SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ)
(Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ)
(Renewal),                     EPA ICR Number 1850.05, OMB Control
Number 2060-0476

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Primary Copper Smelters were proposed on April 20, 1998, and June
26, 2000, respectively.  This standard applies to each new and existing
affected source found at a primary copper smelter.  New facilities
include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the
date of the proposal.  This information is being collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ.  The effected sources are
copper concentrate dryer, smelting furnace, slag cleaning vessel, copper
converter department, and the entire group of fugitive emission sources.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities.  In addition, they are required to maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all
affected facilities subject to NESHAP.

Owners and operators of a primary copper smelter are subject to the
regulation only if it is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emitting or has the potential to emit any single HAP at the rate of 10
tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or
more per year.  In addition, respondents are required to submit an
annual performance test report for each control device, along with a
semiannual compliance report.  These notifications, records and reports
are essential in determining compliance and are required of all sources
subject to this subpart.

Respondents subject to the rule are required to prepare and maintain
on-site two site-specific operating plans: 1) a startup, shutdown,
malfunction plan, and 2) a fugitive dust control plan.  These plans do
not require approval by EPA but are required to be maintained at the
smelter site.  Respondents subject to the provisions of this part are
required to maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file
for at least five years following the date of such measurements,
maintenance reports, and records.  Each record is to be filed at the
site for at least two years after the date of each occurrence,
measurement, maintenance, report or record and off-site for the
remaining three years.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or
local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated
authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

Approximately three respondents are currently subject to the regulation,
and it is estimated that no additional new respondents will become
subject to the regulation in the next three years.

There are approximately three primary copper smelter plants in the
United States which are owned and operated by the copper smelter
industry.  All three are owned and operated by privately- owned,
for-profit businesses.  The burden to the “Affected Public” is
listed in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost - NESHAP for Primary
Copper Smelters (Renewal), (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ) (attached.)
The Federal government burden does not include work performed by Federal
employees.  The burden refers to work performed by contractors, and that
burden is found in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for
Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ) (Renewal),
(attached.)

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active
Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of HAP.  These standards are
applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the
maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition, section 114(a)
states that the Administrator may require any owner or 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 primary copper
smelters cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP
was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  In addition, the collected
information is used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal
proceedings.

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

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

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart QQQ.

3(a)  Non-duplication

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 their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 10735) on March 9, 2007.
No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal
Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s
internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next
three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as
reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.
 OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval
of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on
our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.
Approximately 3 respondents will be subject to the standard over the
three-year period covered by this ICR.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided
an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as
it was being developed, and the standard has previously been reviewed to
determine the minimum information needed for compliance purposes.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received
since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the
first Federal Register notice.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  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.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond the five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

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

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
primary copper smelters.  The United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standard
is 3331 which correspond to the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code 331411 for Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper.

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data recorded or reported is required by the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary
Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ).

A source must make the following reports:

Notifications

Initial notification	63.1454(a) and 63.9(b)

Notification of performance test	63.1454(d), 63.7, and 63.9(e)

Notification of compliance status	63.1454(e) and 63.9(h)

Reports

Performance test reports	63.1454(a) and 63.10(d)

Semiannual summary reports	63.1454(b) and 63.10(e)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Records of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions	63.1456(a)(2), 63.1454(c)
and 63.10(b)(2)

Records of air pollution control equipment maintenance, malfunctions,
and corrective actions	63.1456(c), 63.1454(c) and 63.10(b)(1)

Records of performance tests and other supporting documentation used to
demonstrate compliance with relevant standards under the rule
63.1456(a)(5), 63.1454(c) and 63.10(b)(2)

Records of monthly capture system visual inspection	63.1454(c) and
63.10(b)(2)

Records of converter capture system operating parameter monitoring
system performance, calibration, and maintenance	63.1454(c) and
63.10(b)(2)

Records of control device operating parameter monitoring system
performance, calibration, and maintenance	63.1454(c) and 63.10(b)(2)

Records of control device or converter capture system operating
parameter deviations	63.1454(c) and 63.10(b)(2)

Copy of site-specific air pollution equipment startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan	63.1450(c) and 63.6(e)(3)

Copy of site-specific smelter fugitive dust control plan	63.1448(a)

Electronic Reporting

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

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

Respondent Activities

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 1, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 5, 5D, 17, 29 tests, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

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

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

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

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way (e.g., continuous parameter
monitoring system.)  Although personnel at the source still need to
evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly
reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

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

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

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

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online Tracking Information
System (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.

