                       SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

       IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1(a) Title of the Information Collection
 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY), EPA ICR Number 2678.01, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-NEW.

      1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This supporting statement addresses information collection activities that will be imposed by amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing source category in the Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, referred to as the cyanide chemicals manufacturing maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The current cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards were promulgated on July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46257).

As part of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for the NESHAP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results; and add wastewater requirements for new and existing affected sources. This information collection request documents the monitoring (including applicability testing/calculations), recordkeeping and reporting requirements and burden imposed by these amendments.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information collection request (ICR) includes the burden for all activities that will be conducted in the first three years following promulgation of the final amendments to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards only as they relate to the changes made as a result of the RTR and "other" actions under the proposal. These activities include reading the rule, conducting and documenting compliance applicability testing/calculations, and completing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these notifications, reports, and records, and retain the file for at least five years. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. The use of the term "Designated Administrator" throughout this document refers to the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a state agency. The term "Administrator" alone refers to the U.S. EPA Administrator.

Over the next three years, it is estimated that 13 cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities will be subject to this standard, and the total labor, capital, and operations and maintenance costs imposed by the amendments will be approximately $15,800  per year for the first 3 years after the amendments are finalized with all costs being incurred in the first year. Note that there are 13 currently operating cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities, and it is assumed that no facilities would be constructed/modified within three years after promulgation of the rule. The burden to the respondents from each facility is shown in Tables 1 through 4 in Attachment 1.

The total average annual cost to the Designated Administrator during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be approximately $1,300 per year after the amendments are finalized with all costs being incurred in the first year (an estimated $3,900). This burden includes labor costs for the Federal EPA and state and local authorities to implement the requirements in the NESHAP after the amendments are finalized. This burden is shown in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

       Need for and Use of the Collection

      2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

 The EPA is charged under CAA Section 112, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, CAA 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, HAP emissions from cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NESHAP were promulgated for major sources in this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

      Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on MACT to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the "residual risk review." In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the standards as necessary taking into account any "developments in practices, processes, or control technologies." This review is commonly referred to as the "technology review." When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the "risk and technology review." As part of the RTR for the NESHAP, the EPA is proposing amendments clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results; and add wastewater requirements for new and existing affected sources.

      2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in these standards ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Applicability test/calculations are required to determine if an affected facility is required to control emissions under the NESHAP and documentation is necessary to confirm/verify these determinations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The notifications required in these standards 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 check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, leaks are being detected and repaired, and the standard are being met. The performance test may also be observed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

       Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting will be 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 prior to ICR submission to OMB

A public notice and solicitation of public comment on this collection will be provided in the Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking published for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing.

3(c) Consultations

The public will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the burden estimated in this Information Collection Request during the comment period for the proposed rulemaking.

      3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data 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 proper operation and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting violations would be less likely.

      3(e) General Guidelines

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. The EPA believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. The retention of records for five years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any pattern of non-compliance and to determine the appropriate level of enforcement action. The EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have violations extending beyond five years. In addition, EPA would be prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of essential records.

3(f) Confidentiality

All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR 2, subpart B -- Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976,
 amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR
 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g) Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not include sensitive questions.

       THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATIONREQUESTED
      4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes
The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of new or existing major source cyanide chemical manufacturing facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes 325188 (All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing) and 325199 (All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing).

      4(b) Information Requested

       Data Items

In this ICR, all data that is recorded or reported is being proposed to be required by the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards (40 CFR, part 63, subpart YY). The tables below reflect new requirements based on the proposed amendments only.

      A source must make the following reports:

                             Notifications/Reports
 Notification of Compliance Status (based on procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.144(a) and 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(5)(v), performance test results)
 40 CFR 63.11110(d))

      A source must keep the following records:

                                Recordkeeping
 Each notification and report (related to wastewater)
 40 CFR 63.1109(a)
 Control applicability records (related to procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.144(a) to determine applicability of control requirements to process wastewater)
 40 CFR 63.1109(d)

      Electronic Reporting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the proposed RTR amendments, respondents are required to use the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) to develop performance test reports and submit them through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The ERT is an application rather than a form, and the requirement to use the ERT is applicable to numerous subparts. The splash screen of the ERT contains a link to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements, such as the OMB Control Number, expiration date, and burden estimate for this and other subparts. In this proposal, respondents would also be required to submit notifications and semiannual reports through the EPA's CEDRI. The notification is an upload of their currently required notification in portable document format (PDF) file. The semiannual reports are to be created using Form 5900-485, the electronic template included with this Supporting Statement. The template is an Excel spreadsheet which can be partially completed and saved for subsequent semiannual reports to limit some of the repetitive data entry. It reflects the reporting elements required by the rule and does not impose additional reporting elements. The OMB Control Number is displayed on the Welcome page of the template, with a link to an online repository that contains the PRA requirements. For purposes of this ICR, it is assumed that there will be no additional burden associated with the proposed requirement for respondents to submit the notifications and reports electronically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

       Respondent Activities

                             Respondent Activities
 Read instructions.
 Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instruction and requirements (e.g., due to removal of SSM-related changes).
 Write and submit notifications.
 Enter and maintain information required to be recorded above.

       THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

      5(a) Agency Activities

The EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

                             Agency Activities
 Review notifications and reports and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.
 Audit facility records.
 Input, analyze, and maintain data in Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).

