	WWPT	702-B TANK	1977	3040	2533	*	*	*	*	*	*

F035	WWPT	702-C TANK	1977	3040	2533	*	*	*	*	*	*

F036	WWPT	SLUDGE BATCH TANKS	1976	200	170	*	*	*	*	*	*

F037	WWPT	SLUDGE BATCH TANKS	1976	200	170	*	*	*	*	*	*

S013	WW POLY	FEED DRYERS	1972	28400	24900	*	*	*	*	*	*

S014	WW POLY	WEST BLEND TANK	1972	5280	4620	*	*	*	*	*	*

S015	WW POLY	NORTH BLEND TANK	1978 (In exist Aug 7, 1977)	5280	4620	*	* *	*	*	*

S017	WW POLY	REACTORS	1972, 1978 (1972 unit applies)	6990	12260	*	*	*	* *	*

S018	WW POLY	NEUTRALIZER	1972	13980	8840	280	240	*	*	*	*

S020	WW POLY	FILTRATE RECEIVER	1972	5860	5140	*	*	*	*	*	*

S021	WW POLY	AUXILLARY REC	1972	4080	3580	*	*	*	*	*	*

S024	WW POLY	T-74,68,69 TANKS	1974, 1977, 1977	1720	1720	*	*	*	*	*	*

S025	WW POLY	T-73,75,76,77 TANKS	1972, 1972, 1973, 1973	7780	7780	*	*	* *	*	*

S026	WW POLY	T-67 TANKS	1977	760	760	*	*	*	*	*	*

S038	TANKS	262 TANK (C-5)	1977	80	 	*	*	*	*	*	*

S050	WW POLY	NEUTRALIZER EXHAUST	1972	13980	2960	*	*	*	*	*	*

S077	V8-UNIT	1ST STG VACUUM JET	1964	14740	11247	*	*	*	*	*	*

S078	V8-UNIT	2ND STG VACUUM JET	1964	14740	11247	*	*	*	*	*	*

Point	Process Unit	Emission Source	Installation Date	VOCs Potential

 To Emit

(lb/yr)	VOCs Actual (lb/yr)	PM10 Potential

To Emit (lb/yr)	PM10 Actual (lb/yr)	NOx Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	NOx Actual (lb/yr)	SO2 Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	SO2 Actual (lb/yr)

S079	V-8 UNIT	RK #2	1974	180	47	*	*	*	*	*	*

S080	V-8 UNIT	RK#3	1974	180	47	*	*	*	*	*	*

S081	V-8 UNIT	RK#4	1974	180	47	*	*	*	*	*	*

S087	V-8 UNIT	CB-FURNACE	1973	152	31	200	41	3990	822	24	5

S088	V-8 UNIT	H-8 FURNACE	1974	109	52	144	68	2880	1357	17	8

S093	V-8 UNIT	MIXPOT	1974	376	48	*	*	*	*	*	*

S094	V-8 UNIT	AGITATOR	1974	2258	289	*	*	*	*	*	*

S106	LTC 1 & 2	#CB-FURNACE	1975	152	74	200	98	3990	1956	24	12

S108	LTC 1 & 2	RECLAIM SOLUTION TANK	1975	8150	0	*	*	*	*	*	*

S109	LTC 1 & 2	#1 LTC VACUUM JET	1975	38507	36924	*	*	*	*	*	*

S111	LTC 1 & 2	RK #5	1975	5679	2275	*	*	*	*	*	*

S112	LTC 1 & 2	RK #6	1975	1636	693	*	*	*	*	*	*

S113	LTC 1 & 2	RK#7	1975	1636	693	*	*	*	*	*	*

S114 	LTC 1 & 2	#1 & #2 LTC SANDVIK FLAKERS	1976, 1981 (1976 unit applies)	3568	1594	*	*	*	*	*	*

