[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 73501-73503]
[DOCID:fr12de05-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52887; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to a Pilot Program Relating to
Minimum Numerical Standards in Section 102.01A of the Listed Company
Manual

December 5, 2005.
    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 23, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE. On December 1,
2005, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ NYSE
has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \5\
thereunder, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, NYSE made a technical change to Exhibit
5 (text of the proposed rule change). The correction to Exhibit 5
does not make any changes to the current initial listing
distribution criteria for companies listing in connection with a
transfer or quotation, but only adds missing rule text that was
inadvertently excluded in the filing submitted by the Exchange on
November 23, 2005.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE is proposing to amend, on a six-month pilot program basis
(the ``Pilot Program''), to expire on May 31, 2006, section 102.01A of
the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual'') regarding the
minimum numerical listing standards.\6\ The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the NYSE's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at

the principal office of the NYSE, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Telephone conversation between Florence Harmon, Senior
Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and
Annemarie Tierney, Assistant General Counsel, NYSE, on December 2,
2005 (clarifying that the pilot program expires on May 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NYSE 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 NYSE 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 is proposing to introduce a Pilot Program to amend
certain of its minimum numerical standards for the listing of domestic
equity securities on the NYSE. Section 102.01A of the Manual sets out
minimum initial requirements for size and volume that must be met in
order for a company to be listed. Currently, companies that are listing
in conjunction with an initial public offering are required to
demonstrate that there are at least 2,000 or more round lot holders \7\
of the security to be listed in order to be authorized to list. If a
company cannot confirm that it satisfies the 2,000 round lot holder
threshold prior to the date that trading commences, the security is
ineligible for listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``round lot'' is a trading unit equivalent to 100 shares
(or an otherwise defined unit of trading). Telephone conversation
between Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market
Regulation, Commission, and Annemarie Tierney, Assistant General
Counsel, NYSE, on December 2, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it is increasingly being approached by
companies that are ultimately unable to list due to special
circumstances that result in the company's inability to satisfy the
2,000 round lot holder requirement prior to commencement of trading.
For example, companies listing following emergence from bankruptcy and
companies affiliated with a currently listed company that were created
in conjunction with a private placement or similar transaction
generally do not meet the round lot holder threshold unless the company
conducts a public offering simultaneously with listing. To accommodate
the listing of these types of companies absent a public offering, the
Exchange proposes to adopt alternative round lot holder distribution
standards for affiliated companies and companies listing upon emergence
from bankruptcy so that these types of companies will be eligible to
list if they can demonstrate that they have at least 400 round lot
holders prior to commencement of trading. The additional distribution
criteria for number of publicly held shares and aggregate market value
of publicly held shares that are set forth in section 102A of the
Manual are not proposed to be amended.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for the Pilot
Program is the requirement under section 6(b)(5) \8\ that an exchange
have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed Pilot Program.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change, as amended: (1) Does
not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act
requires the self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days (or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission) before doing so. NYSE has requested that the Commission
waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. The Commission
waives the five-day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ and
designate the proposed rule change to become operative immediately so
that the Exchange can implement its Pilot Program relating to minimum
numerical initial listing standards to facilitate listings by limited
categories of companies that meet the Exchange's current listing
standards other than the round lot holder threshold. The Commission
notes that the Exchange states that the proposed round lot holder
threshold for affiliated companies and companies emerging from
bankruptcy is substantially similar to the listing threshold utilized
by The Nasdaq Stock Market \12\ and the American Stock Exchange
LLC.\13\ The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest and designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon
filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See NASD Rule 4420.
    \13\ See Section 102(a) of the Amex Company Guide.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is
November 23, 2005. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is December
1, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on December 1, 2005, the date on which NYSE submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-NYSE-2005-82 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-82. This
file number should be included on the

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all

subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE.
    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-NYSE-2005-82
and should be submitted on or before January 3, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7181 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68347-68350]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF10-24-000]

Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC, and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.; Notice
of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Sabine
Pass Liquefaction Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

