[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68210-68212]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24653]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96252; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2022-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

November 7, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 31, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Ratio Threshold Fee. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective November 1, 2022. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to extend
the waiver of the Ratio Threshold Fee that was implemented in
connection with the Exchange's migration to the Pillar platform.\4\ The
Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on November 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94095 (January 28,
2022), 87 FR 6216 (February 3, 2022) (SR-NYSEArca-2022-04) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ratio Threshold Fee is based on the number of orders entered as
compared to the number of executions received in a calendar month and
is intended to deter OTP Holders from submitting an excessive number of
orders that are not executed.\5\ Because order to execution ratios of
10,000 to 1 or greater have the potential residual effect of exhausting
system resources, bandwidth, and capacity, such ratios may create
latency and impact other OTP Holders' ability to receive timely
executions.\6\ In connection with the Exchange's migration to the
Pillar platform, the Exchange implemented a waiver of the Ratio
Threshold Fee (the ``Waiver'') that took effect beginning in the month
in which the Exchange began its migration to the Pillar platform and
would remain in effect for the three months following the month during
which the Exchange completed its migration to the Pillar platform. As
the Exchange completed the migration in July 2022, the Waiver is
currently due to expire on October 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, RATIO THRESHOLD FEE; see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60102 (June 11, 2009), 74 FR 29251 (June
19, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-50).
    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to extend the Waiver for an additional
three months. The Exchange believes that extending the Waiver would
allow the Exchange additional time to continue to work with OTP Holders
to monitor traffic rates and order to execution ratios, without
imposing a financial burden on OTP Holders based on their order to
execution ratios. The extension of the Waiver would also allow the
Exchange to continue to evaluate system performance as OTP Holders
continue to adapt to trading on the Pillar platform. The Exchange thus
proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to provide that the Waiver would
extend for the six months following the month in which the Exchange
completed its migration to the Pillar platform (i.e., until January 31,
2023).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Fee Schedule, RATIO THRESHOLD FEE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities

markets. In Regulation NMS, 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.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\11\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in September 2022, the Exchange had less than 11%
market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options trades.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \12\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
decreased from 12.43% for the month of September 2021 to 10.84% for
the month of September 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange fees. In response to this competitive
environment and to adapt to extenuating circumstances, the Exchange has
previously waived fees on a temporary basis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88596 (April
8, 2020), 85 FR 20796 (April 14, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-29)
(waiving Floor related fees in connection with COVID-19
precautionary measures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Waiver is
reasonable because it is designed to lessen the impact of the migration
on OTP Holders and would allow OTP Holders to continue to adjust to
trading on the Pillar platform without incurring excess Ratio Threshold
Fees while the Exchange continues to evaluate Pillar system
performance. To the extent the proposed rule change encourages OTP
Holders to maintain their trading activity on the Exchange, the
Exchange believes the proposed change would sustain the Exchange's
overall competitiveness and its market quality for all market
participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which
the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt
by the Exchange to mitigate the impacts of the Pillar migration without
affecting its competitiveness.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposed extension of the
Waiver is an equitable allocation of fees and credits because the
Waiver would continue to apply to all OTP Holders. All OTP Holders
would thus have the opportunity to continue adjusting to the Pillar
platform without incurring Ratio Threshold Fees, while the Exchange
continues to evaluate post-migration system performance. Thus, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would continue to mitigate
the impact of the migration process for all market participants on the
Exchange, thereby sustaining market-wide quality.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed extension of the Waiver is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all OTP Holders on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Waiver, as proposed, would
permit all OTP Holders to continue adapting to the Pillar platform,
without incurring additional fees based on their monthly order to
execution ratios, while the Exchange continues to evaluate post-
migration system performance. The Exchange thus believes that the
proposed change would support continued trading opportunities for all
market participants, thereby promoting just and equitable principles of
trade, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general,
protecting investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 10, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
extension of the Waiver would impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate because it would apply
equally to all OTP Holders. All OTP Holders would continue to be
eligible for the Waiver for an additional three months while the
Exchange continues to assess system performance following the migration
to Pillar.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\15\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
in September 2022, the Exchange had less than 11% market share of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \16\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
increased decreased from 12.43% for the month of September 2021 to
10.84% for the month of September 2022.

