[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38925-38926]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee management; notice of open federal advisory committee
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board)
will meet on August 28-29, 2017, in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The meeting
will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Monday, August 28, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time and on Tuesday, August 29, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please note that the meeting may close
early if the Board has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Emergency Training
Center, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Building H, Room 300, Emmitsburg,
Maryland. Members of the public who wish to obtain details on how to
gain access to the facility and directions may contact Ruth MacPhail as
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by close of
business August 18, 2017. Photo identification that meets REAL ID ACT
standards (https://www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/admissions/campus_access.html) is required for access. Members of the public may
also participate by teleconference and may contact Ruth MacPhail to
obtain the call-in number and access code. For information on services
for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance,
contact Ruth MacPhail as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Comments must be submitted in
writing no later than August 18, 2017, must be identified by Docket ID
FEMA-2008-0010 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number
in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Ruth MacPhail, 16825 South Seton
Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, post-marked no later than August
18, 2017.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the Docket ID for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, click on ``Advanced Search,'' then enter
``FEMA-2008-0010'' in the ``By Docket ID'' box, then select ``FEMA''
under ``By Agency,'' and then click ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Alternate Designated Federal Officer: Kirby E. Kiefer, telephone
(301) 447-1181, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Logistical Information: Ruth MacPhail, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> and
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board will meet on Monday, August 28,
and Tuesday, August 29, 2017. The meeting will be open to the public.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, 5 U.S.C. App.

Purpose of the Board

    The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the
National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States
Fire Administrator, on the operation of the Academy and any
improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out
its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine
whether these programs further the basic missions that are approved by
the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy
to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the
funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits a written annual
report through the United States Fire Administrator to the
Administrator of FEMA. The report provides detailed comments and
recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.

Agenda

    On Monday, August 28, 2017, there will be three sessions, with
deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary. The
Board will conduct a swearing in of new Board members and will then
select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for Fiscal Year 2018. The
Board will also receive annual ethics training and will tour the campus
facility.
    1. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital
improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request/Budget Planning.
    2. The Board will deliberate and vote on recommendations on Academy
program activities, including:
     Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education (FESHE)
Recognition Program update, a certification program acknowledging that
a collegiate emergency services degree meets the minimum standards of
excellence established by FESHE development committees and the Academy;
     The National Professional Development Summit Report held
on June 14-17, 2017, which brought national training and education
audiences together for their annual conference and support initiatives;
     The Managing Officer Program progress report, a multiyear
curriculum that introduces emerging emergency services leaders to
personal and professional skills in change management, risk reduction,
and adaptive leadership;
     Program application selection results;
     The Executive Fire Officer (EFO) Program Symposium held
April 21-22-23, 2017, an annual event for alumni which recognizes
outstanding applied research completed by present EFO Program
participants, recognizes recent EFO Program graduates, provides high-
quality presentations offered by private and public sector
representatives, facilitates networking between EFO Program graduates,
promotes further dialog between EFO Program graduates and U.S. Fire
Administrator and National Fire Academy faculty and staff;
     The EFO Program review initiative;
     Curriculum development and revision updates for Academy
courses;
     Discussion on the approval process for state-specific
courses;
     Online mediated instruction program update;
     Distance learning program update;
     Staffing update.
    3. The Board will receive activity reports on the National Fire
Incident Reporting System Subcommittee, the Professional Development
Initiative Subcommittee, and four EFO Program Subcommittees:
Admissions, Curriculum, Delivery and Design, and Evaluations and
Outcomes.
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2017, the Board will receive updates on U.S.
Fire Administration data, research, and response support initiatives
and will

conduct classroom visits. The Board will also engage in an annual
report writing session. Deliberations or voting may occur as needed
during the report writing session.
    There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item and
each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note
that the public comment period may end before the time indicated,
following the last call for comments. Contact Ruth MacPhail to register
as a speaker. Meeting materials will be posted at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/about/bov.html by August 14, 2017.

    Dated: August 4, 2017.
Kirby E. Kiefer,
Deputy Superintendent, National Fire Academy, United States Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-17299 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-45-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26349-26353]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08979]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97360; File No. SR-GEMX-2023-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend GEMX's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7

April 24, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 10, 2023, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX's Pricing Schedule at Options
7.
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on November 1,
2023.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/gemx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    GEMX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7.
Specifically, GEMX proposes to: (1) add the defined term ``Exposed
Order'' within Options 7, Section 1(c); and (2) amend Options 7,
Section 6.C. to offer certain free ports in connection with an upcoming
technology migration.\3\ Each change is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Options Trader Alert #2023-4. The GEMX migration will
commence on Monday, November 6, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange proposes to define an Exposed Order for purposes of
pricing within Options 7. The Exchange introduced the concept of an
``exposure'' in a rule change amending GEMX's routing rules.\4\ In that
rule change, the Exchange noted that for purposes of GEMX's Options 5,
Section 4 routing rule, ``exposure'' or ``exposing'' an order means a
notification sent to Members with the price, size, and side of interest
that is

available for execution.\5\ The order exposure will apply to both
routed orders and non-routed or ``DNR Orders.'' The order exposure
process permits the Exchange to apply a Route Timer \6\ prior to the
initial and subsequent routing of an order and allows routing of the
order after exposure occurs (during open trading) every time an order
becomes marketable against the ABBO.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94897 (May 12,
2022), 87 FR 30294 (May 18, 2022) (SR-ISE-2022-11) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Routing
Functionality in Connection With a Technology Migration). GEMX's
Options 5 rules are incorporated by reference to Nasdaq ISE, LLC
Options 5 rules. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97126
(March 13, 2023), 88 FR 16485 (March 17, 2023) (SR-GEMX-2023-04)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Delay the Implementation of Certain Trading
Functionality).
    \5\ See GEMX Options 5, Section 4(a) which is effective but not
yet operative. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94897
(May 12, 2022), 87 FR 30294 (May 18, 2022) (SR-ISE-2022-11) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Routing Functionality in Connection With a Technology
Migration).
    \6\ For purposes of Options 5, Section 4, a Route Timer shall
not exceed one second and shall begin at the time orders are
accepted into the System, and the System will consider whether an
order can be routed at the conclusion of each Route Timer.
    \7\ See GEMX Options 5, Section 4 which is effective but not yet
operative. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94897 (May
12, 2022), 87 FR 30294 (May 18, 2022) (SR-ISE-2022-11) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Routing Functionality in Connection With a Technology Migration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section
1(c) to provide,

    An ``Exposed Order'' is an order that is broadcast via an order
exposure alert as described within Options 5, Section 4 (Order
Routing). Unless otherwise noted in Options 7, Section 3 pricing,
Exposed Orders will be assessed the applicable ``Taker'' Fee and any
order or quote that executes against an Exposed Order during a Route
Timer will be paid/assessed the applicable ``Maker'' Rebate/Fee.

