SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( hereafter, this subpart is referred to as the " Generic MACT") were proposed on October 14, 1998, at 63 FR 55178 and promulgated on June 29, 1999, at 64 FR 34854. These regulations apply to hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emission sources in four categories including: Polycarbonates ( PC) Production, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers ( AMF) Production, Acetal Resins ( AR) Production and Hydrogen Fluoride ( HF) Production. This Information Collection Request ( ICR) addresses these four source categories. On November 2, 2001, the Agency promulgated wastewater provisions amendments to the Generic MACT applicable to wastewater streams for the PC, AMF, and AR production source categories. The HF production source category does not have wastewater streams. On June 7, 2002, the Agency made additional amendments as a direct ruling to the Generic MACT to clarify definitions and the recordkeeping provisions related to how readily accessible records should be maintained. This information is being collected to assure compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. The specific monitoring and recordkeeping requirements vary for each source category depending on the types of emissions control equipment and monitoring equipment used to comply with the Generic MACT standards for their category. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office. 2 Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an average of one affected facility at each plant site and that each plant site has only one respondent ( i. e., the owner/ operator of the plant site).

There are, approximately, ten respondents in four categories that are currently subject to the regulation, they are: 1) Polycarbonates ( PC) Production  four sources; 2) Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers ( AMF) Production  three sources; 3) Acetal Resins ( AR) Production  two sources; and 4) Hydrogen Fluoride ( HF) Production  one source. It is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request ( ICR) without any " Terms of Clearance."

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/ operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions from PC, AMF, AR and HF source categories cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data 3 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times. During the performance test a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the standard is being met. The performance test may be observed as well.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, to identify problems at the facility, to verify operation/ maintenance procedures, and for compliance determinations.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 70 FR 24020) on May 6, 2005. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations For this information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the 4 preparer of the active ICR, and used other resources to obtain the most recent data available. We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, the Air Facility System ( AFS), and websites covering PC, AMF, AR and HF source categories. We also consulted with the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer, the Program Integration Division, and one EPA regional office.

After reviewing our internal data sources and industry experts, we have determined that additional consultations with industry are inappropriate for this ICR renewal.

The standard was developed with the participation and/ or consultation with industry representatives. The Agency has performed additional reviews to determine additional burden reduction opportunities. The Agency currently collects the minimum amount of information necessary to ensure compliance with the standard.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance decreases.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards. EPA believes that the five year records retention requirement is consistent with the part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. Also, the retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years. If records were retained for less than five years, EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B 5  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are HAP emissions in four categories: Polycarbonates ( PC) Production, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers ( AMF) Production, Acetal Resins ( AR) Production and Hydrogen Fluoride ( HF) Production. The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for the respondents affected by the standards, which correspond to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) codes, are listed below for source category description.

Standard ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) SIC Codes NAICS Codes Polycarbonates ( PC) Production ( Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing) 2822 325212 Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers ( AMF) Production ( Manmade Organic Fibers, Except Cellulosic) 2824 325222 Acetal Resins ( AR) Production ( Plastic Materials, Synthetic and Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers) 2821 325211 Hydrogen Fluoride ( HF) Production ( Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified) 2819 325188 4( b) Information Requested None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that are recorded and/ or reported are required by NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal). 6 A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Standard Citation by Section Application for approval of construction/ reconstruction 63.5( d), 63.1110( a)

Notification of initial startup 63.1110( b)

Notification of initial applicability 63.09( b), 63.1110( a), and 63.1110( c)

Notification of compliance status 63.9( h), 63.1110( a), and 63.1110( d)

Notification of performance test and performance evaluation results 63.7( b), 63.9( e), 63.10( d)( 2), 63.1110( d), and 63.1110( a)

Rescheduled initial performance test 63.7( b)( 2)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system 63.9( g)

Physical or operational change 63.8( a)

Opacity or visible emissions 63.10( d)( 3)

Develop startup, shutdown, malfunction plan and periodic reports 63.10( d)( 5)( i), 63.1110( b), and 63.1111 Excess emissions and continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) performance reports 63.1110( a)

Reports Periodic reports ( Semiannual or according to the schedule for Title V) with information on excess emissions and on the implementation of leak detection and repair standard provisions 63.1110( e), 63.1108( a), and 63.1109 Startup, shutdown and malfunction reports 63.1110( a), and 63.1111( b)

A source must keep the following records: 7 Recordkeeping Maintain records of startup, shutdown, malfunctions periods when excess emissions have occurred during the reporting period 63.10( b)( 2) and 63.1109( a)

Maintain records of performance test and performance evaluation results 63.1109( a)

Maintain records of all reports and notifications 63.10( b) and 63.1109( a)

Maintain record of applicability 63.10( b)( 3) and 63.1109( d)

Maintain records of initial and compliance status notifications 63.9( h), 63.1109( d)

Records of CPMS operation adjustments, calibration checks, and maintenance 63.10( b)( 2)( vii) and 63.1109( a)

Records of implementation of leak detection and repair ( LDAR) standards provision 63.1107 Records are required to be retained for five years 63.10( b)( 2)

Electronic Reporting Currently, respondents are using monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data. Although personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at the plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents, continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used. At this time, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Conduct control device performance tests.