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

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate because the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchanges if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. The Exchange believes that fees to prevent
excessive use of Exchange systems are constrained by the robust
competition for order flow among exchanges. The Exchange believes that
the proposed extension of the Waiver would continue to make the
Exchange a competitive venue for order execution by enabling OTP
Holders to maintain trading activity without incurring fees based on
their monthly order to execution ratios, thus facilitating OTP Holders'
continued adjustment to the Pillar platform and permitting the Exchange
additional time to evaluate post-migration system performance.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEARCA-2022-74 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-NYSEARCA-2022-74. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-74, and should be
submitted on or before December 5, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24653 Filed 11-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4491-4493]
[DOCID:fr26ja09-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59259; File No. SR-BX-2009-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish
a Post-Only Order

January 15, 2009.
    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 January 14, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has filed this
proposal pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \3\ and requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative waiting period
contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\4\ If such waiver is
granted by the Commission, this rule proposal, which is effective upon
filing with the Commission, shall become immediately operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish a Post-Only Order.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics.
* * * * *
4751. Definitions
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) No change.
    (1)-(8) No change.
    (9) ``Post-Only Orders'' are orders that if, at the time of entry,
would lock an order on the System, the order will be re-priced and
displayed by the System to one minimum price increment (i.e., $0.01 or
$0.0001) below the current low offer (for bids) or above the current
best bid (for offers).
    (g)-(j) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In order to provide enhanced functionality, the Exchange proposes
to adopt an additional order type known as the Post-Only Order. A Post-
Only Order is an order that does not remove liquidity from the System
upon entry if it would lock an order on the Exchange's system for
trading cash equities (the ``System''). If, at the time of entry, a
Post-Only Order would lock an order on the System it will be re-priced
and displayed by the System to one minimum price increment (i.e., $0.01
or $0.0001) below the current low offer (for bids) or above the current
best bid (for offers). In the case of a Post-Only Order locking an
order, the Post-Only Order will be repriced only once upon entry into
the System. As with other Exchange orders, the Post-Only Order will not
be routed away to other trading centers.
    An example of how the price sliding mechanism will work if the
Post-Only Order locks an order on the System is as follows:
     The System is displaying a $10.15 offer.
     A firm enters a Post-Only Order to buy at $10.15.
     The incoming Post-Only Order will go on the book and
display at $10.14.
    If the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a protected quote of
another market center the post-only logic is not applicable and the
order will be processed in the same manner as a Price to Comply Post
Order.
     Another market center is displaying a $10.15 offer.
     A firm enters a Post-Only Order to buy at $10.15.
     The incoming Post-Only Order will be accepted and display
at $10.14.
    If the Post-Only Order would cross another order already on the
System and the price improvement for executing the order is greater
than the liquidity taker fee and higher than the rebate for being a
liquidity provider, then the post-only logic is not applicable and the
order will be processed and execute in the same manner as an order with
a time-in-force of Immediate or Cancel (IOC).
     The System is displaying a $10.15 offer.
     A firm enters a Post-Only Order to buy at $10.16.
     The incoming Post-Only Order will execute at $10.15.
    The Exchange believes that the Post-Only Order type will increase
the ability of market participants to control their provision or taking
of market liquidity and thus better anticipate their trading costs. The
Exchange notes that orders similar to the proposed Post-Only Order type
are already in use by other market centers.\5\ In addition, the process
for re-pricing Post-Only Orders is comparable to the existing re-
pricing mechanism approved for use for Price to Comply Post Orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 11.9(c)(5) of the BATS Exchange and Rule 7.31 of
NYSE Arca. The proposed Post-Only Order has functionalities similar
to the NYSE Arca Adding Liquidity Only Order and the BATS Post Only
Order.
    \6\ See Rule 4751(f)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the Post-Only Order is designed to encourage displayed liquidity and to
offer Exchange users greater discretion and flexibility to post
liquidity on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To
the contrary, the Exchange believes that the Post-Only Order is
designed to compete with orders already approved and in use at other
national securities exchanges, thereby enhancing competition between
the exchanges.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; or (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay
to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the
30th day after filing. The Commission has determined that waiving the
30-day operative delay of the Exchange's proposal is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will enable the Exchange to encourage increased liquidity concurrent
with the launch of cash equities trading by the Exchange.\11\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
    Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File No.
SR-BX-2009-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BX-2009-003 and should be
submitted on or before February 17, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1464 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52094-52096]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20698]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72916; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
(i) Delete Obsolete Rules Relating to Exchange-Listed Options Trading
and Related References (NYSE Rules 700-794); (ii) Delete Obsolete Rules
Related to the Defunct Exchange Stock Portfolio Service and Related
References (NYSE Rules 800-817); and (iii) Amend NYSE Rules 15A and
123D To Remove Outdated References to the Terminated Intermarket
Trading System Plan

