PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection " Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Large Household and Commercial Appliances Surface Coating Operations."

This is a new information collection request ( ICR), and the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) tracking number for this ICR is 1954.02.

( b) Short Characterization This ICR is prepared for an EPA final rule developed under authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act( CAA). This final rule amends title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) by adding a new subpart NNNN National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Large Household and Commercial Appliances Surface Coating Operations.

The Large Household and Commercial Appliances ( Large Appliances)

Surface Coating Operations NESHAP includes standards for major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP).

( i) Applicability: Respondents are owners and operators of new and existing facilities that engage in the surface coating of large appliances and related parts and emit hazardous air pollutants ( HAP's). Seventy four existing facilities are expected to meet the applicability criteria defined in the rule. 2 Four new facilities are expected to be constructed in each of the next 5 years.

( ii) Large Appliances Surface Coating Operations: Owners or operators of facilities engaged in the surface coating of large appliances to which this rule is applicable must choose one of the compliance options described in the rule, which may include 1) using compliant materials, 2) averaging materials, 3)

installing and monitoring a specific control system that reduces HAP emissions to the compliance level, or 4) a combination of these options. The respondents will be subject to those sections of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 that relate to NESHAP. These requirements include those associated with the notification of compliance status for the first monthly compliance period, and semiannually thereafter.

( iii) Record Retention: Owners or operators of facilities that are engaged in the surface coating of large appliances must maintain a copy of all specified records for a minimum of 5 years. Each record must be kept onsite for at least the first 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement,

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. The records can be kept offsite for the remaining three years. All records are to be submitted upon request to EPA or the respondent's State or local agency, whichever has been delegated enforcement authority by EPA. The information is used to determine whether 3 or not facilities subject to the NESHAP are achieving the standards.

( iv) Reports: The final rule relies in part on the provisions of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. A table included in the rule designates certain sections of subpart A that apply to the final rule. Specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements for each type of emission compliance option are also included in the rule.

The following reports must be submitted to the Administrator as appropriate: ( 1) Initial notification, ( 2) Notification of Compliance Status Report, ( 3) Semiannual Compliance Reports, and ( 4) Other Reports as requested by the Administrator. The requirements for each of the four reports are summarized in the rule.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection The EPA is required under section 112( d) of the CAA to regulate emissions of HAP's listed in section 112( b). The predominant HAP's emitted from large appliance surface coating operations include xylenes, glycol ethers, toluene, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, and methyl ethyl ketone.

In the Administrator's judgement, the pollutants emitted from large appliance surface coating operations cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Therefore, this source 4 category was listed for regulation under section 112.

Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to identify facilities subject to the standard and to ensure that the standard, which is based on maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) specific to large appliance surface coating operations, is being achieved. These records and reports are required under the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63,

subpart A ( as authorized under sections 101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act as amended by Pub. L 101 549 [ 42 U. S. C. 7401,

7412, 7414, 7416, 7601]).

( a) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to ( 1) identify new, modified, reconstructed, and existing facilities subject to the standards; and ( 2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied and that compliance is being maintained and documented.

In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the Agency to identify facilities that are not in compliance with the standards. Based on reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected and what records or operations should be inspected at these facilities. The records that facilities maintain will indicate to EPA whether the owners or operators are in compliance with the standards.

Much of the information the EPA will need to determine 5 compliance will be recorded and compiled monthly. Such information will be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection.

3. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC Code Respondents are owners or operators of facilities that perform surface coating of large appliances and that are classified as major sources under section 112 of the CAA. In general, facilities that coat large appliances are covered under the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes listed in the table below. However, facilities classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be subject to the final rule if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the SIC and NAICS codes in the table will be subject to this rule because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the NESHAP for large appliances.

LARGE APPLIANCES PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS AND CORRESPONDING SIC AND NAICS CODES Product Description 1987 SIC Code Equivalent 1997 NAICS Code( s) Equivalent 1997 NAICS Product Description 6 Household Cooking Equipment 3631 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing Household Refrigerators and Home and Farm Freezers 3632 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing Household Laundry Equipment 3633 335224 Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing Household Appliances; not elsewhere classified 3639 335228 Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing Commercial Laundry Equipment 3582 333312 Commercial Laundry,

Drycleaning, and Pressing Machine Manufacturing Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial/

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 3585 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial/

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing 7 Service Industry Machinery; not elsewhere classified 3589 333319 Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing ( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items: Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirements, summarizes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

( ii) Respondent activities: The respondent activities required by the standards in the first 3 years following the effective date are described in Attachment 2. The assumptions used to develop the estimated burden on affected facilities are presented in Attachment 3. The respondent activities and corresponding burden estimates are listed in the first two columns of Tables 1 through 11, which are presented in Attachment 4. Tables 12 through 14 also show the calculated burden for the entire industry for each year after the effective date of the rule. Individual tables for existing and for new facilities for each of the first 3 years after the effective date were developed because the annual burden varied during each of the first 3 years. Tables were also developed for the second 3 year period after the effective date of the rule because existing facilities will not be required to comply with the rule until three years after the rule is final. Therefore, on an industrywide basis, 8 most of the recordkeeping and reporting burden is not required until the fourth year after the effective date of the rule.

4. Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities Agency activities for the first 3 years following the effective date of the standards are provided in Tables 15 through 17 in Attachment 4, and are discussed in section 6c. Individual tables for each of the first 3 years after the effective date were developed because the annual burden varied between each year. Tables 18 through 20 show the Agency burden for the second three year period after the rule is in effect, and Table 21 shows a summary of the burden by year.

( b) Collection Methodology and Management Information contained in the initial, one time only reports will be entered in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem operated and maintained by the Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Data obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel, from records maintained by the respondents, and from information provided in semiannual reports will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in compliance and enforcement programs. The rule does not require the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of 9 information technology. Although many of the large companies have elaborate collection methods, automated systems are not expected to reduce the burden.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility Seven of the 74 affected facilities in this source category are owned by small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA). The Agency does not expect any large appliance surface coating operation, including the small businesses, to experience more than minimal adverse impacts related to the cost of the required reporting and recordkeeping.

( d) Collection Schedule For all existing facilities, the Initial Notification must be submitted within 12 months after the effective of the standard and the initial Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the initial compliance period. Records necessary to determine compliance will be compiled on a monthly basis and notifications of compliance status will be submitted to the Administrator on a semiannual basis.

5. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication Certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the rule. In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be 10 provided to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the rule.

( b) Consultations The EPA advised interested parties on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576) of the categories considered as sources of HAP's, and " Large Appliance Surface Coating Operations" was listed as a category of major sources. No specific information was provided with respect to burden estimates at that time.

Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs, including State and Regional environmental agency personnel, participated in the regulatory development and were given opportunities to review and comment on the rule before proposal. Therefore, the EPA believes that the implication to other EPA offices and programs was adequately considered during the development of the rule. In addition, the EPA met with some members of industry concerning the rule prior to the proposal of the rule. Attachment 5 presents a list of project stakeholders.

Finally, industry, regulatory authorities, and environmental groups were given an opportunity to comment on the rule and provide additional information during the public comment period following proposal.

( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection If the relevant information were collected less frequently by the owner or operator, the EPA would not be reasonably assured 11 that a facility is in compliance with the standards. Less frequent collection could result in long term exceedances of the applicable emission limits. This reporting frequency is consistent with the requirements of title V permit programs.