    As proposed, the defined term would apply a Taker Fee, where
applicable, to an executed Exposed Order. If an order or quote
allocates against the Exposed Order during the Route Timer described
within Options 5, Section 4, the Exchange would pay/assess the
applicable Maker Rebate and/or Maker Fee. The Exchange believes that
its proposal should provide increased opportunities for participation
in executions on the Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange
to bring together participants and encourage more robust competition
for orders.
Options 7, Section 6
    In connection with a technology migration,\8\ Members may request
new FIX Ports,\9\ SQF Ports,\10\ SQF Purge Ports,\11\ OTTO Ports,\12\
CTI Ports,\13\ and FIX DROP Ports,\14\ at no additional cost, from
November 1, 2023 through November 30, 2023 (``Transition Period'')
which are duplicative of the type and quantity of their legacy ports.
These second set of new ports would allow Members time to test ports to
the new environment as well as provide continuous connection to the
Exchange's match engine during the Transition Period.\15\ During the
Transition Period, Members will be required to utilize their new ports
on the new GEMX platform for symbols that have migrated to the new
platform, while continuing to leverage legacy ports for symbols that
have not yet migrated to the new platform.\16\ For example, a GEMX
Member with 3 legacy SQF Ports, 1 legacy SQF Purge Port, 1 legacy FIX
DROP Port, 1 legacy OTTO Port, and 1 legacy CTI Port on November 1,
2023 could request the equivalent quantity and type of new ports (3 SQF
Ports, 1 SQF Purge Port, 1 FIX DROP Port, 1 OTTO Port, and 1 CTI Port)
for the new GEMX environment during the Transition Period at no
additional cost. During the Transition Period, the GEMX Member would be
assessed only for legacy ports and would not be assessed for the new
ports, which are duplicative of the legacy ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ GEMX is migrating its technology to an enhanced Nasdaq, Inc.
functionality which results in higher performance, scalability, and
more robust architecture.
    \9\ ``Financial Information eXchange'' or ``FIX'' is an
interface that allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to
connect, send, and receive messages related to orders and auction
orders to the Exchange. Features include the following: (1)
execution messages; (2) order messages; (3) risk protection triggers
and cancel notifications; and (4) post trade allocation messages.
See Supplementary Material .03(a) to Options 3, Section 7.
    \10\ ``Specialized Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that
allows Market Makers to connect, send, and receive messages related
to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and auction responses to the
Exchange. Features include the following: (1) options symbol
directory messages (e.g., underlying instruments); (2) System event
messages (e.g., start of trading hours messages and start of
opening); (3) trading action messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4)
execution messages; (5) quote messages; (6) Immediate-or-Cancel
Order messages; (7) risk protection triggers and purge
notifications; (8) opening imbalance messages; (9) auction
notifications; and (10) auction responses. The SQF Purge Interface
only receives and notifies of purge requests from the Market Maker.
Market Makers may only enter interest into SQF in their assigned
options series. See Supplementary Material .03(c) to Options 3,
Section 7.
    \11\ SQF Purge is a specific port for the SQF interface that
only receives and notifies of purge requests from the Market Maker.
Dedicated SQF Purge Ports enable Market Makers to seamlessly manage
their ability to remove their quotes in a swift manner.
    \12\ ``Ouch to Trade Options'' or ``OTTO'' is an interface that
allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to connect, send, and
receive messages related to orders, auction orders, and auction
responses to the Exchange. Features include the following: (1)
options symbol directory messages (e.g., underlying instruments);
(2) System event messages (e.g., start of trading hours messages and
start of opening); (3) trading action messages (e.g., halts and
resumes); (4) execution messages; (5) order messages; (6) risk
protection triggers and cancel notifications; (7) auction
notifications; (8) auction responses; and (9) post trade allocation
messages. See Supplementary Material .03(b) to Options 3, Section 7.
    \13\ Clearing Trade Interface (``CTI'') is a real-time cleared
trade update message that is sent to a Member after an execution has
occurred and contains trade details specific to that Member. The
information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The
Clearing Member Trade Agreement (``CMTA'') or The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') number; (ii) badge or mnemonic; (iii) account
number; (iv) information which identifies the transaction type
(e.g., auction type) for billing purposes; and (v) market
participant capacity. See Option 3, Section 23(b)(1).
    \14\ FIX DROP is a real-time order and execution update message
that is sent to a Member after an order been received/modified or an
execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to that
Member. The information includes, among other things, the following:
(i) executions; (ii) cancellations; (iii) modifications to an
existing order; and (iv) busts or post-trade corrections. See
Options 3, Section 23(b)(3).
    \15\ Members would contact Market Operations to acquire new
duplicative ports.
    \16\ See Options Trader Alert #2023-4. The GEMX migration will
commence on Monday, November 6, 2023 and end on Monday, November 13,
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may acquire additional legacy ports during the Transition
Period and would be assessed the charges indicated in the current
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 6.C, respectively, for those
additional legacy ports.
    The technology migration does not require a Member to acquire any
additional legacy ports or any specific number of new ports, rather the
technology migration requires a new port to connect to the new GEMX
environment. As is the case today, a Member may decide the number of
ports they desire to subscribe to on the new technology platform.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The technology migration is 1:1 and therefore would not
require a Member to acquire an additional quantity of new ports, nor
would it reduce the total number of ports needed to connect to the
match engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of note, only GEMX Members may utilize ports on GEMX and only one
port is necessary to submit orders to GEMX. Similarly, a Market Maker
quoting on GEMX only requires 1 SQF Port.\18\ A Member may also obtain
any number of order and execution ports, such as a SQF Purge Ports, FIX
DROP Ports and CTI Ports and any number of market data ports.\19\
Members are able to elect the quantity and type of ports they

