SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART HHHHHH)

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

	Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

	Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

	December 2007

PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection.

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled “NESHAP for
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART HHHHHH)”. The ICR number for this is
2268.02.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract.

The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
(40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH) are being made final. These standards
are part of EPA’s Integrated Urban Strategy to reduce cancer risk from
area sources under section 112(k)(3)(C) of the CAA. The affected sources
will have to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the
new rule.

This ICR includes the burden for activities that will be conducted in
the first three years following promulgation of the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources. The owners or
operators of facilities with these operations would read instructions to
determine how they will be affected by the rule.

New and existing sources will also have to submit an initial
notification. New sources will also be required to submit a notification
of compliance status and maintain records. Because the compliance date
for existing sources is 3 years after the NESHAP is promulgated, other
recordkeeping and reporting activities for existing sources do not begin
until 3 years after promulgation. Therefore, they are not included in
the burden estimate for the first 3 years.

	Although not necessary for this ICR, respondent burden estimates for
year 4 are included in Attachment A4, B3, C4, and the agency burden
estimates are provided in Attachment D4 to provide perspective on the
annual burden when the rule is fully implemented.

This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHHH. Owners or operators will keep records and
submit required reports to EPA or the delegated State regulatory
authority. Notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance; and are required, in general, of all sources
subject to NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the miscellaneous
surface coating NESHAP will maintain records and retain them for at
least 5 years following the date of such reports and records.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to develop NESHAP
for both new and existing major and area sources. A major source is
defined in section 112(a) as any stationary source or group of
stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common
control that emits, or has the potential to emit, considering controls,
in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tons/yr) of any one HAP or 25
tons/yr of any combination of HAP. An area source is defined in section
112(a) as any stationary source that is not a major source. Thus, area
sources do not emit nor have the potential to emit HAP at or above the
10 or 25 tons/yr thresholds.

	The CAA further requires EPA to determine the HAP emitted by area
sources that pose the greatest threat to public health in urban areas.
Specifically, section 112(k)(3)(B) instructs EPA to develop a list of at
least 30 HAP emitted by area sources that pose the greatest threat to
public health in the largest number of urban areas. Once that is
accomplished, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) direct EPA to
identify source categories of area sources that represent 90 percent of
the emissions of the 30 identified HAP. Section 112(k)(3)(C) requires
EPA to also develop a strategy under section 112 or other laws to reduce
the incidence of cancer attributable to exposure to HAP emitted by
stationary sources by not less than 75 percent, considering control of
emissions of HAP from all stationary sources and resulting from measures
implemented by EPA or by the States under the Act or other laws. On July
19, 1999, EPA published its Integrated Urban Strategy, which included
both the list of 30 HAP and the initial list of area source categories
(64 FR 38706), which included “Paint Stripping Operations”.  On June
26, 2002 and November 22, 2002, EPA added “Autobody Refinishing Paint
Shops” (67 FR 43112) and “Plastic Parts and Products (Surface
Coating)” (67 FR 70427), respectively, to the list of area source
categories. The scope of the autobody refinishing category has since
been revised to include all motor vehicle and mobile equipment
refinishing to reflect the fact that sources that perform mobile
equipment refinishing use many of the same coatings as used in motor
vehicle refinishing, and motor vehicles and mobile equipment are often
refinished at the same or similar sources. The scope of the plastic
parts and products (surface coating) source category has also been
revised to include metal parts and products to more accurately reflect
the scope of the sources analyzed in identifying that area source
category as a source of urban HAP.

Since the development of the area source category list, EPA has
determined that it is technically feasible to regulate emissions from
these three source categories by a single set of emission standards.
The processes, emission points, emission characteristics, and emission
controls for plastic parts and products surface coating and autobody
refinishing are very similar.  Additionally, paint stripping is often
performed as part of the surface preparation for both plastic parts and
autobody refinishing which, by regulating within the scope of a single
set of standards, reduces the burden of complying with multiple
standards on the sources performing both the paint stripping and
subsequent coating. This single set of emission standards to address all
three categories also minimizes the cost of developing, permitting, and
enforcing the standards.

In summary, the information obtained during the data gathering phase of
the project demonstrated that the processes, emission characteristics,
and applicable control technologies for facilities in these categories
are similar.  Based on these factors, EPA concluded that these three
categories are to be treated as a single source category for the
purposes of this rulemaking.  For purposes of the preamble and final
rule, the term paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating is used
to indicate that the three source categories of plastic parts and
products (surface coating), autobody refinishing, and paint stripping
have been treated as a single source category.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Certain notifications and reports, as described in
this information collection request, are necessary to enable the
Administrator to identify existing sources subject to the NESHAP and to
determine if the standards are being achieved.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data.

	In order to minimize HAP emissions from paint stripping, motor vehicle
and mobile equipment refinishing operations, and miscellaneous surface
coating, facilities must comply with certain equipment requirements and
management practices. The information generated by the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements described in this ICR will be used by EPA to
ensure that personnel who spray coatings are certified in the proper
selection, mixing, and application of coatings. Additionally, the
information will ensure that filters and spray guns at spray booths of
affected facilities meet the minimum efficiency requirements. Further,
this information will help EPA to maintain an updated inventory of all
sources with paint stripping or surface coating operations.

	Adequate recordkeeping and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance
with the standards, as required by the CAA. The information collected
from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting
inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in
court. To minimize the burden, much of the information, which is kept on
site, could be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection
and would not need to be routinely reported to the agency.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication.

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated State or local agency. If
a State or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the notice or report
submitted to the State or local agency can be sent to the Administrator
in lieu of the notice or report required by the Federal standards.

During the development of subpart HHHHHH, three different source
categories were combined to be regulated under a single subpart.
Subpart HHHHHH now includes sources that perform surface coating on both
motor vehicles/mobile equipment, metal or plastic parts, or paint
stripping, and this consolidation removed any duplicate rule
requirements.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

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

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2007 (72 FR
52958) as part of the proposed rulemaking.  No comments were received on
the burden published in the Federal Register that resulted in a change
in the burden estimate.