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

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

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

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

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for
Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ) (Renewal),
(attached.)

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever 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 8,837
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial 	$95.32   ($45.39 + 110%)

Technical	$64.60   ($30.76 + 110%)

Clerical	$40.09   ($19.09 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, September 2003 “Table 10: Private industry, by
occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
“Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent
to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by
private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

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

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost

(B X C) 	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Monitoring control device 	$2,800	0	$0	$1,540	3	$4,620

Monitoring converter hood	$10,800	0	$0	$1,200	3	$3,600

	$0

	$8,220

The average annual cost for capital/startup, operation and maintenance
costs, and labor costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR
is estimated to be $575,068.  This latter total   includes $566,848 for
labor costs plus, as shown in the above table, $8,220 for operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs for photocopying and postage (column G) and zero
for capital/startup costs (column D).

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as: the examination of records maintained by
the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the
publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $2,185.

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

Managerial	$54.66   (GS-13, Step 5, $34.16 + 60%)

Technical	$40.56   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.35 + 60%)

Clerical	$21.95   (GS-6, Step 3, $13.72 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2004
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 upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NESHAP for Primary
Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ) (Renewal), (attached.)

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

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 3 respondents will be subject to the standard.  It
is estimated that no additional sources per year will become subject.
The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the table below
is 3 per year.

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

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	0	3	0	0	3

2	0	3	0	0	3

3	0	3	0	0	3

Average	0	3	0	0	3

1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and
modified affected facilities.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 3.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Initial notification	3	1	N/A	3

Notification of performance test	3	5.5	N/A	16.5

Initial compliance determination	3	1	N/A	3

Performance test reports	3	5.5	N/A	16.5

Summary reports	3	2	N/A	6

	Total	45

The number of Total Annual Responses is 45.

The total annual labor costs are $566,848.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost -
NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ)
(Renewal), (attached.)

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor costs are $566,848.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ).
(Attached.)  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 196
hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $8,220.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 55 labor hours at a cost of $2,185.  See Table 2: Annual
Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part
63, Subpart QQQ) (Renewal), (attached.)

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to
the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations.  First, the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and not
anticipated to change over the next three years.  Secondly, the growth
rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is
no significant change in the overall burden.  It should be noted that
the previous ICR rounded the burden cost down to the nearest one
thousand.  In this ICR, the exact cost figure is reported which results
in an apparent increase in the cost when, in fact, no increase has
occurred.  Also the total labor burden cost in Table 1 was changed due
to a mathematical error.  The previous cost was incorrectly reported as
$556,848 whereas the correct figure is $566,848.

Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is
no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the
previous ICR are used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden to
industry.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 196 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0063.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
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 content of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search” than 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 Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0063 and OMB Control Number
2060-0476 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Primary
Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ) (Renewal)

Burden item	(A)

Person hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year	(C)

Person hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year  a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person hours per year

(Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Total Cost

Per year b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	16	1	16	0	0	0	0	$0

