[Federal Register: November 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 66008-66009]
[DOCID:fr26no07-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56814; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, and Amendment
No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the Quoting Requirements Applicable to the
Hybrid Opening System

November 19, 2007.
    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 July 25, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. On November 19, 2007, CBOE filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its rule pertaining to the Hybrid Opening
System (``HOSS'') as well as related rules pertaining to the
obligations of designated primary market-makers (``DPMs''), electronic
designated primary market-makers (``e-DPMs'') and lead market-makers
(``LMMs'') during opening rotations. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org
), and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its HOSS procedures contained in
CBOE Rule 6.2B. HOSS is the Exchange's automated system for initiating
trading at the beginning of each trading day. Previously, for each
option class approved for trading, HOSS had been programmed to open an
option series only if the DPM or LMM, as applicable, for the particular
option class submitted a quote that complies with the legal quote width
requirements of paragraph (b)(iv) to CBOE Rule 8.7, Obligations of
Market-Makers. The HOSS procedures were revised in 2005 and, currently,
HOSS is programmed to open an option series as long as any market
maker,\3\ not just the DPM or LMM, has submitted an opening quote that
complies with the legal width quote requirements of CBOE Rule
8.7(b)(iv).\4\ However, even though the procedures were changed to
permit HOSS to automatically open a series without a DPM's or LMM's
quote, DPMs (as well as e-DPMs) or LMMs still remain obligated under
CBOE rules to timely submit opening quotes.\5\ The proposed rule change
is designed to give some relief to DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs from this
opening quote requirement. Because HOSS is programmed to automatically
open based on any market-maker's quote, the Exchange does not believe
that DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs should be viewed as violating the opening
quote requirement when they inadvertently miss the opening simply
because another market-maker entered a quote before the DPM, e-DPM or
LMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This could include a quote from a DPM, e-DPM, LMM, Market-
Maker or Remote Market-Maker.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52234 (August 10,
2005), 70 FR 48214 (August 16, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-40). Other
factors must also be satisfied for HOSS to open an options series.
For example, the opening price for the series must be within an
acceptable range and the opening trade cannot create a market order
imbalance. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.2B(e)(ii)-(iii).
    \5\ Currently, DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs are required to enter
opening quotes in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.2B in 100% of the
series of each appointed class; whereas, other Market-Makers and
Remote Market-Makers are permitted, but not obligated, to enter
opening quotes in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.2B. See existing CBOE
Rules 6.2B, 8.15A, Lead Market-Makers in Hybrid Classes
(subparagraph (b)(iv) of this rule has been interpreted by the
Exchange to require an LMM to enter opening quotes in 100% of the
series of each appointed class), 8.85, DPM Obligations, 8.93, e-DPM
Obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to provide more flexibility to ensure that all options
series are opening in a fair and orderly manner, the Exchange is
proposing to modify the HOSS procedures and related opening quote
obligations of DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs to allow the parameters to be
configured so that an option series will open: (i) If at least one
market maker has submitted an opening quote (which is how HOSS
currently operates) or (ii) only if a DPM or LMM, as applicable, has
submitted an opening quote (which is how HOSS previously operated).
Determinations on the particular configuration would be made on a
class-by-class basis by the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee
and announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular. There will be
no set factors for making the determinations; it will simply be the
method the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee thinks would work
best to achieve a competitive, efficient and orderly opening in the
particular class. The appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee might
consider such things as trading in the underlying or related products,
trading in the option on competing exchanges, how effectively opens
have occurred in the past, liquidity and/or other factors. For example,
if the Exchange desires to increase liquidity in a particular class on
the open, the appropriate Exchange

