[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5756-5761]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01784]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88047; File No. SR-ICC-2020-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice Relating to the ICC Risk Management Model Description,
ICC Stress Testing Framework, ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework,
ICC Back-Testing Framework, and ICC Risk Parameter Setting and Review
Policy

January 27, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on
January 14, 2020, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICE Clear Credit'' or
``ICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice as described in Items I, II and III
below, which Items have been prepared by ICC. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to make
certain changes to the Risk Management Model Description (``RMMD''),
Stress Testing Framework (``STF''), Liquidity Risk Management Framework
(``LRMF''), Back-Testing Framework (``BTF'') and Risk Parameter Setting
and Review Policy (``RPSRP'') (together, the ``Risk Policies'') in
connection with the clearing of credit default index swaptions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on

the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance
notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of
these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Credit is proposing amendments to its Risk Policies in
connection with its proposed launch of the clearing of credit default
index swaptions (``Index Swaptions'').\4\ ICC has previously filed with
the Commission related changes to its Rules, End-of-Day Price Discovery
Policies and Procedures and Risk Management Framework related to the
clearing of Index Swaptions (the ``Swaption Rule Filing'').\5\ As set
out in the Swaption Rule Filing, ICC intends to adopt certain related
policies and procedures in preparation for the launch of clearing of
Index Swaptions, including those set out in this filing, and does not
intend to commence clearing of Index Swaptions until such policies and
procedures have been approved by the Commission or otherwise become
effective. As such, ICC proposes to make the changes to the RMMD, LRMF,
RPSRP, BTF and STF effective following the approval of all such
policies and procedures and the completion of the ICC governance
process surrounding the Index Swaptions product expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Index Swaptions are also referred to herein and in the Risk
Policies as ``index options'' or ``index CDS options'', or in
similar terms.
    \5\ SEC Release No. 34-87297; File No. SR-ICC-2019-007 (Oct. 15,
2019) (approval), 84 FR 56270 (Oct. 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Swaption Rule Filing, pursuant to an Index
Swaption, one party (the ``Swaption Buyer'') has the right (but not the
obligation) to cause the other party (the ``Swaption Seller'') to enter
into an index credit default swap transaction at a pre-determined
strike price on a specified expiration date on specified terms. In the
case of Index Swaptions that would be cleared by ICC, the underlying
index credit default swap would be limited to certain CDX and iTraxx
Europe index credit default swaps that are accepted for clearing by
ICC, and which would be automatically cleared by ICC upon exercise of
the Index Swaption by the Swaption Buyer in accordance with its terms.
I. Risk Management Model Description
    The amendments to the RMMD further implement certain changes made
to the Risk Management Framework, as described in the Swaption Rule
Filing, and would include in particular enhancements to the initial
margin (``IM'') and guaranty fund (``GF'') methodologies to address
Index Swaptions. The IM and GF approach for Index Swaptions would be an
extension of the existing index and single name (``SN'') methodologies
for IM and GF.
A. Initial Margin Methodology
    The description of the IM methodology would be amended to add a
description of Index Swaptions and to define an index option instrument
as a specific combination of underlying index, expiration date, strike
price, optionality type, exercise style, denomination currency, and
transaction type. The index options referencing an index would be
treated as part of the underlying index risk sub-factor (``RSF'').
    Several aspects of the IM methodology would be amended to take into
account Index Swaptions.
Jump-to-Default Requirement
    For the jump-to-default requirement (``JTDR'') of the loss-given
default (``LGD'') risk analysis, the amendments would introduce the
concept of a delta equivalent notional amount (``DENA'') for each Index
Swaption. The DENA for each Index Swaption would be added to the
aggregate outright position in index CDS for purposes of index
decomposition and application of all of the components of the JTDR
(including the idiosyncratic, general wrong way risk and contagion
components).
Liquidity Charge
    Pursuant to the amendments, the index level liquidity charge
(``LC'') that ICE Clear Credit calculates as part of the margin
methodology would contain an Index Swaption LC component added to the
LC component for the outright index CDS positions. A new subsection
would be added to set out the formulas for calculation of the LC of an
Index Swaption position related to a particular underlying index,
taking into account, among other factors, the direction of the
underlying position (bought or sold protection), other option
characteristics, bid-offer width scaling factors and the LC for the
underlying CDS position. Relevant formulas would establish the LC for a
set of options related to a common underlying index RSF and the total
options LC for a given index risk factor (``RF''). For purposes of this
determination, all option positions would be categorized as either
option-derived bought protection positions, or option-derived sold
protection positions. The instrument LCs for all option instruments
which share the same effective underlying directionality would be added
together, and the worst sum would establish the RSF-specific options
LCs. The portfolio level LC calculation would be modified to
incorporate the impact of index option risk factor LC values as well as
outright index and SN positions. The model would not provide portfolio
benefits for reduction of LC between outright underlying positions and
corresponding Index Swaptions.
Concentration Charge
    The calculation of concentration charges would also be amended to
address the additional concentration risk characteristics from Index
Swaptions. Index Swaption position sizes for purposes of this
calculation would be based on their option-derived effective notional
amount (``ENA'') and their 5 year equivalent analogs, based on the
DENA. The amendments would set out formulas for determining RSF-
specific net DENA at a specific maturity/tenor for a particular CDS
instrument, the RSF-specific net DENA across all tenors, the 5 year
equivalent notional amount of DENA and the 5 year equivalent analogs of
the aggregate DENAs. The related maximum loss conditions and LGD
calculation corresponding to each series would also be modified to
incorporate DENAs in the context of index option positions, among other
clarifications.
    The overall RSF and RF concentration charge analysis would also be
amended to take into account Index Swaption positions combined with
outright index CDS positions, based on these ENA determinations and the
stress loss associated with the option positions of a particular
underlying index series, the total P/L responses of all option
positions to defined boundary underlying index price scenarios and the
cumulative losses under defined boundary underlying index price
scenarios. As with LCs, the amendments would not provide portfolio
offsets between underlying index CDS and Index Swaptions for purposes
of concentration charges.
Interest Rate Sensitivity Requirement
    The calculation of the interest rate sensitivity risk requirement
would be amended to account for the risk associated with changes in the
default-free discount interest rate term structure used to price Index
Swaption instruments. The existing approach of