     B.  Required activities

        Conduct control device performance test c	120	4.5	540	3	1,620	81
162	$118,867.50

        Conduct converter building performance test d	240	1	240	3	720	36
72	$52,830.00

     C.  Create information	See 3B and 4E

	     D.  Gather existing information	See 3B and 4E

	     E.  Write Report

         Initial notification	8	1	8	3	24	1.2	2.4	$1,761.00

         Notification of performance test	2	5.5	11	3	33	1.65	3.3
$2,421.38

         Initial compliance determination	40	1	40	3	120	6	12	$8,805.00

         Performance test reports e	80	5.5	440	3	1,320	66	132	$96,855.00

         Summary report f	40	2	80	3	240	12	24	$17,590.00

Subtotal for Reporting Requirements

	4,688.55

	4.  Recordkeeping requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     B.  Plan activities	100	1	100	0	0	0	0	$0

     C.  Implement Activities

      i.  Prepare startup, shutdown, malfunction plan 	80	1	80	0	0	0	0
$0

     ii.  Copper concentrate dryer

              Monitor control device parameters g	0.5	365	182.5	3	547.5
0	0	$35,368.50

    iii.  Smelting vessel

             Inspect tapping hood system h	4	12	48	3	144	0	0	$9,302.40

             Monitor control device parameters g	0.5	365	182.5	3	547.5	0
0	$35,368.50

    iv.  Slag cleaning vessel

             Inspect tapping hood system i	4	12	48	1	48	0	0	$3,100.80

             Monitor control device parameters i, g	0.5	365	182.5	1
182.5	0	0	$11,789.50

     v.  Batch copper converters

             Inspect converter hood system	4	12	48	3	144	0	0	$9,302.40

             Monitor hood system ventilation

             Parameters g	0.5	365	182.5	3	547.5	0	0	$35,368.50

             Monitor control device parameters g	0.5	365	182.5	3	547.5	0
0	$35,368.50

    vi.  Prepare fugitive dust control plan	100	1	100	0	0	0	0	$0

    D.  Develop record system	100	1	100	0	0	0	0	$0

    E.  Time to enter information j	1	365	365	3	1,095	0	0	$70,737.00

    F.  Time to train personnel k	100	1	100	3	300	15	30	$22,012.50

Subtotal for Recordkeeping Requirements

	4,148.5

	Subtotals Labor Burden and Cost

	8,180.5	218.85	437.7	$566,848.48

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

8,837.05

8,837 (rounded)

$566,848

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that there are approximately three sources that are
subject to the standard, with no new additional sources expected over
the next three years.

b  This ICR uses the following labor rates:  $95.32 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $64.60 per hour for
Technical labor, and $40.09

per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2003 “Table
10: Private industry, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates
are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been
increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available
to those employed by private industry.

c  We have assumed that each of the three respondents will 120 hours to
conduct control device performance test.

d  We have assumed that each of the three respondents will take 240
hours to conduct converter building performance test.

e  We have assumed that each of the respondents will take eighty hours
to complete a performance test report.

f  We have assumed that it will take each respondent forty hours to
write summary report twice a year.

g  Recordkeeping requirements are required daily on all monitor control
device parameters.

h  We have assumed that inspections on all tapping hood systems are done
on a monthly basis.

i  We have assumed that one of the three existing sources will be
equipped with a slag cleaning vessel.

j  Each respondent is required to record information on a daily basis.

k  We have assumed that it will take each of the respondent 100 hours to
train personnel once a year.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQ) (Renewal)

Activity	(A)

EPA person- hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year	(C)

EPA person- hours per plant per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Plants per year  a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person-hours per year

(Ex0.05)

	(G)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost, $ b

Activity

Review reports

   a.  Report of no deviations 	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

   b.  Report of deviations 	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

   c.  Report of SSM	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

   d.  Reports of equipment leaks 	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

   e.  Report on wastewater c 	8	2	16	3	48	2.4	4.8	$2,185.42

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	48	2.4	4.8	$2,185.42

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	55.2

55 (rounded)	$2,185

 	Assumptions:

    a  We have assumed that there are approximately three sources that
are subject to the standard, with no new additional sources expected
over the next three years.

b  This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6
benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $54.66 for Managerial (GS-13, Step 5, $34.16 x 1.6), $40.56
for Technical (GS-12, Step 1, $25.35 x 1.6) and $21.95 Clerical (GS-6,
Step 3, $13.72 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) “2004 General Schedule” which excludes locality
rates of pay.

c  It is assumed that all of the three respondents are required to
review reports on wastewater on a semiannual basis.

 PAGE

 PAGE   15

 PAGE


[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 8366]
[DOCID:fr26fe07-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-172-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

February 20, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 15, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff
sheets with a proposed effective date of March 17, 2007:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 144
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 146
First Revised Sheet No. 148
Original Sheet No. 149
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 318

    Columbia Gulf states that on February 15, 2007 it filed with the
Commission revisions to Section 4 of the General Terms and Conditions
of its tariff.
    Columbia Gulf's Tariff contains the procedures that a shipper must
follow to obtain available capacity on Columbia's Gulf system. The
proposed new tariff language will address the issue of how far in the
future service can be permitted to commence after a request for service
has been made.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3220 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88461-88463]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28041]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99190; File No. SR-GEMX-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Section 6