Conduct a performance evaluation of the CPMS.

Inspect and monitor closed vent system. 8 Respondent Activities Monitor control devices.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem 9 identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA headquarters and EPA regional offices. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/ operator for five years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the respondents are large entities ( i. e., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden 10 The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 4,004 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial $ 97.46 ($ 46.41 + 110%) Technical $ 83.71 ($ 39.86 + 110%) Clerical $ 42.55 ($ 20.26 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry cost associated with the information collection activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startu p Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startup Cost, ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent 1 ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M, ( E X F)

PC ( use of noncontractor $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 144.55 2 $ 289.10 PC ( use of contractor) 2 $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 53,128.85 2 $ 106,257.70 11 Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs AMF $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 144.55 3 $ 433.65 AR $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 144.55 2 $ 289.10 HF $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 144.55 1 $ 144.55 Total $ 0 $ 107,414.10 Total rounded $ 107,414.00 1 We have assumed that each source will respond 5 times per year to comply with the rule at a total cost of $ 144.55 per source to cover O& M costs. This estimate is based on the assumption that it takes 0.5 hours to conduct these tasks at a clerical labor rate of $ 42.55 per hour for a total labor cost of $ 21.28 per response. First class postage is estimated at $ 7.63 per response. Thus, the total storage, filing, photocopying, and postage cost per response is $ 28.91.

2 Based on information we obtained, we have determined that two PC sources out of a total of four sources will use contractor support for CPMS O& M, at a total cost of approximately $ 53,000 per source.

The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are zero. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 107,414. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 107,414. This cost is shown ( rounded) on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 2,797, for 69 hours.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows: 12 Managerial $ 56.02 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6) Technical $ 41.57 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) Clerical $ 22.50 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2005 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden  NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal).

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three years, approximately 10 existing respondents will be subject to the standard. It is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject to the standard. The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the table below is 10 per year ( see table below).

The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents 1 ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 0 10 0 0 10 2 0 10 0 0 10 3 0 10 0 0 10 Average 0 10 0 0 10 . To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 10. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table: 13 Total Annual Responses ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B)

Number of Respondents ( C)

Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D Initial requirements for PC Production 0 1 N/ A 0 Initial requirements for AMF Production 0 1 N/ A 0 Initial requirements for AR Production 0 1 N/ A 0 Initial requirements for HF Production 0 1 N/ A 0 SSM reports for PC Production 4 1 N/ A 4 SSM reports for AMF Production 3 1 N/ A 3 SSM reports for AR Production 2 1 N/ A 2 SSM reports for HF Production 1 1 N/ A 1 Periodic reports for PC Production 4 2 N/ A 8 Periodic reports for AMF Production 3 2 N/ A 6 Periodic reports for AR Production 2 2 N/ A 4 Periodic reports for HF Production 1 2 N/ A 2 LDAR reports for PC Production 0 2 N/ A 0 LDAR reports for AMF Production 0 2 N/ A 0 LDAR reports for AR Production 0 2 N/ A 0 LDAR reports for HF Production 0 2 N/ A 0 Total 30 The number of Total Annual Responses is 30. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 331,146 for 4,004 hours. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal).

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables Details of the bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below. 14 ( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 331,146. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal). Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 133 hours per response.

The total annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 107,414. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is estimated to be 69 labor hours at a cost of $ 2,797. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal).

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden There is no change in the number of respondents identified in the active ICR; however, there is a decrease of 73 hours in the estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This was due to calculation errors in the active ICR.

There is an increase in the labor costs associated with this ICR, which is due to the fact that we use the updated hourly wage rate which is provided by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics.

Because there are no new sources with reporting requirements, no capital/ startup costs are incurred. The cost that is incurred is for the operation and maintenance ( O& M) associated with this ICR, as compared with the active ICR currently identified in the OMB inventory.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 133 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying 15 information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; to train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burdens, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2005 0030, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2005 0030 and the OMB Control Number 2060 0420 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 16 Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal)

Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions c Polycarbonated ( PC) Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers ( AMF) Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Acetal Resins ( AR) Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Hydrogen Fluoride ( HF) Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 B. Required Activities for PC, AMF, AR, & HF c Included in 4C C. Create Information for PC, AMF, AR, & HF c Included in 4 C D. Gather existing information for PC, AMF, AR & HF c Included in 4C E. Write report i Initial requirements: notifications, initial compliance determination, performance tests c PC Production 52 1 52 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 52 1 52 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 52 1 52 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 52 1 52 0 0 0 0 $ 0 17 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b ii Startup, Shutdown malfunction reports d PC Production 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 $ 742.70 AMF Production 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 $ 557.03 AR Production 2 1 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 HF Production 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 $ 185.68 iii Periodic reports e PC Production 8 2 16 4 64 3.2 6.4 $ 5,941.63 AMF Production 8 2 16 3 48 2.4 4.8 $ 4,456.22 AR Production 8 2 16 2 32 1.6 3.2 $ 2,970.82 HF Production 8 2 16 1 16 0.8 1.6 $ 1,485.41 iv Leak detection and repair ( LDAR) reports c, f PC Production 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 8 2 18 0 0 0 0 $ 0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements a A. Read Instructions for c 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 PC Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 18 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b HF Production 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 B. Plan Activities for c 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 PC Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 C. Implement Activities a i Material determinations c PC Production N/ A AMF Production N/ A AR Production N/ A HF Production N/ A ii Control equipment inspection a. Tanks PC Production N/ A AMF Production 2 12 24 3 72 3.6 7.2 $ 6,684.34 AR Production 2 12 24 2 48 2.4 4.8 $ 4,456.22 HF Production N/ A b. Closed vent system PC Production 2 2 4 2 8 0.4 0.8 $ 742.70 19 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b AMF Production 2 2 4 3 12 0.6 1.2 $ 1,094.56 AR Production 2 2 4 2 8 0.4 0.8 $ 742.70 HF Production 2 2 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 iii Control equipment leak monitoring a. Cover vented to control device PC Production 1 2 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 AMF Production 1 2 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 $ 547.28 AR Production 1 2 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 HF Production 1 2 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 $ 185.68 b. Closed vent system PC Production 1 2 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 AMF Production 1 2 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 $ 547.28 AR Production 1 2 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 HF Production 1 2 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 $ 185.68 iv. Control devices a. Initial requirements design analysis, performance c Test PC Production 80 1 80 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 80 1 80 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 80 1 80 0 0 0 0 $ 0 20 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b HF Production 80 1 80 0 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Operate and maintain CMS PC Production 8 12 96 2 192 9.6 19.2 $ 17,824.90 AMF Production 8 12 96 3 288 14.4 28.8 $ 26,737.34 AR Production 8 12 96 2 192 9.6 19.2 $ 17,824.90 HF Production 8 12 96 1 96 4.8 9.6 $ 8,912.45 v. LDAR Program a. Initial requirement: Identify all effected streams c PC Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Perform monitoring/ repairs PC Production 1) In house g 0.1 1,092 192 2 384 19.2 38.4 $ 35,649.79 2) Use of contractor support h 2 $ 8,000.00 AMF Production 16 12 192 3 576 28.8 57.6 $ 53,474.69 AR Production 16 12 192 2 384 19.2 38.4 $ 35,649.79 HF Production g 0.1 1,092 192 1 192 9.6 19.2 $ 17,824.90 vi. Container vapor tightness certification 21 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b PC Production N/ A AMF Production N/ A AR Production N/ A HF Production N/ A D. Develop Record System i. Develop startup, shutdown, malfunction plan c PC Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ii. Control equipment c PC Production 16 1 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 16 1 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 16 1 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 16 1 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 iii. LDAR Program c PC Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 22 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b E. Record Information ( all information required by standard)

i. Initial requirements: cover design, control device c design, and control equipment testing PC Production 17 1 17 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AMF Production 17 1 17 0 0 0 0 $ 0 AR Production 17 1 17 0 0 0 0 $ 0 HF Production 17 1 17 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ii. Control equipment inspection PC Production 1 2 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 AMF Production 1 2 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 $ 557.03 AR Production 1 2 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 HF Production 1 2 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 $ 185.68 iii. Control equipment monitoring i PC Production 1 52 52 2 104 5.2 10.4 $ 9,655.15 AMF Production 1 52 52 3 156 7.8 15.6 $ 14,482.73 AR Production 1 52 52 2 104 5.2 10.4 $ 9,655.15 HF Production 1 52 52 1 52 2.6 5.2 $ 4,827.58 iv. Control device CMS PC Production 1 12 12 2 24 1.2 2.4 $ 2,228.11 AMF Production 1 12 12 3 36 1.8 3.6 $ 3,342.17 23 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b AR Production 1 12 12 2 24 1.2 2.4 $ 2,228.11 HF Production 1 12 12 1 12 0.6 1.2 $ 1,114.06 v. LDAR program PC Production g 0.02 1,092 21.84 2 43.7 2.19 4.37 $ 4,057.51 AMF Production 2 12 24 3 72 3.6 7.2 $ 6,684.34 AR Production 2 12 24 2 48 2.4 4.8 $ 4,456.22 HF Production g 0.02 1,092 21.84 1 21.8 1.09 2.18 $ 2,023.87 F. Time to Train Personnel i. Material determination methods PC Production N/ A AMF Production N/ A AR Production N/ A HF Production N/ A ii. Control equipment inspection and monitoring j PC Production 8 1 8 4 32 1.6 3.2 $ 2,939.98 AMF Prduction 8 1 8 3 24 1.2 2.4 $ 2,228.11 AR Production 8 1 8 2 16 0.8 1.6 $ 1,485.41 HF Production 8 1 8 1 8 0.4 0.8 $ 742.70 iii. LDAR program f, j PC Production 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 $ 742.70 24 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year b AMF Production 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 $ 557.03 AR Production 2 1 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 371.35 HF Production 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 $ 185.68 iv. Container leak tight method PC Production N/ A AMF Production N/ A AR Production N/ A HF Production N/ A Subtotal Labor Burden 3481.5 174.08 348.15 $ 331,146.16 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( rounded) 4,004 $ 331,146 Assumptions:

a We have assumed that there are 10 existing sources, and that no additional new sources will become subject to the rule over the next three years. It is also assumed that affected facility owners and operators have already complied with the initial requirements including the instalation of any required equipment. In addition, we have assumed that two sources under this category will hire contractors to comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of the rule while reports are developed by the source personnel.

b This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 97.46 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 83.71 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 42.55 per hour for Clerical labor.

