[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34614-34624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12180]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747; FRL-6934.1-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV38


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP) 
facilities, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). In order to 
complete the required technology review that was originally promulgated 
on August 14, 2020, the EPA is proposing inorganic

[[Page 34615]]

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards for process vessels.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2022. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before July 7, 2022.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before June 13, 2022 by 5:00 p.m. ET, we will hold a virtual 
public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on 
requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0747, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0747 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Participation in virtual public hearing. 
Please note that because of current Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders for 
social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold 
in-person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. If 
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on June 22, 2022. The 
hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude 
at 5:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last 
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional 
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after 
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual 
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards or contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. The 
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be June 21, 2022. 
Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list 
pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral 
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to 
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of 
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth 
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at 
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if 
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by June 
14, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without 
advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (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. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed below.

[[Page 34616]]

    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must 
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in the Instructions section of this document. If you submit 
any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and 
note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in 
the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as 
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket 
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that 
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not 
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to 
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the 
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped 
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer 
envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We 
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may 
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for 
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms 
here:

1-BP 1-bromopropane
BLDS bag leak detection system
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCM miscellaneous coating manufacturing
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows below. Section III of this preamble summarizes the 
results of the inorganic HAP emissions assessment. Section IV of this 
preamble describes the majority of the Agency's rationale for the 
actions proposed in this preamble: sections IV. A. and B. summarize 
changes we are proposing, including regulatory language changes related 
to the inorganic HAP emissions requirements; and section IV.C. 
summarizes our rationale for the compliance dates we are proposing.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. Proposed Decisions for Inorganic HAP Standards
    B. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of HAP
    C. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 13563 
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

[[Page 34617]]

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the 
Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives source category ``is any 
facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the particular 
end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of these 
products may occur in any combination at any facility.'' This source 
category has since been renamed Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
(MCM).

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source category and NESHAP                 NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry............      3255, 3259
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website.
    A redline strikeout version of the rule showing the edits that 
would be necessary to incorporate the changes proposed in this action 
is presented in the memorandum titled: Proposed Redline Strikeout 
Edits, Subpart HHHHH: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing, available 
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    This action proposes to amend the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 
which was previously amended when the EPA finalized the Residual Risk 
and Technology Review on August 14, 2020.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 49,724, Aug. 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) 
decision issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA has an 
obligation to address unregulated emissions from a source category when 
the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required by Clean Air 
Act (CAA) 112(d)(6).\2\ This proposed rule addresses currently 
unregulated emissions of HAP from the MCM source category. Inorganic 
HAP can be emitted from sources in the MCM category as part of a 
source's particulate matter (PM) emissions, containing metal HAP. These 
emissions can occur when raw materials in powder form are added to the 
paint mixing vessels. Therefore, the amendments proposed here define 
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for inorganic 
HAP, or metal HAP, within the MCM source category pursuant to CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (``LEAN'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its organic and inorganic HAP emissions?

    As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under 
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 \3\ and 
Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final 
Report,\4\ the ``manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives'' 
source category ``is any facility engaged in their manufacture without 
regard to the particular end-uses or consumers of such products. The 
manufacturing of these products may occur in any combination at any 
facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 57 FR 31,576, July 16, 1992.
    \4\ See EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000MTDN.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000015%5C2000MTDN.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MCM source category includes the collection of equipment that 
is used to manufacture coatings at a facility. MCM operations also 
include cleaning operations. Coatings are materials such as paints, 
inks, or adhesives that are intended to be applied to a substrate and 
consist of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other 
additives, where the material is produced by a manufacturing operation 
where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or otherwise formulated. 
Coatings do not include materials made in processes where a formulation 
component is synthesized by chemical reaction or separation activity 
and then transferred to another vessel where it is formulated to 
produce a material used as a coating, where the synthesized or 
separated component is not stored prior to formulation.
    The equipment controlled by the MCM NESHAP includes process 
vessels, storage tanks for feedstocks and products, equipment leak 
components (pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices 
(PRDs), sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, 
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems), wastewater tanks, 
heat exchangers, and transfer racks.
    The current NESHAP regulates process vessels based on the volume of 
the process vessel and the maximum true vapor pressure of the organic 
HAP processed or stored. Control requirements range from the use of 
tightly fitted lids on process vessels to the capture and reduction of 
organic HAP emissions through the use of add-on controls (i.e., a 
flare, oxidizer, or condenser).
    The current NESHAP does not regulate metal HAP from process 
vessels. During the addition of raw materials in powder form to paint 
mixing vessels, emissions of metal HAP in the form of PM emissions may 
occur