Consequently, less frequent reports would not result in a lower burden.

( d) General Guidelines This ICR requires that large appliance surface coating operations retain records of control device monitoring or HAP emissions calculation records at facilities for a period of 5 years, which exceeds the 3 year retention period contained in the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5; however, the 5 year period is consistent with the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and the permit requirements under 40 CFR part 70. All facilities subject to this rule will be required to obtain operating permits either through the State approved permitting program or, if one does not exist, in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 71, when promulgated. None of the other guidelines in 4 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded.

( e) Confidentiality All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR part 2; 41 12 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8,

1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23,

1979).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The annual burden estimates for reporting and recordkeeping activities are presented in Tables 1 through 14 in Attachment 4.

Individual tables for the first 3 years after the effective date were developed because the annual burden varied between each of the first 3 years. The 74 major source facilities that exist as of the effective date of the rule are not required to come into compliance with the rule until 3 years after the effective date.

Four new facilities are projected to be constructed each year after the effective date of the rule, and must comply when they begin operating. The burden estimates in each table were derived from estimates based on the Agency's experience with other standards. These costs represent the average burden that will be incurred by facilities and the entire industry in the first 3 years after the standards go into effect. Tables are also presented in Attachment 4 showing the burden for the second 3

year period because the burden is significantly higher then.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs Labor rates and associated costs are based on estimated hourly rates of technical at $ 47.04, management at $ 70.34, and 13 clerical at $ 28.67.

No capital/ startup costs have been assigned because the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the standards are not expected to result in the need for purchasing any additional equipment, or the expenditure of any startup costs. Facilities are expected to comply with the standards by reformulating their coating materials rather than purchasing add on control devices.

Thus, the purchase of monitoring or recording devices is not anticipated.

The annual operating and maintenance costs included the costs to copy and mail each response, and was estimated to be $ 20 per response. Over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards, four new facilities are projected each year.

During this period, the 12 affected facilities will submit a total of 48 reports ( 8 in year 1; 16 in year 2; 24 in year 3) at a cost of $ 960 ( 48 * $ 20 = $ 960). The annualized operating and maintenance cost over the 3 years is, therefore, $ 320 per year.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs Because the information collection requirements were estimated as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the CAA, no operational costs will be incurred by 14 the Federal Government. Publication and distribution of the information are part of AIRS, with the result that no Federal costs can be attributed to the ICR. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the Agency's overall compliance and enforcement program and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR.

The only costs that the Federal Government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the information reported semiannually by the sources, ( unless the semiannual reports indicate a violation, thereby triggering an enforcement action) as presented in Tables 15 through 21 in Attachment 4.

Labor rates and associated costs are based on estimated hourly rates of technical at $ 47.04, management at $ 70.34, and clerical at $ 28.67.

( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs/ Master Tables ( i) Respondent Tally: The annual bottom line respondent burden hours and costs are calculated by adding the total personhours and labor costs for 74 existing facilities during the first 3 years to the total person hours and labor costs for the four new facilities in each of the first 3 years, and then dividing by the 3 year review period. The total annual burden hours and labor costs are shown on the following table. 15 Year Total burden, hours Total costs, $

1 5,373 249,597 2 3,312 153,861 3 14,527 674,852 Total 23,212 1,078,310 Bottom line annual burden 7,737 359,437 ( ii) The Agency Tally: The annual bottom line Agency burden hours and costs are calculated by adding the total personhours and labor costs from each of the first 3 years, and then dividing by the 3 year review period. The annual number of hours averaged over the first 3 years is 521 at a cost of $ 24,219 per year. The Agency burden is shown on the following table.

Year Total burden, hours Total costs, $

1 865 40,175 2 294 13,677 3 405 18,805 Total 1,564 72,657 Bottom line annual burden 521 24,219 ( iii) Variations in the annual bottom line: The annual burden hours and costs vary over the course of the 3 year review period because of the burden associated with initial reports and other one time activities ( e. g., developing the recordkeeping system). Also, because existing sources are not required to 16 comply for 3 years, there is only a relatively low level of burden during this period. Hours for reading and understanding the rule and preparing the Initial Notification are assigned to the first year and hours for planning activities and training personnel are allotted for the third year. For existing sources,

the actual recordkeeping and reporting activities begin in the fourth year, and will be ongoing each year thereafter.

The Agency burden hours and costs will also vary over the 3 year review period because the number of respondents increases by four new facilities each year. Tables 15 through 17 present the Agency burden hours and costs of each of the 3 years following the effective date of the rule. The overall Agency burden after the first 3 year period will increase significantly as existing facilities begin semi annual reporting during the fourth year.

( e) Reasons for Change in Burden This section does not apply because this is a new collection.

( f) Burden Statement ( i) The EPA is required under section 112( d) of the CAA to regulate emissions of HAP's listed in section 112( b).

( ii) The information is needed as part of the overall compliance and enforcement program.

( iii) The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden 17 for this collection averaged over the first 3 years is estimated to be 7,737 hours per year for the entire source category. The average burden for the facilities that exist as of the effective date of the rule is about 60 hours per year for reading the rule and preparing to comply with the rule. For each of the four new sources that are projected each year, the burden is about 492 hours in the first year ( Table 6) and about 336 hours in subsequent years ( Table 7). The rule requires a one time initial notification and a notification of compliance status from each respondent and subsequent notification every 6 months to indicate their compliance status. A respondent will also be required to keep necessary records of data to determine compliance with the standards in the rule. The data will be recorded monthly. There are an estimated 74 respondents initially subject to the collection requirements, and four additional respondents each year thereafter. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of information; and transmit 18 or otherwise disclose the information.

( iv) The respondents will be subject to applicable recordkeeping, reporting, and other requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10, as specified in the final rule.

( v) All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2,

Subpart B Confidentiality of Information ( see 40 CFR part 2;

41 FR 36902, September 1, 1076; amended by 43 FR 39999,

September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674,

March 23, 1979).

( vi) An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's rules are listed in a table in 40 CFR part 9.

The EPA will amend part 9 when the ICR is approved.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 484 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 19 verifying information, processing and maintaining information,

and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0016, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West,

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA 20 Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention:

Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR

2003 0016). 21 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in the data collection associated with this rule. 22 ATTACHMENT 1 Source Data and Information Requirements 23 REQUIREMENT CITATION NOTIFICATIONS Initial Notification 63.4110 Notification of Compliance Status 63.4110 Notification of construction or reconstruction 63.9 Notification of anticipated date of initial startup 63.9 Notification of actual date of initial startup 63.9 Notification of modification 63.9 Notification of intent to conduct a performance test 63.7; 63.8; 63.9; 63.4110 RECORDKEEPING Material formulation data 63.4131 Records of HAP content calculations 63.4131 Copies of Notifications and Reports 63.4131 Records of names of materials used 63.4131 HAP fractions in each material used 63.4131 Coating solids fraction in each material used 63.4131 Density of materials used 63.4131 Documentation of waste material shipped offsite 63.4131 Start up, shutdown, and malfunction plan/ records 63.6; 63.4131 Documentation of control device performance tests 63.10; 63.4131 Values measured by continuous monitoring systems 63.4131 Monitoring system calibrations, maintenance 63.4131 Periods of monitoring system failure/ shutdown 63.4131 24 REPORTING Periodic reports( semiannual) 63.4120 statement of compliance( if no exceedances occurred) 63.4120 average monitoring data for any periods where exceedances or excursions occur 63.4120 periods of monitoring system downtime 63.4120 results of any performance tests 63.4120 start up, shutdown, malfunction reports 63.4120 25 ATTACHMENT 2 Description of Respondent Activities 26 Description of Respondent Activities ( 1) Read Rule and Instructions are the activities, less training, which involve comprehending the provisions in the standard and understanding how they apply to the respective points at a facility.