3(c) Consultations.

	During the development of this rule, EPA met with industry in order to
obtain data and input on the training, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements from the facilities potentially affected by this rule.

For motor vehicle or mobile equipment finishing or refinishing, EPA met
with the Alabama Collision Repair Industries Association, Automotive
Aftermarket Industry Association, Automotive Service Association,
California Autobody Association, Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Autobody
Association, Coordinating Committee For Automotive Repair (C-CAR),
Collision Industry Council, Inter-Industry Conference on Auto Collision
Repair (I-CAR), I-CAR Education Foundation, National Association of
Fleet Administrators, National Automobile Dealers Association, National
Paint and Coatings Association, and the National Institute for
Automotive Service Excellence (ASE).

	For miscellaneous parts and products surface coating, EPA contacted the
Composite Manufacturers Association in order to obtain data and input
from the facilities potentially affected by this rule.  The EPA also set
up a web-based pilot-project for sources to visit and submit data on
miscellaneous surface coating operations.  Neither of these sources
provided data or input on the proposed rulemaking or associated burdens.

	For paint stripping, the EPA will alert industry groups such as the
Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), and State and Local
governments of its pending publication. The EPA will also involve the
Small Business Administration (SBA) to assist in outreach to small
business entities that may not otherwise be aware of the final rule.

The public also had the opportunity to review and comment on the
proposed rule and the ICR during the specified comment period.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

The final rule includes the minimum requirements needed to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the rule. Less frequent information
collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are
continuing to meet the final standards. Requirements for information
gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that
equipment requirements and work practices are applied. If the
information required by the standards were collected less frequently,
the likelihood of detecting inadequate equipment or operating practices
would decrease and emissions would increase.

3(e) General Guidelines.

The standards require affected facilities to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least 5 years. This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.
Also, the retention of records for 5 years would allow EPA to establish
the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for
purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action.
Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently
have violations extending beyond the 5 years. The EPA would be prevented
from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence
of records if records were retained for less than 5 years.

Additionally,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 no reports or compliance
notifications from existing sources are submitted in the first 3 years
after promulgation of the rule. The only burden for owners and operators
of existing sources in the first 3 years is to read and understand the
rule requirements and submit an initial notification letter, and
maintain records indicating that all spray painters have received
appropriate training. The other activities take place after the
compliance date.  The compliance date is 3 years after the promulgation
date, so compliance reporting does not begin until the fourth year after
promulgation.

3(f) Confidentiality.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 All information submitted to EPA for which a claim
of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies
set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B --
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976, amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978;
43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g) Sensitive Questions.

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents and NAICS Codes.

	Subpart HHHHHH has affected sources from three different source
categories, which include: paint stripping, miscellaneous surface
coating, and motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating. The
following are the industrial classification of entities potentially
regulated by the final rule. This list is not meant to be exhaustive,
but it serves as a guide for entities required to submit information
discussed in this ICR.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : NAICS Categories for Various Affected
Sources

Category	NAICS	Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities

Paint Stripping

Natural Gas Liquid Extraction	211112	Natural Gas Liquid Extraction.

Spices and Extracts	311942	Spices and Extracts.

Mobile Homes	321991	Mobile Homes.

Basic Chemical Manufacturing	325110

325120

325131

325188

325192

325193

325199	Petrochemicals, Industrial Gases, Inorganic Dyes and Pigments,
Basic Inorganic and Organic Chemicals, Cyclic Crude and Intermediates,
Ethyl Alcohol.

Plastics Material Synthetic Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers
325211	Plastics Material Synthetic Resins, and Nonvulcanizable
Elastomers.

Paint and Coating Manufacturing	325510	Paint and Coating Manufacturing.

Miscellaneous Chemical Production and Preparation	325998	Miscellaneous
Chemical Production and Preparation.

Alumina Refining	331311	Alumina Refining.

All Other Plastics Products	326199	All Other Plastics Products.

All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing   	339999	All Other Miscellaneous
Manufacturing.

Waste Treatment and Disposal	562211

562212

562213

562219	Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Solid Waste Landfill,
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators, Other Nonhazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal.

Materials Recovery 	562920	Materials Recovery.

Reupholstery and Furniture Repair 	811420	Reupholstery and Furniture
Repair.

Miscellaneous Surface Coating

Aerospace Equipment<PHONE_NUMBER>14 336415

54171	Aircraft engines, aircraft parts, aerospace ground equipment.

Automobile Parts<PHONE_NUMBER>11<PHONE_NUMBER>12

 33632

 33633

33634

33637

336399	Engine parts, vehicle parts and accessories, brakes, axles, etc.

Motor vehicle body manufacturing and automobile assembly plants.

Extruded Aluminum<PHONE_NUMBER>24<PHONE_NUMBER>23	Extruded aluminum,
architectural components, coils, rod, and tubes.

Heavy Equipment	33312

333611 	Tractors, earth moving machinery.

Job Shops<PHONE_NUMBER>13<PHONE_NUMBER>19<PHONE_NUMBER>99	Any of the products
from the miscellaneous metal parts and products segments.

Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified (e.g., bezels,
consoles, panels, lenses).

Large Trucks and Buses	33612

336211	Large trucks and buses.

Metal Buildings	332311	Prefabricated metal: buildings, carports, docks,
dwellings, greenhouses, panels for buildings.

Metal Containers	33242

81131

322214  331513 	Drums, kegs, pails, shipping containers.

Metal Pipe and Foundry<PHONE_NUMBER>13

33121

331221 331511	Plate, tube, rods, nails, etc.

Rail Trans-portation	33651<PHONE_NUMBER>11	Brakes, engines, freight cars,
locomotives.

Recreational Vehicles	3369

331316<PHONE_NUMBER>11<PHONE_NUMBER>13<PHONE_NUMBER>99	Motorcycles, motor
homes, semi trailers, truck trailers.

Rubber-to- Metal Products<PHONE_NUMBER>99	Engine mounts, rubberized tank
tread, harmonic balancers.

Structural Steel<PHONE_NUMBER>12	Joists, railway bridge sections, highway
bridge sections.