 August 26, 2014.
    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 August 15, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 (i) delete obsolete rules relating to
Exchange-listed options trading (Rules 700-794) and related references;
(ii) delete obsolete rules related to the defunct Exchange Stock
Portfolio Service (Rules 800-817) and related references; and (iii)
amend Rules 15A and 123D to remove outdated references to the
terminated Intermarket Trading System (``ITS'') Plan. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to (i) delete obsolete rules governing
Exchange-listed options trading (Rules 700-794) and related references;
(ii) delete obsolete rules governing the defunct Exchange Stock
Portfolio Service (Rules 800-817) and related references; and (iii)
amend Rules 15A and 123D to remove references to the terminated ITS
Plan.
    First, the Exchange proposes to delete the 700 rule series (Rules
700-794), which apply to the trading of option contracts issued by The
Options Clearing Corporation on the Exchange. The NYSE sold its listed
options business in 1997 and does not currently trade Exchange-listed
options.\3\ It is no longer necessary to maintain options trading rules
for a business the Exchange no longer conducts. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 345, relating to registration of employees, to
remove references to Rule 700(b)(4). Similarly, the Exchange proposes
to remove 700 series rules from the minor rule violation plan and amend
Rules 9217 and 476A accordingly.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The business was sold to the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38542 (April 23, 1997),
62 FR 23521 (April 30, 1997).
    \4\ In 2013, the NYSE adopted a new set of procedural rules
modeled on the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') that included aspects of FINRA's process and fine levels
for minor rule violations. The Exchange maintained the specific list
of rules set forth in NYSE Rule 476A, which were moved to new Rule
9217. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68678 (Jan. 16,
2013), 78 FR 5213 (Jan. 24, 2013), and 69045 (Mar. 5, 2013), 78 FR
15394 (Mar. 11, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02). Rule 476A continues to
apply to disciplinary proceedings filed prior to July 1, 2013. The
Exchange also proposes to remove references to the terminated ITS
Plan in Rule 476A. See note 12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to delete the 800 rule series (Rules
800-817), which governs the NYSE's Exchange Stock Portfolio Service
(``ESP Service''). The ESP Service was initiated in 1989 to enable the
trading of standardized baskets of stocks at an aggregate price in a
single execution on the Exchange's trading Floor.\5\ The ESP Service
allowed trades in the component stocks of an index basket to be
effected in a single execution, as opposed to separate executions for
each of the component stocks. The program was suspended in 1991.\6\
Because the Exchange no longer conducts the ESP Service, the rules
associated with it are also obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SEC No-Action Letter, 1989 WL 246468 (Oct. 26, 1989).
    \6\ See, e.g., SEC No-Action Letter, 2009 WL 1758909 (June 11,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the following rules to remove
references to rules in the 800 series:
     Rule 111, governing reports of executions;
     Rule 96, governing limitations on members' trading based
on existing options positions;
     Rule 104T, governing dealings by Exchange Designated
Market Makers; and,
     Rule 36, governing communications between Exchange and
Members' Offices.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15A, the order
protection rule, and Rule 123D, which governs openings and halts in
trading, to remove references to the ITS Plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Between 1978 and 2007, ITS was the principal means of
electronically transmitting orders between market centers to avoid
trading through superior quotes in those markets. When the
Commission adopted Reg. NMS, the ITS Plan participants terminated
the governing agreement, the ITS Plan, and replaced it with the NMS
Linkage Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-54551
(September 29, 2006), 71 FR 194 (October 6, 2006). The purpose of
the NMS Linkage Plan was to enable the plan participants to act
jointly in planning, developing, operating and regulating the NMS
Linkage System that would electronically link the participant
markets to one another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 15A was amended in 2007 to describe how the Exchange would
automatically route orders to other market centers to prevent trade-
throughs on the Exchange in conformance with SEC Rule 611 (the ``Order
Protection Rule'') of Regulation National Market System (``Reg. NMS'')
beginning on March 5, 2007.\8\ However, since the ITS Plan was still in
effect, the Exchange retained those portions of Rule 15A describing the
circumstances under which the Exchange routed orders to

