[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42243-42247]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15002]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95231; File No. SR-DTC-2022-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend the DTC Distributions Guide To Enhance the Tax Event
Announcements Feature of the Distributions Service and Make Related
Clarifying Changes

July 8, 2022.
    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 June 30, 2022, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 clearing agency. DTC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)
thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the Procedures \5\ set forth
in the Distributions Guide to accommodate Participants' tax reporting
and withholding obligations, by setting forth a proposed enhancement to
DTC's Procedure for the Tax Events Announcements feature (``Tax Event
Announcements'') of DTC's Distributions Service,\6\ as described
below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to the DTC Rules, the term ``Procedures'' means the
Procedures, service guides, and regulations of DTC adopted pursuant
to Rule 27, as amended from time to time. See Rule 1, Section 1,
infra note 7. DTC's Procedures are filed with the Commission. They
are binding on DTC and each Participant in the same manner that they
are bound by the DTC Rules. See Rule 27, infra note 7.
    \6\ Tax Event Announcements provides Participants with
information-only announcements regarding taxable events that may
give rise to information and/or withholding obligations which occur
even in the absence of an actual distribution of dividend and
interest payments (``Tax Events''). See Distributions Guide, infra
note 7, at 14.
    \7\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its
respective meaning as set forth in the Rules, By-Laws and
Organization Certificate of The Depository Trust Company (``DTC
Rules''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx, and the DTC Corporate Actions Distributions Service
Guide (``Distributions Guide''), available at https://www.dtcc.com/
~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/Service-Guide-
Distributions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcements

    The Distributions Service includes the announcement, collection,
allocation and reporting by DTC, on behalf of its Participants, of
dividend, interest and principal payments for Eligible Securities held
by Participants at DTC (``Announcements''). This centralized processing
provides efficiency for Participants for their receipt of (i) payment
information and (ii) payments on distributions covered by Announcements
(``Distribution Event'') \8\ from multiple issuers and agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Distribution Events covered by Announcements include cash
dividends, interest, principal, capital gains, sale of rights on
American depositary receipts, return of capital, dividend with
option, stock splits, stock dividends, automatic dividend
reinvestments, spinoffs, rights distributions, pay in kind, and
liquidation. See Distributions Guide, supra note 7, at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC also provides a Participant holding a Security in its DTC
account with Tax Events Announcements for distributions subject to
Sections 305(c) and 871(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (``Code'').\9\
The proposed rule change would enhance Tax Event Announcements by
adding a new type of Tax Event to be referred to as a ``1042-S
Classification,'' as more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Distributions Guide, supra note 7, at 14-15. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81871 (October 13, 2017), 82 FR
48734 (October 19, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-018) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 87729 (December 12, 2019), 84 FR 69424 (December 18,
2019) (SR-DTC-2019-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change would amend the Procedures \10\ set forth
in the Distributions Guide to accommodate Participants' tax reporting
and withholding obligations, by setting forth a proposed enhancement to
DTC's Procedure for the Tax Events Announcements feature (``Tax Event
Announcements'') of DTC's Distributions Service,\11\ as described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to the DTC Rules, the term ``Procedures'' means
the Procedures, service guides, and regulations of DTC adopted
pursuant to Rule 27, as amended from time to time. See Rule 1,
Section 1, supra note 7. DTC's Procedures are filed with the
Commission. They are binding on DTC and each Participant in the same
manner that they are bound by the DTC Rules. See Rule 27, supra note
7.
    \11\ Tax Event Announcements provides Participants with
information-only announcements regarding taxable events that may
give rise to information and/or withholding obligations which occur
even in the absence of an actual distribution of dividend and
interest payments (``Tax Events''). See Distributions Guide, supra
note 7, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Announcements
    The Distributions Service includes the announcement, collection,
allocation and reporting by DTC, on behalf of its Participants, of
dividend, interest and principal payments for Eligible Securities held
by Participants at DTC (``Announcements''). This centralized processing
provides efficiency for Participants for their receipt of (i) payment
information and (ii) payments on distributions covered by Announcements
(``Distribution