Procedure Committee might determine to configure HOSS so that the DPM's
quote must be present to open in order to ensure that there is
sufficient liquidity available.
    The Exchange is also proposing that, in the event HOSS is
configured to open a series based on any market maker's quote, the DPM
and any e-DPMs appointed to the class or, as applicable, the LMMs
appointed to the class, would be obligated to ensure that a trading
rotation is initiated promptly following the opening of the underlying
security (or promptly after 8:30 a.m. (Central Time) in an index class)
in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.2B in 100% of the series of each
allocated class by entering opening quotes as necessary. In other
words, if another market maker has already entered an opening quote in
a particular series, it would not be necessary for the DPM and e-DPM,
or LMM, to enter an opening quote for HOSS to automatically open the
series. However, if no other market maker has entered an opening quote,
the DPM and e-DPM, or LMM, would be responsible for ensuring that an
opening quote is promptly entered so that HOSS can automatically open
the series. This obligation to ensure that an opening rotation is
conducted promptly in an allocated class by entering opening quotes
only as necessary will be in lieu of the existing obligation, which
requires DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs to enter opening quotes in 100% of the
series of each allocated class.\6\ When HOSS is programmed to
automatically open a series with any market maker's quote, the Exchange
does not believe it is necessary for the maintenance of fair and
orderly markets to always require DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs to enter
opening quotes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 5.
    \7\ Although not obligated, DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs would still be
permitted to enter opening quotes even if another market maker has
already entered an opening quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange states that, by allowing for more flexibility in the
manner in which HOSS is programmed to conduct an opening rotation, it
will enhance its ability to conduct fair and orderly openings. As such,
CBOE believes this proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)
of the Act \8\ in general and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, which requires that the rules of
a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-87 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-87. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-87 and should be
submitted on or before December 17, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22946 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 29199-29200]
[DOCID:fr19jn09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2618-020]

Domtar Maine Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

June 15, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 2618-020.
    c. Date Filed: March 19, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Domtar Maine Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: West Branch Project.
    f. Location: On Grand Lake Stream, a tributary of the St Croix
River in Penobscot, Washington and Hancock Counties, Maine.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Scott Beal, Domtar Maine Corporation, 144
Main Street, Baileyville, Maine 04694<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John Costello,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ferconline.asp) under the ``e-filing'' link. For a simpler method of
submitting text only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.''
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing West Branch Project includes two developments
(Sysladobsis and West Grand) comprising two dams and a dike. There are
no generating facilities located at the project.
    The Sysladobsis development includes the 250-foot-long by 9-foot-
high Sysladobsis Dam (the furthest upstream), an earth embankment
structure with a timber gate and fish facility. The dam impounds the
5,400-acre Sysladobsis Lake and discharges directly into the West Grand
development.
    The West Grand development includes the 487-foot-long West Grand
Dam which has a 105.9-foot-long gate structure with five waste gates. A
vertical slot design upstream fish passage facility is located adjacent
to the dam's waste gate No.1. The 23,500 acre

impounded waters are comprised of West Grand, Junior, Pocumcus, Pug,
Bottle, Norway, and Scraggly lakes.
    The approximately 535-foot-long by 15-foot-high Farm Cove Dike is
located approximately 3.5 miles west of the main outlet dam to West
Grand Lake. The dike comprises a 10-foot-wide by 30-foot-long fishway.
The dike has no gates or other flow controls; the only flow passing
capability is through the fishway.
    No new construction is proposed for the project.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14455 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:03 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: (Draft) Coke Model file "shell" for industry review

Hello again, Donna Lee.  Hope you're well.

Attached is the COETF's markup of the draft Coke Model file "shell" you sent us on October 15 for review.  Please note that:

 the markup does not include any information on facilities operated by Bluestone Coke or SunCoke, as neither is a member of the COETF; and,

 the markup includes two new tabs that the COETF added to provide information EPA requested - tabs 17 ("Method 303 Data") and 18 ("F Prime Data").

We are working diligently to complete the other action items from our October 29 meeting and will send them to you as soon as we can.

Please contact me if you have any questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< CokeOven_CategoryNonCategory_RTR_ModFile_20201111-COETF MARKUP 111220.xlsx >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 4:40 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: (Draft) Coke Model file "shell" for industry review

That's fine. Do you have any idea in regard to timing for the remaining action items from our meeting, below?

 Industry will provide an email regarding ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor pushing semi-volatile HAP (PAH, D/F) test discarded results to be passed along to the EPA test method expert for additional review.
 Industry will provide any additional facility information needed to calculate subpart L source emissions.
 Industry will provide background data and equations to support revised F prime modeling parameters.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 4:33 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: (Draft) Coke Model file "shell" for industry review

Hello again, Donna Lee.  Hope you're well.

I'm reaching out to report to you on where the COETF stands today on its review of the model "shell" file.