October 29, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Sabine Pass Liquefaction
Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC, and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively
referred to as Sabine Pass) in Cameron County, Louisiana. This EA will
be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine
whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input during the scoping process will
help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in
the EA. The Commission staff will also use the scoping process to help
determine whether preparation of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) is more appropriate for this Project based upon the potential
significance of the anticipated levels of impact. Please note that the
scoping period will close on November 29, 2010. This is not your only
public input opportunity; please refer to the Environmental Review
Process flow chart in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned
Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Involvement of U.S. Department of Energy

    The FERC is the lead federal agency in preparation of an EA that
will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy (DOE)
has agreed to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the EA to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities. DOE proposes to authorize
Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC to export liquefied natural gas (LNG)
from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal (SPLNG Terminal) if DOE determines
that such export is in the public interest.
    The DOE must meet its obligation under section 3 of the Natural Gas
Act of 1938, as amended (NGA), to authorize the import and export of
natural gas,

including LNG, unless it finds that the proposed import or export will
not be consistent with the public interest. The purpose and need for
DOE action is to respond to the September 7, 2010, application filed
with DOE (FE Docket No. 10-111-LNG) by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC,
in conjunction with the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project. Sabine Pass
Liquefaction, LLC has applied to DOE for blanket authorization to
export up to 16 million metric tons per annum (mtpa) of domestic
natural gas as LNG for a 20-year period, commencing the earlier of the
date of first export or five years from the date of issuance of the
requested authorization, from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal to any
country: (1) With which the United States does not have a free trade
agreement requiring the national treatment for trade in natural gas and
LNG; (2) that has, or in the future develops, the capacity to import
LNG; and (3) with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy.

Summary of the Planned Project Before FERC

    Sabine Pass plans to add natural gas liquefaction and exportation
capabilities to the existing Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana. The Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project would consist
of the construction and installation of facilities to be used for the
liquefaction and exportation of natural gas. All Project facilities
would be constructed and operated within the existing 853-acre SPLNG
Terminal Site. Sabine Pass plans to construct the Project in two
stages, with anticipated in-service starting in January 2015.
    The Project would be capable of processing an average of
approximately 2.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of pipeline
quality natural gas from the Creole Trail Pipeline, which interconnects
with the SPLNG Terminal. Sabine Pass would liquefy the natural gas,
store the LNG, and export approximately 16 mtpa of LNG via LNG
carriers.
    According to Sabine Pass, its Project would improve the outlook for
domestic natural gas production, owing to drilling productivity gains
that have enabled rapid growth in supplies from unconventional, and
particularly shale, gas-bearing formations in the United States. The
exportation of LNG would provide a market solution to allow the further
deliberate development of these sources of natural gas.
    More specifically, the Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     Four LNG liquefaction trains (each train contains gas
treatment facilities, six gas turbine-driven refrigerant compressors,
waste heat recovery systems, induced draft air coolers, fire and gas
detection and safety systems, control systems, and associated
infrastructure);
     Additional power generation (including up to two gas
turbine-driven generators, transformers, and other electrical
accessories to supplement existing onsite power generation);
     Other infrastructure and modifications (including storage
tanks for propane and ethylene refrigerants and the amine make up,
replacement of in-tank LNG pumps and piping modifications to increase
flow capacity and facilitate loading of LNG carriers, impoundments for
the liquefaction trains, flares, recycle boil-off gas compressors,
potable water, service water, and demineralized water systems); and
     New and remodeled buildings.
    In addition, a LNG storage tank and impoundment that were
previously authorized under FERC Docket CP05-396-000 but not built
would be constructed to provide additional LNG storage for the Project.
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in Appendix
2.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 243
acres of land. Following construction, about 203 acres would be
maintained for permanent operation of the Project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to revert to former
uses. All planned activities would occur within the existing 853-acre
SPLNG Terminal site.