purchase based on that Member's business model.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ SQF Ports are utilized solely by Market Makers who are the
only Members permitted to quote on GEMX.
    \19\ GEMX does not assess fees for the market data ports within
Options 7, Section 6.C(iii). Members may acquire any number of
market data ports at no cost.
    \20\ For example, a Member may desire to utilize multiple FIX or
OTTO Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance, for
regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to that
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is not intended to impose any additional fees on any
GEMX Member. Rather, this proposal is intended to permit a GEMX Member
to utilize the new environment with the same type and quantity of
legacy ports, at no additional cost, during the Transition Period.
    GEMX will sunset legacy FIX Ports, SQF Ports, SQF Purge Ports, OTTO
Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports on December 29, 2023. After
December 29, 2023, each Member would only be able to utilize the new
ports for the new environment. Starting December 1, 2023, the port fees
in Options 7, Section 6.C would apply to any substituted ports that a
Member continues to subscribe to after the Transition Period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the Pricing Schedule are reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which
constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for
order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR
74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress directed the Commission to ``rely on `competition,
whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for
overseeing the SROs and the national market system.' '' \25\ As a
result, the Commission has historically relied on competitive forces to
determine whether a fee proposal is equitable, fair, reasonable, and
not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory. ``If competitive forces
are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work
powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior.'' \26\
Accordingly, ``the existence of significant competition provides a
substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534-35; see also H.R. Rep.
No. 94-229 at 92 (1975) (``[I]t is the intent of the conferees that
the national market system evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed.'').
    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74,770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to define an Exposed Order for purposes of
pricing within Options 7, Section 1(c) is reasonable because it will
provide Members information as to the manner in which pricing will be
applied to both the Exposed Order as well as an order or quote that
allocates against the Exposed Order.\28\ As proposed, the applicable
Taker Fee would apply to an executed Exposed Order and the applicable
Maker Rebate and/or Maker Fee would apply to an order or quote that
allocated against the Exposed Order during the Route Timer. The
Exchange believes the proposed pricing should provide increased
opportunities for participation in executions on the Exchange,
facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants
and encourage more robust competition for orders. Order exposure has
the potential to result in more efficient executions for participants
as responses to exposed orders could result in faster executions. Order
exposure assures that such exposed orders will only receive executions
at a price at least as good as the price disseminated by the best away
market at the time the order was received. Further, the Exchange
believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to apply the Taker Fee to Exposed Orders and the Maker
Rebate/Fee to any order or quote that executes against an Exposed Order
during a Route Timer because the Exposed Order that would route to an
away market if not otherwise executed on GEMX would be taking liquidity
from the Exchange's order book while a quote or order that executes
against the Exposed Order during the Route Timer would be considered
making liquidity in response to the notification sent to Members
indicating the order is available for execution. Nasdaq MRX, LLC
(``MRX'') similarly assesses a Taker Fee to an exposed order and pays/
assesses a Maker Rebate/Fee to any order or quote that executes against
the exposed order during the Route Timer.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Option 5, Section 4.
    \29\ See MRX Options 7, Section 1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to define an Exposed Order for purposes of
pricing within Options 7, Section 1(c) is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as the proposed pricing for Exposed Orders would be
uniformly applied to all orders subject to the Exchange's Route Timer,
as described in Options 5, Section 4.
Options 7, Section 6
    The proposed amendments to Options 7, Section 6.C to permit Members
to acquire a second set of FIX Ports, SQF Ports, SQF Purge Ports, OTTO
Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports, at no cost, as part of the
technology migration are reasonable because they will permit GEMX
Members to migrate to the new platform without a pricing impact.
Specifically, the proposal is intended to permit GEMX Members to
migrate their legacy FIX Ports, SQF Ports, SQF Purge Ports, OTTO Ports,
CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports to new ports at no additional cost during
the Transition Period. This proposal will allow Members to test their
ports and maintain continuous connection to the

Exchange's match engine during the Transition Period.
    The proposed amendments to Options 7, Section 6.C to permit Members
to acquire a second set of FIX Ports, SQF Ports, SQF Purge Ports, OTTO
Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports, at no cost, as part of the
technology migration are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because no Member would have a pricing impact as a result of this
proposal, provided the Member did not obtain additional new ports to
connect to the GEMX environment beyond the quantity and type the Member
had on November 1, 2023 or additional legacy ports. No Member would be
assessed a fee for the new second set of ports, provided they acquired
a new second set of ports commiserate with the type and quantity of
ports they subscribed to as of November 1, 2023. A Member obtaining
additional legacy ports, beyond the current type and quantity of ports
they have as of November 1, 2023, would be assessed the fees noted in
Options 7, Section 6.C as applicable. GEMX will sunset legacy FIX
Ports, SQF Ports, SQF Purge Ports, OTTO Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP
Ports on December 29, 2023, so no Member would have a second type or
quantity of a particular port as of December 29, 2023. Starting in
December 1, 2023, the port fees in Options 7, Section 6.C would apply
to any substituted ports that a Member continues to subscribe to after
the Transition Period.
    The technology migration does not require a Member to acquire any
additional quantity of new ports, nor would it reduce the total number
of ports needed to connect to the match engine. Rather the technology
migration requires a new port to replace any legacy port provided the
Member desired to maintain the same number of ports on the new GEMX
technology platform. Of note, only GEMX Members may utilize ports on
GEMX and only one port is necessary to submit orders to GEMX.
Similarly, a Market Maker quoting on GEMX only requires 1 SQF Port.\30\
A Member may also obtain any number of order and execution ports, such
as a SQF Purge Ports, FIX DROP Ports and CTI Ports and any number of
market data ports.\31\ Members are able to elect the quantity and type
of ports they purchase based on that Member's business model.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ SQF Ports are utilized solely by Market Makers who are the
only Members permitted to quote on GEMX.
    \31\ GEMX does not assess fees for the market data ports within
Options 7, Section 6.C(iii). Members may acquire any number of
market data ports at no cost.
    \32\ For example, a Member may desire to utilize multiple FIX or
OTTO Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance, for
regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to that
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other
options markets, and will offer market participants with another choice
of venue to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
Intramarket Competition
Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to define an Exposed Order for purposes of
pricing within Options 7, Section 1(c) does not impose an undue burden
on competition because the proposed pricing for Exposed Orders would be
uniformly applied to all orders subject to the Exchange's Route Timer,
as described in Options 4, Section 5.
Options 7, Section 6
    The proposed amendments to Options 7, Section 6.C to permit Members
to acquire a second set of FIX Ports, SQF Ports, SQF Purge Ports, OTTO
Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports, at no cost, as part of the
technology migration do not impose an undue burden on competition
because no Member would have a pricing impact as a result of this
proposal, provided the Member did not obtain additional new ports to
connect to the GEMX environment beyond the quantity and type the Member
had on November 1, 2023 or additional legacy ports. No Member would be
assessed a fee for the new second set of ports, provided they acquired
a new second set of ports commiserate with the type and quantity of
ports they subscribed to as of November 1, 2023. A Member obtaining
additional legacy ports, beyond the current type and quantity of ports
they have as of November 1, 2023, would be assessed the fees noted in
Options 7, Section 6.C as applicable. GEMX will sunset legacy FIX
Ports, SQF Ports, SQF Purge Ports, OTTO Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP
Ports on December 29, 2023, so no Member would have a second type or
quantity of a particular port as of December 29, 2023. Starting in
December 1, 2023, the port fees in Options 7, Section 6.C would apply
to any substituted ports that a Member continues to subscribe to after
the Transition Period.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\33\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2023-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange

Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2023-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2023-05 and should be submitted on
or before May 19, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08979 Filed 4-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16790-16792]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0369; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft
Model HP. 137 Jetstream MK 1, Jetstream Series 200, 3100, and 3200
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    A failure mode has been identified following the examination of
parts from another aircraft type (Jetstream 4100 series) that can
lead to the loss of a nose-wheel. The Jetstream (HP.137) Mk1, 200,
3100 and 200 series use a similar method for retaining the wheel
assemblies on the landing gear axle and can therefore experience the
same type of failure, i.e. a combination of excessive wear and/or
adverse tolerances on the axle inner cone, outer cone or wheel hub
splined sleeve cones resulting in the loss of the critical gap
between the inner flange face of the wheel outer cone and the axle
end face. If this gap is lost, it results in the wheel having free
play along the length of the axle. This condition, if not corrected,
can cause the wheel nut lock plate to break, leading to the wheel
retention nut unscrewing and subsequent separation of the nose wheel
from the landing gear axle.