considering parallel shifts of the discount term structure for index
CDS would be extended to be used to reprice Index Swaptions as well,
with an appropriate adjustment for Index Swaptions to account for price
changes rather than upfront fee changes. Under this approach, portfolio
offsets between underlying index CDS and corresponding Index Swaptions
would be considered.
Basis Risk
    As described in the Swaption Rule Filing, the amendments would
provide that Index Swaptions would not be eligible for index-SN
decomposition benefits in terms of long-short offsets, and therefore
would not be subject to basis risk requirements based on decomposed
index positions.
Spread Response
    The amendments would modify the integrated spread response
component of the margin model to incorporate an options-implied credit
spread distribution. Under this approach, relevant distribution
parameters for Index Swaptions would be implied from option prices
established in the end-of-day pricing process. Specifically, ICC would
model an implied distribution of credit spread log-returns for each put
and call instrument at each given expiry, such that the implied-
distribution option prices would be as close as possible to the option
prices established via the end-of-day process. The amendments also
address determination of expected options payoffs, forward prices and
spreads, and shape parameters for swaption instruments with the
relevant expiry, for purposes of determining the relevant distribution
of implied prices.
    Corresponding amendments would also be made to the spread recovery-
rate bivariate calculation to take into account the implied
distribution of option pricing for Index Swaptions of the relevant
maturity. With respect to instrument P/L estimations, an additional
formula would be set out to demonstrate the computation of the option
instrument P/L vector elements. With respect to RF P/L estimations, ICC
proposes edits to a formula that sets out the computation of RF R/L
vector elements and to note an alternative option position P/L
computation.
    Amendments would also be made with respect to anti-procyclicality
measures. The current RMMD examines instrument price changes observed
during the Lehman Brothers (``LB'') default, including consideration of
the greatest price decreases between end-of-day prices on September 11,
2008 and any of the next five consecutive trading days. The amendments
would require consideration of the next six consecutive trading days
instead of five. The same change would also be made to the opposite
Lehman Brothers (``OLB'') scenario.
    The amendments would address the impact of the price change
scenarios on Index Swaption prices. This would be estimated by
repricing the option instruments under the corresponding underlying
stress scenarios. In addition, under the considered underlying stress
scenario, each option price is computed at a stress implied mean
absolute deviation (``MAD'') level incorporating a sudden implied MAD
(``implied volatility'') level shift. The amendments would introduce
new formulas to compute the P/L of the LB and OLB scenarios in the
context of options, which would reflect the sum of the differences
between the option prices computed under the stress scenarios and the
current levels for each instrument in the considered portfolio.
B. Guaranty Fund Methodology
    With respect to the calculation of the GF, the stress spread
response component would be revised to add that the index RF level GF
stress spread response for a given spread regime would be computed by
combining index CDS and index option instrument P/Ls over the three
term structure scenarios and determining the worst combined P/L for
contracting and widening regimes. Additional language would be included
relating to the computation of option instrument P/Ls depending on the
remaining time to expiry for option instruments. Certain other
clarifications would be made as to the use of spot/forward spreads in
the calculations.
    Certain other typographical corrections and similar clarifications,
renumbering and updates to cross-references would be made throughout
the RMMD.
II. Liquidity Risk Management Framework
    The amendments would add references to CDS index option instruments
eligible for clearing throughout the LRMF, including for purposes of
determination of the margin period of risk (``MPOR''). For the
liquidity stress testing analysis, the amendments would augment the
historically observed extreme but plausible CDS market scenarios with
extreme but plausible stress test options-implied MAD scenarios for CDS
index options. These scenarios would be created by pricing the option
instruments, by means of the implied credit spread distribution
discussed above in connection with the RMMD, at the corresponding
underlying stress levels and stress options-implied MAD levels. The
amendments would also add that all classifications of scenarios would
include assumptions with regards to CDS instrument prices/spreads, co-
movements among instrument prices/spreads, the dependence structure of
instrument behavior, CDS index option implied distribution parameters,
the magnitude of provided portfolio benefits, and explicit assumptions
about the occurrence of credit events. The historically observed
extreme but plausible market scenarios would specifically incorporate
the stress options-implied MAD parameters for widening and tightening
scenarios.
    With respect to hypothetical (forward looking) liquidity stress
scenarios, in the LGD scenario, the amendments would provide that the
losses attributable to the considered credit events would reflect CDS
instrument positions and CDS index option positions in terms of their
DENA underlying positions.
    In order to determine the hypothetical profit or loss for each
clearing participant representing the largest cumulative loss over the
relevant risk horizon, the amendments would clarify that the aggregate
amount would be comprised of the price changes corresponding to
outright CDS instruments and CDS index options associated with the
hypothetical scenarios.
III. Risk Parameter Setting and Review Policy
    The proposed amendments to the RPSRP would add references to the
CDS index option throughout. They would provide that the Statistical
Analysis of Input Data (``SAID'') system used to review risk management
model assumptions would maintain CDS index option prices and parameters
for purposes of risk management. New sections would be added to
describe LC, concentration charge, implied distribution and option
pricing parameters (including distribution shape and MAD parameters)
for Index Swaptions, consistent with the changes to the RMMD discussed
above. The revisions would also address the process for periodic
analysis and review of parameters and proposed parameter updates by ICC
risk personnel, in connection with the Trading Advisory Group and Risk
Working Group. The amendments also provide procedures for ongoing
sensitivity analysis of MAD estimates for Index Swaptions, for the use
of alternative assumptions and

methods for implied distributions and other factors to provide
supplementary information to assess on an ongoing basis the validity
and quality of assumptions used to price Index Swaptions, and for
comparison of implied factors to other relevant metrics. The amendments
would make certain clarifying amendments and similar corrections.
IV. Back-Testing Framework
    ICC proposes changes relating to multi-horizon back-testing and
univariate back-testing. The proposed amendments would add special CDS
strategy portfolio definitions used for back-testing that refer
specifically to Index Swaptions. The amendments would also provide that
CDS index option instruments are subject to periodic univariate back-
testing analysis. For this purpose, the unrealized worst P/Ls over the
appropriate time period, projected risk measures and exceedances would
be computed and reported as an average over all strikes for each time-
to-expiry strip.
    With respect to remediating back-testing results, the amendments
would add that if poor back-testing results were found to be directly
related to CDS index options, an analysis would be carried out on the
CDS index option implied distribution assumptions, estimation
techniques and estimated parameters. The ICC risk management department
(``ICC Risk'') would also review the results from the execution within
the SAID engine and the statistical assumptions related to options. If
the back-testing results based on daily parameter estimates did not
exhibit poor performance, ICC Risk could immediately update the
statistical parameters, and increase the frequency of parameter
updates. If the daily parameter updates did not remediate poor back-
testing results, ICC Risk could recalibrate and update the implied MAD
scaling factors.
V. Stress Testing Framework
    Under the amended STF, for each of the predefined stress scenarios
categories, CDS index option price scenarios would be created by
pricing the option instruments, by means of the calibrated implied
distribution, at the corresponding underlying stress levels and stress
options-implied MAD levels.
    Specifically, the historically observed extreme but plausible
market scenarios set out in the STF would be augmented by the following
scenarios for CDS index option instruments: (i) The stress options-
implied MAD widening scenario (which would be designed to produce a
significant extreme but plausible increase in the options-implied MAD);
and (ii) the stress options-implied MAD tightening scenario (which
would be designed to produce a significant extreme but plausible
decrease in the options-implied MAD). With respect to scenarios
intended to replicate the observed instrument price changes during the
LB default, in the context of CDS index options, these scenarios would
incorporate the stress options-implied MAD parameters for widening and
tightening scenarios.
    With respect to hypothetically constructed (forward looking)
extreme but plausible market scenarios, the losses attributable to the
considered credit events would reflect CDS instrument positions and CDS
index option positions in terms of their DENA underlying positions.
    With respect to the extreme model response test, the stress
options-implied MAD scenarios that complement the extreme model
response test scenarios would be derived from the stress scaling
factors for the options-implied MADs by an increase of the magnitude of
the stress options-implied MAD widening scaling factor and an increase
of the magnitude of the stress options-implied MAD tightening scaling
factor.
    Pursuant to the amendments, scenarios designed to reproduce
significant discordant market outcomes would be augmented with respect
to CDS index options with stress options-implied MAD scenarios.
    With respect to general wrong way risk and contagion stress tests,
the LGD attributable to the considered credit events would incorporate
CDS index options positions in terms of their DENA underlying
positions. The amendments would also update consideration of the most
severe LGD used in the GF reverse stress testing adequacy analysis. The
risk factor group ranking by severity of LGD would take into account
CDS index option exposures based on the DENA of each option position.
    Other conforming changes to incorporate references to Index
Swaptions would be made throughout the document.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it, including the applicable standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\7\ In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\
requires that that the rule change be consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC
or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the
public interest. The amendments would provide for enhanced risk
management measures in relation to clearing services for an additional
type of contract, Index Swaptions, consistent with the changes to the
Risk Management Framework set out in the Swaption Rule Filing. The
amendments revise the RMMD to provide for the calculation of IM and GF
requirements in respect of portfolios that contain Index Swaptions,
taking into account the particular characteristics and risks of Index
Swaptions. In particular, the amendments incorporate Index Swaptions
into key components of the IM model, including the jump-to-default and
stress responses components, LCs, concentration charges and interest
rate sensitivity. The amendments make corresponding changes to the LRMF
to provide for liquidity stress testing in connection with Index
Swaptions, as well as amendments to the STF and BTF to address Index
Swaptions. In ICC's view, these adjustments will expand its overall
existing risk model for use with Index Swaptions and thus facilitate
its ability to manage the participant default risk with respect to
cleared Index Swaptions. In ICC's view, the amendments, taken together
with the amendments in the Swaption Rule Filing, are therefore
consistent with the prompt and accurate clearing and settlement of the
contracts cleared by ICC, including Index Swaptions, the safeguarding
of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which
it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public
interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments would also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule
17Ad-22,\10\ including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Margin Requirements. Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) \11\ requires, in relevant
part, that a clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ``use margin
requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under

normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to
set margin requirements.'' As discussed above, ICC is modifying the
RMMD, and in particular the IM calculations, to address the credit
exposure to participants with respect to Index Swaptions. The RPSRP
would also be updated to address the calibration of the option-related
parameters to compute IM and GF requirements. These modifications to
ICC's IM model are intended to ensure that ICC appropriately limits its
credit exposures to participants relating to the new Index Swaptions
and accordingly sets appropriate IM levels for these products. The
amendments also provide for back-testing and stress-testing of such
margin requirements. As such, ICC believes the amendments to be
compliant with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Financial Resources. Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) \13\ requires, in relevant
part, a clearing agency for security-based swaps to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to maintain financial resources ``sufficient to
withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant families to
which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible market
conditions.'' As discussed above, ICC is modifying the RMMD, including
enhancements to the IM and GF methodologies to address Index Swaptions,
and related policies, including enhancements to provide for stress
testing, back testing, risk parameter setting and review, and liquidity
stress testing in connection with Index Swaptions. With these
modifications, ICC believes that its IM and GF resources will be
sufficient to meet ICC's financial obligations to Participants with
respect to cleared Index Swaptions as well as other cleared Contracts
notwithstanding a default by the two Participant families creating the
largest combined loss, in extreme but plausible market conditions,
consistent with these regulatory requirements. ICC does not propose to
otherwise reduce or change its financial resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Governance Arrangements. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8) \14\ requires that ICC
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to have governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent to fulfill the public interest requirements in
Section 17A of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, to support the
objectives of owners and participants, and to promote the effectiveness
of ICC's risk management procedures. The RMMD, LRMF, RPSRP, BTF, and
STF clearly assign and document responsibility and accountability for
risk decisions and require consultation with or approval from the ICC
Board, committees, or management. As described above, the revisions to
the RPSRP would address the process for periodic analysis and review of
parameters and proposed parameter updates by ICC risk personnel, in
connection with the Trading Advisory Group and Risk Working Group. The
proposed changes to the BTF also assign and document responsibility and
accountability for performing back-testing analyses and remediating
poor back-testing results related to Index Swaptions. These governance
arrangements continue to be clear and transparent, such that
information relating to the assignment of responsibilities and the
requisite involvement of the ICC Board, committees, management, or ICC
Risk is clearly detailed, and promote the effectiveness of ICC's risk
management procedures by documenting responsibility and accountability
for risk decisions, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(8).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The amendments
would enhance risk management relating to the launch of clearing of
Index Swaptions as an additional type of cleared Contract. Index
Swaptions would be available to all ICC Participants for clearing. ICC
does not believe acceptance of Index Swaptions for clearing and the
management of related risks would adversely affect the trading markets
for such contracts, and in fact acceptance of such contracts by ICC
would provide market participants with the additional flexibility to
have their Index Swaptions cleared. In light of the enhancements
proposed to be made to its risk models and related policies, as
discussed herein, acceptance of Index Swaptions for clearing would not,
in ICC's view, adversely affect clearing of any other currently cleared
product. As a result, ICC does not believe the amendments would
adversely affect the ability of Participants, their customers or other
market participants to continue to clear contracts, including CDS
Contracts. ICC also does not believe the enhancements would adversely
affect the cost of clearing or otherwise limit market participants'
choices for selecting clearing services in Index Swaptions, credit
default swaps or other products. Accordingly, ICC does not believe the
amendments would impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule
Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Received From
Members, Participants, or Others

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

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based
Swap Submission, or Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2020-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2020-002. 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change, security-based
swap submission, or advance notice that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice 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 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE Clear Credit's website
at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2020-002 and should be submitted on
or before February 21, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01784 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85779-85782]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28665]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90753; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Effective Date in Commentary .10 Under NYSE Rule 1210

December 21, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 15, 2020, the New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II 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 a rule change to extend the effective date in
Commentary .10 (Temporary Extension of the Limited Period for
Registered Persons to Function as Principals) under NYSE Rule 1210
(Registration Requirements) applicable to member organizations, from
December 31, 2020 to April 30, 2021. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the effective date in Commentary
.10 (Temporary Extension of the Limited Period for Registered Persons
to Function as Principals) under NYSE Rule 1210 (Registration
Requirements) applicable to member organizations,\3\ from December 31,
2020 to April 30, 2021. The proposed rule change would extend the 120-
day period that certain individuals can function as a principal without
having successfully passed an appropriate qualification examination
through April 30, 2021,\4\ and would apply only to those individuals
who were designated to function as a principal prior to January 1,
2021. This proposed rule change is based on a filing recently submitted
by the Financial Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') \5\ and is
intended to harmonize the Exchange's registration rules with those of
FINRA so as to promote uniform standards across the securities
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``member organization'' means a registered broker
or dealer (unless exempt pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934) (the ``Act''), including sole proprietors, partnerships,
limited liability partnerships, corporations, and limited liability
corporations, approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 311. A
registered broker or dealer must also be approved by the Exchange
and authorized to designate an associated natural person to effect
transactions on the floor of the Exchange or any facility thereof.
See Rule 2(b)(i). The term ``member organization'' also includes any
registered broker or dealer which does not own a trading license and
agrees to be regulated by the Exchange as a member organization and
which the Exchange has agreed to regulate. See Rule 2(b)(ii).
    \4\ If NYSE seeks to provide additional temporary relief from
the rule requirements identified in this proposed rule change beyond
April 30, 2021, NYSE will submit a separate rule filing to further
extend the temporary extension of time.
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 90617 (December 9, 2020), 85 FR
81258 (December 15, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-043) (the ``FINRA
Filing''). The Exchange notes that the FINRA Filing also provides
temporary relief to individuals registered with FINRA as Operations
Professionals under FINRA Rule 1220. The Exchange does not have a
registration category for Operations Professionals and therefore,
the Exchange is not proposing to adopt that aspect of the FINRA
Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The COVID-19 pandemic is an unpredictable, exogenous event that has
resulted in unavoidable disruptions to the securities industry and
impacted member firms, regulators, investors and other stakeholders. In
response to COVID-19, earlier this year FINRA