Other

Transportation Equipment<PHONE_NUMBER>13<PHONE_NUMBER>99

33635

56121

8111

56211	Miscellaneous transportation related equipment and parts. Truck
trailer manufacturing. Motor home manufacturing.   Travel trailer and
camper manufacturing.

Other industrial and commercial	337214	Office furniture, except wood.

Miscellaneous Plastic Parts	32614

32615

326199	Plastic foam products (e.g., pool floats, wrestling mats, life
jackets).

Plastic products not elsewhere classified (e.g., name plates, coin
holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup
holders).

Office Equipment	333313	Office machines.

Electronics	33422	Radio and television broadcasting and communications
equipment (e.g., cellular telephones).

Medical Equipment	339111, 339112	Medical equipment and supplies.

Sporting Equipment	33992	Sporting and athletic goods.

Signs	33995	Signs and advertising specialties.

Marine Equipment	336612

713930	Boat building

Marinas, including boat repair yards

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing

Commercial	441110

441120

811121	New Car Dealers; Used Car Dealers; Automotive Body, Paint, and
Interior Repair and Maintenance.

Government	Not Applicable	Government entities, besides Department of
Defense, that maintain vehicles, such as school buses, police and
emergency vehicles, transit buses, or highway maintenance vehicles.

4(b) Information Requested.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (i) Data items. The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the final rule include the following:

Initial notification letter §63.11175(a)

Notification of compliance status §63.11175(b)

Annual notification of changes reports §63.11176(a)1

Records of painter certification §63.11177(a)

Records of filter efficiency §63.11177(b)

Records of spray gun efficiency §63.1177(c)

Records of notifications and annual reports §63.11177(d)1

Records of annual usage of methylene chloride (MeCl) in paint strippers
§63.11177(e)

Records of current methylene chloride minimization §63.11177(f)3

Records of deviations from compliance §63.11177(g)1

(ii) Respondent Activities. Both new and existing sources

must read the rule and understand the rule requirements. Respondents
must also submit notifications and annual reports according to the
timelines specified in the rule. Each source must maintain all
applicable records for 5 years.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities.

	A list of Agency Activities is provided in Attachments D1 to D3.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management.

	Reports submitted to the Agency and records maintained by the
respondents may be tabulated and published for use in compliance and
enforcement programs.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility.

	Affected facilities are primarily small entities (e.g., small
businesses). Because of the large number of small businesses that are
likely to be affected by this rule, the reporting requirements for the
individual facilities are minimal. There are no quarterly or semiannual
requirements as there are with most regulated large industries. The
burden is further minimized since costly monitoring equipment, or
performance tests are not required. For this ICR, it is estimated that
out of the existing sources 93.5 percent (37,224 sources) are estimated
to be small businesses.

5(d) Collection Schedule.

	The information collection schedule is different for new and existing
sources subject to the final rule. New sources are required to submit
their initial notification and notification of compliance within 180
days after their initial start-up or 180 days after this rule is
promulgated. Existing sources have two year from the date the rule is
promulgated to submit the initial notification and three years and 60
days after the rule is promulgated to submit the notification of
compliance, if required. These two notifications are one-time-only
burdens.

	New and existing sources must also submit an annual report5 for each
calendar year by March 1 of the following year if there are any changes
in the information contained in the initial notification since the
initial notification or a previous report of changes, starting with the
year of the initial compliance date for the source. This corresponds to
the first annual report being submitted in years 2 and 4 of this ICR for
new and existing sources, respectively.

	Records of each notification, annual report and deviations from
compliance, if required, must be kept at the source for five years.
Owners of affected surface coating operations must maintain additional
records of painter certification dates and refresher training dates,
spray booth filter efficiency, and spray gun efficiency provided by the
manufacturers.  Owners of an affected paint stripping operation must
maintain additional records of annual MeCl usage in paint stripping
operations. Owners of affected paint stripping operations that use more
than one ton of MeCl in paint strippers, per year, must maintain a
record of their MeCl minimization plan on-site for the duration of their
facility’s operations.  The data items and respondent activities for
surface coating operations are summarized in Attachments A1 to A3
(commercial entities), Attachments B1 to B3 (government-owned entities).
Since the respondent activities are slightly different, the requirements
for affected paint stripping operations are summarized in Attachments C1
to C3.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

	Tables A1-A3, B1-B3, and C1-C3 in Attachments A to C present an
itemized breakdown of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
the first 3 years for the respondents subject to the final NESHAP.

	The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings
consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Where appropriate, the specific tasks and major assumptions have been
identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory. 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.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

Labor Costs.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Labor rates, on a per-hour basis, are from the
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2005. The occupational category
that is the most similar to personnel at affected facilities with
miscellaneous surface coating operations or paint stripping operations
is assumed to be an average (mean) of “Automotive Body, Paint,
Interior, and Glass Repair,” “Plastics Product Manufacturing,” and
“Fabricated metal product manufacturing.”   This ICR uses the labor
rates for the following occupations within these categories: for
technical labor, an average of automotive body and related repairers,
and environmental engineers; for managerial labor, first-line
supervisors/managers of mechanics/installers/repairers, and engineering
managers; for clerical labor, file clerks and secretaries.   SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 The hourly mean wage rates from May 2005 have been multiplied by
a factor of 1.6 so that overhead and benefits are included in the
per-hour labor rates used to estimate respondent costs. The resulting
rates used are $45 for technical personnel, $58 for management and $19
for clerical personnel.

	(ii) Capital Costs.

	Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to
provide the information, such as machinery, computers, and other
equipment. EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital
costs in carrying out the information collection requirements covered in
this ICR.

	(iii) Operations and Maintenance Costs.