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c We have assumed that there will be no new sources over the next three years of this ICR. We have also assumed that all existing sources have already complied with this one time activity.

d All major sources must submit startup, shutdown, malfunction reports semiannually when actions are taken in the event of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the source's SSM plans. Sources can submit this information with the periodic reports.

e The rules requires that all sources submit periodic reports ( semiannually or according to the schedule for Title V).

f The standards for equipment leak requires the submittal of an initial report and semiannual reports of leak detection and repair ( LDAR) and any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and initiation of a quality improvement program. We have assumed that sources are submitting the required LDAR information with the periodic reports.

g Visual inspections are required once per shift with a total of three shifts per day, at seven days per week, for 52 weeks per year. ( 3x7x52) for a total of 1,092 inspections per year.

h We have determined that, based on the industry representative in the PC category, the two sources' use of contractor support to complete the LDAR related monitoring will cost an 25 estimated $ 8,000.

i We have assumed that control equipment monitoring should be done on a weekly basis.

j We have assumed that there will be some labor hours associated with rule analysis and training per year.

Table 2: Average Annual Agency Burden and Cost NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal)

Burden item ( A) Technical Person Hours Per Occurrenc e ( B) Number of Occurrence s Per Year ( C) Technical Person Hours Per Plant Per Year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants Per Year a ( E) Technical Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management Hours Per Year ( F= 0.05xE) ( G) Clerical Hours Per Year ( G= 0.1xE) ( H) Total Cost,

Per Yearb Review Reports 1. Initial requirements a. Initial notification c 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Performance test c, d 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 c. Compliance status c 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 d. Performance test reports c, d 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 2. Periodic requirements a. Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports e 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Periodic reports e 3 2 6 10 60 3 6 $ 2,797.26 c. Leak detection and repair ( LDAR) reports f 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Subtotals Labor Burden and Cost 60 3 6 $ 2,797.26 26 Burden item ( A) Technical Person Hours Per Occurrenc e ( B) Number of Occurrence s Per Year ( C) Technical Person Hours Per Plant Per Year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants Per Year a ( E) Technical Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management Hours Per Year ( F= 0.05xE) ( G) Clerical Hours Per Year ( G= 0.1xE) ( H) Total Cost,

Per Yearb TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( rounded) 69 $ 2,797 Assumptions:

a We have assumed that there are 10 existing sources, and that no additional new sources will become subject to the rule over the next three years.

b This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: $ 56.02 for Managerial ( GS 13,

Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6), $ 41.57 for Technical ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) and $ 22.50 Clerical ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6). These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2005 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

c We have assumed that there will be no new sources over the next three years of this ICR, We have also assumed that all existing sources have already complied with this one time activity.

d We have assumed that the Agency will not have additional burden from sources conducting performance tests due to a process change that may or may not result in the source meeting additional requirements.

e We have assumed that all sources have already developed a startup, shutdown and malfunction ( SSM) plan. We have further assumed that sources are submitting their information on SSM with the periodic report which is submitted on a semiannual basis.

f The equipment leak standards require the submittal of an initial report and semiannual report of leak detection and repair ( LDAR) program experiencing any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and initiation of a quality improvement program. We have assumed that sources are submitting the required LDAR information with the periodic reports.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19034-19037]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07182]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69213; File No. SR-NSX-2013-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee and Rebate Schedule