began providing temporary relief by way of frequently asked questions
(``FAQs'') \6\ to address disruptions to the administration of FINRA
qualification examinations caused by the pandemic that have
significantly limited the ability of individuals to sit for
examinations due to Prometric test center capacity issues.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/covid-19/faq#qe.
    \7\ At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, all FINRA
qualification examinations were administered at test centers
operated by Prometric. Based on the health and welfare concerns
resulting from COVID-19, in March Prometric closed all of its test
centers in the United States and Canada and began to slowly reopen
some of them at limited capacity in May. Currently, Prometric has
resumed testing in many of its United States and Canada test
centers, at either full or limited occupancy, based on local and
government mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA published the first FAQ on March 20, 2020, providing that
individuals who were designated to function as principals under FINRA
Rule 1210.04 \8\ prior to February 2, 2020, would be given until May
31, 2020, to pass the appropriate principal qualification
examination.\9\ On May 19, 2020, FINRA extended the relief to pass the
appropriate examination until June 30, 2020. On June 29, 2020, FINRA
again extended the temporary relief providing that individuals who were
designated to function as principals under FINRA Rule 1210.04 prior to
May 4, 2020, would be given until August 31, 2020, to pass the
appropriate principal qualification examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NYSE Rule 1210.03 is the corresponding rule to FINRA Rule
1210.04.
    \9\ FINRA Rule 1210.04 (Requirements for Registered Persons
Functioning as Principals for a Limited Period) allows a member firm
to designate certain individuals to function in a principal capacity
for 120 calendar days before having to pass an appropriate principal
qualification examination. NYSE Rule 1210.03 provides the same
allowance to member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2020, NYSE filed with the Commission a proposed
rule change for immediate effectiveness to extend the temporary relief
provided via the FAQ by adopting temporary Commentary .10 (Temporary
Extension of the Limited Period for Registered Persons to Function as
Principals) under NYSE Rule 1210 (Registration Requirements).\10\
Pursuant to this rule filing, individuals who were designated prior to
September 3, 2020, to function as a principal under NYSE Rule 1210.10
have until December 31, 2020, to pass the appropriate qualification
examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 90111 (October 7, 2020), 85 FR
65090 (October 14, 2020) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2020-80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The COVID-19 conditions necessitating the extension of relief
provided in the FAQ and SR-NYSE-2020-80 persist and in fact appear to
be worsening.\11\ One of the impacts of COVID-19 continues to be
serious interruptions in the administration of FINRA qualification
examinations at Prometric test centers and the limited ability of
individuals to sit for the examinations.\12\ Although Prometric has
been reopening its test centers, Prometric's safety practices mean that
currently not all test centers are open, some of the open test centers
are at limited capacity, and some open test centers are delivering only
certain examinations that have been deemed essential by the local
government.\13\ Furthermore, Prometric has had to close some reopened
test centers due to incidents of COVID-19 cases. The initial nationwide
closure in March along with the inability to fully reopen all Prometric
test centers due to COVID-19 have led to a significant backlog of
individuals who are waiting to sit for FINRA examinations that are not
available online, including the General Securities Principal Exam
(Series 24).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Meryl Kornfield, Jacqueline Dupree, Marisa Iati,
Paulina Villegas, Siobhan O'Grady and Hamza Shaban, New daily
coronavirus cases in U.S. rise to 145,000, latest all-time high,
Wash. Post, November 11, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost .com/
nation/2020/11/11/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/.
    \12\ Information about the continued impact of COVID-19 on
FINRA-administered examinations is available at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/covid-19/exams.
    \13\ Information from Prometric about its safety practices and
the impact of COVID-19 on its operations is available at https://www.prometric .com/corona-virus-update. See also supra note 12.
    \14\ Earlier this year, an online test delivery service was
launched for candidates seeking to take qualification examination
remotely. Only certain qualification examinations are available
online. See supra note 12. FINRA is considering making additional
qualification examinations available remotely on a limited basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, firms are continuing to experience operational
challenges with much of their personnel working from home due to
shelter-in-place orders, restrictions on businesses and social activity
imposed in various states, and adherence to other social distancing
guidelines consistent with the recommendations of public health
officials.\15\ As a result, firms continue to face potentially
significant disruptions to their normal business operations that may
include a limitation of in-person activities and staff absenteeism as a
result of the health and welfare concerns stemming from COVID-19. Such
potential disruptions may be further exacerbated and may even affect
client services if firms cannot continue to keep principal positions
filled as they may have difficulty finding other qualified individuals
to transition into these roles or may need to reallocate employee time
and resources away from other critical responsibilities at the firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, How
to Protect Yourself & Others, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These ongoing, extenuating circumstances make it impracticable for
member organizations to ensure that the individuals whom they have
designated to function in a principal capacity, as set forth in NYSE
Rule 1210.03, are able to successfully sit for and pass an appropriate
qualification examination within the 120-calendar day period required
under the rule, or to find other qualified staff to fill this position.
The ongoing circumstances also require individuals to be exposed to the
health risks associated with taking an in-person examination, because
the General Securities Principal examination is not available online.
Therefore, NYSE is proposing to extend the effective date of the
temporary relief provided through SR-NYSE-2020-80 until April 30, 2021.
The proposed rule change would apply only to those individuals who were
designated to function as a principal prior to January 1, 2021. Any
individuals designated to function as a principal on or after January
1, 2021, would need to successfully pass an appropriate qualification
examination within 120 days.
    NYSE believes that this proposed continued extension of time is
tailored to address the needs and constraints on a member
organization's operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, without
significantly compromising critical investor protection. The proposed
extension of time will help to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on
member organizations by providing continued flexibility so that member
organizations can ensure that principal positions remain filled. The
potential risks from the proposed extension of the 120-day period are
mitigated by the member organization's continued requirement to
supervise the activities of these designated individuals and ensure
compliance with federal securities laws and regulations, as well as
NYSE rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\17\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and

equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is intended to minimize the impact of
COVID-19 on member organization operations by extending the 120-day
period certain individuals may function as a principal without having
successfully passed an appropriate qualification examination under NYSE
Rule 1210.03 until April 30, 2021. The proposed rule change does not
relieve member organizations from maintaining, under the circumstances,
a reasonably designed system to supervise the activities of their
associated persons to achieve compliance with applicable securities
laws and regulations, and with applicable NYSE rules that directly
serve investor protection. In a time when faced with unique challenges
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, NYSE believes that the proposed
rule change is a sensible accommodation that will continue to afford
member organizations the ability to ensure that critical positions are
filled and client services maintained, while continuing to serve and
promote the protection of investors and the public interest in this
unique environment.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As set forth in SR-NYSE-
2020-80, the proposed rule change is intended solely to extend
temporary relief necessitated by the continued impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic and the related health and safety risks of conducting in-
person activities. In its filing, FINRA notes that the proposed rule
change is necessary to temporarily rebalance the attendant benefits and
costs of the obligations under FINRA Rule 1210 in response to the
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that would otherwise result if the
temporary amendments were to expire on December 31, 2020.\18\ The
Exchange accordingly incorporates FINRA's abbreviated economic impact
assessment by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 81260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately upon filing. As noted
above, the Exchange stated that the proposed extension of time will
help minimize the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on member
organizations' operations by allowing them to keep principal positions
filled and minimizing disruptions to client services and other critical
responsibilities. The Exchange further stated that the ongoing
extenuating circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic make it impractical
to ensure that individuals designated to act in these capacities are
able to take and pass the appropriate qualification examination during
the 120-calendar day period required under the rules. The Exchange also
explained that shelter-in-place orders, quarantining, restrictions on
business and social activity and adherence to social distancing
guidelines consistent with the recommendations of public officials
remain in place in various states.\21\ In addition, the Exchange
observed that, following a nationwide closure of all test centers
earlier in the year, some test centers have re-opened, but are
operating at limited capacity or are only delivering certain
examinations that have been deemed essential by the local
government.\22\ Although, as the Exchange noted, FINRA has launched an
online test delivery service to help address this backlog, the General
Securities Principal (Series 24) Examination is not available
online.\23\ Nevertheless, the Exchange explained that the proposed rule
change will provide needed flexibility to ensure that these positions
remain filled and is tailored to address the constraints on member
organizations' operations during the COVID-19 pandemic without
significantly compromising critical investor protection.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 15.
    \22\ See supra notes 12 and 13. The Exchange states that
Prometric has also had to close some reopened test centers due to
incidents of COVID-19 cases.
    \23\ See supra note 14. FINRA is considering making additional
qualification examinations available remotely on a limited basis.
    \24\ The Exchange states that member organizations remain
subject to the continued requirement to supervise the activities of
these designated individuals and ensure compliance with federal
securities laws and regulations, as well as NYSE rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission observes that the Exchange's proposal, like the
FINRA Filing, provides only an extension to temporary relief from the
requirement to pass certain qualification examinations within the 120-
day period in the rules. As proposed, this relief would extend the 120-
day period that certain individuals can function as principals through
April 30, 2021. If a further extension of temporary relief from the
rule requirements identified in this proposal beyond April 30, 2021 is
required, the Exchange noted that it may submit a separate rule filing
to extend the effectiveness of the temporary relief under these
rules.\25\ For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\26\ Accordingly, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 4.
    \26\ As noted above by NYSE, this proposal is an extension of
temporary relief provided in a prior filing where NYSE also
requested and the Commission granted a waiver of the 30-day
operative delay. See supra note 10, 85 FR at 65092.
    \27\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change'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 summarily may

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2020-104 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-NYSE-2020-104. 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 (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 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NYSE. All comments received will
be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned
that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from
comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2020-104 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28665 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


STANDARD FORM 83 I SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR OMB REVIEW OF ICR NO. 1983.02 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE CHANGES TO GENERIC MACT TO INCORPORATE THE CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY CYANIDE CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING SOURCE CATEGORY ETHYLENE PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY AND SPANDEX PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711 December 8, 2004 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection.

" Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards." This is a new information collection request ( ICR).

This is a new information collection request ( ICR) and the tracking number is EPA ICR No. 1983.02.

( b) Short Characterization.

This ICR is prepared for a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) proposed rulemaking being developed under authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( Act). The proposed rulemaking would amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) by adding additional standards to the existing subpart YY  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( this subpart is referred to as the " generic MACT NESHAP"). The generic MACT NESHAP includes standards for major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). Respondents are owners or operators of source category affected sources regulated under the generic MACT NESHAP.

This ICR is for HAP emission sources in the carbon black ( CB) production, cyanide ( CY) chemicals manufacturing, ethylene ( ET) production, and spandex ( SP) production source categories.

For the purposes of this ICR the phrases " cyanide chemicals manufacturing," " cyanide production," and " CY production" have the same meaning.

The CB production source category consists of 20 facilities that would ( and 2 facilities that would not) be subject to the major source provisions specified under the generic MACT NESHAP.

We anticipate that 5 of these facilities will conduct all 2 monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting ( MIRR)

requirements, including testing activities. The estimated MIRR costs per facility to conduct all MIRR activities is $ 47,790.

Fifteen facilities will conduct all MIRR requirements, except testing activities. The estimated MIRR costs per facility to conduct all MIRR activities, except testing and related tasks, is $ 45,740. The two facilities that are not major sources will read the rule. The estimated costs for this one activity is $ 410 per facility. Based on these estimates, the total MIRR cost of the proposed rulemaking for the carbon black production source category is estimated to be $ 925,830 for the first three years after promulgation of the proposed standards. See Section 6 for more details.

The CY production source category consists of 14 facilities that would ( and 2 facilities that would not) be subject to the major source provisions specified under the generic MACT NESHAP.

We anticipate that only 1 of these facilities will be subject to all monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, reporting ( MIRR)

requirements, including testing and control device design analysis activities, excluding those associated with the development of a new leak detection program. The estimated MIRR costs per facility to conduct these activities is $ 58,460. Eight facilities will be subject to all monitoring, inspection,

recordkeeping, reporting, and leak detection system requirements,

excluding those associated with control equipment design analysis. The estimated MIRR costs to conduct these activities is $ 59,076 per facility. Five facilities will be subject to general reporting and recordkeeping requirements, excluding those associated with control device design analysis and implementation of a new leak detection system. The estimated MIRR costs to conduct these activities is $ 56,414 per facility. The two facilities that are not major sources will read the rule and 3 review rule information. The estimated costs for these two activities is $ 614 per facility. Based on these estimates, the total MIRR cost of the proposed rulemaking for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing source category is estimated to be $ 814,366 for the first three years after promulgation of the proposed standards. See section 6 for more details.

The ET production source category consists of 37 facilities that would be subject to the major source provisions specified under the generic MACT NESHAP. We anticipate that all 37 of these facilities are major sources and will conduct all monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting ( MIRR)

requirements, including testing activities. The estimated MIRR costs per facility to conduct all MIRR activities is $ 72,383.

Based on these estimates, the total MIRR cost of the proposed rulemaking for this source category is estimated to be $ 2,678,184 for the first three years after promulgation of the proposed standards. See section 6 for more details.

The SP production source category consists of 2 facilities that would be subject to the major source provisions specified under the generic MACT NESHAP. We anticipate that these 2 facilities will conduct all monitoring, inspection,

recordkeeping, and reporting ( MIRR) requirements, including testing activities. The estimated MIRR costs per facility to conduct all MIRR activities is $ 56,050. This gives total MIRR costs of $ 112,110 for the spandex production source category during the first three years after promulgation of a NESHAP for this source category. See section 6 for more details.

All existing sources must be in compliance with the requirements of the generic MACT NESHAP within 3 years of the effective date ( promulgation date) of standards for an affected source. All new sources must be in compliance with the requirements of the generic MACT NESHAP upon startup or the 4 promulgation date of standards for an affected source, whichever is later.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection.

The EPA has been directed by section 112 of the Act to regulate the emission of HAP from stationary sources. Carbon black, cyanide, ethylene and spandex production source categories; and any source categories that may be regulated under the generic MACT NESHAP in the future are major sources of HAP emissions included on the EPA's list of categories scheduled for regulation.