December 15, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 5, 2023, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules at Options 7, Section 6,
C, Ports and Other Services.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
November 28, 2023 (SR-GEMX-2023-16). On December 5, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/gemx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 6, C, Ports and
Other Services. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the
monthly caps for SQF Ports \4\ and SQF Purge Ports.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Specialized Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that
allows Market Makers to connect, send, and receive messages related
to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and auction responses to the
Exchange. Features include the following: (1) options symbol
directory messages (e.g., underlying instruments); (2) System event
messages (e.g., start of trading hours messages and start of
opening); (3) trading action messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4)
execution messages; (5) quote messages; (6) Immediate-or-Cancel
Order messages; (7) risk protection triggers and purge
notifications; (8) opening imbalance messages; (9) auction
notifications; and (10) auction responses. The SQF Purge Interface
only receives and notifies of purge requests from the Market Maker.
Market Makers may only enter interest into SQF in their assigned
options series. Immediate-or-Cancel Orders entered into SQF are not
subject to the Order Price Protection, Market Order Spread
Protection, and Size Limitation Protection in Options 3, Section
15(a)(1)(A), (1)(B), and (2)(B) respectively. See Supplementary
Material .03(c) to Options 3, Section 7.
    \5\ SQF Purge is a specific port for the SQF interface that only
receives and notifies of purge requests from the Market Maker.
Dedicated SQF Purge Ports enable Market Makers to seamlessly manage
their ability to remove their quotes in a swift manner. The SQF
Purge Port is designed to assist Market Makers in the management of,
and risk control over, their quotes. Market Makers may utilize a
purge port to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all
quotes in their assigned options series. Of note, Market Makers may
only enter interest into SQF in their assigned options series.
Additionally, the SQF Purge Port may be utilized by a Market Maker
in the event that the Member has a system issue and determines to
purge its quotes from the order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, GEMX assesses $1,250 per port, per month for an SQF Port as
well as an SQF Purge Port.\6\ Also, today, SQF Ports and SQF Purge
Ports are subject to a monthly cap of $17,500, which cap is applicable
to Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange proposes to add a comma between ``per port''
and ``per month'' in the Options 7, Section 6, C, SQF Port and SQF
Purge Port Fee rule text. The Exchange also proposes to remove an
extraneous period in Options 7, Section 6, C, in the second
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to increase the SQF Port and
SQF Purge Port monthly cap fee of $17,500 per month to $27,500 per
month. The Exchange is not amending the $1,250 per port, per month SQF
Port and SQF Purge Port. As is the case today, the Exchange would not
assess a Member an SQF Port or SQF Purge Port fee beyond the monthly
cap once the Member has exceeded the monthly cap for the respective
month. Despite increasing the monthly cap for SQF Ports and SQF Purge
Ports from $17,500 per month to

$27,500 per month, the Exchange will continue to offer Members the
opportunity to cap their SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees so that they
would not be assessed these fees beyond the cap. Further, a GEMX Market
Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in its assigned
options series into GEMX. A GEMX Market Maker may submit all quotes
through one SQF Port and utilize one SQF Purge Port to view its purge
requests. While a Market Maker may elect to obtain multiple SQF Ports
and SQF Purge Ports to organize its business,\7\ only one SQF Port and
SQF Purge Port is necessary for a Market Maker to fulfill its
regulatory quoting obligations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, a Market Maker may desire to utilize multiple
SQF Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance, for
regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to that
Member.
    \8\ GEMX Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, GEMX Market
Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their
assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. SQF
Ports are the only quoting protocol available on GEMX and only
Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports. The same is true for SQF Purge
Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed pricing change to increase the monthly cap applicable
to SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports is reasonable in several respects. As
a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in the market for options securities transaction services that
constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this
market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do
shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.
    The proposed pricing change to increase the SQF Port and SQF Purge
Port monthly cap from $17,500 per month to $27,500 per month is
reasonable because despite the increase in the monthly cap, the
Exchange will continue to offer Members the opportunity to cap their
SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees so that they would not be assessed
these fees beyond the cap. Additionally, a GEMX Market Maker requires
only one SQF Port to submit quotes in its assigned options series into
GEMX. A GEMX Market Maker may submit all quotes through one SQF Port
and utilize one SQF Purge Port to view its purge requests. While a
Market Maker may elect to obtain multiple SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports
to organize its business,\13\ only one SQF Port and SQF Purge Port is
necessary for a Market Maker to fulfill its regulatory quoting
obligations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, a Market Maker or may desire to utilize
multiple SQF Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance,
for regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to
that Member.
    \14\ GEMX Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, GEMX Market
Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their
assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. SQF
Ports are the only quoting protocol available on GEMX and only
Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed pricing change to increase the SQF Port and
SQF Purge Port monthly cap from $17,500 per month to $27,500 per month
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would
uniformly not assess any Market Makers that exceeded the proposed
monthly cap any SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees for that month beyond
the cap. Market Makers are the only market participants that are
assessed SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees because they are the only
market participants that are permitted to quote on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on intermarket
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets who also offer order entry protocols. The
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange's proposed pricing change to increase the SQF Port and
SQF Purge Port monthly cap from $17,500 per month to $27,500 per month
does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange
would uniformly not assess any Market Makers that exceeded the proposed
monthly cap any SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees for that month beyond
the cap. Market Makers are the only market participants that are
assessed SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees because they are the only
market participants that are permitted to quote on the Exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-GEMX-2023-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-GEMX-2023-19. 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 website (https://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 website 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-GEMX-2023-19 and should be
submitted on or before January 11, 2024.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28041 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10491-10492]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4012]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13254-002]