March 22, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act '' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on March 13, 2013, National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``NSX[supreg]'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comment 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 Exchange is proposing to amend its Fee and Rebate Schedule (the
``Fee Schedule'') issued pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(a) to provide
Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') \3\ Holders the choice between two
pricing options which can be applied to their use of the Exchange's
Order Delivery mode (``Order Delivery Mode'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Rule 1.5 defines the term ``ETP'' as an Equity
Trading Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved
securities transactions on the Exchange's Trading Facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.nsx.com, at the Exchange's principal office, 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 parts 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 Fee Schedule to provide ETP
Holders the choice between two pricing options which can be applied to
their use of the Exchange's Order Delivery Mode. As explained in more
detail below, the Exchange proposes to allow Order Delivery
participants (``Order Delivery Participants'') the choice between two
pricing options, ``A'' and ``B'' under Section II of the Fee Schedule
for their use of Order Delivery Mode. ``Pricing Option A'' would
consist of the Exchange's current fee structure for Order Delivery
Mode, which is comprised of transaction-based rebates, an Order Deliver
Notification Fee, and a Quotation Update Fee. Under ``Pricing Option
B,'' Order Delivery Participants would not be subject to either the
Order Delivery Notification Fee or Quotation Update Fee; however, they
will not be eligible to receive any transaction-based rebates or market
data rebates (``MDR'') under Section II of the Fee Schedule. Under both
pricing options, new Order Delivery Participants would continue to be
subject to the one-time $5,000 onboarding fee.
    ETP Holders are to elect Pricing Option A or B by sending an email
indicating their preference to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>prior to the first
trading day of the calendar month. New Order Delivery Participants must
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>prior to the end of the first month they
commence trading.
Pricing Option A
    Currently, under Section II of the Fee Schedule, Order Delivery
Participants are eligible to receive two rebates for transaction s
executed in securities priced above $1.00: (i) a $0.0030 per share
rebate; and (2) a 50% MDR.\4\ ETP Holders using Order Delivery Mode are
also subject to two fixed fees: (1) an Order Delivery Notification Fee
of $0.35 per Order Delivery Notification,\5\ which is capped at 1.5
million Order Delivery Notifications per month; and (2) a Quotation
Update Fee for each quotation update \6\ transmitted to the Exchange by
the ETP Holder using Order Delivery Mode. The Quotation Update Fee is:
(1) $0.000467 per quotation update for existing Order Delivery
Participants; and (ii) $0.000667 per quotation update for new Order
Delivery Participants during the first three (3) months of
participation. The Quotation Update Fee is capped to the first 150
million quotation updates entered by each Order Delivery Participant
per month. Order Delivery Participants that select Pricing Option A
would continue to receive the $0.0030 per share rebate and a 50% MDR
for transactions executed in securities priced at $1.00 or above and be
charged both the Order Delivery Notification Fee and Quotation Update
Fee. Revenue obtained from the Quotation Update Fee will continue to be
earmarked to support the regulatory oversight of Order Delivery Mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange does not provide ETP Holders with a rebate for
transactions executed using Order Delivery Mode for securities
quoted at prices less than $1.00. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68391 (December 10, 2012), 77 FR 74536 (December 14,
2012) (SR-NSX-2012-25).
    \5\ An Order Delivery Notification refers to a message sent by
the Exchange to the Order Delivery participant communicating the
details of the full or partial quantity of an inbound contra-side
order that potentially may be matched within the System for
execution against an Order Delivery Order.
    \6\ A ``quotation update'' includes any change to the price,
size or side of a quotation or submission of an updated quote with
the same price, size or side. A quotation update does not include
posting of a new quote to replace a quote that was fully executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, under Pricing Option A, the Exchange proposes to include
the word ``Transaction'' in the title of the rebate to clearly
distinguish the transaction-based rebate from the MDR rebate.
Pricing Option B
    Under proposed Pricing Option B, Order Delivery Participants would
not be subject to either the Order Delivery Notification Fee or
Quotation Update Fee; however, they will also not be eligible to
receive the $0.0030 per share rebate and a 50% MDR for all transactions
executed by Order Delivery Participants in securities priced at $1.00
or above. Not providing transaction-based and MDR rebates is designed
to allow the Exchange to recoup the expense of supporting the
regulatory oversight of Order Delivery Mode as well as the development
and ongoing operational costs that are otherwise covered by the Order
Delivery Notification Fee and Quotation Update Fee.
Rationale and Background
    The Exchange's Order Delivery Mode provides Electronic
Communication Networks (``ECNs'') with an electronic trading platform
to interact with the National Market System. Order Delivery Mode
provides ECNs with the ability to (i) publish quotations into the
consolidated quotation system, (ii) receive ``protected quotation''
status under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS,\7\ (iii) receive an Order
Delivery Notification when there is a potential match against a
published quotation, and (iv) distribute attributed quotations through
the Exchange's Depth-of-Book market data product.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 611.
    \8\ ECNs can also use Order Delivery Mode to fulfill certain
regulatory obligations such as qualifying as an ECN Display
Alternative (17 CFR 242.602(b)(5)(i)) or publishing quotations in
the consolidated quotation system when the five (5) percent order
display requirement is triggered (17 CFR 242.301(b)(3)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange amended its Fee Schedule on November 2, 2012 to adopt
the Quotation Update Fee \9\ and on December 3, 2012 to adopt the Order
Delivery Notification Fee for Order Delivery Participants.\10\ When
adopting the Order Delivery Notification Fee, the Exchange also
increased the rebate to its current level at $0.0030 per share for
securities quoted at a price of $1.00 or greater, and provided Order
Delivery Participants with 50% of the attributable MDR received by the
Exchange as a means to increase the liquidity posted to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68215 (November 13,
2012), 77 FR 69522 (November 19, 2012) (SR-NSX-2012-20) (adopting
the Quotation Update Fee). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 68392 (December 10, 2012), 77 FR 74533 (December 14, 2012) (SR-
NSX-2012-24) (amending the Quotation Update Fee).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68391 (December 10,
2012), 77 FR 74536 (December 14, 2012) (SR-NSX-2012-25) (adopting
the Order Delivery Notification Fee); see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 68612 (January 9, 2013), 78 FR 3058 (January 15,
2013) (SR-NSX-2012-27) (amending the Order Delivery Notification
Fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Order Delivery Notification is designed to recover Order
Delivery Mode's development and ongoing operational costs, while all
revenue raised through the Quotation Update Fee is earmarked to support
its regulatory oversight. At the time it adopted these fees, the
Exchange experienced a disproportionate trade-to-quote ratio in Order
Delivery Mode which resulted from ECNs successfully leveraging the
Exchange's infrastructure to develop their businesses away from the
Exchange, even as the majority of the Exchange's operational costs were
fixed. Consequently, the Exchange believed that relying on transaction-