other market centers to avoid trade throughs according to parameters
established by the ITS Plan. ITS was eliminated on June 30, 2007.\9\
The Exchange proposes to retain that portion of Rule 15A added in 2007
that describes compliance with the order protection rule of Reg. NMS
and delete the remainder of the obsolete rule text relating to the ITS
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-55387 (March 2,
2007), 72 FR 10808 (March 9, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-2[sic]).
    \9\ The NMS Linkage Plan ran concurrently with the ITS Plan
until March 5, 2007, at which time the ITS Plan terminated and the
Order Protection Rule became operative. The NMS Linkage Plan
terminated on June 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Rule 123D contains the obsolete requirement that the
relevant ``ITS Pre-Opening Applications'' must be followed when
necessary based upon the anticipated opening price. This language
refers to the ITS Plan requirement, codified in an earlier version of
Rule 15, that each market center have procedures governing the
dissemination of pre-opening price information.\10\ Rule 15 was amended
in 2007 following the termination of the ITS Plan to, among other
things, remove the requirement to disseminate ITS pre-opening
indications, which the Commission acknowledged were no longer required
following the elimination of the ITS Plan and the NMS Linkage Plan.\11\
It bears noting that deletion of this rule text in Rule 123D in no way
diminishes the obligation of DMMs to issue pre-opening indications
under appropriate circumstances as set forth in the current version of
Rule 15.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-57003 (December
20, 2007), 72 FR 73949 (December 28, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-112). Prior
to its amendment in 2007, Rule 15 defined an ``Pre-Opening
Application'' as ``the application of the System that permits a
market-maker in one Participant market who wishes to open his market
in an Eligible Listed Security to obtain from other market-makers
registered in that security in other Participant markets any pre-
opening interests such other market-makers might decide to disclose
as set forth in the ITS Plan.''
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-57003 (December
20, 2007), 72 FR 73949 (December 28, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-112).
    \12\ The Exchange also proposes to remove outdated references to
ITS in Rule 476A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it
in that it [sic] is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, help to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that deleting rule text
relating to businesses the NYSE no longer engages in and routing
arrangements that have been superseded by Reg. NMS removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by simplifying
its rulebook and removing confusion that may result from having
obsolete rules in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange further
believes that the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that persons subject to
the Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can
more easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook. The
Exchange also believes that eliminating obsolete rules would not be
inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors
because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from
increased transparency as to which rules are operable, thereby reducing
potential confusion. Similarly, the Exchange believes that removing
cross-references to obsolete rules would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it would reduce
potential confusion that may result from having such cross references
in the Exchange's rulebook. Removing such obsolete cross references
will also further the goal of transparency and add clarity to the
Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to delete obsolete
rules and cross-references to obsolete rules, thereby increasing
transparency, reducing confusion, and making the Exchange's rules
easier to understand and navigate.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2014-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-44. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-44 and should be
submitted on or before September 23, 2014

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20698 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 26269]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0138]

Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls; Draft
Guidance for Industry

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry on the implementation of
the mandatory food recall provisions of the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA). The guidance is in the form of Questions and
Answers and provides answers to common questions that might arise about
the mandatory recall provisions and FDA's plans for their
implementation.

DATES: Although you may comment on any guidance at any time, to ensure
that the Agency considers your comments on this draft guidance before
it completes a final version of the guidance, submit electronic or
written comments on the draft guidance by July 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Outreach and Information Center (HFS-009), Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed
adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cecilia M. Wolyniak, Food and Drug
Administration, WO32 Rm. 4352 HFC-210, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA's mandatory food recall authority went into effect when FSMA
was enacted on January 4, 2011. Section 423 of the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as added by section 206 of FSMA, gives FDA
the authority to order a responsible party to recall an article of food
where FDA determines that there is a reasonable probability that the
article of food (other than infant formula) is adulterated under
section 402 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 342] or misbranded under section
403(w) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 343(w)] and that the use of or
exposure to such article will cause serious adverse health consequences
or death to humans or animals (SAHCODHA).
    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls;
Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The draft guidance provides answers to
common questions that might arise about the mandatory recall provisions
and FDA's plans for their implementation.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with our good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent our current thinking on this topic. It does
not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance does not refer to any information collection
provisions found in FDA regulations. Collections of information are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). We conclude
that the Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding
Mandatory Food Recalls is not subject to Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding the
guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments regarding the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov.
Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most
current version of the guidance.

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-11009 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart T) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T) (Renewal),

EPA ICR Number 1652.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0273

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning was promulgated on December 2, 1994 (59 FR 61805), and amended to the final standards published June 5, 1995 (60 FR 29485), and December 11, 1998 (63 FR 68400).  These standards apply to the following facilities in 40 CFR subpart T, batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines, and batch cold cleaning machines.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart T.

Respondents are owners or operators of solvent cleaning machines using any solvent containing methylene chloride (MC), perchloroethylene (PCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethylene (TCE), carbon tetrachloride (CT), chloroform (C), or any combination of these halogenated solvents in a concentration greater than 5 percent by-weight.  This includes batch vapor, in-line vapor, in-line cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines.

Owners or operators of a batch vapor or in-line cleaning machine subject to this regulation must choose between an equipment/work practice standard and a solvent emission limit standard in order to comply.  All respondents must submit an initial report for applicability determination and an initial statement of compliance that delineates the compliance alternative chosen for each solvent cleaning machine, and how the requirements are being met.  To meet the equipment standards, respondents must install and monitor specific control device combinations listed in the regulation, or they must monitor the idling emission control parameters that they have established.  If the respondents choose to install a control combination listed in the regulation, they must maintain quarterly, monthly, or weekly control device monitoring records based on the type of control device installed as specified in the regulation, and installation dates of each cleaning machine and its control devices.  The frequency of monitoring and recordkeeping of certain control device parameters is reduced if parameter compliance is consistent and increased when a parameter is exceeded.