	Sources will incur costs for photocopying and mailing notifications and
reports. For this ICR, a one-time operations cost of $1 for mailing and
making a photocopy of each initial notification and notification of
compliance, and a $3 operations cost for mailing and making a photocopy
of each annual report is included in the burden estimate.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

	The only costs to Agency are those costs associated with EPA Regions
and States reviewing the rule, and reviewing notifications and reports
submitted by the respondents and maintaining a list of units subject to
the Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources rule. The
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 labor rates for Agency employees are based on the
estimated labor rates from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2005 for
“Federal, State and Local Government”. This ICR uses the labor rates
for the following occupations within this category:  engineering
managers for managerial labor; environmental engineering technicians for
technical labor; and secretaries, except legal, medical, and executive
for clerical labor. The hourly mean wage rates from May 2005 have been
multiplied by a factor of 1.6 so that overhead and benefits are included
in the per-hour labor rates used to estimate respondent costs. The
resulting rates used are $32.75 for technical personnel, $72.45 for
management and $25.06 for clerical personnel.

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

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The EPA estimates that the total number of
potentially affected facilities is approximately 39,812 sources. This
number of sources is expected to remain constant over the period of this
ICR. However, it is expected that an average of 1,593 new
commercially-owned motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing
sources and 25 new miscellaneous surface coating sources will start-up
each year over the next three years to replace existing sources which
may go out of business. No new state or local government-owned mobile
equipment refinishing shops are expected to start-up during this ICR
period.  A table showing the estimated number of sources for each
category is shown in Table 2 below.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2  Summary of Respondent Universe

Category	Number of Existing Sources in Year 1	New Sources in Year 1 of
ICR*	New Sources in Year 2 of ICR	New Sources in Year 3 of ICR

Miscellaneous Surface Coating	781	50	25	25

Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing	32,545	3,186
1,593	1,593

Government Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing	250	0	0	0

Paint Stripping	3,000	0	0	0

Totals	  =SUM(ABOVE)  36,576 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  3,236 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1,618
	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1,618

* See Table A1, note (d).  The total number of sources in Year 1 is
39,812.

	The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3  Number of Responses per Respondent per
Year

Category

(A)

Annual Number of New Respondents (Average Year 1,2, and 3)

(B)

Number of Reports for New Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents

(D)*

Number of Reports for Existing Respondents

(F)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit
Reports

(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(AxB)+(CxD)+F

Miscellaneous Surface Coating	33	3	781	1	0
=SUM(PRODUCT(b2,c2),PRODUCT(d2,e2),f2)  1081

Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing	2,124	3	32,545
1	0	38,917

Government Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing	0	3	250	1	0
=SUM(PRODUCT(b4,c4),PRODUCT(d4,e4),f4)  250

Paint Stripping	0	3	1,050	1	1,950	1,050

Total	  =SUM(ABOVE)  6,472

  =SUM(ABOVE)  34,426

	41,298

* Responses for existing sources are only the initial notification,
which is a one-time burden during this three year ICR period.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 41,298, these responses include
initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, and annual
compliance reports and it does not count recordkeeping activities as a
response. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Attachment
Tables A1 to C3.

	Due to the schedule of information collected under this ICR, the number
of sources subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements will vary
over the three-year period.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Respondent burden is
calculated based on the assumption that the total number of units will
remain constant during years one through three even though some units
will qualify as new units under this final rule.

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

	(i) Respondent Tally.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 An annual breakdown for
each of the reporting, and recordkeeping activities required by the
final rule is presented in Tables A1 through C3 in Attachments A, B,
and C, which represent years 1 through 3 of this ICR. Attachment A
presents the burden on commercially-owned surface coating facilities,
Attachment B presents the burden on government-owned surface coating
facilities, and Attachment C presents the burden on paint stripping
sources.  The estimate of total annual hours requested from the
respondents was based on the assumptions outlined in section 6(d) of
this ICR. The EPA estimated the respondent burden for the first 3 years
after the promulgation of the NESHAP by totaling the hours per year for
technical, managerial, and clerical staff at the facility. Due to the
absence of capital or start-up costs in the first 3 years, there are no
annualized capital costs. There are minimal operating and maintenance
costs incurred in the first 3 years for each notification and report
that is mailed to the Agency and copied for a facility record. The
average annual respondent burden for the 3-year period is 246,703 hours,
$10,154,722 in labor costs and $24,670 in operating and maintenance
costs. A summary of the total annual burden and costs are shown in Table
4 below.

Table 4 Summary of Burden and Costs for the Affected Source Categories

 	Sector	Commercial Surface Coating	Government Surface Coating	Paint
Stripping	Total

Year 1	Burden Hours	           604,346 	              4,175
17,250 	      625,771

	Labor Cost	 $  25,332,136 	 $ 174,920 	 $    749,655 	$ 26,256,711

	O&M cost	 $  38,967 	 $ 250 	 $         3,000 	 $ 42,217

Year 2	Burden Hours	              41,801 	                    -
     9,660 	  51,461

	Labor Cost	 $ 1,629,992 	 $ - 	 $  419,807 	 $   2,049,798

	O&M cost	 $ 12,944 	$ -	 $ -   	 $ 12,944

Year 3	Burden Hours	              45,620 	                     -
   17,258 	  62,878

	Labor Cost	 $ 1,795,962 	 $ -  	 $ 361,695 	 $   2,157,657

	O&M cost	 $17,798 	 $                  - 	 $ 1,050 	 $       18,848

Annual  Average	Burden Hours	           230,589 	              1,392
       14,723 	            246,704

	Labor Cost	 $  9,586,030 	 $ 58,307 	 $ 510,386 	 $10,154,723

	O&M cost	 $  23,236 	 $ 83 	 $ 1,350 	 $  24,669

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (ii) The Agency Tally. The bottom line Designated
Administrator burden hours and costs, presented in Tables D1 through D3
in Attachment D, were calculated by totaling the hours per year for
technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by totaling the cost
column. The average annual Agency burden over the first 3 years is
12,004 hours and $698,462 of labor costs. There are no capital, start-up
or operating and maintenance costs in the first 3 years. A summary of
each year of Agency Burden is presented below in Table 5.

Table 5  Summary of Agency Burden for Years 1-3 of this ICR.