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0369;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-015-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No: 2008-0037, dated February 22, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    A failure mode has been identified following the examination of
parts from another aircraft type (Jetstream 4100 series) that can
lead to the loss of a nose-wheel. The Jetstream (HP.137) Mk1, 200,
3100 and 3200 series use a similar method for retaining the wheel
assemblies on the landing gear axle and can therefore experience the
same type of failure, i.e. a combination of excessive wear and/or
adverse tolerances on the axle inner cone, outer cone or wheel hub
splined sleeve cones resulting in the loss of the critical gap
between the inner flange face of the wheel outer cone and the axle
end face. If this gap is lost, it results in the wheel having free
play along the length of the axle. This condition, if not corrected,
can cause the wheel nut lock plate to break, leading to the wheel
retention nut unscrewing and subsequent separation of the nose wheel
from the landing gear axle.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections of the nose landing gear to ensure that the wheels are
correctly retained and, depending on findings, replacement of worn
parts.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    British Aerospace Regional Aircraft has issued British Aerospace
Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA070241, dated July
13, 2007. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 190 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $15,200, or $80 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $250, for a cost of
$330 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2008-0369;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-015-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 30, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model HP. 137 Jetstream MK 1, Jetstream
Series 200, 3100, and 3200 airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A failure mode has been identified following the examination of
parts from another aircraft type (Jetstream 4100 series) that can
lead to the loss of a nose wheel. The Jetstream (HP.137) Mk1, 200,
3100 and 3200 series use a similar method for retaining the wheel
assemblies on the landing gear axle and can therefore experience the
same type of failure, i.e. a combination of excessive wear and/or
adverse tolerances on the axle inner cone, outer cone or wheel hub
splined sleeve cones resulting in the loss of the critical gap
between the inner flange face of the wheel outer cone and the axle
end face. If this gap is lost, it results in the wheel having free
play along the length of the axle. This condition, if not corrected,
can cause the wheel nut lock plate to break, leading to the wheel
retention nut unscrewing and subsequent separation of the nose wheel
from the landing gear axle.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections of the nose landing gear to ensure that the wheels are
correctly retained and, depending on findings, replacement of worn
parts.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 3 months after the effective date of this
AD, initially inspect the left and right nose wheel attachments to
the axle following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200
Service Bulletin 32-JA070241, dated July 13, 2007.
    (2) Repetitively thereafter inspect the left and right nose
wheel attachments to the axle at the intervals specified in Table 1
of this AD following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and
3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA070241, dated July 13, 2007. If during
any repetitive inspection the gap measurement changes from the
previous inspection measurement, adjust the repetitive inspection
interval as necessary based on Table 1 of this AD.

                Table 1.--Repetitive Inspection Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Then repetitively inspect at
       If the measured gap size is:           the following intervals:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.002 to 0.005 inches (0.05 to 0.13 mm)...  Within 500 hours TIS.
More than 0.005 to 0.010 inches (0.13 to    Within 1,000 hours TIS.
 0.25 mm).
More than 0.010 to 0.020 inches (0.25 to    Within 2,000 hours TIS.
 0.51 mm).
More than 0.020 inches (0.51 mm)..........  Within 3,000 hours TIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Before further flight, if during any of the inspections
required in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD you find the gap
between the inner flange of the outer cone and the axle end face is
less than 0.002 inches (0.05 mm), replace all worn parts.

    Note 1: Replacement of parts does not constitute terminating
action for the inspection requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No:
2008-0037, dated February 22, 2008; and British Aerospace Jetstream
Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA070241, dated July 13,
2007, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 21, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-6509 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


STANDARD FORM 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR No. 1938.02  NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS ( SUBPART AAAA)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 July 2002 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR STANDARD FORM 83 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ( a) Title of the Information Collection.

" Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) from Municipal Solid Waste ( MSW) Landfills." The ICR Number is 1938.02.

( b) Characterization of Information Collection.

These standards regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) from certain MSW landfills. The HAP emitted from landfills come from fugitive emissions that can be captured for control.

Although Subpart AAAA applies to all landfills at major sources and some landfills at area sources, the only MSW landfills that will be required to apply controls and submit reports by these standards are landfills that: ( 1) have a design capacity of 2.5 million megagrams ( Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters ( m3), and, ( 2) emit equal to or greater than 50 tons per year of nonmethane organic compounds ( NMOC) or operate as bioreactors. Because these standards specifically regulate HAP, no MSW landfill will be subject to the requirements of this NESHAP unless it meets these emission requirements. In these standards, NMOC are used as a surrogate for HAP, because many NMOC are also HAP and NMOC are easier to measure than a host of individual HAP.

Landfills of this size and NMOC emission level are currently subject to NMOC emission control under the Emission Guidelines ( EG) and New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS)

for MSW Landfills, promulgated on March 12, 1996. No new emission control requirements will be imposed on these landfills by these standards, although bioreactors may be required to apply control sooner than under the NSPS/ EG. 2 This NESHAP will ensure that affected sources are held accountable for reducing their HAP emissions, by requiring them to provide EPA with certain records and reports beyond those required by the EG/ NSPS.

Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill affected by the standard would be required to submit semiannual compliance reports for control device operating parameters.

Owners and operators of affected facilities will also have to prepare a startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM) plan and prepare semiannual SSM reports.

This information is being collected by EPA in order to ensure that affected sources meet the HAP emission control requirements specified in this regulation. It will be stored and used by the EPA and by State regulatory agencies.

Collection and storage of information may be in either paper ( hardcopy) or electronic formats. This information collection is for an average of 1,310 respondents and an average total industry cost of $ 2,137,687 over the first 3 year period after promulgation.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection.

The EPA needs this information to ensure that HAP emissions are reduced in the processes and operations at MSW landfills. The EPA is required under section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) to regulate emissions of the HAP listed in section 112( b) of the CAA. The HAP identified by EPA as being emitted from MSW landfills include, but are not limited to, vinyl chloride, benzene, toluene, xylene,

methylene chloride ( dichloromethane), methyl chloroform ( 1,1,1 trichloroethane), methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK), mercury,

and methyl isobutyl ketone ( MIKB).

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from MSW landfills cause or contribute significantly to air pollution 3 that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for this source category have been developed.

Section 114 of the CAA allows the Administrator to require inspections, monitoring, and entry into facilities to ensure compliance with a section 112 emission standard.

Section 114( a)( 1) specifically states:

" The Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source... who is subject to the provisions of the CAA on a one time, periodic, or continuous basis 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;

( 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."

Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to identify sources subject to the standard and to ensure that the standard, which is based on a maximum achievable control technology ( MACT), is being achieved.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data.

The information will be used by EPA to: ( 1) ensure that subpart AAAA is being properly applied; ( 2) ensure that the sources are complying with emission standards on a continuous basis through proper operation and maintenance of the emission control device; and ( 3) ensure that appropriate 4 procedures are being followed during startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.

Records and reports are necessary to enable EPA to identify MSW landfills that may not be in compliance with these standards. Based on reported information, EPA will decide which MSW landfills should be inspected and what records or systems should be inspected at the facilities.

The records that MSW landfills maintain will indicate to EPA whether landfill personnel are operating and maintaining control equipment properly.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) Nonduplication.

The EPA does not anticipate duplication in reporting of MSW landfill monitoring data. Landfills regulated under this NESHAP will also be subject to several recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the EG or NSPS for MSW landfills ( 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc or WWW). The burden requested for this NESHAP does not duplicate any of the burden accounted for in the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the EG/ NSPS. These standards will require new records and reports from affected sources, that is, the development of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM) plan and submission of semiannual SSM report. This NESHAP will require more frequent compliance reporting than that required by the EG/ NSPS to ensure compliance. For example, two compliance reports are required each year. One compliance report is already required by sources subject to the collection and control requirements of the EG/ NSPS ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW). Therefore, this NESHAP requires one additional compliance report each year, thereby establishing semiannual compliance reporting. 5 ( b) Public notice prior to ICR submission to OMB.

The EPA solicited public comments on the need for this information, the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden in the proposed NESHAP announced in the Federal Register. This information collection request for the final rule includes a small additional burden for some additional landfills identified by commenters. No other comments were received or changes made that affected the burden calculation.

( c) Consultations.

The EPA held meetings with representatives of the landfill industry and with representatives of State air quality agencies. These meetings included discussions of the types of burden that might be associated with this NESHAP. Additionally, EPA discussed burden with industry representatives during visits to various landfills around the country. The EPA has considered their comments and concerns while developing this NESHAP.

( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection.

We believe that requiring semiannual reporting of any excursions or compliance issues is appropriate. Annual reporting was not selected because it would significantly reduce the EPA's ability to take administrative enforcement actions. Section 113( d) of the CAA limits assessment of administrative penalties to violations that occur no more than 12 months prior to the initiation of the administrative proceeding. Periodic reports are a primary means of identifying possible violations, and annual submittal would not give the enforcement agency time to review the report and take action on a violation within 1 year after the event that occurred early in the reporting period. Administrative proceedings are far less costly than judicial proceedings for both the EPA and the regulated community. Therefore,

this NESHAP requires semiannual reports. 6 These standards also require continuous monitoring of control device operating parameters. Rules developed under section 112 of the Act typically include monitoring strategies that incorporate the concepts of enhanced monitoring that were established in section 114( a)( 3) of the Act. This approach is designed to ensure that monitoring procedures developed for section 112 standards provide data that can be used to determine compliance with applicable standards, including emission standards.

For this standard, continuous emissions monitoring ( CEM) is not appropriate. We considered use of CEM but found them to be infeasible due to the lack of CEM technology for the section 112 HAP or the NMOC surrogate pollutant regulated by this NESHAP. Therefore, we established operating parameters that must be continuously monitored to determine a facility's compliance status. To determine compliance status, parameters must be monitored with a frequency that will allow the source owner or operator to certify whether compliance is continuous or intermittent for each recordkeeping period associated with the applicable emission limitation or standard. For this standard, control device operating parameters will be directly enforceable and will be used to determine a source's compliance status. Deviations from the control device operating parameters will be considered violations.

( e) General Guidelines.

This information collection meets the Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB) general guidelines for information collections and therefore does not require justification for any deviation from OMB's general guidelines.

( f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions.

( i) Confidentiality. Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be 7 safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,

September 1, 1976, amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28,

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

March 23, 1979).

( ii) Sensitive Questions. This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes.

Respondents are owners or operators of MSW landfills that are major sources or are co located with major sources and certain area source landfills. Area source landfills are affected if they: ( 1) have design capacities equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 m3 and, ( 2) emit at least 50 Mg per year of NMOC or operate bioreactors. The promulgation of this NESHAP would affect the North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes and Standard Industrial Classification Systems ( SIC) codes for the landfills presented in the following table.

Category NAICS Code SIC Code Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry: Air and water resource and solid waste management 924110 9511 Solid waste landfills Industry: Refuse systems  solid waste landfills 562212 4953 Solid waste landfills State, local, and Tribal government agencies 562212 924110 4953 Solid waste landfills; Air and water resource and solid waste management 8 ( b) Information Requested.

( i) Data items. This NESHAP requires the following reports. No additional records are required above what would already be maintained under the EG/ NSPS.

° Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan  A startup,

shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM) plan is required at initial compliance.

° Semiannual SSM reports  One report is required semiannually.

° SSM notifications  This notification is required each time an SSM event occurs and the source does not follow the SSM plan.

° Compliance Reports  Two compliance reports are required each year. An initial compliance report and annual compliance reports are already required by sources subject to the collection and control requirements of the EG/ NSPS ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW). Therefore, this NESHAP requires one additional compliance report each year, thereby establishing semiannual compliance reporting.

( ii) Respondent activities. The respondent activities required by the standards are provided under the first column of tables 1 3 ( see Attachment 1). All burden items are included in tables 1 3. 9 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES,

COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) Agency Activities.

Tables 5, 6, and 7 ( see Attachment 2) provide a list of Agency activities.

( b) Collection Methodology and Management.

Respondents will most likely submit hard copy reports,

although some may submit electronic versions. ( The rule allows records to be retained in hard copy or electronic format to allow flexibility and minimize burden.) EPA engineers will review the information submitted in the reports to determine whether each landfill is in compliance with the rule.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

The EPA does not expect small MSW landfills to be adversely affected by these standards. The design capacity exemption of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 is expected to exempt landfills that serve communities of fewer than 125,000 people from reporting. Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act defines a " small governmental jurisdiction" as the government of cities, counties, town,

or other districts with a population less than 50,000. The design capacity exemption will exempt landfills that serve small governmental jurisdictions. Likewise, privately owned 10 and operated landfills that might qualify as small businesses would be exempted by the design capacity cutoff.

( d) Collection Schedule.

Compliance with these standards will begin in 2002 ( year 1 in the collection schedule). All respondents will have to read the regulation, which is a one time activity.

Based on analysis of landfills in our database, we anticipate 1,331 respondents in year one, one of which will be one new source, 22 existing small landfills co located with major sources, and the remainder ( 1,308) will be existing sources ( including major source landfills and area sources landfills with design capacities of at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million M3). One new source will be added to the collection in each of years 2 and 3 according to our data analysis. However, the 22 co located sources will not be required to respond after the first year.