Event'') \12\ from multiple issuers and agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Distribution Events covered by Announcements include cash
dividends, interest, principal, capital gains, sale of rights on
American depositary receipts, return of capital, dividend with
option, stock splits, stock dividends, automatic dividend
reinvestments, spinoffs, rights distributions, pay in kind, and
liquidation. See Distributions Guide, supra note 7, at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC also provides a Participant holding a Security in its DTC
account with Tax Events Announcements for distributions subject to
Sections 305(c) and 871(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (``Code'').\13\
The proposed rule change would enhance Tax Event Announcements by
adding a new type of Tax Event to be referred to as a ``1042-S
Classification,'' as more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Distributions Guide, supra note 7, at 14-15. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81871 (October 13, 2017), 82 FR
48734 (October 19, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-018) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 87729 (December 12, 2019), 84 FR 69424 (December 18,
2019) (SR-DTC-2019-011)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed New Type of Tax Event Announcement for 1042-S Classifications
    Pursuant to Rule 1.1446-4(b)(4) under the Code \14\, issuers of
publicly traded partnerships \15\ that are Eligible Securities,\16\
starting with distributions on or after January 1, 2023, will be
required to provide DTC's nominee, Cede & Co., as registered holder of
the Security,\17\ with ``qualified notices'' that classify a
distribution into multiple components for tax withholding and Internal
Revenue Service Form 1042-S \18\ reporting purposes. For example, on a
$1.00 distribution, the qualified notice may state that $0.60 is
considered dividend income and $0.40 is income effectively connected
with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States. DTC would
forward to Participants such qualified notices that it receives from
issuers, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 26 CFR 1.1446-4(b)(4).
    \15\ 26 CFR 1.1446-4(b)(1) (providing definition of publicly
traded partnership).
    \16\ Pursuant to Rule 5, Section 1 of the DTC Rules, an Eligible
Security shall only be a Security accepted by DTC, in its sole
discretion, as an Eligible Security. DTC shall accept a Security as
an Eligible Security only (a) upon a determination by DTC that it
has the operational capability and can obtain information regarding
the Security necessary to permit it to provide its services to
Participants and Pledgees when such Security is Deposited and (b)
upon such inquiry, or based upon such criteria, as DTC may, in its
sole discretion, determine from time to time. DTC Rules, Rule 5,
supra note 7. See also DTC Operational Arrangements Necessary for
Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services (``OA''),
available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
issue-eligibility/eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf, at 6-9
(setting forth DTC eligibility requirements).
    \17\ DTC holds eligible securities on behalf of Participants and
reflects the transfer of interests in those securities among
Participants by computerized book-entry. Eligible securities
deposited with DTC for book-entry transfer services are registered
in the name of its nominee, Cede & Co. (``Cede''), a New York
partnership. When the certificates are registered in the name of
Cede, DTC acquires legal title to the securities and, when DTC
credits interests in these securities to the securities accounts of
Participants, those Participants acquire a beneficial interest in
the securities. A Participant does not have a right to any
particular security; each Participant has a proportionate interest
in the fungible total inventory of the issue held by DTC. See DTC
Disclosure Framework for Covered Clearing Agencies and Financial
Market Infrastructures (December 2021), available at http://
www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/
DTC_Disclosure_Framework.pdf, at 9.
    \18\ See Form 1042-S, available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1042s.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meanwhile, other issuers may not be required to provide DTC with
classification information for Form 1042-S reporting purposes. For
example, a regulated investment company may classify a portion of a
distribution as representing interest-related dividends or as a short-
term capital gain dividend but would not be required to provide a
``qualified notice'' to DTC pursuant to Rule 1.1446-4(b)(4).\19\ This
classification information would not be reported to DTC on a
``qualified notice'' and currently could not be made available to
Participants through the facilities of DTC. Rather, to obtain the
information needed to fulfill any tax reporting obligations a
Participant or its customer may have with regard to such
classifications, DTC understands that Participants and their customers
obtain the necessary information from the respective issuers' websites
or from 3rd party vendors. Based on discussions with issuers and
Participants, DTC understands that having to obtain this information on
an individual CUSIP-by-CUSIP basis from issuers' websites or getting
this information after the distribution from a vendor, may create
inefficiencies for Participants and their customers that would be
mitigated if such information were made available in a more centralized
format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate the distribution of this classification information
in a centralized format to Participants holding such Securities at DTC,
DTC proposes to create a new Tax Event ``Sub Event Type'' (i.e., the
``1042-S Classification'') with the various tax components that make up
a distribution, as more fully described below. Subject to requirements
described below, DTC would (i) receive 1042-S Classification
information that issuers voluntarily provide to DTC for this purpose
and (ii) distribute the information to Participants that hold the
applicable securities. Information that issuers are required to provide
to DTC pursuant to Rule 1.1446-4(b)(4) would also be included in the
1042-S Classification Sub Event Type.
Proposed Rule Change
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the Distributions Guide would
be revised to reflect the addition of ``1042-S Classifications'' as a
``Sub Event Type'' under the Tax Event Announcement feature. The new
1042-S Classification would include a template to facilitate an
issuer's transmission of the distribution information that the issuer
wishes be made available to Participants through the facilities of DTC,
broken down by applicable classifications corresponding to the
applicable income codes for a Distribution Event.
    The Distributions Guide would provide that an issuer that wishes to
have such 1042-S Classifications made available to Participants through
the facilities of DTC, would be required to utilize this template.
However, issuers making payments subject to Rule 1.1446-4(b)(4) under
the Internal Revenue Code may provide a ``qualified notice'' in lieu of
the template. In addition, to promote timeliness and accuracy of issuer
information, the Distributions Guide would provide that the breakdown
of the classifications must be provided to DTC prior to the record date
(``Record Date'') \20\ and should not be subject to change. The
Distributions Guide would also provide that by providing DTC with this
template, the issuer certifies that the information provided in the
template is not subject to change. However, the text would provide that
DTC will accept and distribute updated information to Participants to
the extent an issuer notifies DTC that the issuer entered an error in
the applicable template or qualified notice provided by it to DTC and
the issuer provides DTC with a corrected template or qualified notice,
as applicable. In addition, the text would provide that DTC reserves
the right not to accept classification information from issuers that do
not abide by the requirements included in the Distributions Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Record Date is the date set by an issuer of a security
by which an investor must own the security in order to be eligible
to receive an upcoming distribution. See OA, supra note 16, at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed text would also state that each issuer and its
affiliates, in the aggregate, may provide templates for up to, but no
more than, 12 CUSIP numbers

per month (``CUSIP Limit'').\21\ The number of qualified notices
provided by an issuer would not be included in the determination of the
CUSIP Limit for that issuer or its affiliates, because it is mandatory
under Rule 1.1446-4(b)(4) \22\ for issuers to deliver such notices to
DTC, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Depending on demand for the transmittal of 1042-S
Classifications through the facilities of DTC, and general
availability of processing resources at DTC, DTC may submit a future
proposed rule change to amend the Distributions Guide to increase
the CUSIP Limit. Given this limitation, the text would note that to
the extent 1042-S Classification information applicable to a
Participant's holdings is not made available through Tax Events
Announcements, the Participant should obtain such information from
the issuer outside of DTC.
    \22\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Distributions Guide also would be updated to
clarify that ``305(c) Deemed Dividends'' and ``871(m) Dividend
Equivalent Amounts'' are Sub Event Types.
    In addition, text in the Distributions Guide that describes a
``Cash Rate'' field \23\ that is included in a Tax Event Announcement
would be expanded and clarified to describe the field's contents for
each Sub Event Type. In this regard, three items would be added below
the description of Cash Rate as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Cash Rate field is used to display the amount of a
deemed distribution or dividend equivalent payment. See
Distributions Guide, supra note 7, at 15.

 field used for the amount of the deemed distribution for sub
event type of 305(c) Deemed Dividends
 field used to provide the dividend equivalent amount for sub
event type of 871(m) Dividend Equivalent Amount
 Events with 1042-S Classifications will include multiple cash
rates with each cash rate having a corresponding income code per the
instructions for Form 1042-S, as applicable.''