[[Page 34618]]

and are typically collected and routed to a PM control device (i.e., 
baghouse, fabric filters, cartridge filters, or scrubbers). This 
proposal addresses the previously unregulated metal HAP emissions from 
this category and proposes MACT for emission sources of metal HAP.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    Although no formal data collection activity was conducted, the EPA 
contacted industry representatives and obtained supplemental 
information about the emission processes, control technologies, and 
speciation profiles for metal HAP. New information provided by the 
American Coatings Association on four area source PM performance tests 
is available in the docket for this action, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0747.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    For the MCM source category, we have limited information for metal 
HAP. We reviewed the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for the 42 
facilities in the MCM source category and identified emissions of 
manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, chromium III, chromium VI, 
cadmium, and arsenic compounds, all inorganic HAP, and all metals. 
Based on discussions with industry, these reported metals emissions are 
not based on performance test results; rather, they are based on 
loading rates, emissions factors, and engineering calculations. The EPA 
has determined that, in this case, it is appropriate to use PM 
emissions as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions from process vessels 
in which dry materials (e.g., pigments) containing metal HAP are added 
to the process vessels. In MCM, ``metal HAP'' is defined as including 
compounds of manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, chromium III, 
chromium VI, cadmium, and arsenic compounds. MCM sources would be 
subject to this proposed rule if they emit any of these metal HAP.
    The EPA used information from title V permits for each MCM 
facility, performance tests for area source coating manufacturing 
facilities, and vendor specifications for baghouses and cartridge 
filters in this industry to determine the MACT emission limit for metal 
HAP. The American Coatings Association provided the EPA with 
performance tests for PM emission control devices from process vessels 
from four area source paint manufacturing facilities. These four 
performance tests results are available in the docket for this action, 
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. We could not locate PM stack test 
information for any of the 42 major source coating manufacturing 
facilities, but the four area sources' test data are from similar 
equipment used in similar processes and the EPA has determined that the 
data are a reasonable representation of the control achieved by the 
best performers in the major source coatings manufacturing source 
category. Emissions from the four source tests ranged from 0.003 to 
0.0138 gr/dscf PM, based on EPA Method 5 testing. Results from these 
source tests did not include measurement of metal HAP. The EPA also had 
discussions with baghouse and cartridge filter vendors who service this 
industry, and they provided performance specifications indicating that 
some systems could achieve PM emissions on the order of 0.002 to 0.005 
gr/dscf, which is on the same order as the values determined from the 
sources tests.
    The EPA also reviewed title V permits of the 42 currently affected 
MCM sources and found that seven hold permits with PM limits.\5\ The 
limits in the MCM permits ranged from 0.03 to 0.3 gr/dscf from seven 
facilities using cartridge filters, baghouses, fabric filters, and bag 
filters. However, these limits are not supported by any measurement or 
performance test information. Further, facilities estimated their 
emissions of metal HAP using an assumed composition of PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Summary of Data Collected for the Miscellaneous Coatings 
Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Amendments, available in 
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