      5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Initial compliance applicability test/calculation documentation is used by the Agency to discern a source's applicability to the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is reported by state and local governments in the ICIS-Air database, which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. ICIS-Air is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for industrial and government-owned facilities. EPA uses ICIS-Air for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. 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

      There are no small entities (i.e., small businesses) affected by this regulation.

      5(d) Collection Schedule

Upon promulgation of the amendments, owners or operators of cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities have up to a year to comply with most of the compliance testing/calculations, reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the amendments. It is anticipated facilities will read the rule and perform the required compliance testing/calculations in year 1. The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Tables 1 through 3 of Attachment 1.

       ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1 present an itemization of the burden on the respondents subject to this NESHAP for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the first three years following promulgation of the amendments to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards. Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2 present a summary of the burden on the Federal EPA and state and local authorities in the first three years following promulgation of the amendments to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards.

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

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 160 hours. The average annual recordkeeping hours are 110 and the reporting requirement hours are 50, both of which are shown in Table 4 of Attachment 1. These hours are based on Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, and related ICRs.

      6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

 The information collection activities for sources subject to these requirements are presented in Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1. The total cost for each respondent activity includes labor costs, capital/startup costs, and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.

       Estimating Labor Costs

      This ICR uses the following labor rates:

      Managerial	$139.36 ($66.36 + 110%)
      Technical	$101.64 ($48.40 + 110%)
      Clerical	$47.57 ($22.65 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2019, "National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Sectors 31, 32, and 33  -  Manufacturing." The rates are from column 8, mean hourly wage for "Management Occupations," "Architecture and Engineering Occupations," and "Office and Administrative Support Occupations." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

       Estimating Capital/Start-up and Operation and Maintenance Costs

There are no capital/start-up and operation and maintenance costs associated with the proposed amendments to the information collection activities in the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards.

       Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
As noted above, there are no estimated capital and startup costs and O&M costs for the respondents subject to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards for the first three years after promulgation of the proposed amendments.
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. The Agency'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 based on proposed changes to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standard is estimated to be
$1,294.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rates as follows:

      Managerial 	$66.62 (GS-13, Step 5, $41.64+ 60%) Technical	$49.44 (GS-12, Step 1, $30.90+ 60%)
      Clerical	$26.75 (GS-6, Step 3, $16.72 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2019 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay. The rates have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages available to government employees. Details on the line item estimates used to calculate these burdens are presented in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

      6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

The total number of respondents is also referred to as the respondent universe. Based on research conducted for the RTR of the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards, 13 facilities are currently operating and subject to the standards and no new sources are assumed in the first three years after promulgation of the proposed amendments. It is assumed that all of the facilities will begin complying within one year of promulgation of the proposed amendments. Thus, the number of total annual responses is 13, over the first three years (and incurred in Year 1) after finalizing the amendments.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

 The Respondent Tally

Over the first three years after finalizing the amendments, the total annual labor hours for respondents are estimated to be 420 hours at a cost of approximately $47,500. The total reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated at 37 hours per response incurred in the first year and the average reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information over three years is estimated at 12 hours. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1.

 There are no total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity over the first three years after finalizing the amendments.

        The Agency Tally

 The average annual burden over the first three years for the Agency is estimated to be 23 hours at a cost of $1,294. The Agency burden hours and costs are presented in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

6(f) Reasons for change in burden
 There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR as it presents the burden based on the amendments to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT standards and is considered new burden.
      The amendments to the NESHAP for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart YY) addressed in this ICR (1) revise provisions in the NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY) to remove the SSM exemption and SSM plan and periodic report requirements; (2) require electronic submittal of performance test results; and (3) manufacturing process unit process wastewater technical changes. Where applicable, adjustments for these amendments are reflected in Tables 1 and 2 of this ICR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The burden estimate for reading and understanding the rule requirements was adjusted to reflect the time it would take industry to review the amended rule. Burden estimates were removed for developing SSM plans and submitting periodic SSM reports. We estimate that the burden associated with the separate recordkeeping requirements for periods of SSM that are being removed to be approximately the same as the burden associated with the recordkeeping requirements for deviations from rule requirements and, therefore, did not adjust burden for recordkeeping and semiannual compliance reporting.
In 2002, the baseline HAP content of existing cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit wastewater streams based on available data was 180 parts per million (ppm), which is well below the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) - 40 CFR 63 Subparts F,G,H,I) (also known as the HON). The HON includes concentration cutoffs of 10,000 ppm for any flowrate, or 1,000 ppm for any flowrate greater than 10 liters per minute. At that time, the EPA did not promulgate standards for existing sources. The EPA is proposing that existing sources demonstrate that process wastewater from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) purification, ammonia purification, or flare blowdown have a total annual average concentration of Table 9 of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart G compounds (Table 9 compounds) and cyanide compounds less than 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate, or a total annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds and  cyanide compounds less than 1,000 ppmw, and an annual average flow rate less than 10 liters per minute. If this demonstration cannot be made, these affected sources would be required to meet the same level of control required under the HON (as specified in 40 CFR 63.138(a)(1)). Included under the HON requirements, are requirements to control emissions from waste management units upstream of open or closed biological treatment processes  (see requirements specified in §§63.133 through 63.137 of subpart G of this part, as applicable).For purposes of burden estimates, the EPA assumes that existing wastewater streams are already complying with HON wastewater requirements (because they are co-located with HON-regulated facilities or co-located with source categories that require HON-equivalent wastewater control) or that the wastewater streams fall below the control requirement applicability limits. It is assumed, for purposes of estimating the burden for determining applicability to the newly proposed requirements process wastewater at existing facilities, that all existing facilities will perform analyses to determine applicability to the MACT based on information that is readily available.
The current MACT requirements for new cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit wastewater streams require that process wastewater from HCN purification, ammonia purification, or flare blowdown achieve a combined removal and control of HAP from wastewater of 93 weight-percent. The EPA is proposing to add the requirement to control emissions from waste management units upstream of biological treatment processes by meeting the requirements of the HON at §§63.133 through 63.137 of subpart G of part 63, as applicable. For purposes of this burden estimate, if there are sources that are subject to the 2002 MACT standards, the EPA assumes that existing wastewater streams subject to control under the cyanide chemicals manufacturing MACT are already complying with HON wastewater waste management unit requirements (because they are co-located with HON-regulated facilities or co-located with source categories that require HON-equivalent wastewater control).
      6(g) Burden Statement