    Finally, DTC would add text to the Distributions Guide as it
relates to Tax Event Announcements to clarify that DTC does not
independently verify the accuracy and/or completeness of Tax Event
Announcement information it receives from issuers and agents, and that
it is the sole responsibility of each Participant to ensure the
accuracy and completeness of Tax Event Announcement information that it
uses for any purpose, including but not limited to tax withholding and
reporting.
Applicability of Tax Event Fee
    As with DTC's distribution of other Tax Event information to
Participants, the distribution of 1042-S Classification information
would be subject to the ``Tax Event Announcement Fee'' of $12 per
Announcement, as set forth in the Fee Guide.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See DTC Fee Guide, available at https://www.dtcc.com/~/
media/Files/Downloads/legal/fee-guides/2022-DTC-Fee-Schedule-FINAL,
at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to DTC, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \25\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, inter alia, that the
rules of the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\26\ As
described above, the proposed rule change would update the
Distributions Guide to enhance the Distributions Service by including
the distribution of Announcements for Tax Events for Securities subject
to ``1042-S Classification'' requirements to Participants and make
certain related clarifying changes described above. By providing for
the distribution of such information, the proposed rule change would
help facilitate Participants' compliance with federal tax withholding
obligations for Eligible Securities subject to Tax Events that are on
Deposit at DTC and making use of DTC's book-entry transfer and
settlement services. This would further facilitate Participants'
ability to continue to maintain Eligible Securities subject to 1042-S
Classifications on Deposit at DTC and make use of DTC's book-entry
transfer and settlement services with respect to those Securities, in
accordance with DTC Rules requirements relating to the use of DTC
services by Participants.\27\ Therefore, by facilitating Participant's
ability to continue to use DTC's book-entry transfer and settlement
services at DTC with respect to Eligible Securities that are subject to
1042-S Classifications, the proposed rule change would promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, consistent with the requirements of the Act, in
particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ In connection with their use of DTC's services,
Participants must comply with all applicable laws, including, but
not limited to, all applicable laws relating to taxation. See DTC
Rule 2, Section 8, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC believes that the proposed rule change to amend the
Distributions Guide to update fields used by DTC to report Tax Events,
as described above, could impose a burden on competition by subjecting
Participants that hold Eligible Securities that may be subject to 1042-
S Classifications to additional fees which may negatively affect such
Participant's operating costs.
    DTC believes any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule
changes would not be significant, and to the extent the proposed rule
change may impose a burden on competition, DTC believes it would be
necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC has discussed the proposal with Participants that hold Eligible
Securities that may be subject to 1042-S Classifications, and issuers
of those Securities, and DTC understands that Participants and their
customers obtain the necessary information from the respective issuers'
websites or from 3rd party vendors. DTC understands that having to
obtain this information on an individual CUSIP-by-CUSIP basis from
issuers' websites or getting this information after the distribution
from a vendor, creates inefficiencies and timing issues for
Participants and their customers relating to the piecemeal nature of
the retrieval of such information, that would be mitigated if such
information were made available in a more centralized format through
DTC.
    DTC believes that any burden on competition imposed by the proposal
would be necessary because the proposed rule change would provide
Participants with a centralized means to timely (in relation to Record
Date) receive 1042-S Classification announcement information needed to
facilitate their compliance with tax withholding and reporting
obligations relating to payments on Eligible Securities for which
issuers provide 1042-S Classification information to DTC, as described
above.
    DTC believes that any burden on competition imposed by the proposal
would be appropriate because the fees are intended to provide revenue
that is close to the costs to DTC of building and providing the
services described above. DTC believes the Tax Event Announcements
feature has a positive effect on competition among Participants because
the service allows Participants to receive applicable tax information
in a more efficient manner, thereby reducing the resources they would
need to allocate to obtain the applicable tax-related information on a
CUSIP-by-CUSIP basis through issuers

and 3rd party vendors. The service also provides issuers with a more
efficient method of providing Tax Event information to parties that
need to see such information in order to facilitate timely tax
withholding and reporting. DTC believes this enhances competition among
Participants by allowing parties to receive such information more
quickly and in a more streamlined manner. Based on experiences with
existing services provided through the Tax Event Announcements feature
and discussions with Participants, DTC believes that despite the Tax
Event Fee that would be charged to Participants holding affected
securities for the distribution of 1042-S Classification information,
the distribution of such information through the facilities of DTC
would provide benefits to Participants in terms of processing and
timing efficiencies that should mitigate the impact of any such fees
charged. As such, DTC believes these proposed rule changes would be
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted by
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.
    DTC does not believe that the aspect of the proposed rule change to
make certain clarifying changes to the Distributions Guide, as
described above, would have an impact on competition.\29\ Having a
clear and accurate Distributions Guide would facilitate Participants'
understanding of the Distributions Guide and provide Participants with
increased predictability and certainty regarding their obligations
regarding DTC Tax Event Announcement feature. Therefore, DTC believes
that the proposed rule change to make clarifying changes to the Rules
and the Settlement Guide would not have an impact on competition.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC does not believe that the aspect of the proposed rule change to
establish the CUSIP Limit for an issuer and its affiliates to be able
to submit up to 12 templates per month, as described above, would have
any impact, or impose any burden on competition, because issuers and
their affiliates would be subject to the same CUSIP Limit for
submission of templates per month, and all Participants holding the
applicable issues would be able to receive the same aggregate amount of
notices for any issuer and its affiliates as all other Participants
holding the same issues. However, to the extent the proposed rule
change could cause a burden because certain issuers may reach the CUSIP
Limit, DTC does not believe the burden would have a significant impact
on competition because issuers that reach the CUSIP Limit in a given
month would be able to continue to make 1042-S Classification
information available outside DTC, and Participants would be able to
retrieve the information, as they do today. To the extent the proposed
rule change could cause a burden because certain issuers may have
issuances that are not subject to the CUSIP Limit because distributions
for those issues are subject to the requirements of Rule 1.1446-
4(b)(4),\31\ and therefore may be able to submit qualified notices for
more than 12 CUSIPS per month, as described above, DTC does not believe
burden would have a significant impact on competition because DTC
understands from conversations with issuers, and its own observations
of activity of issuers that may be subject to Rule 1.1446-4(b)(4),\32\
that such issuers and their affiliates would likely supply an amount of
qualified notices, if any, that is well below the amount of the CUSIP
Limit that would be established for issuers that would otherwise submit
templates that are subject to the CUSIP Limit. Also, due to their
status as publicly traded partnerships that are subject to Rule 1.1446-
4(b)(4),\33\ DTC understands that such issuers and their affiliates
would not have a need to submit templates that could cause them in the
aggregate to issue notices for 1042-Classification information that
would exceed 12 CUSIPS per month. DTC also believes any burden on
competition imposed by this exception of the CUSIP Limit would be
necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because, as indicated above, such issuers are under a regulatory
obligation to provide qualified notices to DTC regardless of the amount
of issuances they may have that are subject to such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 14.
    \32\ See supra note 14.
    \33\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received, they would be
publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-
4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General
questions regarding the rule filing process or logistical questions
regarding this filing should be directed to the Main Office of the
Commission's Division of Trading and Markets at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    DTC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \34\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \35\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-DTC-2022-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2022-008. 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 DTC and on DTCC's website (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2022-008
and should be submitted on or before August 4, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15002 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4071-4073]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30587; Amdt. No. 3251]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This Rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective January 24, 2008. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.