Section 114 of the Act gives the EPA authority to collect data and information necessary to enforce standards established under section 112 of the Act. Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to ( 1) identify existing and new sources subject to the generic MACT NESHAP and ( 2) ensure that the requirements specified for an affected source subject to the generic MACT NESHAP, which are based on MACT, are being achieved.

( b) Use/ Users of the Data.

The information will be used by the EPA's enforcement personnel to ( 1) identify existing and new HAP emission points subject to the generic MACT NESHAP, ( 2) identify the emission control devices and methodologies being applied, and ( 3) ensure that the emission control devices and methodologies are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis.

Records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities subject to the generic MACT NESHAP that may not be in compliance. Based on reported information, the EPA can decide whether to inspect a facility and which records or processes to inspect. The records that facilities maintain would 5 indicate to the EPA whether facility personnel are operating and maintaining emission control devices and methodologies properly.

3. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes.

Respondents are owners or operators of HAP emitting affected sources in the CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories; and HAP emitting affected sources in source categories with a limited population of major sources that may be regulated under the generic MACT standards in the future. The source categories and affected sources regulated with the initial proposal of the generic MACT NESHAP are classified in the four digit Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Codes: 2895 for CB productiuon; 2819 and 2869 for CY production; 2869 for ET production; and, 2824 for SP production.

The source category and affected sources regulated with this proposal are also classified in the six digit North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes: 325182 for CB productiuon; 325188 and 325199 for CY production; 325110 for ET production; and, 325222 for SP production. Not all processes and facilities classified under these SIC and NAICS codes would be regulated under the generic MACT NESHAP.

( b) Information Requested.

( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements. The generic MACT NESHAP would require that an owner or operator of a major source reduce specified affected source HAP emissions. The affected source and emissions control requirements are determined on a source category specific basis. Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirement, summarizes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and specific rule provisions that require them, for the CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories. Information requirements being proposed under the generic MACT NESHAP that would apply to all 6 source categories that would be regulated with this proposal are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Respondents are required to submit one time reports of the ( 1) start of construction for new facilities, ( 2) anticipated and actual start up dates for new facilities, and ( 3) physical or operational changes to existing facilities. Owners and operators must also submit semi annual reports of the monitoring results under the leak detection and repair program ( if applicable for a subject source category). All records are to be maintained by the facility for a period of at least 5 years.

An affected source with an initial startup date before the promulgation date of standards for an affected source under the generic MACT NESHAP must submit a one time initial notification.

This initial notification must be submitted within one year after the promulgation date of standards for an affected source under the generic MACT NESHAP ( or within 1 year after the affected source becomes subject to the generic MACT NESHAP).

For sources constructed or reconstructed after the promulgation date of standards for an affected source under the generic MACT NESHAP, the source must submit an application for approval of construction or reconstruction. The application is required to contain information on the air pollution control that will be used for each potential HAP emission point.

The information in the initial notification and the application for construction or reconstruction will enable enforcement personnel to identify the number of sources subject to, or are already in compliance with, the standards.

Affected sources subject to standards under the generic MACT NESHAP must submit a notification of compliance status. This notification must be signed by a responsible company official who certifies its accuracy and that the affected source has complied with the relevant standards. Performance test results ( as 7 applicable) are included as part of the compliance status report.

The notification of compliance status must be submitted within 60 days after the compliance date specified for an affected source subject to the generic MACT NESHAP.

In addition, affected sources subject to the proposed generic MACT NESHAP that would be required to install continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) are required to conduct a performance evaluation of the CPMS. A report of the performance evaluation results is required to be submitted to the delegated authority. Excess emissions and CPMS performance reports documenting excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances are required to be submitted to the delegated authority semiannually Submittal of these reports is required quarterly when the CPMS data are used to demonstrate compliance and the facility experiences excess emissions.

The generic MACT NESHAP requires owners or operators of affected sources to develop startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, documenting procedures that will be taken in the case of any of these events. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports demonstrating the actions taken by an owner or operator in the event of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are required to be submitted. Reports are required semi annually when actions taken are consistent with the plan. Immediate reports are required when actions taken are inconsistent with the plan.

The generic MACT NESHAP would require owners or operators of an affected source to retain records for 5 years, which exceeds the three year retention period contained in the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6. The 5 year retention period is consistent with the provisions of the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63 and the retention requirement in the operating permit program under Title V of the Act.

( ii) Respondent Activities. 8 Respondent activities for major sources are shown for each of the first 3 years following promulgation of the rule. The respondent activities required by the generic MACT NESHAP for the CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories for existing sources are presented in the first column of Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c for CB production; Tables 2a, 2b,

and 2c for CY production; Tables 3a, 3b, and 3c for ET production; and Tables 4a, 4b, and 4c for SP production. There are no new sources anticipated for any of these source categories within the first 3 years after promulgation of standards for subject affected sources. These tables are introduced in Section 6( a) of this ICR.

4. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities.

A list of the EPA's activities is provided in Tables 5a through 5d. These tables are introduced in Section 6( c) of this ICR.

( b) Collection Methodology and Management.

Information contained in the one time only reports will be entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS)

Facility Subsystem ( AFS) that is maintained and operated by the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS). Data obtained during periodic visits by EPA personnel from records maintained by the respondents will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in compliance and enforcement programs.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

Minimizing the information collection burden for all sizes of organizations is a continuing effort on the EPA's part. The EPA has reduced the recordkeeping and reporting requirement respondent burden to include only the information needed by the EPA to determine compliance with the generic MACT NESHAP. 9 ( d) Collection Schedule.

Collection of data will begin after promulgation of standards under the generic MACT NESHAP. The schedule for reports required by the generic MACT NESHAP for the CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories; and source categories that may be regulated under the generic MACT NESHAP in the future are summarized below.

The initial notification is due one year after the date of promulgation for existing sources. The notification of compliance status would be submitted 60 days following completion by the source of the compliance demonstration specified in the regulation.

Major sources would be required to submit periodic excess emissions and CPMS performance summary reports on a semi annual basis. Major sources must submit startup, shutdown, malfunction reports semi annually when actions taken in the event of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. If actions taken are not consistent with the source's plan, an immediate report must be submitted.

The equipment leak standards would require the submittal of an initial report and semi annual reports of LDAR experiences and any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and initiation of a quality improvement program. The schedule for submission of these reports is detailed below.

For existing sources, the owner or operator would be required to submit the initial report within 90 days after the applicability date of standards for an affected source under the generic MACT NESHAP. For new sources, the initial report would be submitted with the application for construction.

Every 6 months after the initial report, a report would be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results from the LDAR 10 program and provides a notification of initiation of monthly monitoring, if applicable.

5. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication.

A search of the EPA's existing standards and ongoing ICRs revealed no duplication of information gathering efforts.

However, certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required under the generic MACT NESHAP. In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the generic MACT NESHAP.

( b) Consultations.

Consultations with numerous representatives of companies involved in CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories were conducted in the presumptive MACT development process and the generic MACT NESHAP development process which establishes MACT for each of these source categories. Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12 present the names,

affiliation, and telephone numbers of persons that provided input during the development of the proposed generic MACT NESHAP for the CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories. For future source categories that would be regulated under the generic MACT NESHAP the EPA would consult with industry representatives and State agencies when developing the presumptive MACT and MACT for an applicable source category.

