[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 244 (Thursday, December 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73026-73029]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27815]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93810; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-67, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-43,
SR-NYSEArca-2021-97, SR-NYSECHX-2021-17, SR-NYSENAT-2021-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National,
Inc.; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes To Offer
Wireless Connectivity to CME Group Data and Establish Associated Fees

December 17, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On November 3, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American
LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc.
(collectively, the ``Exchanges'') each filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend their respective fee
schedules to offer wireless connectivity to CME Group, Inc. (``CME
Group'') market data (``CME Group Data'') and establish associated
fees. Each proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The
proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 18, 2021.\4\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposals. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission is hereby: (1) Temporarily suspending File Nos.
SR-NYSE-2021-67, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-43, SR-NYSEArca-2021-97, SR-NYSECHX-
2021-17, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-23; and (2) instituting proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-67,
SR-NYSEAMER-2021-43, SR-NYSEArca-2021-97, SR-NYSECHX-2021-17, and SR-
NYSENAT-2021-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93563 (November 12,
2021), 86 FR 64561 (November 18, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-67)
(``Notice''); 93561 (November 12, 2021), 86 FR 64580 (November 18,
2021) (SR-NYSEAMER-2021-43); 93564 (November 12, 2021), 86 FR 64570
(November 18, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-97); 93565 (November 12,
2021), 86 FR 64556 (November 18, 2021) (SR-NYSECHX-2021-17); and
93567 (November 12, 2021), 86 FR 64576 (November 18, 2021) (SR-
NYSENAT-2021-23). For ease of reference, citations to the Notice(s)
are to the Notice for SR-NYSE-2021-67.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Exchanges propose to amend their respective fee schedules
regarding colocation services and fees to offer Users \6\ wireless
connectivity to CME Group Data for associated fees.\7\ The proposed
wireless connection would enable a User to receive CME Group Data \8\
in the colocation center in the Mahwah, New Jersey data center
(``Mahwah Data Center'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of the Exchanges' colocation services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive
colocation services directly from the Exchanges. See Notice, supra
note 4, at 64561 n.4 (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No.
76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60190 (October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSE-
2015-40)).
    \7\ The Exchanges state that they expect the proposed rule
change would become operative no later than March 31, 2022, and that
they will announce the date that the wireless connectivity to CME
Group Data will be available through a customer notice. See id. at
645621.
    \8\ The User would pay an unaffiliated third party separately
for the data content. See id. at 64562.
    \9\ See id. The Exchanges state that Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc. (``ICE'') operates the Mahwah Data Center through its ICE Data
Services (``IDS'') business. The Exchanges themselves are indirect
subsidiaries of ICE. According to the Exchanges, the proposed
service would be provided by IDS pursuant to an agreement with a
non-ICE entity, and IDS does not own the wireless network that would
be used to provide the service. See id. at 64561 n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the available CME Group Data would not
include all possible CME Group data feeds.\10\ Rather, the proposed
wireless service would only provide connectivity to a selection of CME
Group market data for which IDS determines there is User demand.\11\ A
User would then determine the symbols for which it would receive data,
which could include data regarding some or all of the symbols for which
IDS provides connectivity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ According to the Exchanges, there is limited bandwidth
available on the wireless network to colocation and currently dozens
of CME Group data feeds, so providing connectivity to all of these
feeds would use a large amount of bandwidth. See id. at 64562.
    \11\ The Exchanges state that IDS similarly provides
connectivity to a selection of data, rather than entire feeds, over
a wireless connection to the Markham, Canada third party data
center. See id. The Exchanges also state that they understand that
the third parties providing wireless connectivity to CME Group
market data to the Mahwah Data Center and other data centers in New
Jersey follow a substantially similar model, offering connectivity
to a selection of market data rather than entire feeds. See id. at
64562 n.10.
    \12\ The Exchanges state that they would not have visibility
into which portion of the CME Group Data a given User receives. See
id. at 64562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that they currently provide Users with wireless
connections to eight market data feeds