    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally,
individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained
from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry. J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the
advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication
of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums, and ODP
listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the
affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the
effective dates of the SIAPs, the associated Takeoff Minimums, and
ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure, and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure before adopting these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs
are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 28, 2007.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97-- STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 14 FEB 2008

Bettles, AK, Bettles, LOC/DME RWY 1, Amdt 5A
Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig
Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Regional, GPS RWY 24, Orig-B,
CANCELLED
Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Regional, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 13
Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Regional, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Mobile, AL, Mobile Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 30
Mobile, AL, Mobile Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 6A
Mobile, AL, Mobile Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Mobile, AL, Mobile Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1
Mobile, AL, Mobile Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Troy, AL, Troy Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig
Troy, AL, Troy Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
Troy, AL, Troy Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig
Benton, AR, Saline County/Watts Field, GPS RWY 17, Orig-A,
(CANCELLED)
Benton, AR, Saline County/Watts Field, GPS RWY 35, Orig-A,
(CANCELLED)
Benton, AR, Saline County/Watts Field, VOR-A, Amdt 6, Orig-A,
(CANCELLED)

Pagosa Springs, CO, Stevens Field, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Pagosa Springs, CO, Stevens Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
LaVerne, CA, Brackett Field, ILS RWY 26L, Amdt 3
LaVerne, CA, Brackett Field, LOC RWY 26L, Orig
Modesto, CA, Modesto City-Co-Harry Sham Fld, ILS O RLOC/DME RWY 28R,
Amdt 14
Placerville, CA, Placerville, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Placerville, CA, Placerville, GPS RWY 5, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Placerville, CA, Placerville, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
Adel, GA, Cook County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Adel, GA, Cook County, GPS RWY 5, Orig, CANCELLED
Augusta, GA, Augusta Regional At Bush Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 12
Augusta, GA, Daniel Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Canton, GA, Cherokee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, ORIG
Canton, GA, Cherokee County, GPS RWY 4, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Thomson, GA, Thomson-McDuffie County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Vidalia, GA, Vidalia Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Corning, IA, Corning Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Corning, IA, Corning Muni, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 2
Benton, KS, Lloyd Strearman Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Benton, KS, Lloyd Strearman Field, GPS RWY 17, Orig, (CANCELLED)
Danville, KY, Stuart Powell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig
Danville, KY, Stuart Powell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig
Danville, KY, Stuart Powell Field, NDB-A, Amdt 8
Lafayette, LA, VOR RWY 4R, Amdt 2, (CANCELLED)
Austin, MN, Austin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Austin, MN, Austin Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2
Austin, MN, Austin Muni, VOR RWY 17, Amdt 2
Austin, MN, Austin Muni, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 2
Austin, MN, Austin Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Jackson, MN, Jackson Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Jackson, MN, Jackson Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig
Jackson, MN, Jackson Muni, GPS RWY 31, Amdt 1, (CANCELLED)
Jackson, MN, Jackson Muni, Takeoff Minimum and Obstacle DP, Orig
Harrisonville, MO, Lawrence Smith Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Harrisonville, MO, Lawrence Smith Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Harrisonville, MO, Lawrence Smith Memorial, GPS RWY 35, Orig-A,
(CANCELLED)
Harrisonville, MO, Lawrence Smith Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Corinth, MS, Roscoe Turner, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 2
Corinth, MS, Roscoe Turner, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Corinth, MS, Roscoe Turner, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Corinth, MS, Roscoe Turner, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Winona, MS, Winona-Montgomery County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig
Winona, MS, Winona-Montgomery County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig
Winona, MS, Winona-Montgomery County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Rutherfordton, NC, Rutherford Co/Marchman Field, LOC RWY 1, Amdt 2A
Beatrice, NE, Beatrice Muni, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 17
Beatrice, NE, Beatrice Muni, VOR RWY 17, Amdt 1
Beatrice, NE, Beatrice Muni, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 8
Beatrice, NE, Beatrice Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Omaha, NE, Epply Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 32L, Amdt 1
Omaha, NE, Epply Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 14L, Amdt 1
Omaha, NE, Epply Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 14R, ILS RWY 14R (CAT
II), ILS RWY 14R (CAT III), Amdt 4
Omaha, NE, Epply Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14L, Amdt 1
Omaha, NE, Epply Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Las Vegas, NV, North Las Vegas, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 3
Wagoner, OK, Hefner-Easley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Wagoner, OK, Hefner-Easley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Wagoner, OK, Hefner-Easley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Factoryville, PA, Seamans Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Factoryville, PA, Seamans Field, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Factoryville, PA, Seamans Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
Aiken, SC, Aiken Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Charleston, SC, Charleston AFB/Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 6
Arlington, TX, Arlington Muni, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 34, Orig-A
Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, ILS OR LOC RWY 31. Amdt 8
Ingleside, TX, T P MC Campbell, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Ingleside, TX, T P MC Campbell, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Kountze/Silsbee, TX, Hawthorne Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Kountze/Silsbee, TX, Hawthorne Field, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 3
Kountze/Silsbee, TX, Hawthorne Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Luray, VA, Luray Caverns, NDB-A, Amdt 6
Luray, VA, Luray Caverns, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Luray, VA, Luray Caverns, GPS RWY 22, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, ILS OR LOC RWY 21R, Amdt 11A
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3L, Orig
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, VOR RWY 21R, Amdt 5A
Appleton, WI, Outagamie County Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 17

Effective 13 MAR 2008

Rockland, ME, Knox County Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 1C
Waterville, MD, Waterville Robert LaFleur, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 2B
Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13R,
Orig-A

Effective 10 APR 2008

Oroville, CA, Oroville Muni, NDB RWY 1, Amdt 3, CANCELLED
Petaluma, CA, Petaluma Muni, VOR RWY 29, Orig, CANCELLED
Red Bluff, CA, Red Bluff Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 33, Amdt 1
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 12
Newport, VT, Newport State, NDB-A, Amdt 3, CANCELLED

    The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30583, Amdt No.
3247 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 72, FR No.
239, Page 70774; dated December 13, 2007) under section 97.29
effective 14 February 2008, which is hereby rescinded as follows:

Cahokia/St Louis, IL, St Louis Downtown, ILS OR LOC RWY 30L, Amdt 9

[FR Doc. E8-853 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13375]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05842]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0108, FRL-9924-25-OSWER]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; RCRA Expanded Public Participation.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), RCRA Expanded Public
Participation (EPA ICR No. 1688.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0149) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through June 30, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2015-0108, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pease, (5303P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Section 7004(b) of RCRA gives the EPA broad authority to
provide for, encourage, and assist public participation in the
development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of any
regulation, guideline, information, or program under RCRA. An example
of this is at 40 CFR 124.31(a) and (b), facilities applying for an
initial part B permit or a part B permit renewal, where the renewal
application is proposing a change that would qualify as a Class 3
permit modification under 40 CFR 270.42, are required to hold at least
one meeting with the public prior to submitting the part B permit
application to the permitting agency. The applicant must submit a
summary of the meeting, along with the list of attendees and their
addresses, and copies of any written comments or materials submitted at
the meeting, to the permitting agency as part of the part B application
(Sec.  124.31(c)). Under 40 CFR 124.31(d), applicants must provide
public notice (i.e., newspaper advertisement, visible and accessible
sign, and broadcast media announcement) of the pre-application meeting
at least 30 days prior to the meeting. The applicant also mush provide
a copy of the notice to the permitting agency and to the appropriate
units of State and local government.
    In addition, the statute specifies certain public notices (i.e.,
radio, newspaper, and a letter to relevant agencies) that the EPA must
provide before issuing any RCRA permit. The statute also establishes a
process by which the public can dispute a permit and request a public
hearing to discuss it. The EPA carries out much of its RCRA public
involvement at 40 CFR parts 124 and 270.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are Businesses and other for-profit.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory (RCRA 7004(b)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 33.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 3,005 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $195,914, which includes $192,365 annualized
labor costs and $3,549 annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay
substantially the same.