S143	BOILER HOUSE	#3-#4 FW BOILER	1950/67	2989	494	7192	1720	72142	16687 309	52

S145	TANKS	21 TANK	1967	11428	 	*	*	*	*	*	*

S147	WWTP	701-A AND 701-B TANK	1976	780	780	*	*	*	*	*	*

S149	WWPT	LIME FLASH MIX TANK	1976	3480	2880	*	*	*	*	*	*

S173	TANKS	8-1-C TANK	1962	5576	405	*	*	*	*	*	*

S174	TANKS	8-1-D TANK	1964	5576	405	*	*	*	*	*	*

S175	TANKS	8-1-E TANK	1966	5576	405	*	*	*	*	*	*

S187	TANKS	R-1-A TANK	1978	9449	851	*	*	*	*	*	*

S188	TANKS	R-1-B TANK	1978	8761	783	*	*	*	*	*	*

S202	TANKS	17 TANK	1966	xxx	xxx	Retired	for 	BART	purposes	xxx	xxx

S203	TANKS	18 TANK	1966	xxx	xxx	Retired	for 	BART	purposes	xxx	xxx

S206	TANKS	22TANK	1971	8875	2483	*	*	*	*	*	*

S207	TANKS	23 TANK	1971	8848	1300	*	*	*	*	*	*

S208	TANKS	24 TANK	1971	11450	155	*	*	*	*	*	*

S209	TANKS	25 TANK	1971	13175	395	*	*	*	*	*	*

S210	TANKS	26 TANK	1970	3288	3288	*	*	*	*	*	*

Point	Process Unit	Emission Source	Installation Date	VOCs Potential

 To Emit

(lb/yr)	VOCs Actual (lb/yr)	PM10 Potential

To Emit (lb/yr)	PM10 Actual (lb/yr)	NOx Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	NOx Actual (lb/yr)	SO2 Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	SO2 Actual (lb/yr)

S211	TANKS	27 TANK	1970	3288	3288	*	*	*	*	*	*

S212	TANKS	28 TANK	1970	3288	3288	*	*	*	*	*	*

S213	TANKS	29 TANK	1970	3288	3288	*	*	*	*	*	*

S224	TANKS	61 TANK	1965	xxx	xxx	Retired	for 	BART	purposes	xxx	xxx

S226	TANKS	63 TANK	1971	xxx	xxx	Retired	for 	BART	purposes	xxx	xxx

S227	TANKS	65 TANK	1977	6596	482	*	*	*	*	*	*

S230	TANKS	71TANK	1972	33302	431	*	*	*	*	*	*

S231	TANKS	72 TANK	1973	22825	166	*	*	*	*	*	*

S232	TANKS	78 TANK	1973	35933	2835	*	*	*	*	*	*

S233	TANKS	83 TANK	1962	9546	0	*	*	*	*	*	*

S234	TANKS	126 TANK	1970	7528	592	*	*	*	*	*	*

S237	HYDROGENATION	T-160, T-161 TANKS	1963	3899	2078	*	*	*	*	*	*

S238	THERMAL POLY	T-162 TANK	1963	6116	2716	*	*	*	*	*	*

S242	TANKS	203 TANK	1971	10082	419	*	*	*	*	*	*

S252	TANKS	257 TANK	1969	2723	82	*	*	*	*	*	*

S255	TANKS	260 TANK (C-5)	1977	80	80	*	*	*	*	*	*

S257	TANKS	263 TANK (C-5)	1977	120	120	*	*	*	*	*	*

S258	TANKS	264 TANK	1977	3732	3732	*	*	*	*	*	*

S259	TANKS	265 TANK	1977	3732	3732	*	*	*	*	*	*

S261	TANKS	360 TANK	1966	2423	29	*	*	*	*	*	*

S262	TANKS	361 TANK	1966	2457	2	*	*	*	*	*	*

S263	TANKS	362 TANK	1966	8238	0	*	*	*	*	*	*

S264	TANKS	363 TANK	1966	11218	11218	*	*	*	*	*	*

S265	TANKS	364 TANK	1966	11218	11218	*	*	*	*	*	*

S299	WWPT	SUMPS/DAF	1976	580	580	*	*	*	*	*	*

	TOTAL lbs/yr	487816	215827	8016	2167	83002	20822	374	77

	TOTAL tons/yr	243.91	107.91	4.01	1.08	41.50	10.41	0.19	0.04

(PTE)	(Actual)	(PTE)	(Actual)	(PTE)	(Actual)	(PTE)	(Actual)

	* = Not on Form K

DATA FOR RETIRED UNITS

Point	Process Unit	Emission Source	Installation Date	VOCs Potential

 To Emit

(lb/yr)	VOCs Actual (lb/yr)	PM10 Potential

To Emit (lb/yr)	PM10 Actual (lb/yr)	NOx Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	NOx Actual (lb/yr)	SO2 Potential To Emit (lb/yr)	SO2 Actual (lb/yr)