Respondents choosing the idling emission option must perform an idling emission test on their solvent cleaning machines and monitor idling emission control parameters.  Emission control parameters to be maintained and monitored must be established during the test.  In most cases, this test will be completed by the manufacturer of the solvent cleaning machine.  All respondents using idling emission parameter monitoring to demonstrate compliance must keep records of the monitoring results, test results (if an idling emission test was required), and installation dates or certification of each cleaning machine and its control devices.

If the respondents choose the overall solvent emissions limit option, they must: 1) maintain a log of the dates and amounts of solvent additions and deletions, and the solvent composition of wastes removed; 2) calculate monthly emissions and rolling 3-month average emissions; and 3) maintain the calculation sheets showing how the emissions were determined.  These records must be maintained for five years for each solvent cleaning machine.

Owners or operators of all batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines must submit to EPA: 1) an annual report of monitoring or solvent emission results; 2) a biannual exceedance report; and 3) a quarterly report if exceedances occur.  The circumstances under which an exceedance of a monitored control parameter occurs under the equipment standard are outlined in the regulation.  Some exceedances occur when a monitored parameter does not meet specified requirements within 15 days of the initial occurrence of an exceedance of a specified requirement.  Other exceedances occur immediately upon the exceedance of a specified requirement.  An exceedance of the overall solvent emissions limit occurs at the time when the emission limit is not met.

Owners or operators of batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines must maintain all control device monitoring or solvent consumption records on-site for five years.  Owners or operators of batch vapor and in-line cleaning machines must retain records of installation dates of each machine and related equipment, owner’s manuals, and any test reports for the life of the machine.  For existing cleaning machines for which an operator or owner no longer has an owner's manual or any installation records, an owner or operator must provide and maintain certification that the machine and/or its controls were installed prior to the proposal date.

Owners or operators of batch cold cleaning machines have no recordkeeping requirements.  Owners or operators of a batch cold cleaning machine must comply with an equipment standard and work practices.  All respondents must submit an initial notification report and an initial statement of compliance.

Records and reports required by the NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaners are necessary to enable EPA to identify sources subject to the standards and to ensure that the standards are being achieved.  Records and reports must be maintained at the facility and/or submitted to EPA.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

Approximately 1,431 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and no additional sources are expected to become subject to the standard in the next three years.  The respondent labor and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of this Information Collection Request (ICR) will be $4,992,917 (rounded).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

The burden to the “Affected Public” may be found below in Table 1(a): Annual Industry Burden - NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T) (Renewal).  The burden to the “Federal government” is attributed entirely to work performed by federal employees or government contractors; this burden may be found below in both Table 1(b): Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T) (Renewal) for Batch Cold Cleaning Machines and Table 2: Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T) (Renewal).

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

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

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

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from halogenated solvent cleaning machines either cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart T.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions of pollutant from halogenated solvent cleaning machines requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  Emissions of HAPs from halogenated solvent cleaners are the result of operation of the affected facilities.  The subject standard is achieved by the reduction of HAPs emission using control technology and leak detection and repairs procedures.

The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the regulations are being met.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirement described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation.  Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act.  The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under (40 CFR part 63, subpart T).

3(a)  Non-duplication

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

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 38006) on July 30, 2009.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

In estimating the affected number of sources and the growth rate of halogenated solvent cleaning facilities subject to this standard during the previous renewal, EPA contacted Mr. Alton D. Romig, Environmental Consultant, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  During the previous renewal, we referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of the active ICR, and used other resources to obtain the most recent data available.  We reviewed information available from the Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) which is the primary source of information regarding the number of existing sources.  OTIS data was used in conjunction with industry consultation to verify the number of sources and the industry growth rate.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

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

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

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

3(f)  Confidentiality

The required information has been determined not to be confidential.  However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners and operators of halogenated solvent cleaning machines.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents affected by the standard are listed below.  These correspond to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes listed below for source description.