    Dated: March 2, 2015.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2015-05842 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	May 25, 2018

SUBJECT:	Technology Review for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

TO:		Kim Teal, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

1.0	INTRODUCTION

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish technology-based standards for listed source categories. These technology-based standards are often referred to as national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) and are based on the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances (40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNN), hereinafter referred to as the Large Appliances NESHAP, regulates emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from facilities that are major sources and are engaged, either in part or in whole, in the surface coating of large appliances. The Large Appliances NESHAP requires the use of MACT to reduce HAP emissions from the following operations: surface preparation; mixing; coating; curing; conveying coatings, thinners and cleaning materials; and waste storage and handling.

Section 112 also contains provisions requiring the EPA to periodically revisit these standards. Specifically, section 112(d)(6) states:

      (6) REVIEW AND REVISION.  -  The Administrator shall review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.

To comply with this CAA requirement, the EPA conducted a technology review for the Large Appliances NESHAP for major sources. This memorandum addresses the technology review for all large appliance surface coating processes. For this exercise, we considered any of the following to be a "development":

 Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standard;
 Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standard) that could result in additional emissions reduction;
 Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standard;
 Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standard; and
 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standard).

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered during the development of the 2002 NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the Large Appliances NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Large Appliance Surface Coating source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.

Section 2 of this memorandum presents a summary of the sources of data that were used to conduct the technology review and Section 3 presents the technology review for large appliance surface coating operations.

2.0	SOURCES OF AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION

To identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that could be applicable to surface coating operations in the large appliance industry, we researched the following sources of information: the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, publicly-available state Air Permit databases, regulatory actions promulgated subsequent to the Large Appliances NESHAP, regional and state regulations, site visits, and industry information.

2.1	RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse Database

Under the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if a company is planning to build a new plant or modify an existing plant such that criteria air pollution emissions will increase by a certain amount (in tons per year, depending on the pollutant), then the company must obtain an NSR permit. The NSR permit is a construction permit which generally requires the company to minimize air pollution emissions by changing the process to prevent air pollution and/or installing air pollution control equipment.

The terms "RACT," "BACT," and "LAER" are acronyms for different program requirements relevant to the NSR program.  RACT, or Reasonably Available Control Technology, is required on existing sources in areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards (non-attainment areas). BACT, or Best Available Control Technology, is required on new or modified major sources in clean areas (attainment areas). LAER, or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, is required on new or modified major sources in non-attainment areas.

BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by State or local permitting agencies. The EPA established the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, or RBLC, to provide a central database of air pollution technology information (including past BACT and LAER decisions contained in NSR permits) to promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case determinations. However, data in the RBLC are not limited to sources subject to RACT, BACT, and LAER requirements. Noteworthy pollution prevention and control technology decisions and information may be included even if they are not related to past RACT, BACT, or LAER decisions.

The RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help identify appropriate technologies to mitigate most air pollutant emission streams. It was designed to help permit applicants and reviewers make pollution prevention and control technology decisions for stationary air pollution sources, and includes data submitted by several U.S. territories and all 50 States on over 200 different air pollutants and 1,000 industrial processes.

The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database on-line to locate applicable control technologies. We conducted a search of the RBLC processes specific to the large appliances surface coating category permits dating back to 1990.  The search results included the following data fields:

::	RBLC ID;
::	Facility Name, and State;
::	Permit Date;
::	Process name;
::	Throughput;
::	Pollutant;
::	Control technology; and
::	Percent efficiency of control.

A search by process type for large appliance surface coating facilities provided no results. However, searching the RBLC by company name for large appliance manufacturers (obtained from the National Emission Inventory) resulted in one result for Whirlpool Marion Division. The RBLC record for this facility did not provide any additional information that could be used in this technology review, but did include the subpart NNNN HAP content limit (0.13 kg/L coating solids) and a VOC content limit. The results of the search for the large appliances source category are presented in Appendix 1.

2.2	Subsequent Regulatory Actions

Regulatory actions promulgated subsequent to the July 23, 2002 Large Appliances NESHAP have been identified for sources similar to large appliance surface coating sources. The regulatory actions listed in Table 1 were reviewed for developments in practices, processes and control technologies.

   Table 1. Subsequent Regulatory Actions for Sources Categories Similar to
                      Large Appliance Coating Operations

                                MACT Standards
                                    Subpart
                               Date Promulgated
           Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Evaluated
           Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
                                     MMMM
                                  01/02/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per volume solids used, add-on control devices, low-HAP coatings (Ultraviolet (UV) curable, electron beam-curable), powder coatings
                 Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
                                     PPPP
                                  04/19/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per mass solids used, add-on control devices, low-HAP coatings (Ultraviolet (UV) curable, electron beam-curable)
             Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
                                     IIII
                                  04/26/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per volume solids used. Develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP.
                            Residual Risk Standards
                                    Subpart
                               Date Promulgated
   Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Identified as Developments
                         Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
                                      II
                                  11/21/2011
Concentrator/RTO installed on spray booths to achieve 95% control efficiency; lower volatile organic compounds (VOC) coating limits based on California regional rules
                         Wood Furniture Manufacturing
                                      JJ
                                  11/21/2011
RTO; Lower VOC coating limits based on California regional rules, more efficient spray guns.
Bans conventional spray guns except when the overspray is routed to a control device.
                      Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
                                      GG
                                   12/7/2015
                                No developments

Developments identified in the regulatory actions listed in Table 1 will be discussed in Section 3 (Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations).

2.3	State Rules and State Operating Permits

As part of this technology review, we researched state VOC rules that were developed in response to control technique guidelines (CTGs) developed by EPA and state permits. The CTGs established VOC limits to control VOC emissions. The technologies recommended by the CTGs to control VOC also provide control of HAP emissions. Therefore, as part of this review we reviewed the state operating permits to compare the VOC and HAP limits to the CTG and NESHAP limits.

State Rules

In 1977 and again in 2007, the EPA published CTGs to control VOC emissions from surface coating of large appliances. According to the 2007 CTG, 21 states had adopted the 1977 limit of 2.8 lb VOC/gal of coating applied (minus water) into their rules for large appliance surface coating sources.

The 2007 CTG recommendations were based on Bay Area and South Coast air district rules in California. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8, Rule 14, covers surface coating of large appliances (and metal furniture) and establishes VOC limits of 2.3 lbs/gal (less water and exempt compounds) for baked coatings and 2.8 lbs/gal for air dried coatings. The BAAQMD rule does not establish separate limits for any specialty coating categories.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1107 for Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products also covers large appliances. SCAQMD Rule 1107 establishes a VOC limit of 2.3 lbs/gal (less water and exempt compounds) for baked and air-dried general one-component coatings and baked general multi-component coatings, and a VOC limit of 2.8 lbs/gal for air-dried multi-component coatings. The 2007 CTG for large appliance coatings also adopted the SCAQMD Rule 1107 VOC limits for categories of specialty coatings.