( 2) Plan Activities represents such burdens as design,

redesign, scheduling, and selecting methods of compliance.

( 3) Training represents the portion of activities from ( 1)

Read Rule and Instruction for which an average facility would elect to provide classroom instruction. The standard does not require specific training itself.

( 4) Create, Test, and Research and Development are the activities involving testing, retesting, establishing parameter monitoring levels and determining emission point applicability.

( 5) Gather Information, Monitor, and Inspect are the activities involving collection of monitored data and other related activities.

( 6) Process/ Compile and Review are the activities that involve analysis of the information collected during the compliance period for accuracy and completeness, and include generation of appropriate internal reports and records required as a result.

( 7) Complete Reports represents the activities normally 27 associated with filling out required forms. Because the rule requires no standardized forms, these activities relate to the preparing of formal reports and cover letters as appropriate.

( 8) Record/ Disclose are activities that are solely recordkeeping that occur once the appropriate report information has been extracted. These activities involve software translation, duplication, or archival processes normally associated with data management and storage common to this industry.

( 9) Store/ File are again activities that are solely recordkeeping that occur once the appropriate report information has been extracted. The activities involve the management life cycle of records, from the time they are filed and stored, to the time they are disposed.

( 10) LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping is the burden that is associated with requirements to develop and implement a leak detection and repair plan.

( 11) Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment is the cost for purchasing automated monitoring and recording devices that are required by the standards. 28 ATTACHMENT 3 Assumptions Used in Cost Estimates 29 Assumptions Used in Burden Estimates ( a) There are 74 major ( or " affected") sources and all are assumed to come into compliance 3 years after the effective date of the rule, as required by the rule.

( b) There are expected to be 12 new, modified, or reconstructed sources during the first three years ( 4 each year).

( c) A total of 40 hours were estimated for obtaining,

reading, and understanding the requirements of the standard.

( Burden Item 1)

( d) An estimated 40 hours will be required for communication and coordination with materials suppliers to ensure that all needed information relative to HAP and solids content of materials is provided with each purchase or shipment. ( Burden Item 2)

( e) A total of 76 hours were estimated for training an additional employee in the preparation of records and reports, as well as creating a " template" for the reports. ( Burden Items 3 & 4)

( f) A total of 20 hours per month were assumed for gathering or retrieving the inventory data from which the monthly compliance determination will be made and for the analysis of the data. ( Burden Items 5& 6)

( g) An estimated 8 hours will be required for each of the 30 semi annual compliance reports submitted to EPA. ( Burden Item 7)

( h) A total of 8 hours were estimated for managing ( copying, distributing, storing, etc) each of the semi annual reports. ( Burden Items 8& 9)

( i) Average labor costs per hour are: technical  $ 47.04,

management  $ 70.34, clerical  $ 28.67.

( j) Management hours are assumed to equal 5 percent of the total technical hours required and clerical hours are 10 percent of the technical hours.

For the second year ( and subsequent years) after facilities begin complying with the rule, the following estimates were included:

( a) A total of 20 hours were assumed annually for rereading portions of the standards, coordination with suppliers, and training additional employees.

( b) A total of 20 hours per month were assumed for completing the compliance determination.

( c) An estimated 8 hours were assumed for preparing each semi annual compliance report.

( d) An estimated 8 hours were assumed for " managing" each semi annual report.

( e) Average labor costs per hour are: technical  $ 47.04,

management  $ 70.34, clerical  $ 28.67. 31 ( f) Management hours are assumed to equal 5 percent of the total technical hours required and clerical hours are 10 percent of the technical hours. 32 ATTACHMENT 4 TABLES PRESENTING DETAILED BURDEN ESTIMATES 33 TABLE 1. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 1  EXISTING FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 40 1 40 74 2,960 148 296 158.1 2.0 Plan Activities 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Training 16 1 16 0 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 60 1 60 0 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 0 0 0 0 0.0 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 0 0 0 0 0.0 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 0.0 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 192  428 74 2,960 148 296 158.1 34 TABLE 2. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 2  EXISTING FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Plan Activities 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Training 16 1 16 0 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 60 1 60 0 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 0 0 0 0 0.0 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 0 0 0 0 0.0 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 0.0 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 192  428 74 0 0 0 0.0 35 TABLE 3. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 3  EXISTING FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Plan Activities 40 1 40 74 2,960 148 296 158.1 3.0 Training 16 1 16 74 1,184 59 118 63.3 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 60 1 60 74 4,440 222 444 237.2 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 0 0 0 0 0.0 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 0 0 0 0 0.0 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 0.0 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 192  428 74 8,584 429 858 458.6 36 TABLE 4. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 4  EXISTING FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 74 296 15 30 15.8 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 3.0 Training 8 1 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 74 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 74 10,656 533 1,066 569.3 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 74 7,104 355 710 379.5 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 74 1,184 59 118 63.3 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 56  292 74 21,608 1,080 2,161 1,154.4 37 TABLE 5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 5 AND YEAR 6  EXISTING FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 74 296 15 30 15.8 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 3.0 Training 8 1 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 74 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 74 10,656 533 1,066 569.3 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 74 7,104 355 710 379.5 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 74 1,184 59 118 63.3 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 74 592 30 59 31.6 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 56  292 74 21,608 1,080 2,161 1,154.4 38 TABLE 6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 1  NEW FACILITIES ( YEARS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 WILL BE IDENTICAL, AS 4 NEW FACILITIES ARE CONSTRUCTED EACH YEAR)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 40 1 40 4 160 8 16 8.5 2.0 Plan Activities 40 1 40 4 160 8 16 8.5 3.0 Training 16 1 16 4 64 3 6 3.4 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 60 1 60 4 240 12 24 12.8 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 4 576 29 58 30.8 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 4 384 19 38 20.5 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 4 64 3 6 3.4 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 192  428 4 1,712 86 171 91.5 39 TABLE 7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 2  NEW FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 4 16 1 2 0.9 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 3.0 Training 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 4 576 29 58 30.8 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 4 384 19 38 20.5 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 4 64 3 6 3.4 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 56  292 4 1,168 58 117 62.4 40 TABLE 8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 3  NEW FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 8 32 2 3 1.7 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 8 64 3 6 3.4 3.0 Training 8 1 8 8 64 3 6 3.4 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 8 1,152 58 115 61.5 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 8 768 38 77 41.0 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 8 128 6 13 6.8 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 8 64 3 6 3.4 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 8 64 3 6 3.4 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 56  292 8 2,336 117 234 124.8 41 TABLE 9. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 4  NEW FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 12 48 2 5 2.6 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 12 96 5 10 5.1 3.0 Training 8 1 8 12 96 5 10 5.1 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 12 1,728 86 173 92.3 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 12 1,152 58 115 61.5 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 12 192 10 19 10.3 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 12 96 5 10 5.1 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 12 96 5 10 5.1 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 56  292 12 3,504 175 350 187.2 42 TABLE 10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 5  NEW FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 16 64 3 6 3.4 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 16 128 6 13 6.8 3.0 Training 8 1 8 16 128 6 13 6.8 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 16 2,304 115 230 123.1 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 16 1,536 77 154 82.1 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 16 256 13 26 13.7 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 16 128 6 13 6.8 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 16 128 6 13 6.8 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 56  292 16 4,672 234 467 249.6 43 TABLE 11. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 6  NEW FACILITIES Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per ( B) Number of occurrences ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs. ( F) Management person hrs. ( G) Clerical person hrs. ( H) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 20 80 4 8 4.3 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 20 160 8 16 8.5 3.0 Training 8 1 8 20 160 8 16 8.5 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 20 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 12 12 144 20 2,880 144 288 153.9 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 8 12 96 20 1,920 96 192 102.6 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 20 320 16 32 17.1 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 20 160 8 16 8.5 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 20 160 8 16 8.5 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 11.0 Capital Costs of Monitoring and Recordkeeping Equipment 0 0 0  0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 56  292 20 5,840 292 584 312.0 44 TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEARS 1, 2, AND 3 YEAR EXISTING SOURCE COSTS ($ 1,000) EXISTING SOURCE BURDEN ( HOURS) NEW SOURCE COSTS ($ 1,000) NEW SOURCE BURDEN ( HOURS) TOTAL NATIONWIDE ANNUAL COSTS ($ 1,000) TOTAL NATIONWIDE BURDEN ( HOURS)