based revenues to support Order Delivery Mode was not feasible and
moved to the current pricing structure as a means to charge for the
actual services provided by Order Delivery Mode.
    The Exchange has continued to reassess its Fee Schedule for Order
Delivery Mode and considered adjusting its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Also, since the adoption of the Order
Delivery Notification Fee and Quotation Update Fee, certain Order
Delivery Participants have altered their activity in Order Delivery
Mode in order to minimize the amount of fees paid to the Exchange.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to allow Order Delivery Participants
the choice between two pricing options, ``A'' and ``B'' under Section
II of the Fee Schedule for their use of Order Delivery Mode.
    The Exchange believes the availability of Pricing Option B would
allow Order Delivery Participants with lower trading volumes and lower
rebate or fee driven models to increase their activity on the Exchange.
By not providing transaction-based and MDR rebates, the Exchange
believes it will recoup the expense of supporting its regulatory
programs and operation. Specifically, under Section I of the Fee
Schedule, the Exchange currently charges ETP Holders that enter orders
via the Exchange's automatic execution mode of interaction (``Auto-Ex
Mode'') \11\ a per share fee for orders that remove liquidity. The
Exchange, in turn, shares that fee in the form of a rebate with the ETP
Holder that posted the contra-side order to the NSX Book (including
those that execute against an order posted via Order Delivery Mode).
Where an Order Delivery Participant elected Pricing Option B, the
Exchange will retain the entire fee it collected under Section I of the
Fee Schedule and not rebate a portion of it to the Order Delivery
Participant. The Exchange will also retain all the attributable MDR
received on that transaction. The Exchange believes the retention of
these fees and MDR will continue to allow it to recoup the cost of
regulating, operating and maintaining Order Delivery Mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Under Auto-Ex Mode, the Exchange matches and executes like-
priced orders (including against Order Delivery orders resting on
the NSX book). Auto-Ex orders resting in the NSX book execute
immediately when matched against a marketable incoming contra-side
Auto-Ex order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange anticipates the availability of Pricing Option B will
encourage ETP Holders considering whether to offer a ``lit'' ECN to
participate in Order Delivery Mode while encouraging existing Order
Delivery Participants to increase their execution rates on the Exchange
by not being subject to the Order Delivery Notification Fee and
Quotation Update Fee. The Exchange will continue to earmark the fees
and MDR it collects from executions against orders posted via Order
Delivery Mode to support the regulatory oversight of Order Delivery
Mode.
    The Exchange anticipates that Order Delivery Participants with
higher trading volumes or rebate driven business models would continue
to operate under the current pricing structure, which is available
under Pricing Option A, because they are able to exceed the cap limits
of both the Order Delivery Notification and Quotation Update Fee.
Revenue obtained from the Quotation Update Fee will also continue to be
earmarked to support the regulatory oversight of Order Delivery Mode.
Operative Date and Notice
    The Exchange will make the proposed modifications, which are
effective on filing of this proposed rule, operative as of commencement
of trading on March 15, 2013. Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(c), the
Exchange will ``provide ETP Holders with notice of all relevant dues,
fees, assessments and charges of the Exchange'' through the issuance of
an Information Circular of the changes to the Fee Schedule and will
post a copy of the rule filing on the Exchange's Web site
(www.nsx.com).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the amended Order Delivery Notification
Fee for Order Delivery participants is consistent with the provisions
of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in particular, because it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its ETP Holders and other persons using the facilities of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes providing Order Delivery Participants the
choice between two pricing options is reasonable and will allow Order
Delivery Participants to select a pricing structure that is appropriate
to its business model. For example, the Exchange believes Pricing
Option B will encourage ETP Holders, considering whether to offer a
``lit'' ECN, to participate in Order Delivery Mode while also
encouraging existing Order Delivery Participants to increase their
execution rates on the Exchange by not being subject to the Order
Delivery Notification and Quotation Update Fees. The Exchange will
continue to earmark the fees and MDR it collects from transactions
against orders posted via Order Delivery Mode to support the regulatory
oversight of Order Delivery Mode as well as its development and ongoing
operational expenses. The Exchange also anticipates that Order Delivery
Participants with higher trading volumes or high rebate business models
would continue to operate under the current pricing structure, which is
available under Pricing Option A, because they are able to exceed the
cap for both the Order Delivery Notification and Quotation Update Fee
or due to their rebate sensitive business model. Once they exceed these
caps, these Order Delivery Participants will share in the transaction
and MDR rebates without being subject to the Order Delivery
Notification and Quotation Update Fees. Furthermore, the Exchange
believes providing the choice between two pricing options is not
unfairly discriminatory because it will allow Order Delivery
Participants to select a pricing structure that is appropriate to its
business model.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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. The Exchange believes
providing Order Delivery Participants the choice between two pricing
options is reasonable because it will allow Order Delivery Participants
to select a pricing structure that is appropriate to its business
model. The Exchange anticipates the availability of Pricing Option B
will enhance competition by encouraging ETP Holders who are considering
whether to offer a ``lit'' ECN to participate in Order Delivery Mode
while encouraging existing Order Delivery Participants to increase
their execution rates on the Exchange by not being subject to the Order
Delivery and