The 2007 CTG recommends emission limits for general purpose one component and multicomponent coatings, and for several types of specialty coatings (extreme high gloss, extreme performance, heat resistant, metallic, pretreatment coatings, and solar absorbent coatings). For each coating type, the 2007 CTG also recommends separate limits for baked and air dried coatings. The 2007 CTG recommends that as an alternative to the VOC content limits, allowing facilities to use add-on controls. The 2007 CTG also recommends work practices to reduce emissions from cleaning materials, and the use of high-efficiency coating application methods.

For this technology review, the EPA compiled information for 10 major source large appliance facilities subject to subpart NNNN which are located in seven states. Six of the facilities are located in four states that adopted the 1977 CTG limits, and four facilities are located in two states (Ohio and Wisconsin) that adopted the 2007 CTG limits. However, the 2007 CTG limits were not adopted statewide and none of the four facilities are actually subject to the 2007 CTG limits since the facilities are not located in counties to which the 2007 VOC limits apply. However, one facility (Whirlpool Findlay Division in Findlay, OH) is using a thermal oxidizer on one line to comply with the 1977 CTG VOC limit.

State Operating Permits

The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) presents comprehensive and detailed estimates of air emissions based on data provided by State, Local, and Tribal (SLT) air agencies. NEI point sources include large industrial facilities, such as Large Appliance coating facilities, that submit their own inventories to SLT air agencies. We compiled State operating permits for all 10 of the facilities subject to subpart NNNN that reported large appliance surface coating emissions to the NEI. In reviewing the emissions limits we noted:

 No permit has an organic HAP limit lower than the Large Appliance NESHAP HAP limit;
 No permit includes a limit on individual HAP; and
 No facilities are subject to VOC limits more stringent than the 2007 CTG VOC limit.

In addition, we noted that only two facility permits indicated add-on controls for the subpart NNNN coating operations:

 One facility (Whirlpool Findlay Division in Findlay, OH) uses a TO for VOC control but was using the subpart NNNN compliant material option for HAP control; and
 One facility (Erler Industries in North Vernon, IN) uses RTOs for the coating operations in three of the five "plants" at the facility; although the permit did not specify the subpart NNNN compliance option, an inspection report from 2017 indicated that the facility is using the emission rate with add-on control compliance option.
 No other facilities have add-on controls for VOC or organic HAP and all others are using the compliant materials option or the emission rate without add-on controls option.

The relevant details from the permits are summarized in Appendix 2 .

2.4	Site Visits

The EPA is planning to conduct site visits to large appliance surface coating facilities for this technology review.

2.5 	Industry Information

When subpart NNNN was first promulgated, the EPA estimated 74 existing facilities, and the NESHAP would reduce HAP emissions by 1,080 Mg/yr, a 45-percent reduction from baseline levels. The EPA estimates there are currently 10 major source large appliance surface coating facilities. The reduction in the number of major source facilities could be due to a variety of factors, but one factor may be that many facilities have switched to powder coating and other low-HAP coating technologies and were able to reduce HAP emissions to below the major source threshold before the subpart NNNN compliance date. As a result, these facilities were not major sources and were not subject to the NESHAP.

We reviewed the American Coatings Association's (ACA) Industry Market Analysis (9th edition) to identify new technologies. The chapter on appliance coatings stated that the industry has shifted significantly away from liquid coatings to powder coatings and pre-coated metal coil substrate. The market analysis stated that the volume of liquid finishes used in appliance finishes decreased by 67 percent between 2007 and 2014 as a result of the shift to powder coatings and pre-coated metal coils.

According to the ACA Market Analysis, appliance manufacturers have lately preferred to minimize in-house coating operations and thereby also minimize associated burden with respect to regulatory compliance and potential issues with quality and productivity losses. As an alternative, many manufacturers have tried to maximize the use of pre-coated coil substrate in place of in-house painting, and this has resulted in significant reduction of HAP and VOC emissions from these facilities. The ACA Market Analysis also noted that the adoption of both powder coating and the use of pre-coated metal coil has benefited consumers because appliance manufacturers are making higher quality products at a more attractive price through increased efficiency.

The ACA Market Analysis stated that liquid coating appliance finishes have evolved over the last three decades from low-solids and to higher-solids acrylic coatings, but even higher solids acrylics were still a VOC liability, and most manufacturers using liquid coatings have shifted to high-solids polyesters which can be formulated with lower VOC.

3.0	TECHNOLOGY REVIEW FOR SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS

As defined in the Large Appliances NESHAP, a coating is a material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, protective or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, porcelain enamels, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants, but does not include decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective oils, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances. Emissions from coating operations occur when solvent evaporates as it is being applied. The amount of HAP and VOC emitted during coating operations is a function of the HAP content of the coatings and the amount of coating used in the operation.

The amount of coating used in the operation is affected by the application method's transfer efficiency. The more efficient a coating application method is in transferring coatings to the large appliance component or product, the lower the volume of coatings (and therefore solvents) needed per given amount of production and the lower the HAP and VOC emissions. The Large Appliance NESHAP does not require operators to account for application method transfer efficiency in the compliance calculations or to use high-efficiency coating application methods.

The primary HAP emitted from large appliance surface coating operations are organic HAP and, based on the 2011 NEI, include xylene, glycol ethers, toluene, methanol, ethyl benzene, methylene chloride and methyl isobutyl ether (MIBK), in order of decreasing importance. Eighty percent of the HAP emissions from the large appliances category occur from the coating operations and the remaining HAP come from the cleaning operations. In most cases, HAP emissions from mixing and storage areas are relatively small. At the time of the rule promulgation, most large appliance surface coatings were applied either by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a tank of coating.

3.1	Summary of Existing MACT Level of Control

The Large Appliances NESHAP promulgated in 2002 requires separate organic HAP emission limits for new/reconstructed and existing sources:

 An existing affected source must limit organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 0.13 kilogram per liter (kg/liter) (1.1 pound per gallon (lb/gal)) of coating solids used during each compliance period.

 A new or reconstructed affected source must limit organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 0.022 kg/liter (0.18 lb/gal) of coating solids used during each compliance period.

Compliance is determined monthly based on the average emissions over that monthly compliance period. An affected source can comply with the above average monthly organic emission limits by using one of the following three compliance options:

 Compliant material option -- the organic HAP content of each coating used in the coating operation(s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit, and each thinner and each cleaning material used must contain no organic HAP.

 Emission rate without add-on controls option -- weighted average based on data for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation(s), the organic HAP emission rate for the coating operation(s) must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit.