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR part 63, subpart T)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture

Sawmills and wood preservation	2421	3211

Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing	2435	3212

Other wood product manufacturing	2499	3219

Furniture and Fixtures

Household and institutional furniture and kitchen cabinet manufacturing 2514	3371

Office furniture (including fixtures) manufacturing	2522	3372

Other furniture related product manufacturing	2599	3379

Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and Components, Except Computer Equipment

Electric lighting equipment manufacturing	3648	3351

Household appliance manufacturing	3639	3352

Electrical equipment manufacturing	3699	3353

Other electrical equipment and component manufacturing	3699	3359

Transportation Equipment

Motor vehicle manufacturing	3714	3361

Motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing	3711	3362

Aerospace product and parts manufacturing	3761	3364

Ship and boat building	3731	3366

Railroad rolling stock manufacturing	3743	3365

Other miscellaneous manufacturing	3999	3399

Food and Kindred Products

Animal food manufacturing	2048	3111

Grain and oilseed milling	2076	3112

Sugar and confectionery product manufacturing	2061	3113

Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing	2034 3114

Dairy product manufacturing	2026	3115

Seafood product preparation and packaging	2092	3117

Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing	2051	3118

Other food manufacturing	2098	3119

Primary Metal Industries

Iron and steel mills and ferroalloy manufacturing	3312	3311

Steel product manufacturing from purchased steel	3325	3312

Alumina and aluminum production and processing	3365	3313

Nonferrous metal (except aluminum) production and processing	3396	3314

Foundries	3325	3315

Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment

Agriculture, construction and mining machinery manufacturing	3531	3331

Industrial machinery manufacturing	3569	3332

Commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing	3567	3333

Ventilation, heating, air-conditioning, and commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturing	3564	3334

Metalworking machinery manufacturing	3545	3335

Engine, turbine, and power transmission equipment manufacturing	3511 3336

Other general purpose machinery manufacturing	3559	3339

Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical and Optical Goods; Watches and Clocks

Navigational, measuring, electro-medical, and control instruments	3812 3345

Manufacturing and reproducing magnetic and optical media	3695	3346

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning/Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR part 63, subpart T).

A source must make the following reports:

Reports for 40 CFR part 63, subpart T

Initial notification	63.09(b), 63.468(a)

Construction/reconstruction	63.05(d), 63.468(b)

Initial compliance report	63.09(h), 63.468(c)

Initial performance test results 	63.10(d), 63.468(d)

Monitoring of control equipment	63.09(g), 63.468(d)(4)

Annual report on training operators and solvent emission	63.468(f), (g)

Semiannual and quarterly exceedance report	63.10(b), 63.468(h-i)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR part 63, subpart T

Maintain owner’s manual or written maintenance and operating procedures.	63.10(b), 63.467(a), (a)(1)

Records of parametric monitoring data, system maintenance and calibration.	63.467(b)

Maintain records on method used to determine the cleaning capacity. 63.467(d)

Maintain records of initial performance test, which includes the idling emission rate and values of the monitoring parameters measured. 63.467(a)(4)

Records of halogenated HAP solvent for each solvent used in solvent cleaning machine.	63.467(a)(5)

Record of applicability.	63.10(b)(3)

All reports and notifications.	63.10(b)

Electronic Reporting

Some state regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies.  The estimated amount of electronic reporting is 10 percent.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, halogenated HAP solvents cleaning machines.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 18 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

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

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e.g., halogenated HAP solvents.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

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

Audit facility records.

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

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.        Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

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

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

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

According to the Final Rule (72 FR 25138): “The final rule is expected to affect 125 ultimate parent entities that will be regulated as major sources.  Forty of the parent entities, or approximately one-third, are defined as small according to the SBA small business size standards.”  Therefore, this ICR assumes that one-third of the affected facilities are small entities (e.g., small businesses).  However, the impact on small entities was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the type of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown below in Tables 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c): Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners (40 CFR part 63, subpart T) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

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

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 41,035 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$114.77 ($54.65 + 110%)

Technical	$97.59 ($46.47 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.26 ($22.98 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational and Industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The types of industry cost associated with the information collection activities in the subject standards are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time cost when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents	(D)

Total Capital/ Startup Cost

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Temperature monitoring device	$2,700 1	0	0	$860	1,180 2	$1,014,800

1 The reason for zero capital/startup cost is due to a ruling that was promulgated in December 1994, stating that the existing sources were not required to comply with the standard after December 1997.

2 The O&M only applies to the 1,180 batch vapor or in-line solvent cleaning machines, not the 251 batch cold solvent cleaners.

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR is zero.  This is the total of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $1,015,000 (rounded).  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $1,015,000 (rounded).

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

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

 The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $325,437 (rounded) [see Table 2 in Section 6(e)].  Costs in the proposed ICR are based on the following labor breakdown:

Managerial	$114.77 ($54.65 + 110%)

Technical	$97.59 ($46.47 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.26 ($22.98 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational and Industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

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

Approximately 1,431 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no additional sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year

Regulation Citation	(A)

Average Number of New Respondents per Year	(B)

Number of Reports for New Sources	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents	(D)

Number of Reports for Existing Sources	(F)

Number of Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses =

(AxB)+(CxD)+F

Batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines (w/o exceedance)	0	0	1,062	2

0	2,124

Batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines (with exceedance)	0	0	118	4	0	 472

Batch cold cleaning machines	0	0	251	0	251	251

The number of total respondents is 1,431.  This represents the number of existing sources plus the number of new sources averaged over the three-year period (i.e., the total of the number of new respondents over the three-year period divided by three years).