Quotation Update fees. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe the
modified Order Delivery Notification Fee imposes any burden on
completion that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance 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 neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \14\ and subparagraph
(f)(2) of Rule 19b-4.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of
such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2013-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2013-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices 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-NSX-2013-11, and should be submitted on or before April
18, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07182 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer and to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many, if not all, of these issues, but the time I to devote to my researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, which is not unlike many other ex-smokers, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past to do so. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your time and consideration of my request and am more than happy to discuss the matter with you further.

Sincerely, Frederick G.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52070-52071]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21209]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75748; File No. SR-CFE-2015-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice
of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Reportable Position and Ownership and
Control Reporting Clarifications

August 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on August 14, 2015 CBOE
Futures Exchange, LLC (``CFE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by CFE. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons. CFE also has filed this proposed rule change with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''). CFE filed a written
certification with the CFTC under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity
Exchange Act (``CEA'') \2\ on August 14, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend CFE rules to clarify the application
of CFE requirements relating to reportable positions and ownership and
control reports. The scope of this filing is limited solely to the
application of the rule amendments to security futures traded on CFE.
The only security futures that have been traded on CFE were traded
under Chapter 16 of CFE's Rulebook which is applicable to Individual
Stock Based and Exchange-Traded Fund Based Volatility Index security
futures. CFE does not currently list any security futures for trading.
The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to the
filing but is not attached to the publication of this notice.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CFE 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. CFE 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
    CFE submitted CFE Rule Certification Submission Number CFE-2015-003
(``CFE-2015-003'') to the CFTC and CFE Rule Filing Number SR-CFE-2015-
001 (``SR-CFE-2015-001'') \3\ to the Commission on January 28, 2015
(collectively, the ``Prior Filings'') to amend CFE Rule 412B (Ownership
and Control Reports) to require CFE Trading Privilege Holders
(``TPHs'') and non-TPHs to concurrently file with the Exchange
submissions relating to CFE contracts that are required to be filed
with the CFTC pursuant to the Final Rule adopted by the CFTC under the
caption Ownership and Control Reports (``OCR Rule'').\4\ In particular,
the Prior Filings amended Rule 412B to require each TPH and non-TPH to
file concurrently with the Exchange the new CFTC Forms 102A, 102B, and
71 (including any attachments, related submissions, or related
information) relating to CFE contracts that each TPH or non-TPH is
required to report to the CFTC under the OCR Rule. In addition, CFE-
2015-003 amended Rule 412B to require each TPH that is not a Clearing
Member to report to the Exchange the same information regarding the
identification and reporting of special accounts relating to CFE
contracts that the OCR Rule requires each TPH that is a Clearing Member
to report to the CFTC. CFE-2015-003 provided that these changes would
become effective on or after February 11, 2015, on a date to be
announced by the Exchange through the issuance of a circular. The
Exchange has not yet made these changes effective and intends to do so
consistent with the compliance dates under the OCR Rule as provided for
by the CFTC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74204 (February 4,
2015), 80 FR 7518 (February 10, 2015).
    \4\ See CFTC RIN 3038-AD31, Ownership and Control Reports, Forms
102/102S, 40/40S, and 71, Final Rule, 78 FR 69178 (November 18,
2013).
    \5\ See CFTC No-Action Letter No. 15-03 (February 10, 2015)
(which provided conditional time-limited no-action relief to extend
certain compliance dates under the OCR Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make some clarifying
changes with respect to the rule amendments included in the Prior
Filings.
    First, CFE proposes to further amend Rule 412B to make clear that
TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to be required to concurrently report
to the Exchange reportable positions relating to Exchange contracts
that they are required to report to the CFTC pursuant to CFTC
regulations. This is required under current Rule 412B, and the Exchange
believes that it continues to be required by Rule 412B as amended by
the Prior Filings. However, in order to eliminate any potential
ambiguity in this regard, CFE is further amending Rule 412B as amended
by the Prior Filings to make this explicit and is changing the title of
Rule 412B to specifically reference reportable positions.
    Second, CFE proposes to amend CFE Rule 714 (Imposition of Fines for
Minor Rule Violations) to make new paragraph (c) of Rule 412B added by
the Prior Filings subject to the same summary fine schedule under Rule
714(f)(vii) that already applies with respect to violations of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 412B. Rule 412B(c) is the provision of
Rule 412B that requires each TPH that is not a Clearing Member to
report to the Exchange the same information regarding the
identification and reporting of special accounts relating to CFE
contracts that the OCR Rule requires each TPH that is a Clearing Member
to report to the CFTC. The summary fine schedule under Rule 714(f)(vii)
is a Letter of Caution for a first offense, a $7,500 fine for a second
offense, a $15,000 fine for a third