    The MACT floor limit for PM from existing sources is calculated 
based on the average performance of the best-performing units in each 
category or subcategory and on a consideration of these units' 
variability. The MACT floor for new sources is based on the single 
best-performing source, with a similar consideration of that source's 
variability. The MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent 
than the emissions performance that is achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar source. To account for variability in the 
operation and emissions, we calculated the MACT floors using the 99 
percent Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) using the available stack test 
information. We note that the MACT floor for new units is based on a 
limited data set.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information regarding the general use of the UPL 
and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see Use of 
Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors (UPL Memo), which 
is available in the docket for this action. For more information on 
the calculation of MCM-specific MACT floor limits, see UPL for Area 
Source Paint.xlsx, also available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The UPL approach addresses variability of emissions data from the 
best-performing source or sources in setting MACT standards. The UPL 
also accounts for uncertainty associated with emission values in a 
dataset, which can be influenced by components such as the number of 
samples available for developing MACT standards and the number of 
samples that will be collected to assess compliance with the emission 
limit. The UPL approach has been used in many environmental science 
applications. As explained in more detail in the UPL Memo cited above, 
the EPA uses the UPL approach to reasonably estimate the emissions 
performance of the best-performing source or sources to establish MACT 
floor standards.
    As described above, we obtained additional data on PM emissions 
from area sources in the paints and coatings industry. Specifically, we 
obtained PM data from four facilities that are area source emissions 
for PM. This proposal is based on this data and the EPA's determination 
that, due to the similarities in processes and emissions controls, this 
data is representative of the best performers in the MCM source 
category.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. Proposed Decisions for Inorganic HAP Standards

a. How did we develop the MACT standard?
    In reviewing available information, we found no performance test 
data for metal HAP emissions. However, we reviewed information from the 
paints and allied products area source standard that indicated the 
composition of metal HAP from PM was estimated to be approximately 0.13 
weight percent. Furthermore, one facility in the MCM source category 
reported that an analysis of its dust collector dust indicated a value 
of 0.12 weight percent chromium compounds. Assuming a typical metal HAP 
weight fraction of PM of approximately 0.12 weight percent, metal HAP 
emissions from the outlet of a PM control device emitting on the order 
of 0.003 to 0.0138 gr/dscf would result in metal HAP emissions 
approaching or below the in-stack detection limit of the analysis 
method for total selected metals, EPA Method

[[Page 34619]]