or combinations of feeds from third party markets (``Existing Third
Party Data''), as well as wired connections to 43 market data
feeds.\13\ As with Existing Third Party Data, if a User purchased two
wireless connections to CME Group data, it would pay two non-recurring
initial charges.\14\ Each of these wireless connections would include
the use of one port for connectivity to CME Group Data.\15\ If a User
also connects to Existing Third Party Data, it would not be able to use
the same port that it uses for connectivity to CME Group Data to
connect to such Existing Third Party Data,\16\ and would receive the
use of one port for connectivity to Existing Third Party Data.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ A User would not pay a fee for the use of such port. See
id.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id. at 64562 n.11. The Exchanges state that a User that
connects to both CME Group Data and Existing Third Party Data would
accordingly have at least two ports, and would not be separately
charged for such ports. See id. at 64562. In addition, a User may
purchase additional ports. See id. at 64562 n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each wireless connection to CME Group Data, the Exchanges
propose to charge a User a $5,000 non-recurring initial charge and a
monthly recurring charge of $6,000.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 64562. As specified in the Exchanges' respective
fee schedules, a User that incurs colocation fees for a particular
colocation service pursuant thereto would not be subject to
colocation fees for the same colocation service charged by the other
Exchanges. See id. at 64561 n.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Changes

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\19\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\20\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule changes is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule changes' consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposed fees, the Exchanges generally argue that
they are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because
use of the proposed services is completely voluntary and alternatives
to them are available.\21\ The Exchanges maintain that they operate in
a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors (e.g.,
Hosting Users \22\) offer colocation services as a means to facilitate
the trading and other market activities of those market participants
who believe that colocation enhances the efficiency of their
operations.\23\ The Exchanges maintain that fees charged for co-
location services are constrained by active competition for the order
flow of, and other business from, such market participants.\24\ The
Exchanges argue that Users that do not opt to use the Exchange's
proposed wireless connection would still be able to obtain CME Group
market data using other methods; namely, from another User, a third
party wireless connection, or through an IDS or third party fiber
connection.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 64563-65.
    \22\ ``Hosting'' is a service offered by a User to another
entity in the User's space within the Mahwah Data Center. The
Exchanges allow Users to act as Hosting Users for a monthly fee.
See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76008 (September 29,
2015), 80 FR 60190 (October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-40).
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 64563.
    \24\ See id. at 64565.
    \25\ See id. at 64563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding third party wireless connections, the Exchanges assert
that, based on the information available to them, at least one market
participant provides wireless connectivity to CME Group market data in
the Mahwah Data Center, and does so at the same or similar speed as the
proposed connection to CME Group Data and at the same or similar
cost.\26\ According to the Exchanges, before entering the Mahwah Data
Center, the proposed wireless connection would lead to a pole that is
owned by a third party and is not on the grounds on the Mahwah Data
Center, from where a fiber connection would then lead into the Mahwah
Data Center.\27\ Upon entering the grounds of the Mahwah Data Center,
the proposed connection to CME Group Data and the existing third party
wireless connection to CME Group Data would follow the same route
within the Mahwah Data Center: Both would enter through a meet me room,
connect to equipment in colocation, and then connect to any Users that
are customers.\28\ The Exchanges state that therefore they do not
believe that IDS has an advantage over the third party in providing the
proposed connectivity.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchanges state that IDS already offers fiber
connections to CME Group market data to Users, and believe that at
least two third party market participants also offer such fiber
connections to CME Group market data.\30\ The Exchanges moreover state
that a User may create a proprietary wireless connection or connect
through another User in order to connect to CME Group market data, and
believe that at least two market participants already provide wireless
connectivity to CME Group market data to other data centers in New
Jersey.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id. According to the Exchanges, market participants'
considerations in determining what connectivity to purchase may
include latency; the amount of network uptime; the equipment that
the network uses; the cost of the connection; and the applicable
contractual provisions. See id. The Exchanges state that wireless
messages have lower latency than messages travelling through fiber
optics. The Exchanges also state that, as a general rule, wireless
networks have less uptime than fiber networks. See id. at 64562. In
this regard, the Exchanges claim that fiber network connections may
be more attractive to some market participants, as they are more
reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions. See id. at
64563.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges also argue that the proposed pricing is reasonable
because it would allow the Exchanges to defray or cover the costs
associated with offering Users a wireless connection to CME Group Data,
while providing Users the benefit of receiving CME Group Data within
colocation and with a lower latency over fiber optic options.\32\ In
this regard, the Exchanges further claim that in order to offer the
proposed wireless connection to CME Group Data, they must provide,
maintain, and operate the Mahwah Data Center facility hardware and
technology infrastructure.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id. at 64563-64. With respect to the proposed non-
recurring charge when a User initially purchases a wireless
connection to CME Group Data, the Exchanges also state that the
costs associated with installing wireless connections are
incrementally higher than those associated with installing fiber
optics-based solutions. See id. at 64564.
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges argue that the proposals provide for an equitable
allocation of fees and are not unfairly discriminatory, again
contending that the proposed services are voluntary and that
alternatives to them are available.\34\ The Exchanges also argue that
proposed services would be available to all Users on an equal basis,
and that all Users that voluntarily select wireless connections to CME
Group Data would be charged the same amount for the same services.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See id. at 64564-65.
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchanges argue that the proposed rule changes do not
impose an

unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition, likewise contending
that the proposed services are voluntary and that alternatives to them
are available.\36\ The Exchanges reiterate their argument that they
operate in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other
vendors offer colocation services as a means to facilitate the trading
and other market activities of those market participants who believe
that colocation enhances the efficiency of their operations.\37\
According to the Exchanges, the proposals do not affect competition
among national securities exchanges or among members of the Exchanges,
but rather between IDS and its commercial competitors.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See id. at 64565.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings, they are required to provide a
statement supporting the proposal's basis under the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to the exchange.\39\ The
instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges file their proposed rule
changes, specify that such statement ``should be sufficiently detailed
and specific to support a finding that the proposed rule change is
consistent with [those] requirements.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \41\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \42\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchanges' proposed rule changes, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposed fees for
wireless connectivity to CME Group Data are consistent with the
statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange
under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the
proposed rule changes satisfy the standards under the Act and the rules
thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members,
issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
changes, the Commission has considered the proposed rules' impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Changes

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposals, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\46\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \47\ to determine whether the
Exchanges' proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule changes to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\48\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides that
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule
change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication
of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The
time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60
days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and
publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the exchange consents to
the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how their proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how their proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers;'' \50\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how their proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of [the Act].'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchanges made various
arguments in support of their proposals. The Commission believes that
there are questions as to whether the Exchanges have provided
sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed fees are
consistent with the Act and the rules thereunder.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \52\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\53\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \53\ See id.
    \54\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that the rules of a national
securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members,

issuers, and other persons using its facilities' are designed to
perfect the operation of a free and open market and a national market
system, and to protect investors and the public interest; are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers; and do not impose any burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act; as well as any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by January 13, 2022.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by January 27, 2022. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchanges' statements in support of the proposals, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule changes.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, including whether the
proposed rule changes are 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 Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-67, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-43, SR-NYSEArca-2021-97,
SR-NYSECHX-2021-17, SR-NYSENAT-2021-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-67, SR-NYSEAMER-
2021-43, SR-NYSEArca-2021-97, SR-NYSECHX-2021-17, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-
23. The 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 changes that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchanges. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-67, SR-NYSEAMER-
2021-43, SR-NYSEArca-2021-97, SR-NYSECHX-2021-17, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-
23 and should be submitted on or before January 13, 2022. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by January 27, 2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\57\ that File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-67, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-43, SR-
NYSEArca-2021-97, SR-NYSECHX-2021-17, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-23, be and
hereby are, temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is
instituting proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule changes
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27815 Filed 12-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for the Manufacture of Amino/ Phenolic Resins ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for the Manufacture of Amino/ Phenolic Resins ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for amino/ phenolic resins published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO were proposed on December 14, 1998 and promulgated on January 20, 2000. These regulations apply to existing facilities and new facilities that engage in the manufacture of amino/ phenolic resins. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of the proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO.

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

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

Approximately forty sources are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that an additional zero sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

The active ( previous) Information Collection Request ( ICR) had the following Terms of Clearance ( TOC):

This collection is approved. OMB understands that respondents to this collection are seeking legal review of the rule associated with this collection. OMB reminds EPA that if adjudication or settlement of legal petitions filed by respondents or other interested 2 parties results in a modification of the regulation as it relates to the approved collection, EPA will need to submit an ICR containing the proposed amendments to the collection to OMB for approval. Separately, OMB notes that EPA has not properly accounted for capital and/ or O& M costs associated with the monitoring that is required for the collection. These costs should be included in EPA's cost estimate for the collection. As soon as practicable, EPA should submit to OMB an amendment to the cost estimate for the collection that includes a line item accounting of these costs.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC by examining the status of respondents' request for legal review of the rule associated with this collection, and by separately accounting for capital and/ or O& M costs associated with the monitoring that is required for the collection. The respondents did not pursue their request for legal review and, therefore, no modification of the regulation as it relates to the approved collection occurred. Capital and/ or O& M costs associated with the monitoring that is required for the collection are now separately accounted for in Section 6( b)( 2)( iii) of the Supporting Statement, Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

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

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions from 3 amino/ phenolic resins manufacturing operations cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NESHAP for this source category were promulgated at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of HAP from amino/ phenolic resins manufacturing operations requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from amino/ phenolic resins manufacturing operations are the result of operation of the facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the capture of formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol using scrubbers or other compliance options and/ or leak detection and repair procedures. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

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

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local Agency. If a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 4 An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 68 FR 68372) on December 8, 2003. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) conducted a review and discussions with industry during development of the rule. Results from that activity were used in preparation of this ICR.