City of Aspen; Notice of Intent To File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the
Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 13254-002.
    c. Date Filed: December 12, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: City of Aspen.
    e. Name of Project: Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Maroon and Castle Creeks near the City of Aspen, in
Pitkin County, Colorado. Parts of the Castle Creek Hydroelectric
Project would occupy federal lands of the White River National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: David Hornbacher, City of Aspen,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    j. City of Aspen filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on December 12, 2011. The city provided public notice of its
request on December 19, 2011. In a letter dated February 2, 2012, the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved the City of Aspen's
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR Part 402; and (b) the Colorado State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating the City of Aspen as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. City of Aspen filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of
new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 14. 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4012 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9010-9012]
[DOCID:fr26fe10-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61558; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Modification of Fees

February 22, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 28, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend its Monthly Cap on equity
options transaction fees; (ii) amend the calculation of the Monthly
Cap; and (iii) amend the fee schedule to reflect current appeal fees
and make other technical modifications.
    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative for trades settling on or after February 1,
2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to decrease the current
Monthly Cap on equity options transactions from $900,000 to $750,000.
The Monthly Cap is currently applicable to ROTs \3\ and specialists.\4\
The Exchange believes that by reducing the Monthly Cap, a greater
number of members may benefit from the Monthly Cap and the Exchange
will attract additional order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ROT is a regular member or a foreign currency options
participant of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his
own account.
    \4\ This monthly cap is not applicable to electronic trading in
Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs (``SPY''), PowerShares
QQQ Trust (``QQQQ'')[reg]; Ishares Russell 2000 (``IWM'') and
Citigroup Inc. (``C'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the calculation of the
Monthly Cap by aggregating the trading activity of separate ROTs and
specialist member organizations if there is at least 75% common
ownership between the member organizations as reflected on each member
organizations' Form BD, Schedule A. The Exchange believes that this
aggregation will create an additional incentive for members to transact
more business on the Exchange.
    The Exchange also proposes to memorialize certain appeal fees on
its Fee Schedule. Currently the Exchange assesses a forum fee of $100
pursuant to Exchange Rule 60, Commentary (a).06.\5\ This forum fee is
assessed when a member contests a citation imposed pursuant to Rule 60
and the citation is upheld by the reviewing body. Additionally, the
Exchange assesses a $250 fee on members seeking a review of an Options
Exchange Official ruling pursuant to Exchange Rule 124.\6\
Specifically, a member or member organization seeking the Referee's
review of a Floor Official ruling concerning the nullification or
adjustment of a trade would be assessed a fee of $250 for each Floor
Official ruling they seek to have reviewed if the Referee upholds the
Floor Official decision. No fee would be assessed to the member or
member organization seeking a review if the Floor Official decision is
overturned or modified. These fees do not currently appear on the
Exchange's Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to list these fees,
which are currently in effect, on the Fee Schedule in order to provide
additional notice to members of these fees, which exist in the Exchange
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61207 (December 18,
2009), 74 FR 69185 (December 30, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-84).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53548 (March 24,
2006), 71 FR 16389 (March 31, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make a technical modification to the
Fee Schedule by moving the location of the Options Regulatory Fee on
the Fee Schedule and creating a separate text box for that fee for
purposes of clarity. The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule will be
effective for transactions settling on or after February 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
members will benefit from the reduced Monthly Cap and the proposed
amendment to the calculation of the monthly cap in that a greater
number of members will be able to qualify for the Monthly Cap and this
would decrease fees to members. Also, the addition of the appeal fees
should provide additional notice to members of these fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-16. 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 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-16 and should be
submitted on or before March 19, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3947 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P