The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information over three years is estimated to be 37 hours per response incurred in the first year (an estimated 12 hours per year per response on average over 3 years). Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.

 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA regulations are listed in 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 burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532. An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the 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 in this document. The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532 and OMB Control Number 2060-NEW in any correspondence.

                       PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

 This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation.

                                  ATTACHMENT 1

                             TABLES 1, 2, 3, and 4

             Tables 1 - 3:	Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR  -  Years 1-3

             Table 4:	Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR

    Table 1 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR - Year 1

    Table 2 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR - Year 2

    Table 3 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR - Year 3

Table 4 - Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR

                                     Year
                                Technical Hours
                                Clerical Hours
                               Management Hours
                               Total Labor Hours
                                  Labor Costs
           Non-Labor (Annualized Capital/Startup and O&M) Costs
                                  Total Costs
                                      1
                                      419
                                      42
                                      21
                                      482
                                    $47,527
                                      $0
                                    $47,527
                                      2
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      3
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     Total
                                      419
                                      42
                                      21
                                      482
                                    $47,527
                                      $0
                                    $47,527
                                    Average
                                      140
                                      14
                                       7
                                      161
                                    $15,842
                                      $0
                                    $15,842

                                     Year
                             Number of Respondents
                              Number of Responses
                                Reporting Hours
                              Recordkeeping Hours
                                  Total Hours
                              Hours per Response
                             Hours Per Respondent
                                      1
                                      13
                                      13
                                      150
                                      333
                                      482
                                      37
                                      37
                                      2
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      3
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                     Total
                                      13
                                      13
                                      150
                                      333
                                      482
                                      37
                                      37
                                    Average
                                       4
                                       4
                                      50
                                      111
                                      161
                                      12
                                      12

                                                ATTACHMENT 2

                                            TABLES 5, 6, 7, and 8

             Tables 5 - 7:	Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR - Year 1-3

             Table 8:	Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR

    Table 5 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR - Year 1

    Table 6 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR - Year 2

    Table 7 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR - Year 3

                                   Table 8 - Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing RTR


[Federal Register: April 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19637-19638]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

March 31, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-520-000.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Vector Pipeline L.P. submits the annual fuel use
report.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100330-0241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-521-000.
    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC submits First
Revised Sheet 22D to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, reflecting an
effective date of 4/1/10.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100330-0243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-522-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits its FTS Service
Agreement No 15260, Ninth Revised Sheet No 503.01 to FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No 1, to be effective April 1, 2010.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100331-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-523-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits its FTS Service
Agreement No 15245 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No 1, to be
effective 4/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100331-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 12, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission

in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion
to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8609 Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 25162]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-58-000]

Astoria Generating Company, L.P. v. New York Independent System
Operator, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

April 23, 2012.
    Take notice that on April 20, 2012, pursuant to sections 206, and
306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e, and Rule 206 of
the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206, Astoria Generating Company,
L.P. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (Respondent or NYISO) alleging that
the NYISO violated Attachment H of the NYISO Market Administration and
Control Area Services Tariff by refusing to issue Going-Forward Cost
determinations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 21, 2012.

    Dated: April 23, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2012-10185 Filed 4-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73927-73930]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29179]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73787; File No. SR-FICC-2014-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Rules of the
Government Securities Division and the Mortgage-Backed Securities
Division on Insolvency and Ceasing To Act