A 90 day public comment period will be provided after proposal, during which all affected parties will be given the opportunity to comment on the generic MACT NESHAP. All received comments will be considered and some may be reflected in the development of the promulgated generic MACT NESHAP. 11 TABLE 9. CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION CONSULTATIONS Name Affiliation Telephone number Penny Lassiter U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 919) 541 5396 John Schaefer U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 919) 541 0296 Bill Fleming Cabot Corporation ( 678) 297 1534 Todd Williams Chevron Chemical Company ( 281) 421 6386 Roy Holder Columbian Chemicals Company ( 770) 792 9432 Todd N. Miller Continental Carbon Company ( 281) 647 3858 John Tarabocchia Degussa Hüls Corporation ( 334) 443 3537 Jimmy Boyd Engineered Carbons, Incorporated ( 806) 273 1454 Herb Harless Sid Richardson Carbon Company ( 817) 338 8386 James Orgeron Louisiana DEQ ( 225) 765 0131 Evelina Morales Oklahoma DEQ ( 405) 702 4194 Fred Wilson Texas NRCC ( 512) 239 1285 James Randall Texas NRCC ( 512) 239 1078 Renu Chakrabarty West Virginia DEP ( 304) 558 0885 TABLE 10. CYANIDE CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING CONSULTATIONS Name Affiliation Telephone number Penny Lassiter U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 919) 541 5396 Keith Barnett U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 919) 541 5605 Martin Brittain U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 214) 665 7296 Diane McConkey U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 202) 564 5588 Jeff Gilman BP Amaco ( 630) 420 5205 Name Affiliation Telephone number 12 Ann Goulet BP Amaco ( 419) 226 1239 Van A. Boone BP Chemicals ( 361) 552 8642 Erica Dromgolle BP Chemicals ( 361) 552 8642 Rasma Zvaners Chemical Manufacturers Association ( 703) 741 5249 Anita Junker Cytec ( 504) 431 6556 Orey Tanner Cytec ( 504) 431 6556 Mark Armentrout Degussa Corporation ( 334) 443 4250 David Jelly The Dow Chemical Company ( 713) 246 0133 Debbie Mulrooney Du Pont Chemicals ( 302) 774 8083 Scott Collins Du Pont Chemicals ( 361) 572 1538 Ellen Lane Du Pont Chemicals ( 409) 882 3290 Walter Schrimper Du Pont Chemicals ( 901) 353 7595 Dale Clark FMC ( 307) 872 2195 Richard Ober Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ( 225) 765 0113 Bill Sprott Memphis and Shelby County Health Department ( 901) 544 7725 Bruce Raff Novartis ( 225) 642 1686 Dave Fewell Rhone Poulenc ( 304) 767 6771 Richard DiMenna Rohm & Haas Incorporated ( 281) 592 2339 Edward G. Fiesinger Solutia Incorporated ( 281) 228 4486 Jeffery S. Gilbert Sterling Chemicals ( 409) 945 4431 Ruben Herrera Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ( 512) 239 5866 TABLE 11. ETHYLENE PRODUCTION CONSULTATIONS Name Affiliation Telephone number Penny Lassiter U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 919) 541 5396 Warren Johnson U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 919) 541 5124 Name Affiliation Telephone number 13 Robert Todd U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 214) 665 2156 Martin Brittain U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 214) 665 7296 Diane McConkey U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 202) 564 5588 Trish Messenger Chemical Manufacturers Association ( 703) 534 3582 John Ogle Dow ( 409) 238 2819 Stan Labat Exxon ( 225) 359 7226 James Orgeron Louisiana DEQ ( 225) 765 3595 Donna Hathaway Louisiana DEQ ( 225) 765 0182 Dana Poppa

Vermillion Texas NRCC ( 512) 239 1280 TABLE 12. SPANDEX PRODUCTION CONSULTATIONS Name Affiliation Telephone Number 14 Lance Granger Bayer Corporation ( 803) 820 6201 Ron Shifflett DuPont ( 540) 949 2844 Rodney Gearhart Globe Manufacturing ( 508) 674 3585 Larry Brown Alabama DEM ( 334) 271 7861 Tom Garrett Alabama DEM ( 334) 271 7861 Don Squires Massachusetts DEP ( 617) 292 5618 Mike Landis North Carolina DEM ( 704) 663 1699 Kisha Thompson South Carolina BAQ ( 803) 734 5117 Michael Kiss Virginia APC ( 540) 574 7822 Gordon Kerby Virginia APC ( 540) 574 7822 Gerald Potamis US EPA Region 1 ( 617) 918 1651 Dianne Walker US EPA Region 3 ( 215) 566 3297 Lee Page US EPA Region 4 ( 404) 562 9131 Kathleen Reeves Fornay US EPA Region 4 ( 404) 562 9130 Angela Catalano US EPA Region 7 ( 913) 551 7411 K. C. Hustvedt US EPA ( 919) 541 5395 Elaine Manning US EPA ( 919) 541 5499 ( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection. 15 If the relevant information were collected less frequently,

the EPA would not be reasonably assured that an affected source is in compliance with the generic MACT NESHAP. In addition, the EPA's authority to take administrative action would be reduced significantly.

Section 113( d) of the Act limits the assessment of administrative penalties to violations which occur no more than 12 months before initiation of the administrative proceeding.

Since administrative proceedings are less costly and require use of fewer resources than judicial proceedings, both the EPA and the regulated community benefit from preservation of the EPA's administrative powers.

( d) General Guidelines.

The generic MACT NESHAP would require owners or operators of an affected source to retain records for 5 years, which exceeds the 3 year retention period contained in the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6. The 5 year retention period is consistent with the provisions of the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63 and the retention requirement in the operating permit program under Title V of the Act.

( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions.

i. Confidentiality. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the EPA 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 3999,

September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979. Even when the EPA has determined that data received in response to an ICR is eligible for confidential treatment under 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, the EPA may nonetheless disclose the information if it is " relevant in any proceeding"

under the statute [ 42 U. S. C. § 7414 ( C); 40 CFR 2.301 ( g)]. This 16 information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) Circular 108.

ii. Sensitive Questions. Information to be reported consists of emissions data and other information that are not of a sensitive nature. No sensitive personal or proprietary data are being collected.

6. Estimating Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The existing major source annual burden estimates for recordkeeping and reporting are presented in Tables 1a through 1d for CB production; Tables 2a through 2d for CY production; Tables 3a through 3d for ET production; and Tables 4a through 4d for SP production. There is no annual burden estimate for new major sources based on the assumption that there will be very few new sources subject to the generic MACT NESHAP in the first 3 years after promulgation of standards for these source categories.

The estimates of total technical labor hours per year per source and the number of activities per respondent per year listed in each table are based upon experience with similar information collection requirements in other standard development efforts and the number of emission points in each source.

Activities that are one time only activities are noted in the tables.