offense, and referral to CFE's Business Conduct Committee for
subsequent offenses (all as measured over any twelve month rolling
period).
    Third, CFE is further revising the reportable volume provision in
CFE Rule 1602(n)(ii) that is included in CFE's contract specification
rule chapter for Individual Stock Based and Exchange-Traded Fund Based
Volatility Index security futures to make clear that this provision is
referencing the reportable trading volume in one of those products that
triggers the requirement to report a volume threshold account to the
CFTC.
    The Amendment also includes some minor, non-substantive wording
changes, such as to delete a reference in Rule 412B(b) to CFTC Form
102S which is not applicable with respect to CFE products.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) \7\ and 6(b)(7) \8\ in particular in
that it is designed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
     to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
     to foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities,
     to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will strengthen
its ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory
organization. CFE needs to receive the same information relating to
reportable positions in CFE contracts from TPHs and non-TPHs that is
required to be reported to the CFTC, as well as the information that
TPHs and non-TPHs provide to the CFTC under the new OCR Rule, in order
to carry out CFE's market surveillance program. The proposed rule
change facilitates CFE's ability to receive this information in a form
and manner that will allow its seamless integration into the market
surveillance program and systems utilized by CFE and its regulatory
services provider by making explicit that TPHs and non-TPHs are
required to provide this information to CFE in a form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange.

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

    CFE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act, in that the rule change enhances CFE's market
surveillance program. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
amendments would apply equally to all TPHs and non-TPHs that are
subject to the applicable requirements.

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

    The proposed rule change will become effective on or after
September 30, 2015, on a date to be announced by the Exchange through
the issuance of a circular. At any time within 60 days of the date of
effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after
consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CFE-2015-006 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-CFE-2015-006. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-CFE-2015-006, and should be
submitted on or before September 17, 2015.

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

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21209 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36883-36884]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1763-DR]

Iowa; Amendment No. 7 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 State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 19, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of May 27, 2008.

    Lee County for Individual Assistance.
    Wapello County for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance.
    Hancock, Kossuth, Madison, and Marshall Counties for Individual
Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance.)
    Benton, Bremer, Cedar, Fremont, and Mahaska Counties for Public
Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance.)
    Cass, Clinton, Decatur, Greene, Guthrie, Hamilton, Montgomery,
and Poweshiek Counties for Public Assistance.

(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
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and

Households--Other Needs, 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance
(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-14753 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 34749-34750]
[DOCID:fr17jy09-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13492-000]

FFP Project 82, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 82, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Little Cypress Bend
Hydrokinetic Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in
Pemiscot County, Missouri and Lake County, Tennessee.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Little Cypress Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of:
(1) 3,168 proposed 40-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a
total installed capacity of 126.72 megawatts; (2) a 4-mile-long, 69-
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Little Cypress Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average
annual generation of 555 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13492) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16985 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Amy_ L._ Farrell@ omb. eop. gov 01/ 22/ 2004 03: 11 PM To: Johnd Bachmann/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Maryjo Krolewski/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop. gov Subject: " missing" docs Hi John and Maryjo  Here's the list of things we are waiting on. John  I think you indicated that we'd receive a few of these today. Thanks, Amy For Hg: Memo on Availability of ACI ( Bill sent something from Doug, but are waiting on the EPA generated memo.) Revisions to Hg MACT IPM analysis Revised RIA For IAQR: Analysis of new section 111 plus IAQR IPM analysis IPM Cost Algorithms for selected plant sizes Revisions to IAQR Analysis ( IPM) Revised RIA ( w/ agreed changes including a Discussion of alternatives, Hg Benefits, Quant. Benefits)


[Federal Register: October 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 57597]
[DOCID:fr03oc05-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications Public Notice

September 23, 2005.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary, a copy of the communication,
if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received in the Office of the Secretary. The communications listed are
grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
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 (FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last
three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                Date received                    Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. ER03-563-030.................         9-20-05  James T. Carlton, Barry Brits, L. Aldie Warnock, Daniel J.
                                                       Callaghan, and Paul Hamilton.
Exempt:
    1. CP05-144-000, CP05-150-000,           9-12-05  Hon. Robert C. Byrd.
     CP05-151-000, CP05-152-000.
    2. EL05-130-000.................          9-8-05  Hon. Elton Gallegly.
    3. Project No. 2210-116.........         9-12-05  Hon. Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
    4. Project No. 2210-116.........         9-20-05  Hon. George Allen.
    5. Project No. 10805-000........         9-20-05  Hon. Ron Kind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5380 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P