December 8, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 25, 2014, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the rules of the
Government Securities Division (``GSD Rules'') of FICC and the rules of
the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD Rules'') of FICC (each
of GSD and MBSD, a ``Division'' of FICC) on insolvency and ceasing to
act that simplify in certain respects FICC's process in a cease to act
situation and provide greater legal certainty for FICC and its members,
particularly in an intra-day cease to act situation.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the GSD Rules and the MBSD
Rules on insolvency and ceasing to act in order to simplify in certain
respects FICC's process in a cease to act situation and provide greater
legal certainty for FICC and its members, particularly in an intra-day
cease to act situation.
Background
    In connection with lessons learned from a recent close-out
simulation exercise conducted by The Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation, FICC's parent company, in which FICC participated, and
related review of the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, certain potential
challenges with administering certain aspects of the GSD Rules and the
MBSD Rules on insolvency and ceasing to act described below,
particularly in an intra-day cease to act situation, were identified.
``Time of Insolvency'' and ``Cut-Off Time''
    Currently, GSD and MBSD include in their insolvency rules (GSD Rule
22, MBSD Rule 16) and cease to act rules (GSD Rule 22A, MBSD Rule 17)
the

concept of a ``Time of Insolvency'', which is defined to mean the time
at which FICC determines to its reasonable satisfaction that a member
is ``insolvent'' within the meaning of GSD Rule 22 or MBSD Rule 16,
respectively.
    This ``Time of Insolvency'' concept is separate from the time at
which FICC ceases to act for a member, and such ``Time of Insolvency''
is currently used in the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules as a line of
demarcation when determining FICC's obligations with respect to pending
transactions involving the insolvent member. Specifically, transactions
with the insolvent member that are not compared or deemed compared in
accordance with the GSD Rules or the MBSD Rules, respectively, prior to
the ``Time of Insolvency'' are not eligible to be part of the close-out
process, unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors of FICC
in order to promote orderly settlement.
    For a non-insolvency cease to act situation, the GSD Rules and the
MBSD Rules on ceasing to act (GSD Rule 22A, MBSD Rule 17) currently
include the concept of a ``Cut-Off Time'', which is defined to mean a
time specified in advance by FICC in a notice to its membership at
which it will cease to act for a member. Like the ``Time of
Insolvency'' concept, ``Cut-Off Time'' is currently used in the GSD
Rules and the MBSD Rules when determining FICC's obligations with
respect to pending transactions involving the defaulted member.
    Identifying an exact time at which a member has become
``insolvent'' for purposes of establishing a ``Time of Insolvency'' may
pose potential challenges for FICC in circumstances where the member is
deemed ``insolvent'' based upon the determination or action of a third
party, such as the member's regulator, supervisory authority or a court
of competent jurisdiction. In an intra-day cease to act situation where
transaction data is being submitted to FICC in real-time, these
potential challenges with identifying an exact ``Time of Insolvency''
may create a lack of legal certainty for FICC and its members regarding
FICC's obligations with respect to pending transactions involving the
insolvent member. In light of the foregoing, FICC proposes to remove
the ``Time of Insolvency'' concept from the GSD Rules and the MBSD
Rules and instead simply rely on the single time it ceases to act for
an insolvent member for purposes of determining its obligations with
respect to pending transactions involving such insolvent member.
    In order to also simplify its process in non-insolvency cease to
act situations, FICC proposes to remove the separate ``Cut-Off Time''
concept from the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules and instead rely on the
single time it ceases to act for a defaulted member for purposes of
determining its obligations with respect to pending transactions
involving such defaulted member.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It should be noted that this proposed change will more
closely align the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules with the rules of
FICC's affiliate, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC''). Under its Rule 18 (Procedures for When the Corporation
Declines or Ceases to Act), NSCC relies on the time it declines or
ceases to act for a member when determining which transactions
involving such member will be excluded from its operations, rather
than on a separate ``Time of Insolvency'' or ``Cut-Off Time'', as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transactions Deemed Compared Based Solely on Non-Defaulting Member Data
    Currently, the provisions of the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules on
ceasing to act (GSD Rule 22A, MBSD Rule 17), and the related prongs of
the ``Compared Trade'' definition in Rule 1 of each of the Division's
Rules, provide that, in the context of FICC ceasing to act for a
member, a transaction involving such member that would not otherwise be
compared or deemed compared under the GSD Rules or the MBSD Rules,
respectively, may, in certain circumstances, be deemed a compared trade
based solely on data submitted by a non-defaulting member. The
determination of whether such a transaction should be deemed a compared
trade is currently based on a multi-pronged facts and circumstances-
based test, including determinations as to whether the transaction was
executed prior to FICC ceasing to act for the defaulted member, whether
the transaction was entered into in good faith and not primarily in
order to take advantage of the defaulted member's financial condition
and whether the transaction is an Off-the-Market Transaction as defined
in Rule 1 of each of the Division's Rules.
    Administering such a multi-pronged facts and circumstances-based
test for individual transactions in a cease to act situation,
particularly an intra-day cease to act situation where transaction data
is being submitted to FICC in real-time, may pose potential challenges
to FICC and create a lack of legal certainty for FICC and its members
regarding FICC's obligations with respect to individual pending
transactions involving the insolvent or otherwise defaulted member. In
order to simplify FICC's process in a cease to act situation and
provide FICC and its members with greater ex ante legal certainty
regarding the rules applicable to pending transactions involving an
insolvent or otherwise defaulted member, FICC proposes to remove the
multi-pronged facts and circumstances-based test and the related
provisions of each of the Division's Rules and instead simply rely on
the compared trade definitions under each of the Division's Rules,
subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors of FICC to
determine otherwise in order to promote orderly settlement with respect
to transactions the data on which have been submitted only by non-
defaulting members.
Proposed GSD Rule Changes
    FICC is proposing to amend the GSD Rules as follows:
    In Rule 1--``Definitions'', the following definitions have been
revised:
    The term ``Compared Trade'' is revised to remove the prong of the
definition which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing to act
for a member under GSD Rule 22A, a transaction involving such member