[ Table 1a] 17 [ End Table]

[ Table 1b] 18 [ End Table]

[ Table 1c] 19 [ End Table]

[ Table 1d] 20 [ End Table]

[ Table 2a] 21 [ End Table]

[ Table 2b] 22 [ End Table]

[ Table 2c] 23 [ End Table]

[ Table 2d] 24 [ End Table]

[ Table 3a] 25 [ End Table]

[ Table 3b] 26 [ End Table]

[ Table 3c] 27 [ End Table]

[ Table 3d] 28 [ End Table]

[ Table 4a] 29 [ End Table]

[ Table 4b] 30 [ End Table]

[ Table 4c] 31 [ End Table]

[ Table 4d] 32 [ End Table]

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs. 33 The information collection activities for the first 3 years for affected sources subject to the generic MACT NESHAP with this proposal are presented in Tables 1a through 4d. The costs of these activities are based on the 1992 Comprehensive Assessment and Information Rule ( CAIR) economic analysis with estimated wage rates of $ 66.73 per hour ($ 66.73/ hr) for management labor,

$ 45.04/ hr for technical labor, and $ 28.14/ hr for administrative labor. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that each labor hour is composed of 5 percent management, 85 percent technical, and 10 percent administrative. The EPA believes that these estimates reflect the maximum ICR burden that would occur as a result of the generic MACT NESHAP, considering source categories that could be potentially regulated under the generic MACT NESHAP in the future.

( c) Estimating the EPA's Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of the generic MACT NESHAP, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements.

Because recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the Act, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal government.

Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS operated and maintained by OAQPS, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR.

Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of affected sources. Periodic inspections are part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program. Therefore, these examinations are not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information, as presented in 34 Tables 5a through 5d for source categories regulated under the generic MACT NESHAP with this proposal. These burden estimates assume that there will be no new sources in the first 3 years following promulgation of standards for the subject source categories. Labor rates and associated costs are based on estimated wage rates $ 56/ hr ( GS 15/ 3 level) for management,

$ 34/ hr ( GS 12/ 3 level) for technical, and $ 17/ hr ( GS 6/ 3 level)

for administrative. Labor rates include 60 percent for overhead expenses. 35 [ Table 5a]

[ End Table] 36 [ Table 5b]

[ End Table] 37 [ Table 5c]

[ End Table] 38 [ Table 5d]

[ End Table] 39 [ Table 6a]

[ End Table] 40 [ Table 6b]

[ End Table] 41 [ Table 6c]

[ End Table] 42 [ Table 6d]

[ End Table] 43 [ Table 7a]

[ End Table] 44 [ Table 7b]

[ End Table] 45 [ Table 7c]

[ End Table] 46 [ Table 7d]

[ End Table] 47 [ Table 8a]

[ End Table] 48 [ Table 8b]

[ End Table] 49 [ Table 8c]

[ End Table] 50 [ Table 8d]

[ End Table] 51 ( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs/ Master Tables.

i. The Simple Collection. The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Tables 1a through 4d, are calculated by adding total person hours and costs from each of the tables.

The estimated total nationwide burden for the first 3 years for regulated major sources being added to the generic MACT NESHAP would be an estimated 33,926 total labor hours per year at a cost of approximately $ 1,510,000 per year.

The total estimated annual labor hour reporting and recordkeeping burden is 33,936. The total annualized capital and startup costreflects the estimated capital costs for equipment required for monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting ( MIRR) activities associated with the major source provisions of the proposed standards. The total estimated installed capital costs of this equipment is $ 2,119,000 for the CB production source category, $ 53,000 for the CY production source category,

$ 2,663,000 for the ET production source category, and $ 66,000 for the SP production source category, for an annual estimated total of $ 4,901,000.

The total annual estimated operating and maintenance costs ( O& M) are calculated based on ( 1) the estimated storage, filing,

photocopying, and postage costs for the estimated total number of annual responses associated with the proposed provisions for each of the source categories and ( 2) the O& M costs for the equipment required for CPMS. Storage, filing, and photocopying costs per response is estimated at 0.5 hour of administrative labor at a rate of $ 25/ hr or $ 12.50 per response for multiple copies. First class postage is estimated at $ 7.63 per response for mailing of an one pound package and two one half pound packages to regulatory agencies. The total storage, filing, photocopying,

and postage cost per response is approximately $ 20.13. The total 52 annual estimated O& M cost is $ 1,900 for the CB production source category based on 93 responses, $ 1,300 for the CY production source category based on 65 annual responses, $ 3,000 for the ET production source category based on 150 responses, and $ 9,600 for the SP source category based upon 13 responses plus CPMS costs,

for an annual estimated total of $ 15,800 for 312 responses.

ii. The EPA Tally. The bottom line Federal government burden hours and costs that would result from this ICR are presented in Tables 5a through 8d for the source categories being proposed with this proposal. These estimates are calculated by adding total person hours and costs from each of the tables.

Table 5d summarizes the Federal government burden hours and costs for existing CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories.

The estimated total annual labor hours and costs of the generic MACT NESHAP for the CB production, CY production, ET production, and SP production source categories in the first 3 years after promulgation are approximately 3,465 total labor hours per year at a cost of approximately $ 116,527 per year.

iii. The Complex Collection. This collection is a simple collection, therefore, this section does not apply.

iv. Variations in the Annual Bottom Line. Variation in the annual bottom line for this regulation may occur ( 1) due to the fact that certain one time activities would typically occur in the first year following promulgation of the rule and ( 2) by the third year following promulgation of the rule, when all sources must be in compliance, and will therefore be subject to recurring recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

( e) Reasons for Change in Burden.

This section does not apply because this is a new collection. 53 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT Not applicable. No sampling or other methods are used to select respondents because all owners and operators of facilities subject to the generic MACT NESHAP would be required to collect information. 54 ATTACHMENT 1 SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT REGULATION CITATION MONITORING & INSPECTION

Install, maintain, adjust, and calibrate CPMS § 63.996( c)

Inspect and monitor covers § 63.1063( c)

Inspect and monitor closed vent or heat exchange system § 63.983( b)

§ 63.983( c)

§ 63.1084( a)

Monitor control device § 63.984( b)

§ 63.986( c)

§ 63.987( c)

§ 63.988( c)

§ 63.989( c)

§ 63.990( c)

§ 63.991( c)

§ 63.992( c)

§ 63.993( c)

§ 63.994( c)

§ 63.995( c)

§ 63.996( c)

Develop startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan § 63.1110( b)

§ 63.1111 REQUIREMENT REGULATION CITATION 55 RECORDKEEPING

Records of maintenance § 63.1088( b)

§ 63.1090( c)

§ 63.1089 § 63.1109( a)

Records of startup, shudown and malfunction and actions taken § 63.998( d)

Records of malfunctioning or inoperative CPMS § 63.998( c)

Records of CPMS operation, adjustments,

calibration checks, and maintenance § 63.998( c)

Records of performance test and performance evaluation results § 63.998( a)

Records of initial and compliance status notifications § 63.998( a)

REPORTS

Initial Notification § 63.1110( a)

§ 63.1110( c)

Initial Compliance Status Report § 63.1110( a)

§ 63.1110( d)

Notification of performance evaluation and performance test dates § 63.1110( a) REQUIREMENT REGULATION CITATION 56

Performance test and performance evaluation results § 63.1090 § 63.1110( d)

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports § 63.1110( a)

§ 63.1111

Excess emissions and CPMS performance report § 63.1110( a)

Excess emissions and CPMS performance summary report § 63.1110( a)

Operating parameter value and rationale selection § 63.1110( a)

§ 63.1111

Conduct control device performance test § 63.987( c)

§ 63.988( b)

§ 63.989( b)

§ 63.990( b)

§ 63.991( b)

§ 63.992( b)

§ 63.993( b)

§ 63.994( b)

§ 63.995( b)

Conduct CPMS performance evaluation § 63.996( b)