 Emission rate with add-on controls option -- weighted average based on data for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation(s) and the emission reductions achieved by emission capture and add-on controls, the organic HAP emission rate for the coating operation(s) must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit.

Facilities using emission capture systems and add-on controls are required to meet operating limits for the capture system and add-on control. In addition, the rule sets work practice standards for any coating operation or group of coating operations for which the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option to demonstrate compliance.

We reviewed state operating permits for those facilities for which a permit was available to determine the types of controls and compliance options used by these facilities. These permits are summarized in Appendix 2. Not all permits specified the compliance option in subpart NNNN the facility was using. Only two of the permits indicated that the facilities had add-on controls for the metal furniture coating operations. One facility had a thermal oxidizer for VOC control, but was using the compliant material option in subpart NNNN for HAP control. The second facility had RTOs for the coating operations in three of the five "plants" at the facility; the permit did not specify the compliance option used by the facility, but a recent (2017) inspection report indicated that the facility was using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. No facilities were subject to HAP content limits more stringent than those in the NESHAP and no control technologies were identified that were not considered during the development of MACT in the original NESHAP.

From the preamble to the proposed rule, (65 FR 81134, December 22, 2000), the technical basis for the MACT determination for the large appliance source category was the use of lower-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials to control organic HAP emission. Add-on capture and control systems for organic HAP were rarely used by the industry, according to the proposal preamble. The preamble also reported that, while lower organic HAP materials are broadly used throughout the industry, each particular coating technology is not used at every facility and facilities use various combinations of low-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Thus, the MACT determination was based on an evaluation of each facility's organic HAP emissions from all coating-related operations.

3.2	Identified Control Measures for Surface Coating Operations

3.2.1	Add-On Control Technology or Other Equipment Not Identified and Considered During MACT Development

Add-on control technologies considered during MACT development of the Large Appliances NESHAP for the reduction of organic HAP included an emission capture system (such as a spray booth) used in conjunction with thermal recuperative oxidizers, regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), catalytic oxidizers, and activated carbon adsorbers. Carbon adsorption units or oxidizers can also be used to control organic HAP emissions from cleaning operations.

Subsequent RTR NESHAPs have identified the following as developments:

      Shipbuilding and Ship Repair: The EPA identified an add-on control device, a concentrator/RTO, recently installed (2009) at one shipbuilding and ship repair facility in California. The control device consisted of rotary concentrators followed by RTOs on five large, custom-built spray booths to control volatile organic emissions from some of the coating operations. The system is capable of achieving 95 percent control efficiency for the VOHAP emissions captured by the spray booths (which are estimated to capture 90 percent of the VOHAP emissions). However, the EPA found that the use of this technology would only be practical and affordable at certain facilities building new ships for surface coating pre-assembled modules and would not be affordable for facilities performing ship repair and surface coating of completed ships. The EPA estimated the cost-effectiveness of the concentrator/RTO system to be $305,000 per ton of VOHAP reduced when used in ship building and repair.

      Wood Furniture Manufacturing: The technology review identified the use of a RTO on a spray booth as a development for the coating of flat panels using an automated high-speed coating process. The technology review identified one facility using this control and fewer than five facilities that could install this technology. The technology review determined that this technology was not affordable for the facilities that were not currently using it.

The use of an RTO (with a permanent total enclosure, PTE) was considered during development of the Large Appliances NESHAP as a control technology capable of achieving an efficiency of 95 percent and greater and was included in the basis of the proposed and final standards for new and existing sources, but was rejected as not cost effective. The other examples provide no new information that would imply that there have been changes or advancement in RTO technology that would change that decision. Therefore, EPA does not consider the use of an RTO/PTE to be an advancement in technology for the large appliance source category.

3.2.2	Improvements in Add-On Control Technology or Other Equipment for Organic HAP Emissions That Was Identified and Considered During MACT Development

The BACT determinations in the RBLC database that were made subsequent to promulgation of the Large Appliances NESHAP specify the use of add-on controls, including capture systems with a RTO and induction heater and catalytic oxidation. All of these control technologies were in use during development of the Large Appliances NESHAP and were considered in the development of MACT.

3.2.3	Work Practices and Procedures Not Identified and Considered During MACT Development

No additional work practices or procedures were identified that were not already identified and considered during MACT development.

The current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls to comply with the emissions limitations, the facility must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, those coating operations. These work practices include the following:
 All organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers.
 Spills of organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
 Organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes.
 Mixing vessels which contain organic-HAP-containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents.
 Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.

If a facility is not using add-on controls and is using either the compliant material option or the emission rate option, the facility does not need to comply with work practice standards. Under the compliant material option, the materials covered by the work practices would be either non-HAP, or would already be compliant with numerical HAP content limits. Under the emission rate without add-on controls option, HAP emitted from spills or from containers would be counted against the facility in the compliance calculations, so facilities must already minimize these losses to maintain compliance.

3.2.4	Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied that was not identified and considered during MACT development

Pollution prevention measures, specifically coating product reformulations and alternatives to liquid coatings, are currently used by the large appliance industry and were considered during the MACT floor development. These include high-solids low-HAP, waterborne, and powder coatings. In the MACT floor development, emissions from cleaning were included in the overall emission rate calculations for each facility and reflected the use of low-HAP solvent blends for cleaning. In the final rule, emissions from cleaning are also included in each facility's compliance calculations. As described in the review of the ACA Market Analysis, the large appliance industry has largely adopted the use of powder coating and high-solids low-HAP and waterborne coatings in the past decade.

One alternative that was not considered in the development of the Large Appliance NESHAP was the use of high efficiency coating application methods. This includes high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray guns, air-assisted airless spray, and electrostatic spray. The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP identified the use of more efficient spray guns as a development, and adopted regulations preventing the use of conventional spray guns. The Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP identified the use of air assisted airless spraying as a more efficient coating application technology.

High volume low pressure (HVLP) and electrostatic spraying systems are the primary high efficiency spray methods used by the aerospace and automobile refinishing industries and are examples of the high efficiency spray application methods required by the Aerospace Manufacturing Rework Facilities NESHAP and the Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subparts GG and IIII, respectively). HVLP spray guns use high volumes (10 to 25 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)) of low pressure (2 to 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)) air to deliver the paint. The lower air pressure creates a lower particle speed, resulting in a more controlled spray pattern with less overspray and bounce back from the substrate. With electrostatic spray systems, atomized particles of coating acquire an electric charge as they pass through a high voltage field at the end of the spray nozzle.  This electric charge causes the particles to be attracted to the parts being painted, which are electrically grounded.

Based on the examples above, we believe that high transfer efficiency spray equipment could represent a change/improvement in technology that was not considered in the original NESHAP. High transfer efficiency spray equipment includes the use of flow coat, roll coat, brush coat, dip coat, electrostatic attraction, or high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray guns.