S202	TANKS	17 TANK	1966	11174	721	*	*	*	*	*	*

S203	TANKS	18 TANK	1966	8337	681	*	*	*	*	*	*

S224	TANKS	61 TANK	1965	14132	2502	*	*	*	*	*	*

S226	TANKS	63 TANK	1971	2207	125	*	*	*	*	*	*


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11738]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04386]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-1994-P-0314 (Formerly Docket No. 94P-0168)]

Food Labeling: Serving Sizes; Reference Amount and Serving Size
Declaration for Hard Candies, Breath Mints

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is withdrawing a
proposed rule entitled ``Food Labeling; Serving Sizes; Reference Amount
and Serving Size Declaration for Hard Candies, Breath Mints'' that
published in the Federal Register of December 30, 1997 (62 FR 67775).
We are taking this action because we are issuing a proposed rule on the
serving sizes of foods in general that is published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: The proposed rule that published on December 30, 1997 (62 FR
67775), is withdrawn as of March 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Kantor, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 30, 1997, FDA published a
proposed rule entitled ``Food Labeling; Serving Sizes; Reference Amount
and Serving Size Declaration for Hard Candies, Breath Mints'' (the 1997
breath mints proposed rule). The 1997 breath mints proposed rule would
change the label serving size for the product category ``Hard candies,
breath mints'' so that the serving size for all breath mint products
would be one unit. The 1997 breath mints proposed rule was published,
in part, in response to a citizen petition (Docket No. FDA-1994-P-0314
(formerly Docket No. 94P-0168)) that requested a serving size for
breath mints that more accurately reflected the amount customarily
consumed per eating occasion. Specifically, the petition requested that
FDA create a separate product category with a 0.5-gram (g) reference
amount for small breath mints (weighing 0.5 g or less). The petition
concluded that the serving size for small breath mints should be ``1
mint.'' The 1997 breath mints proposed rule also would amend the
current rounding requirements for calories as described in 21 CFR
101.9(c)(1), which states that the caloric content per serving must be
expressed to the nearest 5-calorie increment up to and including 50
calories, and 10-calorie increment above 50 calories, except that
amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero. The 1997 breath
mints proposed rule would allow the declaration of calorie amounts of
less than 5 calories on the Nutrition Facts label, provided that the
number of calories declared on the Nutrition Facts label is consistent
with the number of calories declared in any claim about the amount of
calories made under 21 CFR 101.13(i).
    In the Federal Register of April 4, 2005 (70 FR 17010), we issued
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled ``Food
Labeling: Serving Sizes of Products That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At
One Eating Occasion; Updating of Reference Amounts Customarily
Consumed; Approaches for Recommending Smaller Portion Sizes.'' The
ANPRM requested comment on whether we should amend certain nutrition
labeling regulations concerning serving size.
    In response to the ANPRM, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, we are publishing a proposed rule that would, in part, amend
the serving size for breath mints.

II. Withdrawal of the 1997 Proposed Rule

    Because we are addressing issues related to the label serving size
for breath mints, in conjunction with other serving size issues, in a
proposed rule entitled, ``Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be
Consumed At One-Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating,
Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily
Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments,''
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we are
withdrawing the 1997 breath mints proposed rule.

    Dated: February 24, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-04386 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74545-74548]
[DOCID:fr08de08-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59021; File No. SR-ISE-2008-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Complex Orders

November 26, 2008.
    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 November 25, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its Rule 722 regarding Complex Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is as follows, with deletions in
[brackets] and additions in italics:
Rule 722. Complex Orders
    (a) Definitions. [Complex Orders Defined. A complex order is any
order for the same account as defined below:]
    (1) Complex Order. A complex order is any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a
particular investment strategy.
    [(1) Spread Order. A spread order is an order to buy a stated
number of option contracts and to sell the same number of option
contracts, of the same class of options.
    (2) Straddle Order. A straddle order is an order to buy (sell) a
number of call option contracts and the same number of put option
contracts on the same underlying security which contracts have the same
exercise price and expiration date (e.g., an order to buy two XYZ July
50 calls and to buy two XYZ July 50 puts).