that would not otherwise be a Compared Trade under the GSD Rules may,
in certain circumstances, be deemed a Compared Trade based solely on
data submitted by a non-defaulting member.
    The term ``Off-the-Market Transaction'' is revised to conform the
text and the numbering of the definition with the text and numbering of
the parallel ``Off-the-Market Transaction'' definition in the MBSD
Rules.
    In Rule 3A--``Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members'', Sections
15(a) and 16(a) are revised to remove references to Rule 22, current
Section 3 (Notification of Insolvency) and related conforming changes
to the text of such sections are made. Section 15(b) is revised to
remove the reference to the ``Time of Insolvency'' concept and to align
the text regarding the actions taken by FICC in connection with the
insolvency of a Sponsored Member with the parallel text included in
Section 16 relating to the actions taken by FICC in connection with the
insolvency of a Sponsoring Member. Consistent with the numbering of
Section 15, Section 16(a) is revised to make the second paragraph a new
subsection (b). New Section 16(b) is also revised to align the text
regarding the actions taken by FICC in connection with the insolvency
of a Sponsoring Member with the parallel text included in Section 15(b)
relating to the actions taken by FICC in connection with the insolvency
of a Sponsored Member.
    In Rule 22--``Insolvency of a Member'', current Section 3, which
provides for FICC to notice its membership and the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding the insolvency of a member, is
removed in order to clarify that the membership and the SEC will only
receive one notice from FICC at the time it ceases to act for a member
in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 22A (Procedures
for When the Corporation Ceases to Act), whether FICC ceases to act for
the member for insolvency or non-insolvency related reasons. Section 4
(Ceasing to Act for the Member) is renumbered as new Section 3 and
revised to remove the reference to the ``Time of Insolvency'' concept.
    In Rule 22A--``Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act'',
Section 1 (Notification) is revised to clarify that FICC will notice
the SEC as well as its membership of every decision to cease to act for
a member. Section 1 is further revised to remove the requirement that
FICC establish a separate ``Time of Insolvency'', in the event it
ceases to act because of a member's insolvency, or ``Cut-Off Time'', in
the event it ceases to act for a member for non-insolvency related
reasons.
    Sections 2, 2(a) and 2(b) are revised remove the ``Time of
Insolvency'' and ``Cut-Off Time'' concepts, and instead rely on the
time FICC ceases to act for a member for purposes of determining its
obligations with respect to pending transactions involving such member.
Section 2(a) is further revised to use the defined term ``Compared
Trade'' for purposes of clarifying which transactions are eligible to
be part of the close-out process as of the time FICC ceases to act for
a member, subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors of FICC
to determine otherwise in order to promote orderly settlement.
    Section 2(c), which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing
to act for a member, a transaction involving such member that would not
otherwise be compared or deemed compared under the GSD Rules may, in
certain circumstances, be deemed compared based solely on data
submitted by a non-defaulting member, based on a multi-pronged facts
and circumstances-based test, is removed. FICC would instead rely on
the ``Compared Trade'' definition in GSD Rule 1 when determining its
obligations with respect to pending transactions involving an insolvent
or otherwise defaulted member, subject to the discretion of the Board
of Directors of FICC to determine otherwise in order to promote orderly
settlement with respect to transactions the data on which have been
submitted only by non-defaulting members.
Proposed MBSD Rule Changes
    FICC is proposing to amend the MBSD Rules as follows:
    In Rule 1--``Definitions'', the following definitions have been
revised:
    The term ``Compared Trade'' is revised to remove the prong of the
definition which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing to act
for a member under MBSD Rule 17, a transaction involving such member
that would not otherwise be compared or deemed compared under the MBSD
Rules may, in certain circumstances, be deemed a Compared Trade based
solely on data submitted by a non-defaulting member. The ``Compared
Trade'' definition is further clarified to reference the specific MBSD
Rules (Rule 5 and Rule 7) pursuant to which a transaction would be
compared or deemed compared by MBSD.
    In Rule 16--``Insolvency of a Member'', current Section 3, which
provides for FICC to notice its membership and the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding the insolvency of a member, is
removed in order to clarify that the membership and the SEC will only
receive one notice from FICC at the time it ceases to act for a member
in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 17 (Procedures
for When the Corporation Ceases to Act), whether FICC ceases to act for
the member for insolvency or non-insolvency related reasons. Section 4
(Ceasing to Act for the Member) is renumbered as new Section 3 and
revised to remove the reference to the ``Time of Insolvency'' concept.
    In Rule 17--``Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act'',
Section 1 (Notification) is revised to clarify that FICC will notice
the SEC as well as its membership of every decision to cease to act for
a member. Section 1 is further revised to remove the requirement that
FICC establish a separate ``Time of Insolvency'', in the event it
ceases to act because of a member's insolvency, or ``Cut-Off Time'', in
the event it ceases to act for a member for non-insolvency related
reasons.
    Sections 2, 2(a), 2(d) and 2(e) are revised to remove the ``Time of
Insolvency'' and ``Cut-Off Time'' concepts, and instead rely on the
time FICC ceases to act for a member for purposes of determining its
obligations with respect to pending transactions involving such member.
    Section 2(g), which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing
to act for a member, a transaction involving such member that would not
otherwise be compared or deemed compared under the MBSD Rules may, in
certain circumstances, be deemed compared based solely on data
submitted by a non-defaulting member, based on a multi-pronged facts
and circumstances-based test, is removed. FICC would instead rely on
the compared trade definitions in the MBSD Rules when determining its
obligations with respect to pending transactions involving an insolvent
or otherwise defaulted member, subject to the discretion of the Board
of Directors of FICC to determine otherwise in order to promote orderly
settlement with respect to transactions the data on which have been
submitted only by non-defaulting members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \4\ of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder because it will promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system
for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions in that it will simplify in certain respects FICC's
process in a cease to act situation and provide greater legal certainty
for FICC and its members as to FICC's obligations with respect to
pending transactions involving an insolvent or otherwise defaulted
member, particularly in an intra-day cease to act situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition because it relates to
changes to FICC's insolvency and cease to act rules that would apply
equally to all members of each Division of FICC.