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

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

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

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, 5 September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of amino/ phenolic resins manufacturing operations.

Standard SIC Codes NAICS Codes 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO 2821 325211 ( Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing)

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Notification of intent to construct or reconstruct 63.5, 63.1417( d)

Notification and report of construction date 63.5, 63.1400( j)

Notification of anticipated startup 63.5, 63.1400( j)

Actual startup notification 63.5, 63.1400( j)

Notification of modification 63.5, 63.1400( j)

Notification and report of performance tests and results 63.7( b), 63.1417( e)

Precompliance report 63.1417( d) 6 Notification Reports Notification and report of compliance status 63.1417( e)

Periodic reports ( semiannual) including statement of compliance ( if no exceedances occurred), daily, batch cycle, and block average monitoring data for any periods where exceedances or excursions occur, periods of monitoring system downtime 63.1417( f)

Quarterly reports upon request of the Administrator 63.1417( f)( 12)

Develop startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, submit reports 63.6( e)( 3), 63.10( d)( 5), 63.1417( g)

Notification of storage vessel inspection 63.1417( h)( 1)

Site specific test plan 63.1417( h)( 2)

Notification of planned performance test 63.1417( h)( 3)

Notification of change in primary product 63.1417( h)( 4), 63.1400( g)( 7), ( 8)

Notification of added emission points 63.1417( h)( 5)

Notification that a small control device has been redesignated as a large control device 63.1417( h)( 6)

Notification of process change 63.1417( h)( 7)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Five year retention of records 63.1416( a)

Records of monitored values, maintenance, startup, shutdown, malfunction 63.6, 63.1416( b)

Monitoring records 63.1416( c)

Batch process vent records 63.1416( d)

Aggregate batch vent stream records 63.1416( e)

Continuous process vent records 63.1416( f)

Other records or documentation 63.1416( g)

Reduced recordkeeping program 63.1416( h) 7 Above requirements include documentation of control device performance, design evaluation, performance test, values measured by continuous monitoring systems, monitoring system calibrations and maintenance, periods of monitoring system failure/ shutdown Electronic Reporting Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e. g., inlet and outlet concentrations when determining percent efficiency. Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping. In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically, which is reducing the reporting burden. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the respondents use electronic reporting.

ii. Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate compliance monitoring system ( CMS) for pH, flow, temperature, or specific gravity, or organic monitoring device for control options as applicable.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, 18, 308, 316, or 320 as applicable, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

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

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements. 8 Respondent Activities Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

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

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

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, excess emissions reports, startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, and quality control plan for CMS required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

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

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

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for more than 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution 9 compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

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

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility Eleven of the forty affected facilities in this source category are owned by small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA). The Agency does not expect that any amino/ phenolic resins production facilities, including the small businesses, would experience more than minimal adverse impacts related to the cost of the required reporting and recordkeeping.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for the Manufacture of Amino/ Phenolic Resins ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO).

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

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

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory. 10 The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at to be 24,044 hours ( Total Burden from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency review and discussions with the industry during development of the rule, Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, and the previously approved ICR.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 93.09 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 64.13 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 39.65 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

Managerial $ 93.09 ($ 44.33 + 110%) Technical $ 64.13 ($ 30.54 + 110%) Clerical $ 39.65 ($ 18.88 + 110%)