 	 	Agency

Year 1	Burden Hours	               27,035

	Labor Cost	 $ 1,790,172

	O&M cost	 $              -

Year 2	Burden Hours	                 3,721

	Labor Cost	 $   126,528

	O&M cost	 $              -

Year 3	Burden Hours	           5,256

	Labor Cost	 $   178,687

	O&M cost	 $              -

3-year Average	Burden Hours	    12,004

	Labor Cost	 $  698,462

	O&M cost	 $              -

(iii) Variation in the Annual Bottom Line.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The
total respondent labor costs for years 1, 2, and 3 are $26,256,711;
$2,049,798; and $2,157,657, respectively. The total O&M costs are
$42,217; $12,944; and $18,848, respectively. The corresponding total
number of respondent hours during this period is 625,771 hours, 51,461
hours, and 62,877 hours, which are shown in Table 4 above and
Attachments A1 to C3. The variation in the burden for each of the three
years is a result of the number of information collection activities
required, based on the initial collection schedule and the fact that
some burdens are one-time-only information collection activities.
Starting in year four, which is shown in Attachments A4, B4, and C4,
both existing and new sources are required to meet all the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements and the annual burden is expected to stay
relatively constant from that point forward.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 During the first 3 years, the Agency will be
reviewing the regulation, and reviewing the initial notifications from
all sources and the compliance notifications and initial annual
compliance reports from the new sources. In years 1, 2, and 3, the
Agency will expend 27,035; 3,721; and 5,256 total hours in labor,
respectively. The corresponding costs for each year are $1,790,172;
$126,528; and $178,687.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

       SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 There was no comment on the ICR during the
comment period that resulted in a change in the burden estimate.
Therefore, the burden for the final rule remains unchanged from the
proposed rule.

6(g) Burden Statement.

     The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average approximately 6 hours
per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

	An electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the
Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526 and OMB Control Number 2060-NEW in any
correspondence.

	Part B of the Supporting Statement

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

List of Attachments

Note:  Where we use the term “Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations” in these table headings, we are referring to both the
plastic/metal surface coating operations and autobody refinishing
surface coating operations.

Attachment A

Table A1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Commercial Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources - Year 1

Table A2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Commercial Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources - Year 2

Table A3. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Commercial Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources - Year 3

Table A4. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Commercial Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources - Year 4 (all existing sources comply)

Attachment B

Table B1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Government Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources - Year 1

Table B2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Government Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources - Year 2

Table B3. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Government Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources - Year 3

Table B4. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Government Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources - Year 4 (all existing sources comply)

Attachment C

Table C1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Paint Stripping Operations at Area Sources -
Year 1

Table C2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Paint Stripping Operations at Area Sources -
Year 2

Table C3. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Paint Stripping Operations at Area Sources -
Year 3

Table C4. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements of Paint Stripping at Area Sources - Year 4 (all
existing sources comply)

Attachment D

Table D1. Annual Designated Administrator Burden and Cost of
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations At Area Sources - Year 1

Table D2. Annual Designated Administrator Burden and Cost of
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations At Area Sources - Year 2

Table D3. Annual Designated Administrator Burden and Cost of
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations At Area Sources - Year 3

Table D4. Annual Designated Administrator Burden and Cost of
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations At Area Sources - Year 4 (all
existing sources comply)

 These notifications/reports/records are not required of paint stripping
facilities using one ton or less of methylene chloride (MeCl) for paint
stripping per year.

 These records are only required if a source does not have a polyester
fiber or fiberglass filter.  If a source has another type of filter, it
is assumed that the manufacturer of the alternative filter would perform
the test.  The only burden on the source would be the burden associated
with recording and maintaining a file of this filter efficiency as
reported by the manufacturer.

 These records are only required for sources without an HVLP that opt to
test non-HVLP type spray guns.

 These records are only required of sources with paint stripping
operations that have an annual usage of more than one ton of MeCl.

 Notifications of compliance and annual compliance reports are not
required from paint stripping facilities with annual usage of 1 ton or
less of MeCl in paint stripping operations.

 See the Memorandum in Docket #EPA-OAR-2005-0526 entitled “Estimating
The Number Of Automotive Refinishing Shops And The Projected Number Of
New Shops”.

 PAGE

  PAGE  1

  PAGE  25


[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33669-33672]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-30]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0010; FRL-8182-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Amendments to Existing Regulation Provisions Concerning
Maintenance, Nonattainment, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These revisions
consist of amendments to state regulation provisions concerning
maintenance, nonattainment, and prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) areas for incorporation into the Virginia SIP. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2005-VA-0010 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0010, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2005-VA-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly

available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in

hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 15, 17, 19, September 28, and October 3, 2005, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality,
submitted revisions to its SIP. These revisions consisted of amendments
to Virginia's regulations pertaining to nonattainment, maintenance, and
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) areas. More detailed
information on these proposed revisions can be found in the technical
support document (TSD) prepared for this rulemaking.
    Listed below is a summary of each of the revisions that is being
proposed for incorporation into the Virginia SIP.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    A. On August 15, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
revision to its SIP. This revision eliminates the air quality
maintenance area (AQMA) concept found in 9 VAC 5-20-203, which was
promulgated by the EPA in the 1970's, and replaces it with the
maintenance area concept consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA). This action will not result in the backsliding of
any control measures that have been submitted by the Commonwealth and
approved by EPA into the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP. The August 15,
2005 revision also reflects the redesignation of the Hampton Roads Area
to attainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) (62 FR 34408, June 26, 1997), by adding the area to
the list of ozone maintenance areas found in 9 VAC 5-20-203.1, and
deleting the area from the list of 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas
found in 9 VAC 5-20-204.1(c). Additionally, this revision removes the
exclusion of the Hampton Roads Area from the list of PSD areas found in
9 VAC 5-20-205.A.4(f).
    B. On August 17, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
revision to its SIP. This revision reflects the redesignation of the
Richmond 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment (62 FR 61237,
November 17, 1997), of the 1-hour standard by amending 9 VAC 5-20-
204.1(b) to remove the Richmond Area from the list of areas regulated
as nonattainment areas, and adding it to the list of maintenance areas
found in 9 VAC 5-20-203.1. The revision also reflects the removal of
the exemption of the Richmond Area from the list of PSD areas found in
9 VAC 5-20-205.A(e).
    C. On August 19, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
revision to its SIP. This revision reflects the first repeal of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS (63 FR 31087, June 5, 1998), by removing the White Top
Mountain Area from the list of 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas found
in 9 VAC 5-20-204.1(b). The revision further amends 9 VAC 5-20-205.A(4)
by removing the exemption of the White Top Mountain Area from the list
of areas subject to regulation as a PSD area.
    In the June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31087) final rulemaking, the 1-hour
ozone standard was repealed for areas that had not measured a current
violation of the 1-hour standard. All of Smyth County, Virginia,
including the White Top Mountain Area, was one of the areas where the
1-hour standard no longer applied. The August 19, 2005 SIP revision
reflects this repeal of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by removing the White
Top Mountain Area from the list of 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas in
9 VAC 5-20-204.1(b) and removing its exclusion from the list of PSD
areas in 9 VAC 5-20-205.A(4). However, in a 1999 court decision, EPA's
previous determinations on the applicability of the 1-hour ozone
standard (63 FR 31014 June 5, 1998), were challenged, and as a result,
on October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57424), EPA proposed that the 1-hour ozone
standard would be reinstated in those areas where it had previously
been revoked and the associated designations and classifications that
previously applied in such areas with respect to the 1-hour NAAQS would
also be reinstated. In a July 20, 2000 (65 FR 45182) final rule, EPA
reinstated the White Top Mountain Area as a rural transport (marginal)
ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The effective
date for the reinstatement of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the White Top
Mountain Area was January 16, 2001 (65 FR 45182).
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA published the first phase of
its final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (Phase I Rule). Also
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA published 8-hour ozone
designations for all areas of the country. For most areas, including
the White Top Mountain Area, the designations under the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS became effective on June 15, 2004. The Phase I Rule provided that
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would no longer apply for an area one year
following the effective date of the area's designation for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. On August 3, 2005 (70 FR 44470), EPA issued a final rule
that codified the revocation of the 1-hour standard for those areas
with effective 8-hour ozone designations. On June 15, 2005, all of
Smyth County, Virginia was no longer subject to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and was designated attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Now that the
1-hour standard has been revoked and the White Top Mountain Area is
designated attainment for all NAAQS, the only permitting program
Virginia must have under Title 1 of the CAA is the PSD program.
Therefore, EPA can now approve these changes to 9 VAC 5-20-204.1(b) and
9 VAC 5-20-205.A(4) for the White Top Mountain Area that were submitted
on August 19, 2005 into the Virginia SIP.
    D. On September 28, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
revision to its SIP. The revision consists of updates to existing
regulations by incorporating the new 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
into the list of Virginia's nonattainment areas found in 9 VAC 5-20-
204.A and revising the list of PSD areas found in 9 VAC 5-20-205.A. The
revision also adds a provision, 9 VAC 5-20-204.B., which removes the
severe area program in the Northern Virginia Ozone Nonattainment Area
as the area was constituted under the 1-hour standard. Because the
severe area program imposed more stringent requirements than required
under section 184 of the CAA in that area, Virginia did not need to
have a separate new source review (NSR) program meeting the section 184
requirements. On January 6, 2006, (FR 71 890), EPA proposed to approve
a SIP revision to implement the NSR program required under section 184
of the CAA in Virginia's portion of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
EPA is proposing approval of the September 28, 2005 SIP revision
contingent upon EPA issuing a final action approving the January 6,
2006 (71 FR 890) rulemaking. It should be noted that since the
September 28, 2005 SIP revision submittal, EPA has redesignated the
Fredericksburg (December 23, 2005, 70 FR 76165), and Shenandoah
National Park (January 3, 2006, 71 FR 24) areas

to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The revision to 9 VAC 5-20-205.A amends the list of PSD areas by
deleting the list of specific localities and incorporating language
indicating that the areas subject to PSD are those areas that are not
designated as nonattainment in 9 VAC 5-20-204.A. The September 28, 2005
SIP submittal also removes mercury, beryllium, asbestos, and vinyl
chloride from the list of pollutants found in 9 VAC 5-20-205.B for
which PSD areas are defined. The 1990 Amendments to the CAA at section
112(b)(6) exempted hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed under section
112(b)(1) from the PSD requirements in part C of the CAA. These HAPS
include: arsenic, asbestos, benzene, beryllium, mercury, radionuclides,
and vinyl chloride, all of which were previously regulated under the
PSD rules. Virginia has consequently removed these pollutants from 9
VAC 5-205.B to conform to the 1990 CAA Amendments.
    E. On October 3, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
revision to its SIP. This revision updates existing regulations to 9
VAC 5-20-204.A.2 by changing the nonattainment classification of the
Richmond 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from ``moderate'' to
``marginal.'' This change reflects EPA's reclassification of the
Richmond Area which was published on September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697).

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege''' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) That are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law,Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP
revisions amending existing regulations pertaining to nonattainment,
maintenance and PSD areas which were submitted on August 15, 17, 19,
September 28, and October 3, 2005. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
    This proposed rule, pertaining to amendments to existing regulation
provisions concerning Virginia's nonattainment, maintenance, and PSD
areas, does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 1, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E6-9081 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 31611]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13570]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0401; FRL-9313-7]

Biennial Determination of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's
Compliance with Applicable Federal Environmental Laws for the Period
2008 to 2010

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Based on documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``we'') determined that,
between 2008 and 2010, DOE operated the WIPP facility in compliance
with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and permit requirements
designated in Section 9(a)(1) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as
amended. The Secretary of Energy was notified of the determination via
a letter from EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson dated May 25, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Stone; telephone number: (214)
665-7226; address: WIPP Project Officer, Mail Code 6PD-O, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies Of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0401; FRL-9313-7]. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies
of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged
for photocopying.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Background