I'm sorry to report that, as of today, our review is still ongoing; and we will not be able to meet your deadline of today to comment.  That said, we do anticipate being able to send you our comments later this week, and hope you can accommodate us in this regard.

We appreciate your understanding in this regard, and hope this does not present a problem.  Please contact me if you have any questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Jay Cornelius<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Osborn<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Charles Jones'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brenna M Harden<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert B Sanch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Batten<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patrick Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: (Draft) Coke Model file "shell" for industry review
Importance: High

Hello all (hope I got everyone this time😀): Thank you again for your review comments on the emission factors and ICR data. While we are processing your comments, a good use of our time would be for you all to review the physical parameters in the model file, what we call the "shell" of the model file.
The modeling file is currently organized in four main tabs (model "shell" only, i.e., not including emissions yet):

   ·         Coke Category CCCCC  -  pushing, quench tower, combustion stack, HRSG main stack, HRSG bypass/waste stack, flares, and fugitive pushing
   ·         Coke Noncategory  Coke 63L -  charging, lids, offtakes, doors
   ·         Coke Noncategory Byproduct Chemical Plant
   ·         Coke Noncategory, Other  -  boilers and all other units available from 2014 HAP NEI
The physical parameters in the model shell include data such as stack heights (point and fugitive heights), diameters, latitude and longitude (to five decimal places, confirmed in Google Maps),* flowrate, temperature, and velocity that were reported in the Coke ICR Enclosure 1, obtained from the 2014 or the 2017 EIS,[1][1] or estimated (calculated from other stack parameters, e.g., velocity from stack diameter and flowrate), values from the 2003 RTR modeling report, values from 2001 BID, values from EPA's Stack Parameter Default database, or values from Coke Enclosure 2 test data (e.g., Temperature and Velocity) for facilities that did not participate in the ICR. The model shell includes battery physical dimensions of fugitive length, fugitive width, and fugitive height that have been updated with your comments on the emission factor data we received in the last few weeks.
* Stacks/point sources will have one (1) set of lat/long (control device exhaust and quench tower): Y_COORDINATE and X_COORDINATE. Fugitive 2-dimensional sources (all coke fugitives) will have 2 sets of lat/long for fugitive emissions originating from batteries for modeling purposes (mobile BP/HNR pushing; BP/HNR charging; pushing fugitives; and subpart L sources for door, lids, and offtakes):
 	FUGITIVE_2D_MIDPOINT1_Y_COORDINATE
      FUGITIVE_2D_MIDPOINT1_X_COORDINATE
      FUGITIVE_2D_MIDPOINT2_Y_COORDINATE
      FUGITIVE_2D_MIDPOINT2_X_COORDINATE
Please review this attached Excel file and provide your additions or corrections in the comment columns. You can expand the width of the comment columns as needed (we have made them narrow in attached file to make viewing easy).
Please provide your comments by Monday, November 9, 2020. While you and your company are reviewing the model shell, we will be incorporating your comments on the previous emission factor file and developing emission estimates for all emission points and all facilities. I also will send out this completed emissions file for industry review, which will likely be about same time we receive your comments on the model file.
Soon after we receive your comments on the complete emissions file and model file shell, we may want to have a conference call to discuss all the changes and final files.
The last step will be to copy the annual emissions from the emissions file into the model file and send the model for EPA QA review. A revised model file will be posted to the coke oven subpart CCCCC NESHAP web page simultaneous with start of preliminary risk modelling.
Thank you again for all your work on these files.

[2][1] Note, NEI 2017 is not complete at this time; the NEI 2014 has stack parameters that the NEI 2017 does not have right now, which were needed to populate the modeling file. However, we were able to obtain an advance copy of the 2017 Emission Inventory System (EIS), which will feed into the 2017 NEI. We used the most recent data, where available.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54786-54787]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22901]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0031; FRL-9933-85-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners
(40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0997.11, OMB
Control No. 2060-0079), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through September 30, 2015. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May
27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 13,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0031, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this
ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in
person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) and any changes, or
additions, to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
JJJ. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make an
initial notification, performance tests, and maintain records of the
initial and repeat performance test.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum dry cleaners.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 20 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Total estimated burden: 1,850 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $186,000 (per year), including $0 for
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: In addition, we have updated all
calculations using the latest labor rates, which results in an
adjustment increase in total labor costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-22901 Filed 9-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P