29.\7\ (See EPA Springdale Chromium Q.docx and Data and Procedure for 
Handling Below Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant 
Emissions Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits in the MCM Docket 
ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747 and Model Plants for Paint and Allied Products 
Manufacturing Area Sources in the Paints and Allied Products Docket ID: 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053.) Therefore, while it is clear that some of the PM 
emissions are metal HAP, it is difficult to set a limit for specific 
metal HAP because controls achieving low PM loading rates (e.g., the 
best performers) will likely result in concentrations of metal HAP 
below limits of detection. However, measurement of PM is feasible and 
represents the best performers and, therefore, we are using PM as a 
surrogate. As we do not have measurements of metal HAP, we are 
establishing standards for filterable PM. Metal HAP are non-volatile 
metals that are a part of filterable PM. While the EPA method selected 
(EPA Method 5) is for filterable PM, we note that we are testing for 
filterable, not condensable, PM. We also note that if a source should 
use solid additives that do not contain metal HAP, then the source is 
not required to comply with this standard. Likewise, the PM standard 
does not apply to pigments and other solids that are in paste, slurry, 
or liquid form, because metal HAP emissions and PM emissions are not 
expected to occur when using such pigments and other solids because 
they are not readily dispersed in the air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, the average RDL for chromium compounds in an 
EPA Method 29 train is 2.5 [micro]g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support the proposed use of PM as a surrogate for certain non-
mercury HAP metals, we considered the holding in National Lime v. EPA, 
233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In considering whether the EPA may use 
PM, a criteria pollutant, as a surrogate for metal HAP, the D.C. 
Circuit stated that the EPA ``may use a surrogate to regulate hazardous 
pollutants if it is `reasonable' to do so,'' id. at 637, and laid out 
criteria for determining whether the use of PM as a surrogate for non-
mercury metal HAP was reasonable. The court found that PM is a 
reasonable surrogate for HAP if: (1) ``HAP metals are invariably 
present'' in the source's PM,'' id.; (2) the ``source's PM control 
technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with other 
particulates,'' id. at 639; and (3) ``PM control is the only means by 
which facilities `achieve' reductions in HAP metal emissions,'' id. If 
these criteria are satisfied and the PM emission standards reflect what 
the best sources achieve--complying with CAA section 7412(d)(3)--``EPA 
is under no obligation to achieve a particular numerical reduction in 
HAP metal emissions.'' Id.
    While a requirement to meet all of the criteria laid out in the 
court opinion has never been established, we considered those criteria 
in evaluating whether the proposed surrogate standards for the MCM 
source category are reasonable and concluded that they are. 
Specifically, since the proposed standards would only apply if metal 
HAP are present in the materials being processed, the first criteria is 
satisfied. The types of controls used in the industry indiscriminately 
capture HAP metals along with other particulates, thus satisfying the 
second criteria. Finally, for each type of product, means other than 
air pollution controls are not used to reduce emissions. Therefore, we 
conclude that it is reasonable to use PM as a surrogate for non-mercury 
HAP metals.
    To account for variability in the operation and emissions, the 
stack test data were used to calculate the MACT floor limits based on 
the 99 percent UPL. The UPL for new sources was determined to be 0.0079 
gr/dscf, and the UPL for existing sources was determined to be 0.014 
gr/dscf. We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis, where we 
determined that requiring all facilities to go beyond either limit 
would not be cost-effective. We based this conclusion on cost 
information developed for the paints and allied products area source 
standard, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0072. All facilities in the source 
category currently have PM controls in place using existing baghouses, 
fabric filters, or cartridge filters. The estimated cost to completely 
replace these filters with new filters would be $695,142 in capital 
costs for all 42 facilities, and the incremental reductions from moving 
beyond the proposed 0.014 gr/dscf limit to 0.002, the lowest value 
provided by a vendor, would result in a cost-effectiveness for PM of 
about $3800/ton, and over $3.5 million/ton metal HAP. Therefore, the 
beyond-the-floor options were not considered to be cost-effective.
    As explained above, the MACT floor for new sources cannot be less 
stringent than the emissions performance that is achieved in practice 
by the best-controlled similar source. The EPA performed a variability 
analysis similar to that used for existing sources to calculate a 99 
percent UPL using the test runs from the lowest emitting source to 
derive the new source MACT floor limit.
b. Performance Testing
    We are proposing, based on these limits, that existing sources 
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emissions limit of 0.014 gr/
dscf and new sources demonstrate initial compliance with the PM 
emissions limit of 0.0079 gr/dscf. We are proposing to revise Table 1 
of 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHH to include the emission limits that 
apply to process vessels. Facilities will be required to comply 
continuously with the standards during all operations that emit metal 
HAP. Consistent with the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing: 
NESHAP for Area Sources, this requirement does not apply to pigments 
and other solids that are in paste, slurry, or liquid form.
    As stated in section III. above, controls achieving low PM loading 
rates (e.g., the best performers) will likely result in concentrations 
of metal HAP below limits of detection, particularly with materials 
with very low concentrations of metal HAP. Therefore, we have also 
provided owners and operators the ability to demonstrate that materials 
containing inorganic HAP metals below certain levels are not subject to 
these standards. We are proposing to add to the list of definitions to 
this subpart, material containing metal HAP, to mean a material 
containing compounds of manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, 
chromium, cadmium, and arsenic compounds, in amounts greater than or 
equal to 0.1 percent by weight as shown in formulation data provided by 
the manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet 
for the material.
c. Monitoring
    Under this proposal, continuous compliance with the emission limits 
would be demonstrated through control device parameter monitoring 
coupled with periodic emissions testing. Appropriate operating 
parameters would include those recommended by the control device 
manufacturer as appropriate for the control device, including but not 
limited to pressure drop, scrubber water supply pressure, and/or flow 
rate. Each operating parameter for a PM control device would be 
established during emissions performance testing in which the results 
demonstrate compliance; the average parameter value recorded during the 
test becomes the facility's operating limit and would be recorded 
continuously using a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). The 
operating limit could be reset based on results obtained during 
subsequent