Because these co located landfills are below the design capacity and NMOC emissions criteria, they are not required to apply controls, prepare an SSM plan, or submit semiannual reports. Therefore, the total number of respondents for year 2 will be 1,310 and for year 3 of the collection will be 1,311.

Each source ( except the small co located sources),

whether new or existing, must produce a one time SSM plan.

In year one of this collection, compliance times will only 11 require that the one new source produce this plan. In year two, the 1,308 existing sources that are not co located must produce the plan, and the one new source must also produce the plan. In year three, only the one new source must produce the plan.

In year one, the one anticipated new source will be required to comply with the requirements of the NESHAP.

This source will prepare and submit two semiannual SSM reports and two semiannual compliance reports. At no time will the 22 landfills co located with major sources be required to comply with the NESHAP control and reporting requirements. The 1,308 sources existing in year one will not be required to comply with these requirements until year 2 of the collection; additionally, one new source must also comply with the requirements in year 2 and the new source from year 1 must comply. Year 3 of the collection will include the 1310 sources in year 2 and will add one new source. These 1311 sources will have to produce two SSM reports and two compliance reports in year 3.

The compliance report is a semiannual report. However,

all sources complying with this NESHAP must comply with the collection and control requirements of 40 CFR part 60,

subparts Cc and WWW, which require annual submission of a compliance report. To accomplish semiannual compliance reporting, this NESHAP will increase the required compliance 12 reports by one each year, thereby establishing semiannual reporting. Therefore, this NESHAP increases the burden for each landfill by one compliance report per year above that already required by 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

Based on extensive experience with other NESHAPs and specific information gathered from the landfill industry,

the EPA expects this regulation to affect 1,308 existing MSW landfills plus one new landfill each year for the first 3 years after promulgation. Tables 1 3 ( see Attachment 1)

present an itemized breakdown of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the respondents affected by these standards. ( It also includes time for the 22 small landfills co located with major sources to review the rule in year 1 and determine that on going reporting does not apply to them.)

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

The information collection activities for sources subject to these requirements are presented in tables 1 3.

The total cost for each respondent activity includes labor costs, and operating and maintenance ( O& M) costs. Operating and maintenance costs include the costs of photocopying and 13 base labor rate x 1.10 = loading rate base labor rate

loading rate  loaded wage rate postage. Capital and startup costs are not included because this NESHAP does not require any new equipment to be installed.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs. Labor rates, on a per hour basis, are based on those posted on the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) web site ( http:// stats. bls. gov/). The specific publication from which the numbers were taken is the " United States Department of Labor NEWS" released June 24, 1999. Table 10 of that publication contains " Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Private industry workers, by occupational and industry group, March 1999." The total compensation labor rates are $ 26.16 for technical personnel, $ 35.20 for management personnel, and $ 16.39 for clerical personnel. These labor rates include compensation for benefits such as leave, insurance, etc.

The labor rates are further adjusted by including an overhead and profit rate of 110 percent. Therefore, the total " loaded" wage rates are calculated by the following equations: 14 Given the overhead adjustments, the final " loaded" wage rates are $ 54.94 for technical personnel, $ 73.93 for management personnel, and $ 34.42 for clerical personnel.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs. The EPA does not anticipate any capital costs associated with these standards. Monitoring of control device operating parameters is already a requirement of the EG/ NSPS for MSW landfills. These standards will not require MSW landfills to purchase or operate additional control equipment or monitoring devices other than those already required under the EG/ NSPS for MSW landfills.

The average annual operating and maintenance costs for the industry's recordkeeping and reporting to EPA are estimated at $ 13,128. The total operating and maintenance cost for the 3 year information collection request is $ 39,384. Operation and maintenance costs include photocopying and postage costs.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of information collection requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the CAA, no additional operational costs would be incurred by the Federal 15 Government. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents would occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program and, therefore, could not be attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal Government would incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information. These are presented in tables 5 7.

Labor rates for the Federal employees are based on the estimated hourly rates of $ 40.34 for technical personnel ( GS 12, Step 5); $ 66.66 for management personnel ( GS 15,

Step 5); and $ 22.74 for clerical personnel ( GS 7, Step 5).

These values represent the inclusion of a 1.6 multiplier to account for overhead and fringe benefit costs.

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

The total number of respondents also is referred to as the respondent universe. As explained in sections 1( b) and 4( a) respondents to this request are MSW landfills of a certain size and NMOC emission rate, that is, those that are required to collect and control their landfill gas emissions under the EG/ NSPS. The EPA estimates that 1,309 landfills will meet these conditions in 2002, 1,310 landfills in 2003,

and 1,311 landfills in 2004. Compliance with these standards will begin in 2002. However, in the first year of 16 this collection ( 2002) only one new source will be subject to the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with this NESHAP. Existing sources will not have to comply with the requirements of this rule until the second year of the collection ( 2003). In 2003, the second year of the collection, one additional new source and 1,308 existing sources will incur recordkeeping and reporting burden ( 1 new source + 1,308 existing sources from the first year + the one source that was new in the first year = 1,310 sources total). In year 3 of the collection, one additional new source will incur the burden for a total of 1,311 sources.

Note that 22 additional landfills below the design capacity cuttoff that are co located at major sources will have the burden of reading the rule in year 1, but will not be subject to control and ongoing reporting requirements.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) The Respondent Tally. A presentation for each collection, reporting, and recordkeeping activity required by this NESHAP is found in tables 1 3. The estimate of total annual hours and annualized cost requested for the respondents were based on the assumptions outlined in section 6( d) of this supporting statement. The EPA estimates the annual respondent burden by totaling the hours per year for technical, managerial, and clerical staff for the first 3 years after the implementation of this NESHAP 17 and then by dividing that total by three. Table 4 presents the 3 year summary results. For the first three years after the implementation of this NESHAP, EPA estimates that the total landfill industry would expend an average of 39,360 hours ( 34,226 technical, 1,711 managerial, and 3,423 clerical) annually and an average of $ 2,137,687 per year to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

( ii) The Agency Tally. The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs, presented in tables 5 7 ( see Attachment 2),

are calculated by totaling the hours per year for technical,

managerial, and clerical staff, and by totaling the cost column. Table 8 ( Attachment 2) summarizes the agency burden for each of the first 3 years and calculates the average annual burden by dividing the 3 year total by 3. The estimated average annual burden, over the first three years,

for the Agency would be 21,105 hours at a cost of $ 843,150 ( including travel expenses) per year.

( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line.

Calculating the average annual costs underestimates costs in a typical year for a NESHAP. Calculating each year individually provides a more accurate account of how facilities will be affected in the first 3 years following promulgation. During the first year of the collection,

existing sources will not incur recordkeeping or reporting 18 burden. For these sources, this burden will begin in year 2 of the collection. This is why the industry and agency burden is much higher in years 2 and 3 than in year 1.

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

This is a new collection. There is no change in burden.

( g) Burden Statement.

Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 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. 19 The average industry burden expected from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this NESHAP is 39,360 hours per year for all respondents. The average agency burden expected is 21,105 hours per year for all agency offices. This burden will include preparation,

submission, and review of plans, notifications and reports listed in section 4( b).

Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on this ICR to the Director,

Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW;

Washington, DC 20460 and to the Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked " Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." Include the ICR number,

1938.02 in any correspondence. PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation. ATTACHMENT 1 TABLES 1, 2, 3, and 4 Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Subject to Subpart AAAA  Year 1 Table 2: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Subject to Subpart AAAA  Year 2 Table 3: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Subject to Subpart AAAA  Year 3 Table 4: Summary of Respondent Burden for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills  Years 1 through 3 and Average 1 Table 1. Respondent Burden and Cost of Reporting and Recordkeeping for First Year Burden Item Facility hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per facility per year ( B) Facility hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Number of plants per year ( D) a Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total labor costs ($) b Total nonlabor costs ( O& M) Footnotes 1. Read and understand rule requirements 10 1 10 1,331 13,310 6,655 1,331 826,258 2. Prepare startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan 40 1 40 1 40 2.0 4 2,483 c 3. Notification requirements A. Startup, shutdown,

malfunction events

notification of not following SSM plan n/ a d 4. Reporting requirements A. Semiannual compliance reports for all sources 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 124 8 c, e B. Semiannual startup,

shutdown, malfunction reports 6 2 12 1 12 0.6 1 745 15 c Total non labor cost Total burden ( salary and non labor costs)

Total annual hours 13,364 668 1,336 15,368 829,633 23 f Footnotes:

( a) Based on the yearly number of landfills with 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 design capacity and NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/ yr that are subject to the compliance requirements.

( b) Costs are based on the following hourly rates ( the costs are loaded rates): Technical $ 54.94, Management $ 73.92, and Clerical $ 34.42.

( c) Because of compliance times specified in the NESHAP, only new sources will have to submit these plans and reports in the first year.

Only one new source is anticipated.

( d) Assumed that 100 percent of sources would have an SSM event and that 5 percent would not follow their SSM plan, eliciting the need for an SSM notification. However, because there is only one new source anticipated in the first year, it was assumed that this source would follow the SSM plan during any SSM event in this year.

( e) Semiannual compliance reports are required under this NESHAP. However, this NESHAP only increases the annual burden by one report because one annual compliance report is already required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW.

( f) Operation and maintenance costs include photocopying and postage costs. Approximately $ 7.50 per report to copy and send. 2 Table 2. Respondent Burden and Cost of Reporting and Recordkeeping for Second Year Burden Item Facility hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per facility per year ( B) Facility hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Number of plants per year ( D) a Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total labor costs ($) b Total nonlabor costs ( O& M) Footnote 1. Read and understand rule requirements 10 1 10 1 10 0.5 1 621 c 2. Prepare startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan 40 1 40 1,309 52,360 2,618 5,236 3,250,189 d 3. Notification requirements A. Startup, shutdown,

malfunction events

notification of not following SSM plan 1 2 2 66 68 3.4 7 4,221 e 4. Reporting requirements A. Semiannual compliance reports for all sources 2 1 2 1,310 2,620 131 262 162,634 9,833 f B. Semiannual startup,

shutdown, malfunction reports 6 2 12 1,310 15,720 786 1,572 975,802 9,840 Total non labor cost Total burden ( salary and non labor costs)

Total annual hours 70,778 3,539 7,078 81,395 4,413,139 19,673 g Footnotes:

( a) Based on the yearly number of landfills with 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 design capacity and NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/ yr that are subject to the compliance requirements.

( b) Costs are based on the following hourly rates ( the costs are loaded rates): Technical $ 54.94, Management $ 73.92, and Clerical $ 34.42.

( c) Existing sources will have familiarized themselves with the requirements in year one. Second year new sources will need to familiarize themselves with the requirements. Only one new source is anticipated in the send year.

( d) Because of compliance times specified in the NESHAP, existing sources will need to prepare an SSM plan.

( e) Assumed that 100 percent of sources would have an SSM event and that 5 percent would not follow their SSM plan, thereby eliciting the need for an SSM notification.

( f) Semiannual compliance reports are required under this NESHAP. However, this NESHAP only increases the annual burden by one report because one annual compliance report is already required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW.

( g) Operation and maintenance costs include photocopying and postage costs. Approximately $ 7.50 per report to copy and send. 3 Table 3. Respondent Burden and Cost of Reporting and Recordkeeping for Third Year Burden Item Facility hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per facility per year ( B) Facility hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Number of plants per year ( D) a Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total labor costs ($) b Total nonlabor costs ( O& M) Footnote 1. Read and understand rule requirements 10 1 10 1 10 0.5 1 621 c 2. Prepare startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan 40 1 40 1 40 2.0 4 2,483 d 3. Notification requirements A. Startup, shutdown,

malfunction events

notification of not following SSM plan 1 2 2 66 132 6.6 13 8,194 e 4. Reporting requirements A. Semiannual compliance reports for all sources 2 1 2 1,311 2,622 131.1 262 162,758 9,840 B. Semiannual startup,

shutdown, malfunction reports 6 2 12 1,311 15,732 786.6 1,573 976,547 9,848 Total non labor cost Total burden ( salary and non labor costs)

Total annual hours 18,536 927 1,854 21,316 1,170,289 19,688 f Footnotes:

( a) Based on the yearly number of landfills with 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 design capacity and NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/ yr that are subject to the compliance requirements.

( b) Costs are based on the following hourly rates ( the costs are loaded rates): Technical $ 54.94, Management $ 73.92, and Clerical $ 34.42.

( c) Existing sources will have familiarized themselves with the requirements in year one. Only new sources will need to familiarize themselves with the requirements in the third year. Only one new source is anticipated in the third year.

( d) All existing sources will have prepared their SM plan in the first or second years. Any new source is anticipated in the third year.

( e) Assumed that 100 percent of sources would have an SSM event and that 5 percent would not follow their SSM plan, thereby eliciting the need for an SSM notification.

( f) Operation and maintenance costs include photocopying and postage costs. Approximately $ 7.50 per report to copy and send. 4 Table 4. Summary of Industry Burden for the Standards for MSW Landfills ( Year 1 Through 3 and Average)

Year Technical Hours Management Hours Clerical Hours Total Hours Labor Costs Non Labor O& M Costs Total Costs Year 1 13,364 668 1,336 15,368 829,610 23 829,633 Year 2 70,778 3,539 7,078 81,395 4,393,466 19,673 4,413,139 Year 3 18,536 927 1,854 21,316 1,150,602 19,688 1,170,289 Average Burden 34,226 1,711 3,423 39,360 2,124,559 13,128 2,137,687 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLES 5, 6, 7, and 8 Table 5: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Subject to Subpart AAAA  Year 1 Table 6: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Subject to Subpart AAAA  Year 2 Table 7: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Subject to Subpart AAAA  Year 3 Table 8: Summary of Federal Government Burden for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills  Years 1 through 3 and Average 1 Table 5. Agency Burden and Cost of Reporting and Recordkeeping for First Year Burden Item Facility hours per occurrence ( A) Average occurrences per Agency and State ( B) Personhours per Respondent ( C)= AxB) Number of Agency and State Personnel ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical hours per year ( G= Ex0.1) Costs ($) ( H) Footnotes 1. Read and understand rule requirements 8 1 8 60 480 24 48 22,052 a 2. Enter and update information into agency recordkeeping system 4 1 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 184 3. Required activities for sources with add on control devices A. Review operating parameters included in 6.