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by FICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period

to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as
to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission
will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

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
No. SR-FICC-2014-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2014-06. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on its
Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rule-
filings/2014/ficc/SR-FICC-2014-06.pdf. 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-FICC-2014-06 and should be submitted on
or before January 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29179 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 107-109]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0278]

Port Access Route Study: Northern New York Bight

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; final report.

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

SUMMARY: The First Coast Guard District announces the completion of the
Northern New York Bight Port Access Route Study (NNYBPARS). The study
was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of existing vessel routing
measures and determine whether additional vessel routing measures are
necessary for port approaches to New York and New Jersey and
international and domestic transit areas in the First Coast Guard
District's area of responsibility. To accomplish this goal, the First
Coast Guard District has undertaken measures to determine whether
existing or additional routing measures are necessary to improve
navigation safety due to factors such as planned or potential offshore
development, current port capabilities and planned improvements,
increased vessel traffic, existing and potential anchorage areas,
changing vessel traffic patterns, effects of weather, or navigational
difficulty. The NNYBPARS final report is available for viewing and
download from the Federal Register docket at http://www.regulations.gov
or the Coast Guard Navigation Center website at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
contact Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

I. Table of Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security
LNM Local Notice to Mariners
MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin
MTS Marine Transportation System
NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983
NNYB Northern New York Bight
PARS Port Access Route Study
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
USCG United States Coast Guard

II. Background and Purpose

When did the Coast Guard conduct this Port Access Route Study (PARS)?

    We conducted this PARS following our announcement of the PARS in a
notice published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2020, entitled
``Port Access Route Study (PARS): Northern New York Bight,'' (85 FR
38907). The public was afforded a 60-day comment period, and two
virtual public meetings were held via teleconference and webinar to
receive public input. The Coast Guard received 25 comments in response
to our Federal Register Notice, public meetings and other outreach
efforts, which included announcement via a Marine Safety Information
Bulletin (MSIB), publication in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM), and
Facebook and Twitter posts. All comments and supporting documents to
this document are available in a public docket and can be viewed at
http://www.regulations.gov.

    On April 12, 2021, we published a supplemental notice of study;
request for comments entitled ``Port Access Route Study (PARS):
Northern New York Bight'' in the Federal Register (86 FR 18996) seeking
additional information. The public was afforded a 30-day comment
period. The Coast Guard received five comments to this document in
response to our Federal Register Notice, and other outreach efforts,
which included an announcement via a MSIB, publication in the LNM, and
Facebook and Twitter posts. All comments and supporting documents to
this document are available in a public docket and can be viewed at
http://www.regulations.gov.
    On July 15, 2021, we published a notice of availability of draft
report and public meeting; request for comments, entitled ``Port Access
Route Study (PARS): Northern New York Bight'' in the Federal Register
(86 FR 37339) announcing the availability of the draft version of the
study report. The public was initially afforded a 45-day comment
period. On September 09, 2021, the comment period was re-opened for an
additional 22 days.
    During the combined 67-day public comment period, the Coast Guard
received 21 comments in response to our Federal Register Notice and
other outreach, which included four public meetings (one virtual and
three in person), announcements via MSIBs, publications in the LNM, and
Facebook and Twitter posts. All comments and supporting documents are
available in a public docket and can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A total of 51 comments were submitted by members of the public
during the 157 days of open comment periods and 6 public meetings.
    A synopsis of the comments and copies of the First Coast Guard
District's public outreach can be found in the report.

What is the study area?

    The New York Bight encompasses a very large area starting along the
coasts of New York and New Jersey, from Montauk Point, NY, to Cape May,
NJ, and then offshore to the outer edge of the Continental Shelf. The
Northern New York Bight study area is described as an area bounded by a
line connecting the following geographic positions:

40 18'00.0'' N 074 00'00.0'' W;
38 57'00.0'' N 071 16'00.0'' W;
39 47'24.0'' N 069 40'01.2'' W;
41 07'12.0'' N 071 34'33.6'' W;
41 04'15.6'' N 071 51'25.2'' W; and
thence along the coast line back to the origin. All geographic points
are based on North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    This area extends approximately 150 nautical miles seaward and
covers approximately 25,000 square nautical miles including the
offshore area of New Jersey and New York used by private, commercial,
and public vessels transiting to and from these ports. An illustration
showing the study area is below with additional illustrations available
in the online public docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA22.250

Why did the Coast Guard conduct this PARS?