The EA Process

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA
also requires us \2\ to discover and address concerns the public may
have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main
goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the
important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All
comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned Project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and fisheries;
     floodplains and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     endangered and threatened species;
     socioeconomics;
     land use;
     cultural resources;
     air quality and noise; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project
or portions of the Project, including the no action alternative, and
make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's Pre-filing Process.
The purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss
their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
In addition, representatives from FERC participated in the public open
house sponsored by Sabine Pass in the Project area in September 2010 to
explain the Environmental Review Process to interested stakeholders.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
If the Commission staff determines the preparation of an EA is
appropriate, the EA will be placed in the public record and be
published and distributed to the public. A comment period will be
allotted when the EA is noticed. We will consider all comments on the
EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your
comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in
the Public Participation section beginning on page 6.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
Currently, the DOE has expressed its intention to participate as a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA to

satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this Project.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit
their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic
properties.\3\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the Project is
further developed. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards,
compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this Project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Sabine Pass. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Floodplains;
     Socioeconomics;
     Air quality; and
     Public safety.

Notice of Floodplain Involvement

    Because the proposed Project may involve actions in floodplains, in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1022,
Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review
Requirements, the EA will include a floodplain assessment as
appropriate, and a floodplain statement of findings will be included in
any DOE finding of no significant impact.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before November 29,
2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number PF10-24-000 with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may mail a paper copy of your comments to the Commission at
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned Project.
    When an EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to
the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Sabine Pass files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept
requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a
formal application for the Project is filed with the Commission.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., PF10-24). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document

summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
along with other related information.
    Finally, Sabine Pass has established a Web site for this Project at
http://www.cheniere.com. The Web site includes a Project overview,
timeline, environmental information, and answers to frequently asked
questions. You can also request additional information by contacting
Patricia Outtrim at Sabine Pass via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27991 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 179 (Wednesday, September 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55700-55701]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23240]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 75885]

In the Matter of BATS Global Markets, Inc.; BOX Options Exchange
LLC; KCG Holdings, Inc.; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP; Order Granting Petitions for
Review and Scheduling Filing of Statements

September 10, 2015.
    This matter comes before the Commission on petition to review the
approval, through delegated authority, of the Options Clearing
Corporation's (``OCC'') plan for raising additional capital (``Capital
Plan'') to support its function as a systemically important financial
market utility. On January 26, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of
filing of the proposed rule change regarding the Capital Plan.\1\ After
consideration of the record in the proposed rule change, the Division
of Trading and Markets, for the Commission pursuant to delegated
authority, issued an order approving

(``Approval Order'') the Capital Plan on March 6, 2015.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74136 (January 26,
2015), 80 FR 5171 (January 30, 2015) (SR-OCC-2015-02).
    \2\ Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning a Proposed
Capital Plan for Raising Additional Capital That Would Support the
Options Clearing Corporation's Function as a Systemically Important
Financial Market Utility, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74452
(March 6, 2015), 80 FR 13058 (March 12, 2015) (SR-OCC-2015-02). The
Capital Plan was previously filed as an advance notice pursuant to
Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010. See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). The Commission
issued a notice of no objection to the advance notice on February
26, 2015. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74387 (February
26, 2015), 80 FR 12215 (March 6, 2015) (SR-OCC-2014-813).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BATS Global Markets, Inc. (``BATS''), BOX Options Exchange LLC
(``BOX''), KCG Holdings, Inc. (``KCG''), Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), and Susquehanna International Group, LLP
(``SIG'') (collectively ``Petitioners'') each filed petitions for
review of the Approval Order, challenging the action taken by delegated
authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under Commission Rule of Practice 430 any aggrieved party
may seek review of an action made by delegated authority. See 17 CFR
201.430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the Petitioners are aggrieved by the
Approval Order and pursuant to Rule 431 of the Rules of Practice, the
Petitioners' petitions for review of the Approval Order are granted.
Further, the Commission hereby establishes that any party or other
person may file a written statement in support of or in opposition to
the Approval Order on or before October 7, 2015. This will provide an
opportunity for the Commission to receive additional comment and
information to help it more fully assess the issues raised. The
Commission has issued a separate order addressing the automatic
stay.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Order Discontinuing the Automatic Stay, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 75886 (September 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, it is hereby:
    Ordered that the petitions of BATS, BOX, KCG, MIAX, and SIG for
review of the staff's action in approving by delegated authority File
No. SR-OCC-2015-02 \5\ are GRANTED; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is further ordered that any party or other person may file a
statement in support of or in opposition to the action made pursuant to
delegated authority on or before October 7, 2015.
    The order approving such proposed rule change shall remain in
effect.