The number of Total Annual Responses is 2,847.  This is the number in column E of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year table above.

The total annual labor costs are $3,977,917 (rounded).  Details regarding these estimates may be found below in Table 1(c). Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning/Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR part 63, subpart T) (Renewal).

Note that the total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $1,015,000 (rounded).  These costs are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 14 hours per response.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations: 1) the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate for the respondents is very low, negative or non-existent.  Therefore, the labor hours in the previous ICR reflect the current burden to the respondents and are reiterated in this ICR.

There is an increase in both respondent and Agency costs resulting from labor rate increases from 2003 to 2009.  This ICR uses 2009 labor rates because burden and cost calculations in Tables 1 and 2 of this ICR were expanded to include managerial and clerical labor rates, and the previous ICR only provided a technical labor rate for 2003.  Therefore, this ICR is updated to present the most recent available labor rates for each of the three labor categories.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the   use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0531, which is available for online viewing at http:// www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available online at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0531 and OMB Control Number 2060-0273 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

TABLE 1(a):  Annual Industry Burden - NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T) (Renewal)

	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)	(G)	(H)	(I)

	Hours per Occurrence	Occurrences/Respondent/ Year	Hours/ Respondent/Year	Respondents per Year	Total Hours per Year

(E=CxD)	Managerial Hours/ Yearb	Technical Hours/ Yearb	Clerical Hours/ Yearb	Cost per yeara

Burden Item

	1.  APPLICATIONS

N/A

	2.  SURVEY AND STUDIES

N/A

	3.  REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

	  A.  Read Instructions c & d	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	$0

  B.  Gather existing information

Included in 3C

	  C.  Write Report

	          Initial notification report d	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	$0

          Initial compliance report d                	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	$0

         Performance test results d & e	30	1	30	0	0	0	0	0	$0

         Annual compliance report d	1.5	1	1.5	1,180	1,770	153.91	1539.13 76.96	$171,582

Report with exceedance g &h	1	3	3	118	354	30.78	307.83	15.39	$34,316

     Report with no exceedance g & i	0.5	1	0.5	1,062	531	46.17	461.74 23.09	$51,475

Subtotal Reporting

	2,655

$257,373

4.  RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

	  A.  Read instructions

Included in 3A

	  B.  Plan activities j	1	1	1	393	393	34.17	341.74	17.09	$38,097

  C.  Implement activities

	     Performance test e & f	50	1	50	39	1,950	169.57	1695.65	84.78 $189,031

          Control device monitoring k & l	1.64	12	19.68	590	11,611.2 1009.67	10096.70	504.83	$1,125,580

          Solvent consumption log m &n       	1.5	12	18	590	10,620 923.48	9234.78	461.74	$1,029,494

  D.  Record Data

          Control device monitoring l & o	1.2	12	14.4	590	8,496	738.78 7387.83	369.39	$823,595

          Solvent emission calculation	0.75	12	9	590	5,310	461.74 4617.39	230.87	$514,747

  E.  Time to train personnel p

	Subtotal Recordkeeping

	38,380

$3,720,543

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN (rounded)

	41,035

$3,977,917

Assumptions:

a. We assume a technical labor rate of $97.59, managerial rate $114.77, and clerical rate of $48.26 from the United States Department of Labor,

	 Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”

Workers by Occupational and Industry Group.  The rates are from column 1: Total compensation.  The wage rate obtained from the table has been increased by 110 percent to

	account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

	b. This ICR assumes that Managerial hours are 5 percent of Technical hours, and Clerical hours are 10 percent of Technical hours.

	c. It is assumed that it will take 2 hours to read instructions.

d. We assume that there will be no new sources.

e. It is estimated that idling emission or dwell test reports require 70 technical hours and 10 managerial hours or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>+ 12.5% @ $114.77 hr = $106.18/hr average hourly rate).  The hours were then divided between the test itself (50 hours) and the test report (30 hours).

f. We assume that 1,180 facilities are required to complete the annual compliance report.

	g. The burden of one quarterly and one semiannual exceedance report was included in the burden estimate for the annual report.

	h. We assume that 10 percent of 1,180 facilities are in exceedance at least one time per year (quarterly reporting).

i. We assume that 90 percent of 1,180 facilities are not in exceedance (semiannual reporting).

	j. One-time cost was based on 1,180 facilities averaged over three years (1,180/3years) for a total of 393 facilities.

k. Actual monitoring is conducted weekly, monthly or quarterly for specific control devices.  The estimated time was based on the typical control devices expected to be installed.

	l. We assume that 50 percent of the facilities will choose the standard equipment and will be required to conduct control device monitoring.

	m. We assume that 50 percent of the facilities will choose to do solvent consumption monitoring.

	n. This activity is assumed to be performed by a manager.

o. We assume that it would take 1.2 hours per facility to record data.

	p. We assume that no special training requirements are required.