    EPA made this determination under the authority of Section 9 of the
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA). (Pub. L. 102-579 and 104-201.)
Section 9(a)(1) of the WIPP LWA requires that, as of the date of the
enactment of the WIPP LWA, DOE shall comply with respect to WIPP with
(1) Regulations for the management and storage of radioactive waste (40
CFR part 191, subpart A); (2) the Clean Air Act; (3) the Solid Waste
Disposal Act; (4) the Safe Drinking Water Act; (5) the Toxic Substances
Control Act; (6) the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; and (7) all other applicable Federal
laws pertaining to public health and safety or the environment. Section
9(a)(2) of the WIPP LWA requires DOE biennially to submit to EPA
documentation of continued compliance with the laws, regulations, and
permit requirements set forth in Section 9(a)(1). (DOE must also submit
similar documentation of compliance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act
to the State of New Mexico.) Section 9(a)(3) requires the Administrator
of EPA to determine, on a biennial basis following the submittal of
documentation of compliance by the Secretary of DOE, whether the WIPP
is in compliance with the pertinent laws, regulations, and permit
requirements, as set forth at Section 9(a)(1).
    We determined that for the period 2008 to 2010, the DOE-submitted
documentation showed continued compliance with 40 CFR part 191, subpart
A, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act. With respect to other applicable
Federal laws pertaining to public health and safety or the environment,
as required by Section 9(a)(1)(G), DOE's documentation indicates that
DOE was in compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and certain statutes under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior.
    This determination is not in any way related to, or a part of, our
certification and recertification decisions regarding whether the WIPP
complies with EPA's disposal regulations for transuranic radioactive
waste at 40 CFR Part 191.

    Dated: May 25, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-13570 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63548-63551]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22656]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96061; File No. SR-FICC-2022-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Clarify and Update GSD Rules, MBSD Rules and EPN Rules

October 13, 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 October

7, 2022, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') 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. FICC 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

    (a) The proposed rule change of Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC'') consists of modifications to the FICC Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules''), the FICC Mortgage-Backed
Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules'') and the
Electronic Pool Notification (``EPN'') Rules of MBSD (``EPN Rules,''
and together with the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, the ``Rules'').
    Specifically, the proposed rule change would (i) clarify GSD Rules,
MBSD Rules and EPN Rules concerning admission to FICC premises, (ii)
update EPN Rules related to FICC's maintenance of fidelity insurance
bond, (iii) remove outdated EPN Rules related distribution facilities,
and (iv) clarify GSD Rules and MBSD Rules concerning Settling Banks'
ability to refuse to settle. The proposed changes are designed to
clarify and update certain sections of the Rules and enhance the
transparency of those Rules by conforming, as appropriate, provisions
in certain sections of the Rules with similar rules of FICC's
affiliates, as described in greater detail below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein are defined
in the MBSD Rules, GSD Rules, and the EPN Rules, as applicable,
available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    FICC is proposing to clarify and update the Rules and enhance the
transparency of those Rules through modifications related to (i)
credentials required to access the premises of FICC, (ii) FICC's
maintenance of a fidelity insurance bond, (iii) existence of
distribution facilities of FICC, and (iv) clarification of Settling
Banks' and Cash Settling Banks' ability to refuse to settle for itself.
    First, the proposed changes would enhance the transparency of these
Rules by providing participants of FICC with updated, clear
information. Second, the proposed changes would simplify and update
these Rules by removing information that either (a) describes internal
processing and does not provide participants with important information
regarding any applicable service, or (b) no longer describes FICC's
current operations. Finally, the proposed changes would conform those
Rules with similar rules of FICC affiliates, The Depository Trust
Company (``DTC'') and National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC,'' and, together with FICC and DTC, the ``Clearing Agencies''),
where appropriate.
    The proposed changes are discussed in detail below.
(i) Admission to FICC Premises
    First, FICC is proposing to revise GSD Rule 27 (Admissions to
Premises of the Corporation, Powers of Attorney, ETC.), MBSD Rule 20
(Admissions to Premises of the Corporation, Powers of Attorney, ETC.)
and EPN Rule 4 of Article III,\6\ (Admission to Premises of
Corporation; Powers of Attorney), which provide for the approval and
subsequent revocation of access to FICC's premises by a participant's
employee, or a person to whom a power of attorney or other
authorization has been given to act for a participant, in connection
with the work of FICC. The proposed changes to these Rules would add
information regarding the need for any representative of a participant
to prominently display credentials to gain entry and remain on the
premises of FICC. The proposed rule change of EPN Rule 4 of Article III
also clarifies the need to provide FICC with immediate notice of a
change of circumstances resulting in the revocation of such
credentials. The proposed changes further outline FICC's processes for
allowing participants onto FICC's premises and, therefore, enhance the
transparency of these Rules. The proposed change would allow FICC to
continue to monitor and ensure the safety of its employees and guests,
while clarifying expectations for participants and representatives of
participants while on FICC premises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All references to ``Articles'' herein shall refer to
Articles of the EPN Rules, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would conform GSD Rule 27,
MBSD Rule 20 and EPN Rule 4 of Article III with DTC Rule 17 and NSCC
Rule 27.\7\ By conforming the descriptions in similar rules across the
Clearing Agencies where there is no difference in FICC's processes and
therefore no need for differing language, the proposed changes would
improve predictability and transparency for visitors of FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The DTC Rules and NSCC Rules are available on DTCC's public
website, available at https://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Maintenance of Fidelity Bond
    Next, FICC is proposing to revise EPN Rule 6, Section 3 of Article
V (Fidelity Bond) which currently provides for FICC's maintenance of
fidelity bond coverage in an amount of not less than $10,000,000. FICC
is proposing to amend this rule to replace the existing language with a
more general description of FICC's obligation to maintain appropriate
insurance, including fidelity bonds, related to its business, to
provide access to such insurance policies or contracts to EPN Users and
to notify each EPN User and the Commission of any material reduction in
such insurance coverage. FICC is proposing to replace the current
language of this rule with a more general description because FICC does
not believe the current rule provides EPN Users with important
information regarding their rights and obligations, or FICC's rights
and obligations, in connection with this obligation to maintain
insurance coverage. In general, FICC maintains a significantly higher
amount of fidelity bond coverage than that required in this rule.
    In addition, the proposed changes would conform the language of EPN
Rule 6, Section 3 of Article V with those of MBSD Rule 25, DTC Rule 14,
and NSCC Rule 34 and GSD Rules 34.\8\ By conforming the descriptions in
similar rules across the Clearing Agencies where there is no difference
in FICC's processes and therefore no need for differing language, the
proposed changes would improve predictability and transparency for
firms that are