[[Page 34620]]

performance tests that demonstrate compliance with the emissions limit. 
Consistent with NESHAP general provisions, a source owner would be 
required to operate and maintain the source, its air pollution control 
equipment, and its monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions, and its control device in a manner consistent with good 
engineering control practice, including operating and maintaining 
equipment in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Source 
owners would be required to prepare and keep records of calibration and 
accuracy checks of the CPMS to document proper operation and 
maintenance of the monitoring system. Note that an acceptable example 
of a CPMS is a bag leak detection system (BLDS) used in conjunction 
with a baghouse. A source owner would determine the average BLDS value 
obtained during concurrent emission performance testing, record the 
value during source operation, and maintain that value between 
emissions performance tests, while conducting quality assurance checks.
d. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    Under this proposal, a source owner would be required to submit 
semi-annual compliance summary reports which document both compliance 
with the requirements of this rule and any deviations from compliance 
with any of those requirements.
    Owners and operators would be required to maintain the records 
specified by 40 CFR 63.10 and, in addition, would be required to 
maintain records of all inspection and monitoring data, including:
     Records of PM control device operating parameters. For 
fabric filters without BLDS, the pressure drop across the baghouse is 
would be included as an operating parameter.
     Records of calibration and accuracy checks for the CPMS.
     Records of test results to demonstrate initial and ongoing 
compliance with the PM standard.
     If no metal HAP present, records showing a Method 29 test 
result of no metal HAP emissions, or documentation of formulation data 
for added dry materials.

B. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of HAP

    On January 5, 2022, the EPA published in the Federal Register (87 
FR 393) a final rule amending the list of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to add 1-bromopropane (1-BP) in 
response to public petitions previously granted by the EPA.
    For this source category, we do not believe that the inclusion of 
1-BP as an organic HAP would have affected the representativeness of 
the MACT standard. Owners and operators of emission sources regulated 
by the MACT, including process vessels, wastewater, equipment leaks, 
and storage may comply with these standards by using a control device 
or system that achieves a percent reduction and is not HAP-specific. 
Therefore, we are proposing to include 1-BP in Table 7 Partially 
Soluble HAP and Table 11 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants That Must Be 
Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content If Present at 0.1 Percent or 
More by Mass of this subpart to include 1-BP. We are taking comment on 
these changes, as well as requesting comment on the use of 1-BP 
emissions in this source category.

C. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Amendments to the MCM NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for 
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the 
compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i). For 
existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides there shall be 
compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later 
than 3 years after the effective date of such standard . . . .'' 
subject to certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\8\ In 
determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as 
practicable,'' we consider the amount of time needed to plan and 
construct projects and change operating procedures. As provided in CAA 
section 112(i), all new affected sources would comply with these 
provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to the MCM 
NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance 
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated 
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH until the applicable 
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected 
to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective 
date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in 
CAA section 112(d)(10).
    Because these facilities have controls in place already, we expect 
the sources to require time to conduct applicability reviews, conduct 
performance testing and implement monitoring to comply with the revised 
provisions. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance 
with the entirety of the revised requirements related to the PM 
provisions, the EPA considers a period of 1 year to be the most 
expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that 
existing affected sources be in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH's revised PM provisions within 1 year of this final rule's 
effective date.
    Therefore, for all affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before June 7, 2022, we are proposing that it is 
necessary to provide 1 year after the effective date of the final rule 
(or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to 
comply with the PM provisions. For all affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after June 7, 2022, we are proposing 
that owners and operators comply with the amended PM provisions by the 
effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later). 
For all affected sources, we are proposing that owners and operators 
comply with the amendments to include 1-BP in Table 7 and Table 11 
provisions by the effective date of the final rule.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended provisions and the time 
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised 
provisions. We note that information provided may result in changes to 
the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    Currently, 42 major sources subject to the MCM NESHAP are operating 
in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the 
facility-wide collection of equipment used to manufacture coatings and 
includes all process vessels; storage tanks for feedstocks and 
products; components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, PRDs, 
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, 
connectors, and instrumentation systems; wastewater tanks; transfer 
racks; and cleaning operations. A coating is defined as material such 
as paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended

[[Page 34621]]

to be applied to a substrate and consists of a mixture of resins, 
pigments, solvents, and/or other additives, where the material is 
produced by a manufacturing operation and materials are blended, mixed, 
diluted, or otherwise formulated.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We project no emissions reductions of PM from the MCM source 
category because all facilities reporting PM emissions are already 
equipped with particulate controls. This action proposes first-time 
standards for metal HAP that will limit emissions and require that 
controls are effective.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy 
needs of the affected facilities and would, therefore, have no indirect 
or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    All existing MCM facilities are expected to be achieving currently 
the level of control required by the proposed standards. That is, we 
believe that all existing sources currently route vent streams from 
specified equipment through a PM control device such that PM emissions 
are reduced to at least 0.014 gr/dscf. Although this proposed rule 
contains requirements for new sources, we are not aware of any new 
sources being constructed now or planned in the next year, and, 
consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new sources. 
Therefore, there are no capital costs of this proposed rule. The 
estimated annualized cost of the proposed rule would be $305,000 per 
year. The annualized costs account for submitting the notifications and 
for control device performance testing, inspections, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting for 13 facilities that are expected to 
have add-on controls. As stated in the technical support document, 
Summary of Data Collected for the MCM RTR Amendments, there are 13 
facilities that reported metal HAP to the 2017 NEI, therefore, we 
expect only 13 facilities to incur costs. This document is available in 
the docket for this action. No other capital costs are associated with 
this proposed rule, and no additional operational and maintenance costs 
are expected.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    For the proposed rule, the EPA estimated the cost of performing an 
initial performance test and annual control device inspections at 
affected facilities. To assess the potential economic impacts, the 
expected annual cost is compared to the total sales revenue for the 
ultimate owners of affected facilities. For this rule, the expected 
annual cost is $7,300 for each facility, with an estimated nationwide 
annual cost of $305,000 (2019$). The 42 affected facilities are owned 
by 27 parent companies, and the total costs associated with the 
proposed amendments are expected to be less than one percent of annual 
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs account for 13 facilities 
expected to have on control for metal HAP, as well as all 42 facilities 
to become familiar with the rule. These costs are not expected to 
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are 
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to 
determine if any of the identified affected entities are small 
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. This 
analysis is available in the Docket for this action, Docked ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0747-0020. Two of the affected facilities are owned by 
small entities. However, since the costs associated with the proposed 
amendments for these two affected small entities are expected to be 
less than one percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner, there 
are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small 
entities from these proposed amendments.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the MCM 
source category is available in the docket for this proposed rule.

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental 
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set 
forth in multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has carefully considered 
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns. For MCM 
facilities, the demographic screening analysis shows the population of 
people of color is similar to the national average. The EPA expects 
that the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Technology Review will limit 
emissions and require that controls are effective, including in 
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often 
minority, low-income and indigenous communities. This action requires 
facilities with process vessels emitting metal HAP, which consist of PM 
emissions from addition of raw materials in powder form to paint mixing 
vessels, to demonstrate compliance with PM emissions of 0.014 gr/dscf 
for existing sources and 0.0079 gr/dscf for new sources. Following is a 
more detailed description of how the Agency considers EJ in the context 
of regulatory development, and specific actions taken to address EJ 
concerns for this action.
    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations 
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income 
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial 
equity and support underserved communities through federal government 
actions (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the 
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 
race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the 
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 
regulations, and policies''.\9\ The EPA further defines fair treatment 
to mean that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden 
of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies''. In recognizing that 
minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden of 
environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of 
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of 
air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these analyses of potentially exposed populations and 
actions taken to reduce adverse human health impacts, the EPA 
anticipates that this action is not likely to result in 
disproportionate impacts on minority populations and/or low-income 
populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, 
January 25, 2021). The EPA remains committed to engaging with 
communities and stakeholders throughout the