B. Review continuous parameter monitoring included in 6.

4. Excess emissions enforcement activities and inspections 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 b 5. Notification requirements A. Review SSM notification

source did not follow SSM plan during SSM n/ a 6. Reporting requirements A. Review semiannual compliance report 6 1 6 1 6 .3 0.60 276 c, d B. Review SSM plan 8 1 8 1 8 0.4 0.80 368 c C. Review semiannual SSM reports 4 2 8 1 8 0.40 0.80 368 c Total Burden and Cost ( Salary) 506 25 51 23,247 Total Annual Hours 582 Footnotes:

( a) Assumed one agency person in each State and one agency person in each EPA Region will have to read the regulation each year.

( b) Assumed that 100 percent of sources would have an SSM event and that 5 percent would not follow their SSM plan, therefore, eliciting the need for an SSM notification. However, because of the compliance times, no SSM notifications are anticipated in the first year for the one new source.

( c) In the first year, only new sources will produce an SSM plan, semiannual SSM reports, and compliance reports. Only one new source is anticipated in the first year. SSM notification of not following the SSM plan is not anticipated for the one new source in the first year.

( d) Semiannual compliance reports are required under this NESHAP. However, this NESHAP only increases the annual burden by one report because one annual compliance report is already required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW. 2 Table 6. Agency Burden and Cost of Reporting and Recordkeeping for Second Year Burden Item Facility hours per occurrence ( A) Average occurrences per Agency and State ( B) Personhours per Respondent ( C)= AxB) Number of Agency and State Personnel ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical hours per year ( G= Ex0.1) Costs ($)

( H) Footnotes 1. Read and understand rule requirements 8 1 8 60 480 24 48 22,052 a 2. Enter and update information into agency recordkeeping system 4 26.2 104.8 50 5240 262 524 240,738 b 3. Required activities for sources with add on control devices A. Review operating parameters included in 6.

B. Review continuous parameter monitoring included in 6.

4. Excess emissions enforcement activities and inspections 8 1.3 10.5 50 524 26.2 52.4 24,074 c 5. Notification requirements A. Review SSM notification  source did not follow SSM plan during SSM 1 1.3 1.3 50 65.5 3.3 6.6 3,009 d 6. Reporting requirements A. Review semiannual compliance report 6 26.2 157.2 50 7,860 393 786 361,107 e B. Review SSM plan 8 26.2 209.6 50 10,480 524 1,048 481,476 C. Review semiannual SSM reports 4 52.4 209.6 50 10,480 524 1,048 481,476 Total Burden and Cost ( Salary) 35,130 1,756 3,513 1,613,934 Total Annual Hours 40,399 Footnotes:

( a) Due to attrition of personnel and program or agency reorganization, we assumed one agency person in each State and one agency person in each EPA Region will have to read the regulation each year.

( b) The average occurrences per agency or State ( 26.2) is derived from the number of landfills subject to the requirements in year two ( 1,310) divided by 50 ( the number of States that must conduct the activity)

( c) The average occurrences per agency or State ( 1.3) is derived from the number of landfills subject to the requirements in year two ( 1,310) divided by 50 ( the number of States that must conduct the activity) and multiplied by 0.05, the percentage of sources that are assumed to have excess emissions, thereby eliciting the need for enforcement and inspection activity.

( d) Assumed that 100 percent of sources would have an SSM event and that 5 percent would not follow their SSM plan, thereby eliciting the need for an SSM notification.

( e) Semiannual compliance reports are required under this NESHAP. However, this NESHAP only increase the annual burden by one report because one annual compliance report is already required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW. 3 Table 7. Agency Burden and Cost of Reporting and Recordkeeping for Third Year Burden Item Facility hours per occurrence ( A) Average occurrences per Agency and State ( B) Personhours per Respondent ( C)= AxB) Number of Agency and State Personnel ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical hours per year ( G= Ex0.1) Costs ($)

( H) Footnotes 1. Read and understand rule requirements 8 1 8 60 480 24 48 22,052 a 2. Enter and update information into agency recordkeeping system 4 1 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 184 3. Required activities for sources with add on control devices A. Review operating parameters included in 6.

B. Review continuous parameter monitoring included in 6.

4. Excess emissions enforcement activities and inspections 8 1.3 10.5 50 524 26.2 52.4 24,074 b 5. Notification requirements A. Review SSM notification  source did not follow SSM plan during SSM 1 1.3 1.3 50 65.5 3.3 6.6 3,009 b, c 6. Reporting requirements A. Review semiannual compliance report 6 26.2 157.2 50 7,860 393 786.00 361,107 d B. Review SSM plan 8 1 8 1 8 0.4 0.80 368 C. Review semiannual SSM reports 4 52.4 209.6 50 10480 524 1,048 481,476 Total Burden and Cost ( Salary) 19,422 971 1,942 892,270 Total Annual Hours 22,335 Footnotes:

( a) Due to attrition of personnel and program or agency reorganization, we assumed one agency person in each State and one agency person in each EPA Region will have to read the regulation each year.

( b) The average occurrences per agency or State ( 26.2) is derived from the number of landfills subject to the requirements in year three ( 1,311) divided by 50 ( the number of States that must conduct the activity)

( c) The average occurrences per agency or State ( 1.3) is derived from the number of landfills subject to the requirements in year three ( 1,311) divided by 50 ( the number of States that must conduct the activity) and multiplied by 0.05, the percentage of sources that are assumed to have excess emissions, thereby eliciting the need for enforcement and inspection activity.

( d) Assumed that 100 percent of sources would have an SSM event and that 5 percent would not follow their SSM plan, thereby eliciting the need for an SSM notification.

( e) Semiannual compliance reports are required under this NESHAP. However, this NESHAP only increase the annual burden by one report because one annual compliance report is already required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW. Table 8. Summary of Federal Government Burden for the Standards for MSW Landfills ( Years 1 Through 3 and Average)

Agency Burden Summary Technical Hours Management Hours Clerical Hours Total Hours Total Costs Year 1 506 25 50 580 23,247 Year 2 35,130 1,756 3,513 40,399 1,613,934 Year 3 19,422 971 1,942 22,335 892,270 Average Burden 18,352 918 1,835 21,105 843,150