participants with multiple Clearing Agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Distribution Facilities
    FICC is also proposing to change the EPN Rules by deleting EPN Rule
20 of Article V (Distribution Facilities) because it does not currently
maintain such facilities and has no plans to do so. Therefore, this
proposed change would reflect FICC's current processes and improve the
clarity the EPN Rules.
    EPN Rule 20 of Article V currently states that FICC may, if it
deems necessary, establish distribution facilities ``for the
distribution of papers, documents and other material incidental to the
ordinary course of business'' to be used by EPN Users. To FICC's
knowledge, FICC has not utilized such option and based on current FICC
processes and procedures, FICC does not believe it would be necessary
to establish such facilities in the future. As such, the proposed
change would not impede any EPN Users from engaging in the services or
have an adverse impact on such firms.
(iv) Settlement by Settling Banks and Cash Settling Banks
    Lastly, FICC is proposing to revise GSD Rule 13, Section 5(b)
(Funds-Only Settlement Amount Payment Process) and MBSD Rule 11,
Section 9(b) (Cash Settlement) to clarify that a Settling Bank and a
Cash Settling Bank, respectively, may not refuse to settle for itself.
    GSD Rule 13, Section 5(b) currently provides that Funds-Only
Settling Banks must acknowledge to FICC by a certain time their
intention to either settle their Net Funds-Only Settlement Figures or
their refusal to settle for one or more Netting Members. MBSD Rule 11,
Section 9(b) currently provides that Cash Settling Banks must
acknowledge to FICC by a certain time their intention to either settle
their Total Debit Cash Balance Figures and Total Credit Cash Balance
Figures or their refusal to settle for one or more particular Member.
    The proposed change to these rules, would clarify that a Settling
Bank and a Cash Settling Bank cannot refuse to settle for itself. The
proposed change would codify a longstanding practice and understanding
among participants of the Clearing Agencies. As Netting Members and
Members have an ongoing responsibility to settle their own obligations,
a Netting Member or Member who serves as a Settling Bank or Cash
Settling Bank, respectively, would carry the same responsibility on its
own behalf. More specifically, GSD Rule 13, Section 5(e) states that if
the Funds-Only Settling Bank does not acknowledge, or sends a refusal
regarding, the Netting Member's Funds-Only Settlement Amount that is a
debit or if the Funds-Only Settling Bank acknowledges the amount but
then does not settle the payment, the Netting Member shall remain
obligated, pursuant to the Rules, to pay such Amount by the payment
deadline.\9\ MBSD Rule 11, Section 9(e) states that if the Cash
Settling Bank does not acknowledge, or sends a refusal regarding, the
Member's Cash Settlement amount that is a debit or if the Cash Settling
Bank acknowledges the amount but then does not settle the payment, the
Member shall remain obligated, pursuant to the Rules, to pay such Cash
Settlement amount by the payment deadline.\10\ Therefore, if Settling
Bank or a Cash Settling Bank is a Netting Member or a Member,
respectively, it would be subject, as a Netting Member or Member, to
the obligation to settle on its own behalf pursuant to the obligations
of Netting Members and Member under the Rules cited above. While a
Settling Bank and Cash Settling Bank may refuse to settle for another
participant that has engaged it as a settling bank, in which case, the
participant's obligation to settle on its own behalf would be
triggered, it cannot refuse to settle for itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change would clarify and increase transparency of
these Rules. In addition, the proposed change would conform GSD Rule
13, Section 5(b) and MBSD Rule 11, Section 9(b) with DTC Rule 9D and
NSCC Rule 55, which state in clearer terms that settling banks cannot
refuse to settle on its own behalf.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions and to protect investors and the public
interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes the proposed rule change would promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions by FICC,
consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular Section
17A(b)(3)(F), cited above.\12\ Specifically, the proposed rule changes
concerning Admission to FICC's Premises and Settlement by Settling
Banks and Cash Settling Banks would update and clarify these Rules by
codifying settled processes and provide transparency thereby allowing
participants to conduct their business more efficiently and effectively
in accordance with the Rules, which FICC believes would promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. The proposed rule change regarding Distribution
Facilities would remove an outdated rule related to inactive services
in reference to distribution facilities. This proposed change is
designed to improve the accuracy, clarity, and transparency of the
Rules and thereby allow participants to conduct their business more
efficiently and effectively in accordance with the Rules, which FICC
believes would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions. The proposed rule change related to FICC's
Maintenance of Fidelity Bond is designed to simplify and update this
rule by removing information that describes internal processes and does
not provide participants with important information regarding FICC's
maintenance of appropriate insurance coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By updating, clarifying and improving the transparency of the
Rules, the proposed changes would allow participants to better
understand their rights and obligations under the Rules. As such, FICC
believes the proposed rule changes would promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assure
the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible,
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any
impact on competition, because the proposed changes to (1) enhance
transparency of the Rules, (2) change language that does not provide
participants with important information regarding any service, (3)
update the Rules to reflect current practice, and (4) conform the Rules
across FICC's divisions and the Clearing Agencies, where appropriate,
would not materially alter the respective rights or obligations of FICC
or its participants. These proposed changes would allow participants to
better understand FICC's internal processes by adding information to
the Rules, update the Rules by removing services that are not provided
and establish conformity across FICC's divisions and Clearing Agencies,
where applicable. As such,

the proposed changes would not impede participants from engaging in the
services or have an adverse impact on any participants. Therefore, FICC
believes the proposed rule changes would not have any impact on
competition.

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

    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will 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-submitcomments. 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 202-
551-5777.
    FICC reserves the right not to 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) \14\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 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-FICC-2022-007 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-FICC-2022-007. 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 FICC 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-FICC-2022-007 and should be submitted on
or before November 9, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22656 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P