    The Coast Guard conducted the NNYBPARS to evaluate the adequacy of
existing vessel routing measures and determine whether additional
vessel routing measures are necessary for port approaches to New York
and New Jersey and international and domestic transit areas in the
First District area of responsibility. The NNYBPARS considered whether
existing or additional routing measures were necessary to improve
navigation safety due to factors such as planned or potential offshore
development, current port capabilities and planned improvements,
increased vessel traffic, existing and potential anchorage areas,
changing vessel traffic patterns, effects of weather, or navigational
difficulty. Vessel routing measures, which include traffic separation
schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, deep-water routes,
precautionary areas, and areas to be avoided, are implemented to reduce
the risk of marine casualties.
    PARS are conducted anytime the Coast Guard considers a need to
recommend routing changes, within the territorial seas, for any port.
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) requires the Coast Guard to
conduct a study before establishing new or adjusting existing fairways
or Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). U.S. waterways support multiple
uses, such as commercial shipping, tug and barge operations, commercial
and recreational fishing, research vessels, offshore support vessels,
military vessels, and aquaculture apparatus.

How did the First Coast Guard District conduct this PARS?

    The PARS was conducted in alignment with guidance outlined in Coast
Guard Commandant Instruction 16003.2B, Marine Planning to Operate and
Maintain the Marine Transportation System (MTS) and Implement National
Policy which is available in the docket or see https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/15/2001716995/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2A.PDF.

What were the objectives of the study?

    The objectives of the study were to;
    i. Determine present traffic density;
    ii. Determine potential traffic density;
    iii. Determine if existing vessel routing measures are adequate;
    iv. Determine if existing vessel routing measures require
modifications;
    v. Determine the type of modifications;
    vi. Define and justify the needs for new vessel routing measures;
    vii. Determine the type of new vessel routing measures; and
    viii. Determine if the usage of the vessel routing measures must be
mandatory for specific classes of vessels.

III. Viewing the Report

    The NNYBPARS report is available for viewing and download from the
Federal Register docket at http://www.regulations.gov or the Coast
Guard Navigation Center website at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports.
    To view the NNYBPARS report in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and insert ``USCG-2020-0278'' in the ``search
box.'' Click ``Search''. Then scroll down to the document entitled
``FINAL REPORT Northern New York Bight PARS December 27, 2021'' under
the document type ``Supporting & Related Material.''

IV. Conclusion

    As required by the March 15, 2019 Federal Register Notice of study;
request for comments (84 FR 9541), the First Coast Guard District
considered whether it should revise existing regulations to improve
navigation safety in NNYB due to factors such as vessel traffic
density, vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions, or navigation
challenges in the study area. The First Coast Guard District analyzed
all available sources of data relevant to this process, including
existing and potential traffic patterns, existing regulations, public
submissions, and other factors. The First Coast Guard District
identified five different alternatives to consider within this study.
    As detailed in the final report, the First Coast Guard District
recommends that multiple shipping safety fairways and one federal
anchorage ground be established within the NNYBPARS study area.
Shipping safety fairways may be utilized by mariners but are not
mandatory for any specific class of vessel.
    The First Coast Guard District actively monitors all waterways
subject to its jurisdiction to help ensure navigation safety. As such,
the First Coast Guard District will continue to monitor the Northern
New York Bight for changing conditions and consider appropriate
actions, such as recommend vessel routes or more extensive use of
electronic Aids to Navigation to promote waterway and user safety.
    This notice is published under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70003,
70004 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: December 27, 2021.
T. G. Allan Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-28457 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 37998]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 203A-2; SEC File No. 270-501; OMB Control No. 3235-
0559.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit the existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 203A-2(f),\1\ which is entitled ``Internet Investment
Advisers,'' exempts from the prohibition on Commission registration an
Internet investment adviser who provides investment advice to all of
its clients exclusively through computer software-based models or
applications, termed under the rule as ``interactive Web sites.'' These
advisers generally would not meet the statutory thresholds set out in
section 203A of the Advisers Act \2\--they do not manage $25 million or
more in assets and do not advise registered investment companies.
Eligibility under rule 203A-2(f) is conditioned on an adviser
maintaining in an easily accessible place, for a period of not less
than five years from the filing of Form ADV relying on the rule,\3\ a
record demonstrating that the adviser's advisory business has been
conducted through an interactive Web site in accordance with the
rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 275.203A-2(f). Included in rule 203A-2(f) is a
limited exception to the interactive Web site requirement which
allows these advisers to provide investment advice to no more than
14 clients through other means on an annual basis. 17 CFR 275.203A-
2(f)(1)(i). The rule also precludes advisers in a control
relationship with the SEC-registered Internet adviser from
registering with the Commission under the common control exemption
provided by rule 203A-2(c) (17 CFR 275.203A-2(c)). 17 CFR 275.203A-
2(f)(1)(iii).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(a).
    \3\ The five-year record retention period is the same
recordkeeping retention period for all advisers imposed under rule
204-2 of the Adviser Act. See rule 204-2 (17 CFR 275.204-2).
    \4\ 17 CFR 275.203A-2(f)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This record maintenance requirement is a ``collection of
information'' for PRA purposes. The Commission believes that
approximately 39 advisers are registered with the Commission under rule
203-2A(f), which involves a recordkeeping requirement manifesting in
approximately four burden hours per year per adviser and results in an
estimated 156 of total burden hours (4 x 39) for all advisers.
    This collection of information is mandatory, as it is used by
Commission staff in its examination and oversight program in order to
determine continued Commission registration eligibility for advisers
registered under this rule. Responses generally are kept confidential
pursuant to section 210(b) of the Advisers Act.\5\ Written comments are
invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-10(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 25, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-14982 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 213)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62412]
[DOCID:fr05no07-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28771; Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-8]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Fort Scott, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date and
correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final
rule which revises Class E airspace at Fort Scott, KS and corrects the
coordinates of the Fort Scott Nondirectional Beacon (NDB).