TABLE 1(b): Average Annual  EPA Burden - NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T) For Batch Cold Cleaning Machines (Renewal)

	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)	(G)	(H)	(I)

	Hours per Occurrences	Occurrences Respondent/ Year	Hours Respondent/ Year	Respondents per Year	Hours per year

(E=CxD)	Managerial Hours/Yearb	Technical Hours/Yearb	Clerical Hours/Yearb	Cost per Yeara

Burden Items

1.  APPLICATIONS

N/A

	2.  SURVEYS AND STUDIES

N/A

	3.  REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

	     A.  Read Instructions b & c	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	0	$0

     B.  Gather existing information	     	Included in 3C

	     C.  Write Report b & d

	           Initial notification report	0.25	1	0.25	0	0	0	0	0	$0

           Initial compliance report  	0.25	1	0.25	0	0	0	0	0	$0

Subtotal Reporting

	0

$0

 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

N/A

	Subtotal Recordkeeping

N/A

	SUBTOTAL ANNUAL HOUR

	0

$0

Assumptions:

a. The cost at technical labor rate of $97.59, managerial rate $114.77, and clerical rate of $48.26 from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational and Industry group.”

b. This ICR assumes that Managerial hours are 5 percent of Technical hours, and Clerical hours are 10 percent of Technical hours.

c. Estimated number of new facilities with batch cold cleaning machines is zero.

	d. It is assumed that it will take 0.5 hours to read instructions.

e. It is assumed that it will take 0.25 hours to write report.

TABLE 1 (c):  Aggregate Burden for Burden Identified on Table 1(a) and 1(b)

Activity

       Person hours

       per respondent

       per year

Respondents

per year

Total Hours

per year

Total Cost

per year

Ba  Batch Vapor and In-line Cleaning Machines (subtotal)

154

1,180

41,035

$3,977,917

Ba  Batch Cold Cleaning Machines (subtotal)

    1

0

0

0

T    TOTAL ANNUAL COST BURDEN (rounded)

155

1,180

41,035

$3,977,917

TABLE 2:  Average Annual  EPA Burden - NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T) (Renewal)

	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)

	EPA hrs Occurrence	Occurrences Per Year	Technical hrs/yeara

(C=AxB)	Management hrs/yeara

(D=Cx0.05)	Clerical hrs/yeara

(E=Cx0.1)	EPA Cost/yeara

Burden Items

Report Activity

1.  Batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine

     A  Initial notification report b	1	0	0	0	0	$0

     B  Initial compliance report b	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     C  Performance test results c & d	8	0	0	0	0	$0

     D  Annual compliance report e	2	1,180	2,360	118	236	$255,245

     E  Report with exceedance f & g	1	118	118	5.9	11.8	$12,762

     F  Report with no exceedance f & h	0.5	1,062	531	26.55	53.1	$57,430

2.  Batch Cold Cleaning Machines

     A  Initial notification/compliance reporti	0.25	0	0	0	0	$0

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN j

	3,009	150.45	300.9	$325,437

Assumptions:

a. Costs are based on the following hourly rates: Technical at $97.59, Management at $114.77, and Clerical at $48.26 from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”  Management person-hours and Clerical person-hours are assumed to be 5 percent, and 10 percent of technical person-hours respectively.

b. It is assumed that a one-time cost was based on 393 facilities per year.

c. We assume that it will take 8 hours to review performance test results.

d. We assume that 50 percent of the facilities will choose the standard equipment; 20 percent of those will conduct one-time idling tests.

e. All facilities are expected to submit annual compliance reports summarizing either solvent consumption data or monitoring results for each cleaning machine.

f. The burden of one quarterly and one semiannual exceedance report was included in the burden estimate for the annual report.

g. We assume that 10 percent of 1,180 facilities are in exceedance at least one time per year.

	h. We assume that 90 percent of 1,180 facilities are not in exceedance.

i. It is assumed that there are 251 facilities with batch cold cleaning machines.

	j. To get total annual burden hours, add the totals from lines C, D, and E.

 PAGE

 PAGE   16

 PAGE

 PAGE   19