    By the Commission.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23240 Filed 9-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30785]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13974]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83509; File Nos. SR-DTC-2017-021; SR-FICC-2017-021; SR-
NSCC-2017-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove
Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt a Recovery & Wind-Down Plan and Related
Rules

June 25, 2018.
    On December 18, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC''), and National Securities
Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') (collectively, ``Clearing Agencies''),
each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
a proposed rule change to adopt a recovery and wind-down plan and
related rules (SR-DTC-2017-021, SR-FICC-2017-021, and SR-NSCC-2017-
017), respectively (``Proposed Rule Changes''), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule Changes were published for
comment in the Federal Register on January 8, 2018.\3\ On February 8,
2018, the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Changes.\4\ On March 20, 2018,
the Commission instituted proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B)
of the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
Proposed Rule Changes.\6\ The Commission did not receive any comments
on the Proposed Rule Changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. On December 18, 2018, the Clearing
Agencies each filed these proposals as advance notices (SR-DTC-2017-
803, SR-FICC-2017-805, SR-NSCC-2017-805) with the Commission
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'')
and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) of the Act (``Advance Notices''). On January
30, 2018, the Commission published in the Federal Register notices
of filing of the Advance Notices. These notices also extended the
review periods for the Advance Notices pursuant to Section
806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act. (12 U.S.C.
5465(e)(1)(H).) See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82579
(January 24, 2018), 83 FR 4310 (January 30, 2018) (SR-DTC-2017-803);
82580 (January 24, 2018), 83 FR 4341 (January 30, 2018) (SR-FICC-
2017-805); 82581 (January 24, 2018), 83 FR 4327 (January 30, 2018)
(SR-NSCC-2017-805). On April 10, 2018, the Commission required
further information for consideration of the Advance Notices,
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(D) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
which provided the Commission with a renewed 60-day review period
beginning on the date that the information requested is received by
the Commission. (12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(D).) As of the date of this
release, the Commission has not yet received the requested
information.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82432 (January 2,
2018), 83 FR 884 (January 8, 2018) (SR-DTC-2017-021); 82431 (January
2, 2018), 83 FR 871 (January 8, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-021); 82430
(January 2, 2018), 83 FR 841 (January 8, 2018) (SR-NSCC-2017-017).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82669 (February 8,
2018), 83 FR 6653 (February 14, 2018) (SR-DTC-2017-021; SR-FICC-
2017-021; SR-NSCC-2017-017).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82912 (March 20, 2018),
83 FR 12999 (March 26, 2018) (SR-DTC-2017-021); 82913 (March 20,
2018), 83 FR 12997 (March 26, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-021); 82908 (March
20, 2018), 83 FR 12986 (March 26, 2018) (SR-NSCC-2017-017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provides that proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove a proposed rule change must
be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication of notice of
filing of the proposed rule change. The time for conclusion of the
proceedings may be extended for up to 60 days if the Commission
determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes the
reasons for such determination.\8\ The 180th day for the Proposed Rule
Changes is July 7, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the period for Commission action on the
Proposed Rule Changes. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to
designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed
Rule Changes so that the Commission has sufficient time to consider the
issues raised by the Proposed Rule Changes and to take action on the
Proposed Rule Changes. The proposal shall not take effect until all
regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are
completed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
\10\ and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates
September 5, 2018, as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-021, SR-FICC-
2017-021, and SR-NSCC-2017-017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II).

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

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13974 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for the regulations published at regulatory citation was proposed on August 4, 1998, promulgated on May 20, 1999, and amended most recently on March 22, 2001. The promulgated rule applies to new and existing ferroalloy production facilities that manufacture ferromanganese and silicomanganese, and that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) emissions, or are co located at major sources of HAPs. The following affected facilities at ferroalloy production plants are subject to this NESHAP rule: submerged arc furnaces; metal oxygen refining ( MOR) process; crushing and screening operations; and fugitive dust sources. New sources include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX.