1 158.1 3,404 91.5 1,969 249.6 5,373 2 0.0 0 153.9 3,312 153.9 3,312 3 458.6 9,872 216.3 4,655 674.9 14,527 AVERAGE COST 205.6 4,425 153.9 3,312 359.4 7,737 45 TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEARS 4, 5, AND 6 YEAR EXISTING SOURCE COSTS ($ 1,000) EXISTING SOURCE BURDEN ( HOURS) NEW SOURCE COSTS ($ 1,000) NEW SOURCE BURDEN ( HOURS) TOTAL NATIONWIDE ANNUAL COSTS ($ 1,000) TOTAL NATIONWIDE BURDEN ( HOURS)

4 1,154.4 24,849 278.7 5,998 1,433.0 30,848 5 1,154.4 24,849 341.1 7,342 1,495.4 32,191 6 1,154.4 24,849 403.5 8,685 1,557.8 33,534 AVERAGE COST 1,154.4 24,849 341.1 7,342 1,495.4 32,191 46 TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO INDUSTRY  YEAR 1 THROUGH YEAR 6 YEAR EXISTING SOURCE COSTS ($ 1,000) EXISTING SOURCE BURDEN ( HOURS) NEW SOURCE COSTS ($ 1,000) NEW SOURCE BURDEN ( HOURS) TOTAL NATIONWIDE ANNUAL COST ($ 1,000) TOTAL NATIONWIDE BURDEN ( HOURS)

1 158.1 3,404 91.5 1,969 249.6 5,373 2 0.0 0 153.9 3,312 153.9 3,312 3 458.6 9,872 216.3 4,655 674.9 14,527 4 1,154.4 24,849 278.7 5,998 1,433.0 30,848 5 1,154.4 24,849 341.1 7,342 1,495.4 32,191 6 1,154.4 24,849 403.5 8,685 1,557.8 33,534 AVERAGE 680.0 14,637 247.5 5,327 927.4 19,964 47 TABLE 15. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  YEAR 1 Burden Item ( A) Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Litigation N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Report review 0 0 0 0.0 a) notification of const./ reconst. N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 b) notif. of anticipated startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 c) notif. of actual startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 d) notif. of modification N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 e) notif. of compliance status 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 f) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 g) notif. of process change N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 h) notif. of inspection of storage vessel N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 i) notif. of change in primary product N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 j) initial notification 8 78 624 31 62 33.3 k) storage vessel initial compliance demonstration N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 48 l) periodic reports of compliance status 12 8 96 5 10 5.1 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 28  752 38 75 40.2 TABLE 16. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  YEAR 2 Burden Item ( A) Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Litigation N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Report review 0 0 0 0.0 a) notification of const./ reconst. N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 b) notif. of anticipated startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 c) notif. of actual startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 d) notif. of modification N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 e) notif. of compliance status 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 f) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 g) notif. of process change N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 h) notif. of inspection of storage vessel N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 49 I) notif. of change in primary product N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 j) precompliance report 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 k) storage vessel initial compliance demonstration N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 l) periodic reports of compliance status 12 16 192 10 19 10.3 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 28  256 13 26 13.7 TABLE 17. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  YEAR 3 Burden Item ( A) Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Litigation N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Report review 0 0 0 0.0 a) notification of const./ reconst. N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 b) notif. of anticipated startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 c) notif. of actual startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 50 d) notif. of modification N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 e) notif. of compliance status 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 f) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 g) notif. of process change N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 h) notif. of inspection of storage vessel N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 I) notif. of change in primary product N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 j) precompliance report 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 k) storage vessel initial compliance demonstration N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 l) periodic reports of compliance status 12 24 288 14 29 15.4 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 28  352 18 35 18.8 51 TABLE 18. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  YEAR 4 Burden Item ( A) Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Litigation N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Report review 0 0 0 0.0 a) notification of const./ reconst. N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 b) notif. of anticipated startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 c) notif. of actual startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 d) notif. of modification N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 e) notif. of compliance status 8 78 624 31 62 33.3 f) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 g) notif. of process change N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 h) notif. of inspection of storage vessel N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 I) notif. of change in primary product N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 j) precompliance report 8 78 624 31 62 33.3 k) storage vessel initial compliance demonstration N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 52 l) periodic reports of compliance status 12 180 2,160 108 216 115.4 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 28  3,408 170 341 182.1 TABLE 19. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  YEAR 5 Burden Item ( A) Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Litigation N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Report review 0 0 0 0.0 a) notification of const./ reconst. N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 b) notif. of anticipated startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 c) notif. of actual startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 d) notif. of modification N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 e) notif. of compliance status 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 f) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 g) notif. of process change N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 h) notif. of inspection of storage vessel N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 53 I) notif. of change in primary product N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 j) precompliance report 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 k) storage vessel initial compliance demonstration N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 l) periodic reports of compliance status 12 188 2,256 113 226 120.5 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 28  2,320 116 232 123.9 TABLE 20. ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  YEAR 6 Burden Item ( A) Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F) Annual costs ($ 1000/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 Litigation N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 4.0 Report review 0 0 0 0.0 a) notification of const./ reconst. N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 b) notif. of anticipated startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 c) notif. of actual startup N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 54 d) notif. of modification N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 e) notif. of compliance status 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 f) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 g) notif. of process change N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 h) notif. of inspection of storage vessel N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 I) notif. of change in primary product N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 j) precompliance report 8 4 32 2 3 1.7 k) storage vessel initial compliance demonstration N/ A 0 0 0 0.0 l) periodic reports of compliance status 12 196 2,352 118 235 125.7 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 28  2,416 121 242 129.1 55 TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BURDEN AND LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  YEAR 1 THROUGH YEAR 6 YEAR BURDEN ( HOURS) COST ($ 1,000)