    (3) Strangle Order. A strangle order is an order to buy (sell) a
number of call option contracts and the same number of put option
contracts in the same underlying security, which contracts have the
same expiration date (e.g., an order to buy two ABC June 40 calls and
to buy two ABC June 35 puts).
    (4) Combination Order. A combination order is an order involving a
number of call option contracts and the same number of put option
contracts in the same underlying security and representing the same
number of shares at option.
    (5) Combination orders with non-equity options legs. One or more
legs of a complex order may be to purchase or sell a stated number of
units of another security.
    (i) Stock-Option Order. A stock-option order is an order to buy or
sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security
convertible into the underlying stock (``convertible security'')
coupled with either (A) the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on
the opposite side of the market representing either the same number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security or the number of
units of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral
position; or (B) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and
call option contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration
date, and each representing the same number of units of stock, as and
on the opposite side of the market from, the stock or convertible
security portion of the order.]
    (2) Stock-Option Order. A stock-option order is an order to buy or
sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security
convertible into the underlying stock (``convertible security'')
coupled with the purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the
opposite side of the market representing either (A) the same number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the
number of units of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta
neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than 8 options
contracts per unit of trading of the underlying stock or convertible
security established for that series by the Clearing Corporation.
    (3)[(ii)] SSF-Option Order. A SSF-option order is an order to buy
or sell a stated number of units of a single stock future or a security
convertible into a single stock future (``convertible SSF'') coupled
with either (A) the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the
opposite side of the market representing either the same number of
units of stock underlying the single stock future or convertible SSF,
or the number of units of stock underlying the single stock future or
convertible SSF necessary to create a delta neutral position; or (B)
the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and call option
contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration date, and
each representing the same number of units of underlying stock, as and
on the opposite side of the market from, the stock underlying the
single stock future or convertible SSF portion of the order.
    [(6) Ratio Order. A spread, straddle or combination order may
consist of legs that have a different number of contracts, so long as
the number of contracts differs by a permissible ratio. For purposes of
this paragraph, a permissible ratio is any ratio that is equal to or
greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one
(3.00). For example, a one-to-two (.5) ratio, a two-to-three (.667)
ratio, or a two-to-one (2.0) ratio is permissible, whereas a one-to-
four (.25) ratio or a four-to-one (4.0) ratio is not.
    (7) Butterfly Spread Order. A butterfly spread order is an order
involving three series of either put or call options all having the
same underlying security and time of expiration and, based on the same
current underlying value, where the interval between the exercise price
of each series is equal, which orders are structured as either (i) a
``long butterfly spread'' in which two short options in the same series
offset by one long option with a higher exercise price and one long
option with a lower exercise price or (ii) a ``short butterfly spread''
in which two long options in the same series are offset by one short
option with a higher exercise price and one short option with a lower
exercise price.
    (8) Box Spread Order. A box spread order is an order involving (a)
a long call option and a short put option with the same exercise price,
coupled with (b) a long put option and a short call option with the
same exercise price; all of which have the same underlying security and
time of expiration.
    (9) Collar Order. A collar order is an order involving the sale of
a call option coupled with the purchase of a put option in equivalent
units of the same underlying security having a lower exercise price
than, and same expiration date as, the sold call option.]
    (b) No Change.
    (1) No Change.
    (2) Complex Order Priority. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule
713, a complex order, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule, may
be executed at a total credit or debit price with one other Member
without giving priority to bids or offers established in the
marketplace that are no better than the bids or offers comprising such
total credit or debit; provided, however, that if any of the bids or
offers established in the marketplace consist of a Public Customer
limit order, the price of at least one leg of the complex order must
trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer in
the marketplace by at least one minimum trading increment as defined in
Rule 710. Under the circumstances described above, [the option leg of]
if a stock-option order, as defined in subparagraph
(a)(2)[(a)(5)(i)(A)] of this Rule, or SSF-option order as defined in
subparagraph (a)(3)[(a)(5)(ii)(A)] of this Rule, has one option leg,
such option leg has priority over bids and offers established in the
marketplace by Non-Customer orders and market maker quotes that are no
better than the price of the options leg, but not over such bids and
offers established by Public Customer Orders. [The option legs of] If a
stock-option order as defined in subparagraph (a)(2)[(a)(5)(ii)(B)], or
SSF-option order as defined in subparagraph (a)(3)[(a)(5)(ii)(B)],
consisting of a combination order with stock or single stock futures,
as the case may be, has more than one option leg, such option legs may
be executed in accordance with the first sentence of this subparagraph
(b)(2).
    (3)-(4) No Change.
Supplementary Material to Rule 722
    .01 A bid or offer made as part of a stock-option order (as defined
in (a)(2)[(a)(5)(i)] above) or a SSF-option order (as defined in
(a)(3)[(a)(5)(ii)] above) is made and accepted subject to the following
conditions: (1) The order must disclose all legs of the order and must
identify the security (which in the case of a single stock future
requires sufficient identification to determine the market(s) on which
the single stock future trades) and the price at which the non-option
leg(s) of the order is to be filled; and (2) concurrent with the
execution of the options leg of the order, the initiating member and
each member that agrees to be a contra-party on the non-option leg(s)
of the order must either elect to have the stock leg(s) of a stock-
option order electronically communicated to a designated broker-dealer
for execution as provided in .02 below or take steps immediately to
transmit the non-option leg(s) to a non-Exchange market(s) for
execution. Failure to observe these requirements will be considered
conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a
violation of Rule 400.
    A trade representing the execution of the options leg of a stock-
option or SSF-