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

Any owner/ operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office.

In the development of this Information Collection Request ( ICR), we reviewed the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) " Terms of Clearance" ( TOC) section on the active ICR which are as follows:

OMB notes that EPA has not requested any ( non labor) cost burden for this collection. EPA should assess whether there are any 2 non labor costs associated with this collection, including monitoring equipment or record storage, and submit an information change worksheet if appropriate to correct the cost burden of the collection. OMB notes that under the terms of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, EPA should provide a means for the respondent to report electronically by October 2003, to the extent practicable.

There are approximately 16 facilities listed in EPA's database systems that are potentially subject to this regulation. However, we have determined that there is only one ferroalloy production plant currently subject to the standard because the remaining plants are minor sources of hazardous air pollutants not subject to the standard. We have assumed that no additional respondents will become subject to this regulation in the next three years since the production of ferroalloys has continued to decrease in this nation over the last decade. The estimates and assumptions are based on recent information gathered from industry by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS); the EPA's Air Facility System ( AFS) database through the Online Tracking Information System ( OTIS); review of information available on the active ICR; and consultation with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

The facility subject to this rule has the ability to comply with the reporting requirements electronically.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.

In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/ operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

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

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter and metallic HAP emissions from ferroalloy production facilities 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 XXX.

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

Performance tests for air pollution devices are required in order to determine an affected facility's initial capability to comply with the emission standards. Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure that the control equipment is operating properly and therefore, ensure compliance with the standards at all times. During the performance test, a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the 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 standards are being met. The performance test may also be observed.

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

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

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 4 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, 69 FR 29718 on May 25, 2004. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations For this information collection, several sources were used to obtain updated information on the number of sources and on the assumptions made to determine the industry burden. As discussed in Section 1( b), the number of sources was estimated by consulting Conrad Chin, the OAQPS rule lead, who had recent information on this source category. We also consulted Kay Gilmer at the Ohio EPA ( 704 380 5257) to review the assumptions made in this ICR. In addition, queries were conducted on the EPA's AFS database through the MACT Tool under OTIS.

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

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

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards. EPA believes that the five year records retention requirement is consistent with the Part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. Also, the retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years. EPA would be prevented from 5 pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years.

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 the owners or operators of all new and existing ferroalloys production facilities that are major sources or are colocated at major sources. The affected facilities produce either ferromanganese or silicomanganese. The United States Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards is 3313, " Electrometallurgical Products, Except Steel" which corresponds to The North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code 331112, " Electrometallurgical Ferroalloy Product Manufacturing".

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by the NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Notification of applicability if an area source becomes subject to the rule 63.9 ( b)( 1)( ii); 63.1658( a)

Notification/ application for approval of construction/ reconstruction 63.5( a, b, d and e); 63.9( b)( 1)( iii); 63.1658( a) 6 Notification Reports Request for an extension of compliance status 63( d); 63.1658( b)

Notification that source is subject to special compliance requirements 63.10( d); 63.1658( c)

Notification of performance test 63.9( e); 63.1658( d)

Notification of opacity and visible emission observations 63.1658( e)

Reschedule of initial performance test 63.7( b)( 2)

Notification of compliance status 63.9( h); 63.1658( f)

Reports Results of performance tests 63.10( d)( 2); 63.1659( a)( 2)

Results of opacity or visible emission observations 63.10( d)( 3)

Progress reports if source has received an extension for compliance 63.10( d)( 4)

Immediate and periodic startup, shutdown, malfunction reports 63.10( d)( 5)( i ii); 63.1659( a)( 4)

Continuous monitoring systems ( CMS) performance evaluations reports 63.10( e)( 2)

Quarterly excess emissions reports and CMS performance report, unless a semiannual frequency has been approved 63.10( e)( 3)( i); 63.1659( b)( 6)

Request to reduce frequency of reporting to semiannual 63.10( e)( 3)( ii)