1 865 40.2 2 294 13.7 3 405 18.8 ANNUAL AVERAGE ( 1ST 3 YRS) 521 24.2 4 3,919 182.1 5 2,668 123.9 6 2,778 129.1 ANNUAL AVERAGE ( 2ND 3 YRS) 3,122 145.0 56 ATTACHMENT 5 LIST OF PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS 57 LARGE APPLIANCES SURFACE COATING NESHAP STAKEHOLDER LIST STAKEHOLDER AFFILIATION TELEPHONE FACSIMILE Steven Bachellor Lennox Industries, Inc. ( 515) 754 4361 ( 515) 754 4040 Onsoon Berglund Minnesota Pollution Control/ Agency, AQD ( 612) 296 7595 ( 612) 297 7709 Jim Berry Berry Environmental ( 919) 785 9631 ( 919) 785 9631 Cheryl Bradley Oklahoma DEQ, Air Quality Division ( 405) 290 8247 ( 405) 962 2200 Robert Buchanan Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ( 512) 239 5818 ( 512) 239 4808 John Burchard Arizona DEQ, Air Quality Division ( 602) 207 2308 ( 602) 207 2366 Steve Byrne Cytec ( 973) 425 0185 ( 973) 425 8406 Barbara Ann Cook Rheem Manufacturing Company ( 212) 916 8100 ( 212) 916 8109 John Craichy SBTDC ( 919) 715 2650 ( 919) 715 0518 Rick Crume Resource Consultants Consulting and Engineering ( 615) 370 6260 Kathy Davey US Environmental Protection Agency ( OPPTS) ( 202) 260 2290 ( 202) 260 0178 Kirk Drucker Georgia Department of Natural Resources ( 404) 363 7127 ( 404) 363 7100 Dennis Dubitsky Hussmann Corporation ( 314) 298 6541 ( 314) 298 6484 Robert Eckdale Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Air Management ( AM/ 7) ( 608) 266 2856 ( 732) 980 6304 Dan Elliott The Trane Company ( American Standard) ( 908) 980 3256 ( 732) 980 6304 Jeff Estep W. C. Wood Company, Inc. ( 419) 523 9663 ( 419) 523 6168 Andrew Fischer Rheem Manufacturing Company ( 334) 279 8930 ( 334) 260 1323 Ann Foss Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, AQD ( 612) 296 7512 ( 612) 297 7709 Kenneth Gabele The Sherwin Williams Company ( 216) 566 3316 ( 216) 566 2920 Michael Garrison State Industries, Inc. ( 615) 792 6291 ( 615) 792 2124 Patrick Guin Resource Consultants,

Consulting & Engineering Services ( 615) 370 6260 ( 615) 370 9198 ( 615) 373 3645 Madelyn Harding The Sherwin Williams Company ( 216) 566 2630 ( 216) 566 2730 Bill Haynes Marathon Equipment Company ( 205) 695 9105 ( 205) 695 7250 Dan Herlihy South Carolina Dept. of Health & Envir. Control ( DHEC) 803) 661 4825 Linda Herring US Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS/ ESD ( 919) 541 5358 ( 919) 541 5689 Tim Hooker General Electric Appliances ( 502) 452 4797 ( 502) 452 0441 Julie Ingoli Raytheon Appliances ( 319) 622 2785 ( 319) 622 2180 Joe Junker ARCO Chemical ( 610) 359 6846 ( 610) 359 2778 Robert Karwowski Whirlpool Corporation ( 616) 923 3614 ( 616) 923 5486 Glen Kedzie National Paint and Coatings Association ( 202) 462 6272 Mike Kendall Campbell, Dames, and Moore ( 301) 652 2215 Christopher Kent U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( OPPTS) ( 202) 260 3480 ( 202) 260 0178 Alan Kessler Raytheon Appliances ( 319) 622 2785 ( 319) 622 8428 Randy Koppenhaven Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,

Bureau of Air Quality ( 717) 787 1663 ( 717) 772 2303 58 Frank Losey Brown & Company ( 205) 544 9614 ( 202) 544 9618 Joe Mattingly Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association ( GAMA) ( 703) 525 9565 ( 703) 525 0718 David Mazzocco PPG Industries, Inc. ( 412) 492 5476 ( 412) 492 5377 Robert McCrillis US Environmental Protection Agency ( 919) 541 2733 ( 919) 541 0359 Jack McGrogan Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Resources, Bureau of AQ ( 717) 787 1663 ( 717) 772 2303 Wayne Morris Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ( AHAM) ( 202) 434 7478 Robert ( Bob) Mulliner The Trane Company ( 608) 787 2000 ( 608) 787 4261 Hank Naour Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ( 217) 785 4140 ( 217) 525 5023 Robert J. ( Bob) Nelson National Paint & Coatings Association ( 202) 462 6272 ( 202) 462 8549 Carol Niemi Coating Manufacturers Association Solvents Council ( 517) 631 4923 Khanh Nguyen Missouri DNR DEQ Air Pollution Control Program. ( 573) 751 4817 ( 573) 751 2706 Jim Orlemann Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Controls ( 614) 644 2270 ( 614) 644 3681 Venkata Panchakarla Florida Dept. of Env.. Protection ( FDEP) ( 904) 488 0114 ( 904) 922 6979 John Patton Tennessee DEC Division of Air Pollution Control ( 615) 532 0554 ( 615) 532 0614 Oscar Robertson White Consolidated Industries, Inc. ( 216) 252 8778 ( 216) 252 8160 Bob Rose U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( OSDBU) ( 703) 305 5511 ( 703) 305 6462 Ray Rusek Maytag Appliances ( 515) 791 5749 ( 515) 791 5898 Charles Samuels Association of Home Appliance Manufactures ( AHAM) ( 202) 434 7311 ( 202) 434 7400 Tom Sanford Porcelain Enamel Institute ( 615) 387 5357 ( 615) 385 5463 Jim Sell National Paint & Coatings Association ( 202) 462 6272 ( 202) 462 8549 Mohinder Sharma Lilly Industries, Inc. ( 309) 762 7546 ( 309) 762 9604 Don Smith South Carolina Dept. of Health & Envir. Control ( DHEC) ( 803) 661 4825 ( 803) 661 4858 Michael Sproule PPG Industries ( 614) 362 6700 ( 614) 362 6802 Dale Sweet Carrier Corporation ( 315) 432 7875 ( 315) 432 3344 Scott Throwe U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 202) 564 7013 ( 202) 564 0050 Jason Trussell Missouri DNR DEQ, Air Pollution Control Program ( 573) 751 4817 ( 573) 751 2706 Larry Wethje Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute ( 703) 524 8800 ( 703) 528 3816 Mark Yohman Lennox International ( 972) 497 5069 ( 972) 497 5268 Bernie Zysman Occidental Chemical Corporation ( 716) 278 7894 ( 716) 278 7297


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12563-12564]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0003]

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Spinosad and Milbemycin Oxime

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a new animal drug application
(NADA) filed by Elanco Animal Health. The NADA provides for veterinary
prescription use of chewable tablets containing spinosad and milbemycin
oxime in dogs for the treatment and prevention of flea infestations and
for the prevention and control of various internal parasites.