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT
Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on Friday, August
10, 2007 (72 FR 44954). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking
procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that
there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised
the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a
written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent of submit such
an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the
regulation would become effective on December 20, 2007. No adverse
comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct
final rule will become effective on that date.
    Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above
the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    In the description of the airspace contained in the direct final
rule, the coordinates of the Fort Scott NDB were incorrectly published.
This action makes this editorial correction, which does not change the
airspace configuration. The FAA is republishing the entire airspace
description.

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the airspace
published in the Federal Register, Friday, August 10, 2007 (72 FR
44954), Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-8, page 44955 is corrected as
follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Fort Scott, KS [Corrected]

Fort Scott Municipal Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]47'54'' N., long. 94[deg]46'10'' W.)
Fort Scott NDB
    (Lat. 37[deg]47'49'' N., long. 94[deg]45'56'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.0-mile radius of Fort Scott Municipal Airport and within
2.6 miles each side of the 350[deg] bearing from Fort Scott NDB
extending from the 7.0-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north
of the NDB.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on October 24, 2007.
Richard H. Farrell, III,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07-5454 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 62324-62325]
[DOCID:fr24oc06-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54609; File No. SR-FICC-2006-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Establishing New
Reporting Processes To Support the Bilateral Comparison of Pool Details
Associated With Specified Pool Trade Activity

October 16, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on June 15, 2006, the Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and on June 30, 2006, amended the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by FICC. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change would add new rules to FICC's Mortgage
Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Rulebook that would establish new
reporting processes to support the bilateral comparison of pool details
associated with specified pool trade (``SPT'') activity.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this filing is to implement in MBSD's Rulebook new
reporting processes to support the bilateral comparison of pool details
associated with SPT's. This is the first of three new services MBSD
plans to offer the mortgage-backed securities industry. The new
services will be Real Time Trade Matching (``RTTM'') Specified Pool
Trade Matching, Electronic Pool Notification Pool Substitution, and
Central Counterparty Pool Netting with Guaranteed Settlement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FICC has published two white papers that discuss its plans
to develop central counterparty services for MBSD. Fixed Income
Clearing Corporation as Central Counterparty for Mortgage-Backed
Securities (June 2003) and A Central Counterparty for Mortgage-
Backed Securities: Paving the Way (April 2006), which are available
online at http://www.ficc.com/mbs/docs/whitepapers/final.ccp.0617.pdf and http://www.dtcc.com/ThoughtLeadership/

adership/

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

    Currently, MBSD does not support SPT matching. As a result, members
must submit SPT's to MBSD as ``to be announced'' (``TBA'') trades for
matching on a trade-for-trade basis. These trades are processed through
MBSD's comparison and clearing system as TBA's and are risk managed at
the TBA level using par amount.\4\ MBSD reports these trades to members
through the MBS Purchase and Sale Report and the Open Commitment
Report, which reports provide binding confirmation of these trades to
members but do not transmit actual pool level details to the member.
Because these original trades must currently be submitted at the TBA
level, MBSD members must perform exception processing to convert the
SPT data to the associated TBA level. In addition, the selling member
must utilize MBSD's EPN service to supplement the original trade
submission with pool level details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Par amount could be the original face or current face
submitted by members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To make this process more efficient for its members, FICC is
proposing to enable MBSD members to submit the pool number and original
face for all SPT activity through RTTM. However, this proposal will not
change how MBSD currently risk manages these trades at the TBA level.
MBSD's rules will continue to stipulate that SPT's may be treated as
TBA's in instances of member insolvency.
    In addition, FICC proposes to make two new reports available to
members: the RTTM Purchase and Sale Report and the RTTM Open Commitment
Report.\5\ These reports would reflect the submission of pool number
and original

face value \6\ as matching criteria submitted by members. Finally, FICC
is proposing to include new fees for the submission of SPTs to the
Schedule of Charges in the MBSD Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These reports will not replace the MBSD's Purchase and Sale
Report or the Open Commitment Report, which will continue to reflect
specified pool trades as TBA trades.
    \6\ In addition to pool number and original face value, existing
matching fields (such as TBA CUSIP and price) will continue to be
populated by members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of section 17A of the Act \7\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because it should improve the reporting of SPT
information to members and thereby should improve the accurate
reporting, clearance, and settlement of securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    FICC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. FICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. SR-FICC-2006-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FICC-2006-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C 552, will be available for inspection and copying
in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at FICC's principal office and on FICC's Web
site at http://ficc.com/gov/gov.docs.jsp?NS-query=#rf. 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
submission should refer to File No. SR-FICC-2006-11 and should be
submitted on or before November 14, 2006.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17731 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P