[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10842-10851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03562]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747; FRL-6934.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV38


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action on the technology review conducted on the Miscellaneous Coating 
Manufacturing (MCM) source category regulated under the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). These final 
amendments include provisions for inorganic hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) standards for process vessels.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. 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 https://www.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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 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: 
    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
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
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
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRD pressure release devices
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

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 organic and inorganic HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for the MCM source category in 
our June 7, 2022, proposal?
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments 
for the NESHAP for the MCM source category?
    A. Inorganic HAP Standards for Process Vessels
    B. Adding 1-BP to the list of HAP
    C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Cost, Enviornmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    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 enviornmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review
    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 of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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 final rule. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this final rule is likely to 
affect. These final standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this final rule. 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

[[Page 10843]]

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 Final
                                 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 final 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 final rule and key technical documents at this 
same website.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    This final rule amends 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 (RTR) on August 14, 2020.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 49724; 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) section 112(d)(6).\2\ To meet this obligation, the EPA issued 
a proposed rule to address 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. These 
emissions can occur when raw materials in powder form are added to 
paint mixing vessels. Therefore, amendments were proposed to define the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for inorganic 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 end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing 
of these products may occur in any combination at any facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 57 FR 31576; 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 a 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 regulated 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 NESHAP did not previously regulate inorganic HAP from process 
vessels. During the addition of raw materials in powder form to paint 
mixing vessels, emissions of inorganic HAP in the form of PM emissions 
may occur and are typically collected and routed to a PM control device 
(i.e., baghouse, fabric filters, cartridge filters, or scrubbers). This 
final rule addresses the previously unaddressed inorganic HAP emissions 
from this category and requires MACT for emission sources of inorganic 
HAP.

C. What changes did we propose for the MCM source category in our June 
7, 2022, proposal?

    On June 7, 2022, the EPA published a proposal in the Federal 
Register for the MCM NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, to set a 
MACT standard for inorganic HAP metal emissions from process vessels in 
the MCM source category. We also proposed to add 1-bromopropane (1-BP) 
to 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, to this subpart. We asked for 
comment on these changes, and additionally sought comment on the use of 
1-BP in this source category.

III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the NESHAP for the MCM source category?

    This section provides a description of what we proposed and what we 
are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final 
decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses.

[[Page 10844]]