DATES: This rule is effective March 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Clarke, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-112), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli
Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed NADA
141-321 that provides for veterinary prescription use of TRIFEXIS
(spinosad and milbemycin oxime) Chewable Tablets in dogs for the
treatment and prevention of flea infestations and for the prevention
and control of various internal parasites. The NADA is approved as of
January 4, 2011, and the regulations in part 520 (21 CFR part 520) are
amended by adding Sec.  520.2134 to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(ii)), this approval qualifies for
3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval.
    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of a type
that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. Add Sec.  520.2134 to read as follows:

Sec.  520.2134  Spinosad and milbemycin.

    (a) Specifications. Each chewable tablet contains 140 milligrams
(mg) spinosad and 2.3 mg milbemycin oxime, 270 mg spinosad and 4.5 mg
milbemycin oxime, 560 mg spinosad and 9.3 mg milbemycin oxime, 810 mg
spinosad and 13.5 mg milbemycin oxime, or 1,620 mg spinosad and 27 mg
milbemycin oxime.
    (b) Sponsor. See No. 000986 in Sec.  510.600 of this chapter.
    (c) Conditions of use in dogs--(1) Amount. Administer once a month
at a

minimum dosage of 13.5 mg/pound (lb) (30 mg/kilogram (kg)) of body
weight spinosad and 0.2 mg/lb (0.5 mg/kg) of body weight milbemycin
oxime.
    (2) Indications for use. To kill fleas; for the prevention and
treatment of flea infestations (Ctenocephalides felis); for the
prevention of heartworm disease (Dirofilaria immitis); and for the
treatment and control of adult hookworm (Ancylostoma caninum), adult
roundworm (Toxocara canis and Toxascaris leonina), and adult whipworm
(Trichuris vulpis) infections in dogs and puppies 8 weeks of age or
older and 5 lbs of body weight or greater.
    (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on
the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    Dated: March 2, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-5144 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12361-12362]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[4910-EX-P]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of 115 applications from
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard
applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the
denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the
vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does
not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, U.S. Department of Transportation,
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal vision standard for a renewable 2-year period if it
finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption
are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
    Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 115 individual exemption requests on
their merit and made a determination that these applicants do not
satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of
the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this
notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption
request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial
and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice
summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C.
31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
    One applicant, Donald Dickerson, lacked sufficient driving
experience during the 3-year period prior to the date of his
application.
    The following 21 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:

Michael Meke-Eze
David M. Krause
Michael R. Morgan
Alexander D. Avery
Alan J. Chmielews
Kevie D. Clark
Shatisha Y. Tharrinton
Garn J. Hickam
Mohamed Sannoh
Daniel Ponce
Amanda Upchurch
David W. Cox
Dean A. Saaranen
David L. Stout
Kasey L. Tanner
James J. Perkins
William N. Wheeler
Glen Stryker
Donald F. Evans
Frank Ferrara
Michael B. Timmins

    The following 28 applicants did not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:

Russell Burden
Norvan Brown
Eddie R. Del Angel
George E. Gross
Wayne Figroid
Darrell E. Graumann
Heidi J. Morse
Ian D. Holbin
Boyd M. Kinzer, Jr.
Michael Hamm
Kenneth P. Nichols
Nicholas E. Lemaster
Terry Kenne
Brandon R. Ferguson
Dennis Yost
Alex P. Makhanov
Lonnie L. Tincher
Jessie A. Tanner
Gabirl A. Natale
Martin C. Baschab
Donald Hooper
Gregory Chiropolos
Ronnie G. Lynn
Malinda N. Parks
Mark Smith
Stephen C. Linardos
Dani A. Alvarez
Shawn L. Smith

    The following 12 applicants did not have 3 years of recent
experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:

Joshua H. Boatright
Domingo V. Perez
James F. Blush
Dean L. Christenson
George R. Boutin
Eugene P. Fournier
Rudolph J. McPhearson
Saint Marc Louis
Edgar Daye
Anthony Bartel
Ronald Bounds
Paul L. Baker

    The following 7 applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience

during the past 3 years under normal highway operating conditions:

Steve Volden
Alan D. Mohoric
Victor Kitchen
Michael E. Mellon
Cesar Villa
Larry Allen
Terry Blair

    The following 4 applicants had their commercial driver's license
suspended during the 3-year review period for moving violations.
Applicants do not qualify for an exemption with a suspension during the
3-year period:

William C. Pinson
Wayne L. Green
Stephen R. Marshall
James A. Fassbender

    The following 6 applicants were denied for miscellaneous/multiple
reasons:

Paul Kissner, Jr.
Nery Madera
Richard Wilson
David Traylor
Lucio Nieves
Dewey W. Justice

    The following applicant, William J. Hoitsma, Jr., was denied
because his vision was not stable for the entire 3-year period.
    The following applicant, Kentucky J. Coby, was denied because he
does not meet the vision standard in the better eye.
    The following 9 applicants met the current federal vision
standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the
current regulations for vision:

Richard Kreye
Virgil L. Adams
Hamidullah Khan
Victor Ramirez
Dale Crumb
Henry DeLaRosa
David M. Taylor
Dwight Hicks
Robert H. White

    The following 19 applicants were denied because they will not be
driving interstate, interstate commerce, or not required to carry a DOT
medical card:

Ronald Baker
Lee H. Freeman, Jr.
Ronald R. Detwiler
Diana L. Bartlow
Akbar Roohani
Danny Michael Harris
Richard Karbo
Mark Birkins
Marshall J. Desadier
Jason Butcher
Michael Layher
James Troxler
Sebastian G. Jachymiak
Joel G. Allard
Donald D. Barnett, Jr.
Brent A. Torrey
Harold Johnson
Thomas B. Bliven
Tomas J. Ortega

    Finally, the following 7 applicants perform transportation for the
federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state.

William M. Bugbee
Albert E. Richan
Gregory K. Moon
Joseph Okolowski
Gary S. Carrol
Charlie C. Kimmel
Julianne M. Kaeser

    Issued on: February 22, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-4870 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66734]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4193-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

California; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4193-DR), dated September 11, 2014,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 27, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California is hereby amended to include the
Individuals and Households Program under Section 408 of the Stafford
Act, 42 U.S.C. 5174, for the following areas among those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 11,
2014.

    Napa and Solano Counties for the Individuals and Households
Program under Section 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5174
(already designated for Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-26601 Filed 11-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2954-2958]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00878]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93965; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by MIAX PEARL, LLC To Amend
Exchange Rule 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
Including Obvious Errors

