[Federal Register: November 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 65937-65938]
[DOCID:fr01no05-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-08610]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of SBC Communications
Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value, From Listing and
Registration on the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.

October 25, 2005.
    On September 22, 2005, SBC Communications Inc., a Delaware
corporation (``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common stock, $1.00 par value
(``Security''), from listing and registration on the Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors (``Board'') of the Issuer approved a
resolution on July 23, 2003 to, among other things, authorize certain
officers of the Issuer to list or delist any of the Issuer's securities
on or from any United States or foreign exchange, except to delist the
Security from the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''). The Issuer
stated that the following reasons factored into its decision to
withdraw the Security from CHX. First, the Issuer stated that the
Security only infrequently trades on CHX. Over the past 12 months,
shares of the Security traded on CHX represented 2% of the total shares
of the Security traded on all national exchanges. Substantially all of
the Security is traded on NYSE and in the over-the-counter market.
Second, the Issuer intends to continue listing the Security on NYSE.
The Security is registered under Section 12(b) of the Act,\3\ and the
Issuer is subject to the periodic and current reporting requirements
under Section 13 of the Act.\4\ Third, the continued listing of the
Security is costly and unjustified, in the Issuer's opinion, in light
of the limited trading volume of the Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with
applicable rules of CHX by complying with all applicable laws in the
State of Delaware, the state in which the Issuer is incorporated, and
by providing CHX with the required documents governing the withdrawal
of securities from listing and registration on CHX. The Issuer's
application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from
listing

on CHX and shall not affect its continued listing on NYSE of the
Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX''),\5\ or its obligation to be registered
under Section 12(b) of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On September 22, 2005, the Issuer filed an application with
the Commission to withdraw the Security from listing and
registration on PCX. Notice of such application will be published
separately.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 781(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before November 15, 2005, comment
on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of CHX, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
the File Number 1-08610 or;

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-08610. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6018 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Memorandum

Subject:		Meeting with Johnson Controls International (JCI)

Location:		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC

Date:			September 28, 2011

Participants:	 	Chuck French, EPA
			Nate Topham, EPA
			Colin Boswell, EPA
			Steve Silverman, EPA
			Bernie Hawkins, Nelson Mullins
			Michael Carr, JCI
			Keith McCoy, JCI
			Tim LaFond, JCI
			Gil Cubia, JCI
			Donna Lazzari, ERG
			Mike Burr, ERG

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with representatives of Johnson Controls  Battery Group, Inc. (JCI).  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed rule for the secondary lead smelting source category.  A brief summary of the key points that were discussed is outlined below.

   * JCI gave background information on the company and the existence of the Florence Recycling Center, which commenced construction  in Florence, SC prior to the proposed Subpart X revisions.  This included a discussion of JCI's collaboration with environmental groups during the planning phase for the facility.  JCI also described the types of emission controls that will be implemented at the facility.

   * JCI had comments and/or asked for clarification on specific aspects of the proposed rules.  These included:
         o JCI first stated their support for EPA's conclusions in the proposed rule regarding the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) technology.  JCI added that lack of technical feasibility provided additional grounds supporting EPA's conclusion.
         o JCI questioned the necessity of the proposed stack lead emissions limit and expressed concern about its appropriateness for all stacks, with a specific example of a battery breaker stack given.
         o JCI also expressed concern about the total hydrocarbon (THC) and dioxin and furan (D/F) emission limits proposed for rotary furnaces.  They stated that it would not be appropriate to derive a limit for rotary furnaces based on other furnace types.  They also stated  an important variable affecting emissions from a furnace was the operating environment of the furnace (i.e., temperature), in addition to  the types of material processed in the furnace.  JCI also questioned the rationale for establishing limits for THC and D/F in the proposed rule.
         o JCI expressed concern about EPA's proposal to require lead continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for any sources and encouraged EPA to forego the CEMS requirements until more information regarding cost and technical feasibility is available.
         o JCI recommended a more flexible approach regarding the fugitive emission work practices.  They stated that a complete menu of prescribed practices is not necessary, and that facilities should have the option to choose work practices that are effective at their specific facility.  JCI stated that necessary changes could be implemented in the source's standard operating procedures plan. Specific work practices that JCI pointed out as unnecessary were the roof washing requirement,  the requirement to measure both differential pressure and inflow velocity in the total enclosures and, to the extent EPA requires an inflow velocity, a requirement for a specific minimum velocity value (versus simply a demonstration of negative flow).
         o JCI reiterated that it was not waiving any of the other comments it submitted in writing to EPA on July 26, 2011.