A. Inorganic HAP Standards for Process Vessels

1. What comments did we receive on the inorganic HAP standards, and 
what are our responses?
    Comment: We received comments that the EPA should include design 
evaluations of PM control devices (i.e., baghouses, fabric filters, 
cartridge filters, or scrubbers) as alternatives to EPA Method 5 
testing for initial compliance demonstrations. The commenters argued 
that coatings production often occurs infrequently, taking a fraction 
of the time needed to conduct an EPA Method 5 test. The commenters 
argued that EPA Method 5 test runs usually require an hour or more, 
whereas the addition of dry solids to an MCM subject process vessel 
usually takes no more than 10 or 15 minutes for each batch. The 
commenters stated that it could be a matter of days, or months, before 
another batch of dry solids is added to a process vessel. Further, 
commenters argued that typically only 1 or 2 batches in a year would be 
subject to these standards for several reasons, including that the 
amendments only apply to process vessels that are greater than or equal 
to 250 gallons, and that some of the manufactured materials might not 
be coatings. The commenters also stated that besides metal HAP, 
facilities might already route any PM to a control device resulting 
from the addition of dry solids (i.e., for worker hygiene protection).
    Response: Periodic performance tests verify control device 
performance and also help identify potential degradation of an add-on 
control device over time to ensure the control device remains 
effective, reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes or 
noncompliance. Therefore, we are finalizing the requirement to conduct 
performance testing. The commenters indicate that the most significant 
issue is related to the amount of time that the controls are operating 
to limit PM emissions. We recognize that there may be instances where 
inorganic HAP materials are processed for very limited periods of time 
and, therefore, are clarifying that the performance test may be 
conducted during any solids addition or processing steps, and not just 
during the addition of inorganic HAP-containing materials. We note that 
the PM emissions limit proposed for inorganic HAP was based on 
performance testing for similar units that had the potential for PM 
emissions, and not limited to periods where inorganic HAP-containing 
materials were added or processed. We are, therefore, clarifying the 
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.8005(i)(1)(i) to specify that EPA Method 5 
may be conducted during the addition of any dry materials.
    Comment: Commenters argued that design evaluations are allowed in 
other NESHAP rules including 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB, Chemical 
Preparations Industry; 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, Chemical 
Manufacturing Area Sources; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC, Paints 
and Allied Products Manufacturing, and therefore should be allowed in 
this standard. In addition, commenters argued that the current MCM rule 
references 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which they claimed allows design 
evaluations to control organic HAP.
    Response: As discussed above, performance testing is important to 
verify initial and periodic control device performance. Although design 
evaluations have been allowed in some NESHAP such as the area source 
standards identified by the commenter, performance testing is required 
in a number of MACT standards to demonstrate compliance. In the August 
14, 2020, final rule, we finalized requirements for facilities subject 
to subpart HHHHH to conduct control device performance testing no less 
frequently than once every 5 years when using emission capture systems 
and add-on controls to demonstrate compliance, see 85 FR 49724, 49729, 
and removed provisions in conflict with this change. However, we 
erroneously did not make a conforming change to 40 CFR 63.8005(d)(1) at 
that time to remove now obsolete language addressing the conduct of 
design evaluations. We are therefore making a correction to 40 CFR 
63.8005(d)(1) to remove the remaining reference regarding design 
evaluations in this provision.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that the EPA should clarify that 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS, does not apply to PM control devices by adding 
clarifying language to 40 CFR 63.8000(a)(2) and (c).
    Response: Because the final inorganic HAP metal general 
requirements are specified in a separate section from the organic HAP 
requirements cited by this commenter, this commenter's suggested 
clarifications are unnecessary. The requirements in Sec.  63.8000(a)(2) 
and (c) are not related to the metal HAP requirements for PM control 
devices. Therefore, we have not made the requested clarifications.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that the EPA provide 3 years, rather 
than 1 year, to comply with the final rule amendments. Commenters 
argued that the EPA did not account for all facilities that will need 
to install new control devices for PM. Commenters stated that some 
facilities have process vessels that are already controlled with a PM 
control device, but have other process vessels at their facilities that 
are not currently controlled with a PM control device and would, 
therefore, need to install a new PM control device.
    Response: The final rule provides 1 year to comply with the 
amendments. For most facilities, 1 year to conduct performance tests on 
existing inorganic HAP control devices is an adequate amount of time. 
The commenters were not specific in terms of how many facilities would 
have to install new control devices to meet this final rule, but we 
expect that number to be minimal to none. Therefore, we have not 
provided additional time. We note, however, that 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii) 
provides an opportunity to request an additional 2 years to comply if 
necessary for the installation of controls.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA conduct further 
research on the toxicity of non-mercury metal HAP.
    Response: This comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 
Nonetheless, the EPA continues to research and collect information on 
pollutants such as non-mercury metal HAP.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA clarify whether 
inorganic HAP metal includes compounds of metal HAP (i.e., manganese, 
antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, chromium, cadmium, or arsenic) or just 
these metals themselves. The commenter also suggested that the EPA 
clarify whether the metal HAP limit of 0.1 percent by weight refers to 
the content of one single metal HAP compound or the total content of 
the metal HAP compounds combined.
    Response: The definition of material containing metal HAP includes 
compounds of the metals listed and the metals themselves. The 0.1 
percent by weight refers to the total content of all the metal HAP 
compounds combined and the metals themselves, except for elemental 
lead.
    Comment: One commenter stated that there is a lack of standards for 
pigments and other solids that are in paste or slurry form. The 
commenter also suggested that the word ``liquid'' can be removed from 
the phrase ``pigments and other solids that are in paste, slurry, or 
liquid form,'' as no PM emissions occur in liquids.
    Response: We disagree that there need to be standards for pigments 
and other solids that are in paste or slurry form as PM emissions do 
not occur from processing liquids, pastes, or slurries.