January 12, 2022.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on January 7, 2022 MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposed rule to make a technical
amendment to Exchange Rule 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options
Transactions Including Obvious Errors.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 521, Nullification
and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors, to
improve the operation of the Rule. Following discussions with other
exchanges and a cross-section of industry participants and in
coordination with the Listed Options Market Structure Working Group
(``LOMSWG'') (collectively, the ``Industry Working Group''), the
Exchange proposes: (1) To amend section (b)(3) of the Rule to permit
the Exchange to determine the Theoretical Price \3\ of a Customer \4\
option transaction in a wide market so long as a narrow market exists
at any point during the 10-second period after an opening or re-
opening; and (2) to amend section (c)(4)(B) of the Rule to adjust,
rather than nullify, Customer transactions in Obvious Error situations,
provided the adjustment does not violate the limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 521(b).
    \4\ For purposes of Rule 521, the term ``Customer'' means a
Priority Customer as defined in Rule 100. See Exchange Rule
521(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to Section (b)(3)
    Exchange Rule 521 has been part of various harmonization efforts by
the Industry Working Group.\5\ These efforts have often centered around
the Theoretical Price for which an options transaction should be
compared to determine whether an Obvious Error has occurred. For
instance, all options exchanges have adopted language comparable to
Interpretations and Policies .03, Exchange Determining Theoretical
Price,\6\ which explains how an exchange is to determine Theoretical
Price at the open, when there are no valid quotes, and when there is a
wide quote. This includes at times the use of a singular third-party
vendor, known as a TP Provider (currently CBOE Livevol, LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81324 (August
7, 2017), 82 FR 37618 (August 11, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-33).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, section (b)(3) of Rule 521 was previously harmonized
across all options exchanges to handle situations where executions
occur in markets that are wide (as set forth in the rule).\7\ Under
that section, the Exchange determines the Theoretical Price if the NBBO
\8\ for the subject series is wide immediately before execution and a
narrow market (as set forth in the rule) existed ``during the 10
seconds prior to the transaction.'' The rule goes on to clarify that,
should there be no narrow quotes ``during the 10 seconds prior to the
transaction,'' the Theoretical Price for the affected series is the
NBBO that existed at the time of execution (regardless of its width).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
    \8\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent discussions, the Industry Working Group has identified
proposed changes to section (b)(3) of Rule 521 that would improve the
Rule's functioning. Currently, section (b)(3) does not permit the
Exchange to determine the Theoretical Price unless there is a narrow
quote 10 seconds prior to the transaction. However, in the first
seconds of trading, there is no 10-second period ``prior to the
transaction.'' Further, the Industry Working Group has observed that
prices in certain series can be disjointed at the start of trading.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to provide additional protections to
trading in certain circumstances immediately after the opening before
liquidity has had a chance to enter the market. The Exchange proposes
to amend section (b)(3) to allow the Exchange to determine the
Theoretical Price in a wide market so long as a narrow market exists at
any point during the 10-second period after an opening or re-opening.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the existing text of
section (b)(3) would become subsection ``(A).'' The Exchange proposes
to add the following heading and text as subsection ``(B)'':
    (B) Customer Transactions Occurring Within 10 Seconds or Less After
an Opening or Re-Opening:
    (i) The Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if the bid/
ask differential of the NBB and NBO for the affected series just prior
to the Customer's erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than
the Minimum Amount set forth in paragraph A above and there was a bid/
ask differential less than the Minimum Amount during the 10 seconds
prior to the transaction.
    (ii) If there was no bid/ask differential less than the Minimum
Amount during the 10 seconds prior to the transaction, then the
Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if the bid/ask
differential of the NBB and NBO for the affected series just prior to
the Customer's erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the
Minimum Amount set forth in paragraph A above and there was a bid/ask
differential less than the Minimum Amount anytime during the 10 seconds
after an opening or re-opening.
    (iii) If there was no bid/ask differential less than the Minimum
Amount during the 10 seconds following an Opening or Re-Opening, then
the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last NBB or NBO just
prior to the Customer transaction in question, as set forth in
paragraph (b) above.
    (iv) Customer transactions occurring more than 10 seconds after an
opening or re-opening are subject to paragraph A above.
    The following examples illustrate the functioning of the proposed
rule change. Consider that the NBBO of a series opens as $0.01 at
$4.00. A marketable limit order to buy one contract arrives one second
later and is executed at $4.00. In the third second of trading, the
NBBO narrows from $0.01 at $4.00 to $2.00 at $2.10. While the execution
occurred in a market with wide widths, there was no tight market within
the 10 seconds prior to execution. Accordingly, under the current rule,
the trade would not qualify for obvious error review, in part due to
the fact that there was only a single second of trading before the
execution. Under the proposal, since a tight market existed at some
point in the first 10 seconds of trading (i.e., in the third second),
the Exchange would be able to determine the Theoretical Price as
provided in Interpretations and Policies .04.
    As another example, the NBBO for a series opens as $0.01 at $4.00.
In the seventh second of trading, a marketable limit order is received
to buy one contract and is executed at $4.00. Five seconds later (i.e.,
in the twelfth second of trading), the NBBO narrows from $0.01 at $4.00
to $2.00 at $2.10. While the execution occurred in a market with wide
widths, there was no tight market within 10 seconds prior to execution.
Accordingly, under the current rule, the trade would not qualify for
obvious error review. Under the proposal, since no tight market existed
at any point during the first 10 seconds of trading (i.e., the narrow
market occurred in the twelfth second), the trade would not qualify for
obvious error review.
    The proposed rule change would also better harmonize section (b)(3)
with section (b)(1) of the Rule. Under section (b)(1), the Exchange is
permitted to determine the Theoretical Price for transactions occurring
as part of the opening auction process (as described in Exchange Rule
503) if there is no NBB or NBO for the affected series just prior to
the erroneous transaction. However, under the current version of
section (b)(3), a core trading transaction could occur in the same wide
market but the

Exchange would not be permitted to determine the Theoretical Price.
Consider an example where one second after the Exchange opens a
selected series, the NBBO is $1.00 at $5.00. At 9:30:03, a customer
submits a marketable buy order to the Exchange and pays $5.00. At
9:30:03, a different exchange runs an opening auction that results in a
customer paying $5.00 for the same selected series. At 9:30:06, the
NBBO changes from $1.00 at $5.00 to $1.35 at $1.45. Under the current
version of section (b)(3), the Exchange would not be able to determine
the Theoretical Price for the trade occurring during core trading.
However, the trade on the other exchange could be submitted for review
under (b)(1) and that exchange would be able to determine the
Theoretical Price. If the proposed change to section (b)(3) were
approved, both of the trades occurring at 9:30:03 (on the Exchange
during core trading and on another exchange via auction) would also be
entitled to the same review regarding the same Theoretical Price based
upon the same time.
    The proposal would not change any obvious error review beyond the
first 10 seconds of an opening or re-opening.
Proposed Change to Section (c)(4)(B)
    The Exchange proposes to amend section (c)(4)(B)--the ``Adjust or
Bust'' rule for Customer transactions in Obvious Error situations--to
adjust rather than nullify such orders, provided the adjustment does
not violate the Customer's limit price.
    Currently, the Rule provides that in Obvious Error situations,
transactions involving non-Customers should be adjusted, while
transactions involving Customers are nullified, unless a certain
condition applies.\9\ The Industry Working Group has concluded that the
treatment of these transactions should be harmonized under the Rule,
such that transactions involving Customers may benefit from adjustment,
just as non-Customer transactions currently do, except where such
adjustment would violate the Customer's limit price; in that instance,
the trade would be nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, the current Rule provides at section (c)(4)(C)
that if any Member has 200 or more Customer transactions under
review concurrently and the orders resulting in such transactions
were submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less, where at
least one party to the Obvious Error is a non-Customer, then the
Exchange will apply the non-Customer adjustment criteria set forth
in (c)(4)(A) for such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the text of section
(c)(4)(B) to add that where at least one party to the Obvious Error is
a Customer, ``the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted
by the Official pursuant to the table immediately above. Any Customer
Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size
Adjustment Modifier defined in subparagraph (a)(4) above. However, if
such adjustment(s) would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price,'' the trade will be nullified. The ``table immediately
above'' referenced in the proposed text refers to the table at current
Section (c)(4)(A), which provides for the adjustment of prices a
specified amount away from the Theoretical Price, rather than adjusting
the Theoretical Price.
    The Exchange proposes no other changes at this time.
Implementation Date
    The proposed rule change will become operative no sooner than six
months following the approval of the NYSEArca proposal \10\ to coincide
with implementation on other option exchanges. The Exchange will
announce the implementation date to its Members via Regulatory
Circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93818 (December 17,
2021), 86 FR 73009 (December 23, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-91) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 6.87-O).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to section (b)(3) of
the Rule would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest because it provides a method
for addressing Obvious Error Customer transactions that occur in a wide
market at the opening of trading. Generally, a wide market is an
indication of a lack of liquidity in the market such that the market is
unreliable. Current section (b)(3) recognizes that a persistently wide
quote (i.e., more than 10 seconds) should be considered the reliable
market regardless of its width, but does not address transactions that
occur in a wide market in the first seconds of trading, where there is
no preceding 10-second period to reference. Accordingly, in the first
10 seconds of trading, there is no opportunity for a wide quote to have
persisted for a sufficiently lengthy period such that the market should
consider it a reliable market for the purposes of determining an
Obvious Error transaction.
    The proposed change would rectify this disparity and permit the
Exchange to consider whether a narrow quote is present at any time
during the 10-second period after an opening or re-opening. The
presence of such a narrow quote would indicate that the market has
gained sufficient liquidity and that the previous wide market was
unreliable, such that it would be appropriate for the Exchange to
determine the Theoretical Price of an Obvious Error transaction. In
this way, the proposed rule harmonizes the treatment of Customer
transactions that execute in an unreliable market at any point of the
trading day, by making them uniformly subject to Exchange determination
of the Theoretical Price.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to section (c)(4)(B)
of the Rule would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and enhance the
protection of investors by harmonizing the treatment of non-Customer
transactions and Customer transactions under the Rule. Under the
current Rule, Obvious Error situations involving non-Customer
transactions are adjusted, while those involving Customer transactions
are generally nullified, unless they meet the additional requirements
of section (c)(4)(C) (i.e., where a Member has 200 or more Customer
transactions under review concurrently and the orders resulting in such
transactions were submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less.)
The proposal would harmonize the treatment of non-Customer and Customer
transactions by providing for the adjustment of all such transactions,
except where such adjustment would violate the Customer's limit price.
    When the current rule was proposed in 2015, the MIAX Options
Exchange believed there were sound reasons for