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs This section covers the costs associated with all types of continuous monitoring equipment ( e. g., compliance emission monitoring system ( CEMS) and continuous parameter monitors). The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the subject standards are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor( s) and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs 11 Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuou s Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startup Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startup Cost ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M, ( E X F)

pH Monitor $ 1,000 0 0 $ 300 40 $ 12,000 Liquid Flow Monitor $ 500 0 0 $ 100 40 $ 4,000 The total Capital/ Start up costs for this ICR are $ 0. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR are $ 16,000. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total annualized respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 16,000. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars. The continuous monitoring costs that are included in this section consist only of those capital/ start up and O& M costs that a source incurs as a result of the standard. Some continuous monitoring costs may not be included in this section. For instance, if a particular industry typically utilizes a control device that must have a continuous monitor ( e. g., temperature, pressure drop, etc.) to function properly, and the recordation of additional measurements beyond the minimum are required by the standard, then there is no capital/ startup or O& M cost, but there is a labor cost to record the additional readings. Such a cost would not appear in this section, but in the industry burden Section 6( d) below.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 16,281 [ see Table 2 in Section 6( e)]. This cost is based upon the following labor breakdown: 12 Managerial $ 53.22 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 33.26 x 1.6) Technical $ 39.49 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 24.68 x 1.6) Clerical $ 21.38 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.36 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, below.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, there are approximately forty existing sources currently subject to the standard. It is estimated that an additional zero sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

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

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

1 0 40 0 0 40 2 0 40 0 0 40 3 0 40 0 0 40 Average 0 40 0 0 40 To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is forty. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table: 13 Total Annual Responses ( A) Number of New Respondents ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Respondents ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( F) Number of Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( AxB)+( CxD)+ F 0 5 40 2.1 0 82 1 Weighted Average. See Table 1 for details.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 82 ( rounded). This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 1,521,017. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost.

Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 16,281. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents appear below. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 293 ( rounded) hours per response.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a reduction in annual burden because the initial compliance activities have been completed and there are no new sources.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 293 ( rounded) 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; 14 develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0153, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0153 and OMB Control Number 2060 0434 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 15 Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost NESHAP for the Manufacture of Amino/ Phenolic Resins ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO)

Burden Item ( A)

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

per respondent per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hrs.

per year $ 64.13/ hr ( E= C* D) ( F) Management person hrs. per year $ 93.09/ hr ( F= E* 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hrs.

per year $ 39.65 ( G= E* 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in Dollars Read Rule and Instructions 16 1 16 40 640 32 64 $ 46,559.68 Plan Activities 8 1 8 40 320 16 32 $ 23,279.84 Training 16 1 16 40 640 32 64 $ 46,559.68 Create, Test, and Research and Development 320d 1 320 2 640 32 64 $ 46,559.68 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 208 1 208 40 8,320 416 832 $ 605,275.84 Process/ Compile and Review 48 2 96 40 3,840 192 384 $ 279,358.08 Complete Reports 40 2 80 40 3,200 160 320 $ 232,798.40 Record/ Disclose 16 2 32 40 1,280 64 128 $ 93,119.36 Store/ File/ Maintain 4c 2 8 40 320 16 32 $ 23,279.84 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 60a 104b 1 1 60 104 25 2 1,708 85 171 $ 124,226.84 Total Burden ( hrs) and Costs 20,908 1,045 2,091 $ 1,521,017 ( rounded)

24,044 Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost NESHAP for the Manufacture of Amino/ Phenolic Resins ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO)

16 Assumptions:

( a) Less than 500 components ( b) Greater than 500 components ( c) There are 27 affected sources that will be required to comply with the equipment leaks LDAR program; 25 have less than 500 components and 2 have more than 500 components. The typical affected source has 4 reactor batch process vents, 3 nonreactor batch process vents, and no affected storage vessels or heat exchange systems.

( d) Initial performance testing was assumed to take 280 technical hours ( 1 test leader for two weeks and 5 test crew for one week). An additional 40 hours were assumed for the establishment of parameter monitoring levels. Five percent of the initial tests will be repeated during each successive year.

( d) Four hours per week were estimated for gathering monitoring information and maintaining monitoring equipment.

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year $ 39.49/ hr ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year $ 53.22/ hr ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year $ 21.38/ hr ( E= C* 0.1) ( F)

Annual costs in Dollars Initial performance test N/ A Repeat performance test 20 2 40 2 4 $ 1,771.56 Report review a) notification of construction/

reconstruction N/ A b) notification of anticipated startup N/ A c) notification of actual startup N/ A d) notification of modification N/ A e) notification of compliance status N/ A f) notification of performance test 4 2 8 0.4 1 $ 337.30 g) notification of process change N/ A h) notification of inspection of storage vessel N/ A i) notification of change in primary product N/ A 17 j) precompliance report N/ A k) storage vessel initial compliance demonstration N/ A l) periodic reports of compliance status 4 80 320 16 32 $ 14,172.48 Total Burden ( hrs) and Costs 368 18 37 $ 16,281 ( rounded)

423