The Large Appliances NESHAP does not currently include provisions for using high-efficiency coating application methods. This alternative was not considered during the development of NESHAP. The use of high-efficiency coating application methods is a pollution prevention alternative that would reduce the amount of coating consumed during application compared to conventional coating spray application technologies. High efficiency coating application methods result in greater transfer efficiency than conventional spray, meaning more coating would be applied to the part and less would become waste in the form of coating overspray. In turn, this would also reduce organic HAP emissions. Because the EPA did not consider the use of high-efficiency coating application methods in the development of the Large Appliances NESHAP, this could be considered to be a pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied that was not identified and considered during MACT development.

In addition to high efficiency coating application methods employing electrostatic attraction, airless spray, air-assisted airless spray, or HVLP spray guns, there are high efficiency non-spray methods (e.g., flow coat, roll coat, brush coat, dip coat) that can achieve emission levels equivalent to HVLP or electrostatic spray guns.

The efficiency of alternative coating application methods can be demonstrated by comparing the emissions generated by the alternative application method to the emissions generated by HVLP or electrostatic application methods according to the California South Coast Air Quality Management District's "Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989" and "Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002."

The majority of large appliance surface coating facilities subject to subpart NNNN are already required to use HVLP or an equivalent application technology by state rules in Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin to limit VOC emissions. It is likely that large appliance surface coating facilities in the two other states (Iowa and Minnesota) are also using high-efficiency application equipment for spray applied coatings as a cost saving measure to reduce coating and spray booth filter consumption and to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in the form is used spray booth filters.

If a large appliance surface coating facility was required to replace any of their conventional coating spray guns with a higher efficiency spray guns, such as an HVLP spray gun, a 2007 EPA analysis estimated that the cost to do so would be a capital cost of approximately $700 per gun. The 2007 analysis estimated these costs for an industrial quality HVLP spray gun and accessories (e.g., larger diameter hose, gauges, extra air caps), based on vendor information. Assuming a 10-year life and a 7 percent interest rate, the annualized capital cost per HVLP gun would be $100. However, these potential costs would be offset by savings in coating costs, filter costs, and in the cost of solid waste disposal for used paint booth filters that would result from increased coating transfer efficiency and the reduced generation of coating overspray, compared to conventional spray guns.

Other pollution prevention measures that are currently used by the industry are being driven by product substitution, reformulation and the use of pre-coated substrate. Paint manufacturers are continuing to develop waterborne, higher solids, and powder coating formulations that replace conventional solvent-borne coatings. These coatings are generally available and often are not produced and marketed specifically for the large appliance coating industry. Powder coatings, waterborne, higher solids coatings with lower HAP and VOC content and powder coatings were considered in the development of the proposed and final standards, and are reflected in the HAP emission limitations in the final rule. The development and use of pre-coated coil was discussed above in Section 2.3 in the context of the information provided in the American Coatings Association's market analysis. We did not identify any developments in coating technology in the information reviewed that would represent a development relative to the coating technologies on which the final rule is based.

In conclusion, high-efficiency spray equipment meets the technology review criteria of a pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the Large Appliance coating source category. This technology was not identified and considered during MACT development.

3.2.5 	Significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards)

In developing the 2002 large appliances NESHAP, the EPA did not specifically examine the cost-effectiveness of adopting a standard based on add-on controls. The EPA examined the cost effectiveness of standards for large appliance coating more stringent than the MACT floor using an analysis for metal furniture coating based on switching completely to powder coating and non-HAP cleaning solvents. In a 2000 memorandum, also for metal furniture coating, the cost effectiveness of an enclosure (e.g., spray booth) and thermal oxidizer on a typical metal furniture coating source was estimated at approximately $44,000 to remove each ton of organic HAP. These analyses are relevant to large appliance coating because the coating processes in the two source categories are similar and use similar strategies to reduce emissions. The control costs estimated during the Metal Furniture NESHAP development have not been revisited or updated, but it is expected that the prevalence of low VOC and low HAP coatings, and the availability of powder coating, have made enclosures and add-on controls less cost effective since the NESHAP was developed. Therefore, the cost to remove each ton of organic HAP over and above the emission reductions under the current level of control would be substantially higher than the cost of $44,000 per ton estimated when the NESHAP was developed. As noted earlier, only one of the major source facilities that are subject to subpart NNNN is using add-on controls to comply with the NESHAP emission limits.
Appendix 1. Practices, Processes and Control Technologies Identified for Large Appliance Operations in the January 17, 2017 Query of the RBLC Database
                                    RBLC ID
                                 (Permit Date)

                                 Facility Name

                                     State

                                 Process Name

                                   POLLUTANT

                              Emission Limitation
                            Emission Reduction (%)
OH-0337
(10/2010)
Whirlpool Corporation Marion Division
OH
Small Parts E-Coat line with cure oven
VOC

HAP
0.90 kg/L of applied coating solids,
0.13 kg/L of coating solids (subpart NNNN)
NA

Appendix 2. State Permit Search Results

                                 Facility Name

                                     State

                              Process Description

                                   Pollutant

                                Control Method
                            Emission Reduction (%)
Polar King International, Inc
IN
Walk-in Freezer Surface Coating Line
HAP
Compliant material or emission rate without add-on control options
NA
Whirlpool Corporation - Clyde Operations
OH
Electrocoating dip tank
HAP
Compliant material or emission rate without add-on control options
NA
Whirlpool Findlay Division
OH
Electrocoat Prime Coat and Ransburg Finish Paint System;
Nylon Dishrack Powder Coating Line.
HAP
Compliant material or emission rate without add-on control options for HAP.
NA

East and West Metal Dishrack Adhesion Promoter and Powder Coating Operations  -  Two Lines.
VOC, HAP
Thermal oxidizer for VOC from adhesion promoter; Compliant material or emission rate without add-on control options for HAP.
Thermal oxidizer: OAC of 87% (90% DRE) for VOC.

Whirlpool Corporation - Marion Operations

OH
Ecoat #1: dip one coat, rinse, oven;
Ecoat #2: dip one coat, rinse, oven;
Powder paint #1;
Small parts E-Coat and rinse stages and cure oven.
HAP
Compliant material option or emission rate with no add-on control
NA
Western Industries
WI
Top coating (2 lines);
Electro-deposition coating and curing ovens (2 lines)
HAP
Compliant materials option
NA
Whirlpool Corporation  -  Amana Division
IA
Powder Coating Line Cure Oven
HAP
Compliant material or emission rate without add-on control options for HAP.
NA
Erler Industries, Inc.
IN
Multiple surface coating lines (manual and robotic) in five plants
VOC, HAP
Three of the five plants have RTOs; an inspection report from June 2017 indicates the facility is using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option.
Not known.
Innovent Air Handling Equipment, LLC
MN
Coating Lines
VOC, HAP
Compliant material option or emission rate with no add-on control
NA