Waiver of recordkeeping and reporting 63.10( f)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Maintain records of all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with standard including the occurrence and duration of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of operations 63.10( a c); 63.1660( a)( 2) 7 Recordkeeping Specific requirements include maintaining records of process or control device ( e. g., capture system and venturi scrubbers) parameters; bag leak detention systems; certification that monitoring devices are accurate; and records of the implementation and corrective actions associated with the startup, and shutdown and malfunction plan 63.1660( b)

Maintain records for a total of five years with the most recent two years being kept on site 63.10( b)( 2); 63.1660( a)( 2)

Electronic Reporting Currently, one respondent is using monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data, e. g., pressure drop across the venturi scrubber, monitoring parameter data for the capture systems, and bag leak detection systems alarms. Although personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at the plant site. In addition, the respondent is able to meet the reporting requirements of the rule by transmitting data including reports electronically to the regulatory agencies.

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Monitor shop opacity through one of the monitoring options including: 1) monitor control system fan motor amperes and capture system damper positions once per shift; 2) install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; and 3) install, calibrate, maintain, and operate for volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the air pollution control device and capture system damper positions once per shift.

Monitor baghouse operations on a regular basis, for example, observe on a daily basis for the presence of visible emissions at baghouses, bag leak detection system, and conduct periodic visual inspections to ensure it is working properly Monitor pressure drop and liquid supply pressure across the venturi scrubber Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60 for opacity observations, Reference Method 5 to determine particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate for baghouses without stack, and repeat performance tests if necessary. 8 Respondent Activities 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.

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

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

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

Audit facility records.

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

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

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA 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 The NESHAP for ferroalloys production facilities is applicable to only major sources. There are no small businesses affected by this regulation at this time. In addition, during the rule development process, the EPA closely reviewed the existing permit conditions at each of the two existing facilities, where feasible, incorporated similar, if not identical, requirements in the final rule. The Agency considers the final rule requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance with the standards.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX).

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

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping 10 and reporting requirements is estimated to be 584 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge, 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, 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.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard( s) are labor costs. There are no capital and startup costs for this ICR since we have assumed that the only source subject to this regulation has already purchased the necessary equipment to comply with this rule. In addition, we have assumed that there are no operation and maintenance costs for use of continuous monitoring systems since the monitors required by the rule are typically used by the source as part its normal operations to ensure that the control devices are functioning properly. Any other costs associated with photocopying and postage are assumed to be negligible.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor costs. There are no capital or startup costs, and operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR. This is reflected on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs, and in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M), respectively.

Therefore, the average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is zero. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. 11 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 1,638. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 54.66 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 34.16 x 1.6) Technical $ 40.56 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.35 x 1.6) Clerical $ 21.95 ( 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. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Burden and Cost for The Federal Government: NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX), attached. 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, only one existing ferroalloy production facility is currently subject to the standard, and no new or existing facility is expected to become subject to this regulation in the next three years.

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

1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 Average 0 1 0 0 1 1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities.

. To avoid double counting respondents column D is subtracted. As shown above, there is an average of one respondent over the three year period of this ICR. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents. 12 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 Notifications 0 5 N/ A 0 Notification of Performance Test 0 1 N/ A 0 Notification of Compliance Status 1 1 N/ A 1 Quarterly Reports 1 4 N/ A 4 Semiannual Reports 1 2 N/ A 2 Total 7 * Initial Notifications include: applicability; initial performance test, extension of compliance; the source is subject to special compliance requirements; and opacity and visible emission observations.

The number of Total Annual Responses is seven. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses. Note that two respondents have been double counted in the above table because they have both existing affected facilities and new affected facilities.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 37,261. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX), attached.

There are no annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years are estimated to be 91 labor hours at a cost of $ 1,638. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX), 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. 13 ( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 37,214. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX), attached. Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 83 hours per response.