option order may be cancelled at the request of any member that is a
party to that trade only if market conditions in any of the non-
Exchange market(s) prevent the execution of the non-option leg(s) at
the price(s) agreed upon.
    .02 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

(a) Purpose
    ISE currently has rules governing the trading of ``complex
orders.'' Specifically, ISE Rule 722 contains definitions of complex
orders and specifies the standing of such orders on the ISE. They state
that the legs that comprise a complex order receive neither time-price
priority nor away market price protection. And similar to the rules of
the other options exchanges, our rules provide that the legs of a
complex order may not be executed at prices that are inferior to the
best prices available on the ISE.
    The Exchange now proposes to amend its Rule 722 regarding complex
orders. For many years, the options exchanges have recognized that
strategies involving more than one option series or more than one
instrument associated with an underlying security are different from
regular buy and sell orders for a single series, and order to achieve
such strategies should be defined separately. As the sophistication of
the industry has grown, so have the strategies, and the options
exchanges have regularly added new strategies to the list of defined
complex order types. The investing industry, however, creates new,
legitimate investment strategies that do not necessarily fit into one
of the narrow definitions for complex order types that the exchanges
presently use. These order types are often developed for a particular
strategy, specific to a particular issue. To attempt to define every
individual strategy, and file additional rules to memorialize them,
would be a time consuming and extremely onerous process, and would
serve only to confuse the investing public. As a result, bona fide
transactions to limit risk are not afforded the facility of execution
afforded more common complex orders.
    ISE Rule 722 currently defines at least nine specific complex
strategies. These are the most comprehensive lists of complex
strategies defined in a rule set, yet they do not cover all of the
possibilities of complex orders. To provide for greater flexibility in
the design and use of complex strategies, ISE proposes to eliminate
specific complex order types described in Rule 722, and adopt a generic
definition approved for use for exemption from Trade Through Liability
by the Options Linkage Authority as described in the ``Plan For The
Purpose Of Creating And Operating An Intermarket Option Linkage.'' The
Exchange believes adopting a generic definition of complex orders will
give investors more flexibility in creating strategies with greater
accuracy.
    In addition, the Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of
a Stock-Option Order in ISE Rule 722 to conform the Exchange's
definition to that of NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). Specifically,
under the proposed new definition, a stock-option order is an order to
buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a
security convertible into the underlying stock coupled with the
purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the opposite side of the
market representing either (A) the same number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of units of
the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but
in no case in a ratio greater than 8 options contracts per unit of
trading of the underlying stock or convertible security.
(b) Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(5) \3\ that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. ISE believes adopting a generic definition of for [sic]
complex orders and amending the definition of a stock-option order, as
proposed in the instant rule change, is appropriate in that complex
orders and stock-option orders are widely recognized and utilized by
market participants and are invaluable, both as an investment, and a
risk management, strategy. The proposed rule change will provide the
opportunity for a more efficient mechanism for carrying out these
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    This proposed rule change does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any
significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided 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 five business days prior to the date of filing the
proposed rule change as required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6).\4\ For the
foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule filing
qualifies for immediate effectiveness as a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment to ISE Rule 722 will allow the Exchange to
adopt a generic definition for complex orders and amend the definition
of stock-option orders to give market participants an ability to create
trading opportunities that may be more closely aligned with their
investment and/or risk management strategies. This proposed rule change
adopting a generic

definition for complex orders and amending the definition of stock-
option orders is identical to the equivalent definitional changes
adopted in a proposal previously submitted by NYSE Arca.\5\ For the
foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
non-controversial, does not raise any new, unique or substantive
issues, and is beneficial for competitive purposes and to promote a
free and open market for the benefit of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58174 (July 16,
2008), 73 FR 42640 (July 22, 2008) (Approving SR-NYSEArca-2008-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-2008-91 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-ISE-2008-91. 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 Commissions 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 on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2008-91 and should be submitted by December 29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28956 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P