[[Page 34622]]

development of air pollution regulations.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with MCM facilities, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an 
assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living 
within 5 kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then 
compared the data from this analysis to the national average for each 
of the demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 2) indicate 
that, for populations within 5 km of the 42 major source MCM 
facilities, the percent of the population who are people of color 
(being the total population minus the white population) is similar to 
the national average (41 percent versus 40 percent). However, the 
percent African American population is higher than the national percent 
(20 percent versus 12 percent nationally), whereas the percent Other/
Multiracial (6 percent versus 8 percent nationally) and Hispanic/Latino 
(14 percent versus 19 percent nationally) are both below national 
averages. The percent of people living below the poverty level (19 
percent) and those over 25 without a high school diploma (15 percent) 
are higher than the national averages (13 percent and 12 percent, 
respectively). The percent of people living in linguistic isolation is 
lower than the national average (4 percent versus 5 percent).
    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 42 
major source MCM facilities (see Table 2) indicate that, the percent 
population of people of color (being the total population minus the 
white population) is significantly lower than the national average (28 
percent versus 40 percent). The percent of people living below the 
poverty level, those over 25 without a high school diploma, and people 
living in linguistic isolation are lower than the corresponding 
national averages.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the 
major source MCM facilities is included as Table 2. The methodology and 
the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical 
report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near MCM 
Facilities, available in this docket for this action (Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0747).

                Table 2--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source MCM Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Population within  Population within
                   Demographic group                         Nationwide        50 km of 42         5 km of 42
                                                                                facilities         facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        328,016,242         34,082,528          1,500,328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 60                 72                 59
Minority...............................................                 40                 28                 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        People of Color by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.......................................                 12                 13                 20
Native American........................................                0.7                0.3                0.3
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......                 19                  8                 14
Other and Multiracial..................................                  8                  6                  6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 13                 12                 19
Above Poverty Level....................................                 87                 88                 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma..............                 12                  9                 15
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 88                 91                 85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  5                  3                  4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count, and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on
  different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based
  on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    The proposed changes to the NESHAP subpart HHHHH will improve human 
health exposures for populations in these demographic groups. The 
proposed changes will provide additional health protection for all 
populations, including communities already overburdened by pollution, 
which are often minority, low-income, and indigenous communities. The 
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public 
health for populations exposed to emissions from MCM facilities.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in receiving 
additional data that may improve the metal HAP assessment for this 
source category. We

[[Page 34623]]

are specifically interested in receiving performance test results 
showing metal HAP emissions in this category. Such data should include 
supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization 
of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. 
Information should be submitted to the EPA's ERT website. The ERT 
website, https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert provides more information on submitting 
data.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 13563 Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposal have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.09. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747), 
and it is briefly summarized here.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities manufacturing surface 
coatings.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the year after the amendments 
are final, approximately 42 respondents per year would be subject to 
the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject 
to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 
42, in year 2 is 13, and in year 3 is 13.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the proposed 
amendments to the 42 MCM facilities over the first year if the 
amendments are finalized is estimated to be 1,720 hours (per year). The 
average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the 
amendments are final is estimated to be 53 hours (per year). Burden is 
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the proposed 
amendments to the MCM facilities is $192,000 in labor costs in the 
first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual 
capital and operation and maintenance costs are $30,000. The total 
average annual Agency cost of the proposed amendments over the first 3 
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $2,500.
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than July 7, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are MCM 
facilities owned by small businesses. Two of the affected facilities 
are owned by small entities. However, since the costs associated with 
the proposed amendments for these two affected small entities are 
expected to be less than one percent of annual sales revenue per 
ultimate owner, there are no significant economic impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments. 
Details of this analysis are described in section V.D above and 
additional detail is provided in the economic impact memorandums 
associated with this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (MCM). 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are documented in 
the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Risk Assessment Report, in the 
MCM Docket.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the MCM NESHAP through the Enhanced National 
Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their 
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 5 and 29. During the 
EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 
described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar 
to the EPA's referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard 
and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all 
potential

[[Page 34624]]

standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This 
review requires significant method validation data that meet the 
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or 
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the 
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for particular 
VCS.
    No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Method 5 or EPA Method 29. 
The search identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this 
rule in lieu of EPA Method 29. After reviewing the available standard, 
the EPA determined that the VCS identified for measuring emissions of 
pollutants subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency. Additional information for the 
VCS search and determination can be found in the memorandum, Voluntary 
Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing 
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such standards in 
this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    As discussed in section V.E of this preamble, the assessment of 
populations in close proximity of MCM facilities shows no demographic 
groups that are higher than the national average and the proposed 
changes will provide health protection for all populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-12180 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