There are no annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity subject to the NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 91 labor hours at a cost of $ 1,638. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX), attached. 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. The burden hours for industry has decreased from 746 to 584 hours. For the renewal of this ICR, there is no burden associated with the initial notifications and initial compliance demonstrations required for the NESHAP for ferroalloys production since the compliance date for this rule has passed. In addition, there is no burden associated with the development of the source record system including the startup, shutdown and malfunction plan; the fugitive dust plan; and the control equipment/ maintenance plan. However, the total cost has increased from $ 20,761 to $ 37,261 due to an increase in the labor rates. The Federal government's burden is also lower due to not needing to review initial compliance reports.

As in the active ICR, there are no annualized capital and startup costs and no operation and maintenance cost associated with continuous monitoring equipment. We have assumed that any monitoring equipment required to comply with the NESHAP has been purchased prior to the rule compliance date. In addition, the monitors required by the rule are typically used by the source as part its normal operations to ensure that the control devices are functioning properly.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 83 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial 14 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 OECA 2004 0004, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2004 0004 and OMB Control Number 2060 0391 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 15 Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:

NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX)

Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ b 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems N/ A 4. Reporting Requirements c A. Read instructions Included in 5C B. Required activities Included in 5C C. Create Information Included in 5C D. Gather Existing Information Included in 5C E. Write report c, d i. Initial notifications N/ A ii. Notification of reconstruction/ modification N/ A 16 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ b iii. Notification of annual performance test 2 1 2 1 2.0 0.10 0.20 $ 146.75 iv. Notification of opacity and visible observations 2 1 2 1 2.0 0.10 0.20 $ 146.75 v. Report of performance test results/ opacity observations 5 1 5 1 5.0 0.25 0.50 $ 367.28 vi. Periodic start/ shutdown/ malfunction reports 10 2 20 1 20.0 1.00 2.00 $ 1,467.50 vii. Capture hood inspection report 4 2 8 1 8.0 0.40 0.80 $ 587.00 viii. Summary report of maintenance records 4 2 8 1 8.0 0.40 0.80 $ 587.00 ix. Fugitive dust operations report 4 2 8 1 8.0 0.40 0.80 $ 587.00 x. Quarterly excess emissions reports 4 4 16 1 16.0 0.80 1.60 $ 1,174.00 xi. Annual compliance status certification 2 1 2 1 2.0 0.10 0.20 $ 146.75 5. Recordkeeping Requirements 17 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ b A. Read instructions Included in 5C B. Plan activities 10 1 10 1 10.0 0.5 1 $ 733.75 C. Implement activities: e i. Control devices:

Annual Performance tests for the control devices associated with submerged arc furnaces 50 1 50 1 50.0 2.50 5.00 $ 3,668.75 Baghouse monitoring include:

daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semiannualy 0.5 350 175 1 175.0 8.75 17.5 $ 12,840.63 0.1 50 5 1 5.0 0.25 0.50 $ 367.28 0.1 12 1.2 1 1.2 0.06 0.12 $ 88.05 0.1 4 0.4 1 0.4 0.02 0.04 $ 29.41 0.1 2 0.2 1 0.2 0.01 0.02 $ 14.68  Parameter monitoring: fan motor amperes, damper positions and pressure drop 0.1 1050 105 1 105.0 5.25 10.5 $ 7,704.38 18 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ b ii. Monthly capture system inspection 2 12 24 1 24.0 1.2 2.4 $ 1761.00 iii. Opacity violation/ scrubber 2 1 2 1 2.0 0.01 0.02 $ 14.68 iv. Opacity violation/ baghouse 2 20 40 1 40.0 2.0 4.00 $ 2,935.00 v. Monitoring violation/ capture system 2 12 24 1 24.0 1.2 2.4 $ 1761.00 D. Develop record system c, g N/ A E. Time to enter and transmit information Included in 5C F. Time to train personnel N/ A G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements N/ A H. Time to disclose information N/ A I. Time for audits N/ A Labor hours and cost 507.80 25.39 50.78 $ 37,260.71 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( Rounded) 583.97 $ 37,261 19 Assumptions:

a There is only one ferroalloy production facility currently subject to the standard. We have assumed that no additional respondents will become subject to this regulation since no industry growth is expected in 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 are from column 1, " Total compensation."

These rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c We have assumed that the source has complied with the initial notification requirements and the initial compliance demonstration requirements since the effective date of the rule has passed. In addition, we have assumed that the source has already developed its record system including the startup, shutdown and malfunction plan; the fugitive dust plan; and the control equipment/ maintenance plan.

d Periodic reports include quarterly emissions reports and semiannual reports that addresses the requirements for opacity related reports; performance test results reports; startup/ shutsdown/ malfunction reports; capture hood inspection reports; and fugitive dust operations reports.

e The types of monitoring activities required by this NESHAP regulation includes: 1) monitoring of baghouses systems on a daily ( visible observations and pressure drop accross baghouse), weekly ( inspection of dust hoppers), monthly ( inspection of bags cleaning mechanism), quarterly ( inspection of baghouse integrity and bags tension) and semiannual ( inspection of fans for wear) basis, and the implementation of a bag leak detection system; average hourly scrubber pressure drop ( automatic device is used) monitoring for venturi scrubbers; and either monitoring of control system fan motor ampares and capture system damper positions once per shift, or monitoring of volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood or at the inlet of the air pollution control device using a continuous monitoring system and of the capture system damper positions once per shift, if the source is subject to the shop opacity standard.

f Sources are required to conduct annual performance test for the air pollution control devices and vent stacks to determine particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard. Reference Method 5 is used to determine particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate for baghouses without stack. Sources are also required to conduct initial opacity observations of the shop building using Reference Method 9 to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards.

h Sources are required to maintain records of: 1) process or control device parameters; 2) bag leak detention systems; 3) maintenance plan for air pollution control devices ( e. g., capture system and venturi scrubbers); 4) certification that monitoring devices are accurate; and 5) the implementation and corrective actions taken related to the startup, and shutdown and malfunction plan and the fugitive dust control plan. 20 Table 2. Annual Burden and Cost for The Federal Government:

NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Siliconmanganese ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart XXX)

Activity ( A) EPA personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year ( C) EPA personhours per plant per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Cost, $ a A. Review reports: c& d i. Initial Notifications N/ A ii. Notification of reconstruction/ modification N/ A iii. Notification of Performance Test 1 1 1 1 1.0 .05 0.10 $ 45.49 iv. Report of performance test results/ opacity observations 5 1 5 1 5.0 0.25 0.50 $ 227.44 v. Semiannual summary reports including periodic start/ shutdown/ malfunction reports; capture hood inspection report; summary report of maintenance records; and fugitive dust operations report 10 2 20 1 20.0 1.00 2.00 $ 909.76 21 Activity ( A) EPA personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year ( C) EPA personhours per plant per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Cost, $ a vi. Quarterly excess emissions reports 2 4 8 1 8.0 0.4 0.8 $ 363.90 xi. Annual compliance status certification 2 1 2 1 2.0 0.1 0.2 $ 90.98 B. Attend performance tests/ opacity observations e 25 1 25 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Total Annual Cost $ 1,637.57 TOTAL ANNUAL COST ( rounded) $ 1,638 Assumptions:

a There is only one ferroalloy production facility currently subject to NESHAP, subpart XXX. We have assumed that no additional respondents will become subject to this regulation.

b Costs are based on the following hourly rates: Managerial at $ 54.66 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 34.16 x 1.6); Technical at $ 40.56 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.35 x 1.6);

Clerical at $ 21.95 ( 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 We have assumed that the source has comply with the initial notification requirements and the initial compliance demonstration requirements since the effective date of the rule has passed. In addition, we have assumed that the source has already developed its record system including the startup, shutdown and malfunction plan; the fugitive dust plan; and the control equipment/ maintenance plan.

d Periodic reports include quarterly emissions reports and semiannual reports that addresses the requirements for opacity related reports; performance test results reports; startup/ shutsdown/ malfunction reports; capture hood inspection reports; and fugitive dust operations reports.

e We have assumed that the regulatory agency will not attend performance tests or opacity observations.

N/ A = Not applicable.