treating non-Customer transactions and Customer transactions
differently. At the time, the MIAX Options Exchange stated its belief
that ``Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading
of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a
particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in
their trading accounts,'' and that nullifying Obvious Error
transactions involving Customers would give Customers ``greater
protections'' than adjusting such transactions by eliminating the
possibility that a Customer's order will be adjusted to a significantly
different price. The MIAX Options Exchange also noted its belief that
``Customers are . . . less likely to have engaged in significant
hedging or other trading activity based on earlier transactions, and
thus, are less in need of maintaining a position at an adjusted price
than non-Customers.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74918 (May 8,
2015), 80 FR 27781 (May 14, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those assumptions about Customer trading and hedging activity no
longer hold. The Exchange and the Industry Working Group believe that
over the course of the last five years, Customers that use options have
become more sophisticated, as retail broker-dealers have enhanced the
trading tools available. Pursuant to OCC data, volumes clearing in the
Customer range have expanded from 12,022,163 ADV in 2015 to 35,081,130
ADV in 2021. This increase in trading activity underscores the greater
understanding of options by Customers as a trading tool and its use in
the markets. Customers who trade options today largely are more
educated, have better trading tools, and have better access to
financial news than any time prior.\14\ The proposed rule would extend
the hedging protections currently enjoyed by non-Customers to
Customers, by allowing them to maintain an option position at an
adjusted price, which would in turn prevent a cascading effect by
maintaining the hedge relationship between the option transaction and
any other transactions in a related security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Dan Raju, Retail Traders Adopt Options En Masse, by Dan
Raju, (Dec 8, 2020) available at https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/retail-traders-adopt-options-en-masse-2020-12-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending such hedging protections to
Customer transactions would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and
enhance the protection of investors by providing greater certainty of
execution for all participants to options transactions. Under the
current Rule, a Customer that believes its transaction was executed
pursuant to an Obvious Error may be disincentivized from submitting the
transaction for review, since during the review process, the Customer
would be uncertain whether the trade would be nullified, and if so,
whether market conditions would still permit the opportunity to execute
a related order at a better price after the nullification ruling is
finalized. In contrast, under the proposed rule, the Customer would
know that the only likely outcomes of submitting a trade to Obvious
Error review would be that the trade would stand or be re-executed at a
better price; the trade would only be nullified if the adjustment would
violate the order's limit. Similarly, under the current Rule, during
the review period, a market maker who traded contra to the Customer
would be uncertain if it should retain any position executed to hedge
the original trade, or attempt to unwind it, possibly at a significant
loss. Under the proposed rule change, this uncertainty is largely
eliminated, and the question would be whether the already-executed and
hedged trade would be adjusted to a better price for the Customer, or
if it would stand as originally executed. In this way, the proposed
rule enhances the protection of investors and removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
    The proposed rule also addresses the concern the MIAX Options
Exchange cited in its 2015 filing that adjusting, rather than
nullifying, Customer transactions could lead to a Customer's order
being adjusted to a significantly different price. To address that
concern, the proposed rule would prevent Customer transactions from
being adjusted to a price that violates the order's limit; if the
adjustment would violate a Customer's limit, the trade would instead be
nullified. The Exchange believes it is in the best interest of
investors to expand the availability of adjustments to Customer
transactions in all Obvious Error situations except where the
adjustment would violate the Customer's limit price.
    Further, the Exchange believes that, with respect to such proposed
adjustments to Customer transactions, it is appropriate to use the same
form of adjustment as is currently in place with respect to non-
Customer transactions as laid out in the table in section (c)(4)(A).
That is, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust to
prices a specified amount away from the Theoretical Price rather than
to adjust the Theoretical Price, even though the Exchange has
determined a given trade to be erroneous in nature, because the parties
in question should have had some expectation of execution at the price
or prices submitted. Also, it is common that by the time it is
determined that an Obvious Error has occurred, additional hedging and
trading activity has already occurred based on the executions that
previously happened. The Exchange believes that providing an adjustment
to the Theoretical Price in all cases would not appropriately
incentivize market participants to maintain appropriate controls to
avoid potential errors, while adjusting to prices a specified amount
away from the Theoretical Price would incentivize such behavior.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The proposed change to section (b)(3) would apply to all instances of a
wide market occurring within the first 10 seconds of trading followed
by a narrow market at any point in the subsequent 10-second period,
regardless of the types of market participants involved in such
transactions. The proposed change to section (c)(4)(B) would harmonize
the treatment of Obvious Error transactions involving Customers and
non-Customers, no matter what type of market participants those parties
may be.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.\15\ The Exchange
anticipates that the other options exchanges will adopt substantively
similar proposals, such that there would be no burden on intermarket
competition from the Exchange's proposal. Accordingly, the proposed
change is not meant to affect competition among the options exchanges.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment and does not impose any undue
burden on intermarket competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2022-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-02. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-PEARL-2022-02 and should be submitted on
or before February 9, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00878 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P