[[Page 10845]]

2. What did we propose and what changes are being made to the inorganic 
HAP amendments in this final rule?
    This final rule addresses the previously unregulated inorganic HAP 
metal emissions from this source category by setting MACT standards for 
emission sources of metal HAP by amending the compliance requirements 
in 40 CFR 63.7995(f); the general requirements specified in 40 CFR 
63.8005(a)(1)(iii) and (i); the reporting requirements specified in 40 
CFR 63.8075; the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.8080(i) and 
(g); and the general provisions as specified in table 10 to this 
subpart, as proposed, to set PM standards stating that existing sources 
must demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emissions limit of 
0.014 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) and new sources must 
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emissions limit of 0.0079 
gr/dscf. We are revising table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, as 
proposed, to include the 0.014 gr/dscf emission limit that applies to 
process vessels. Facilities are required to continuously comply with 
the standards during all operations that emit metal HAP. These final 
amendments do not apply to pigments and other solids that are in paste, 
slurry, or liquid form.
    We are finalizing, as proposed, the definitions in 40 CFR 63.8105 
for Bag Leak Detection System (BLDS), fabric filter, and material 
containing metal HAP. We are also amending the regulatory text at 40 
CFR 63.8005(i)(1)(i) to specify that EPA Method 5 may be conducted 
during the addition of any dry materials, not only when dry material 
containing metal HAP are added.
    As finalized, continuous compliance with the emission limits will 
be demonstrated through control device parameter monitoring coupled 
with periodic emissions testing.
    Under this final rule, a source owner is 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.

B. Adding 1-BP to the List of HAP

1. What comments did we receive regarding the addition of 1-BP to our 
list of HAP, and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter argued that the CAA requires the EPA to 
establish MACT standards for each uncontrolled HAP, including 1-BP. The 
commenter argued that the LEAN decision specifies that the EPA must set 
emissions standards for each HAP emitted by the source category. The 
commenter stated that the LEAN decision requires the Agency to set MACT 
standards for HAP that have not previously been regulated. The 
commenter further stated that the EPA did not calculate MACT standards 
or establish emissions limits for 1-BP. The commenter stated that the 
EPA has never previously calculated how much 1-BP the best performing 
sources emit and has not set emissions standards for 1-BP. The 
commenter stated that adding 1-BP to 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, to this subpart does not satisfy the EPA's obligation to set MACT 
standards. The commenter argued that the EPA does not have enough 
information to set a MACT floor for 1-BP. The commenter also argued 
that a similar analysis should have been completed for 1-BP as it was 
done for PM. The commenter argued that the EPA did not conduct a 
surrogate analysis between 1-BP and other organic HAP.
    Response: As explained in our 2022 proposal, the D.C. Circuit in 
LEAN held that EPA has an obligation to address unregulated emissions 
from a source category when conducting the 8-year technology review 
required by section 112(d)(6). At the time this rule was proposed, we 
considered it possible that sources in this source category may use 1-
BP; however, we had no data to support a conclusion that there are 
emissions of 1-BP from this source category. Nonetheless, we proposed 
to address potential MACT requirements, and stated ``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.'' 
We asked for comments and data regarding emissions of 1-BP. However, no 
one provided data or other evidence demonstrating that 1-BP is emitted 
from this source category. In addition to requesting comments, we 
surveyed several MCM facilities to verify our position that 1-BP is not 
used in this industry. No respondents to our survey use or emit 1-BP 
(see Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category (MCM) 
Bromopropane (1-BP) Postcard Phone Survey Memo in the docket for this 
action).
    In response to this comment, we have examined whether the addition 
of 1-BP to the HAP list impacts the source category. We proposed to 
include 1-BP in the tables that list the regulated HAP for this source 
category as a conservative, protective approach. However, our survey 
and our knowledge regarding likely sources of 1-BP emissions lead us to 
conclude that 1-BP is not used in this source category. Therefore, the 
obligation to address unregulated emissions set out in LEAN does not 
apply here, and we are not including 1-BP in the list of HAP regulated 
in this final rule. The EPA will continue to evaluate the best approach 
to address any new HAP additions for each source category as the 
applicable NESHAP is reviewed.
2. What did we propose and what changes are being made regarding the 
addition of 1-BP in this final rule?
    On January 5, 2022, the EPA published in the Federal Register (87 
FR 393) a final rule amending the list of HAP under the CAA to add 1-BP 
in response to public petitions previously granted by the EPA. This 
action became effective on February 4, 2022.
    As discussed above, although we proposed to include 1-BP in the 
tables that list the regulated HAP for this source category, we 
determined that including 1-BP in the tables in this subpart is not the 
correct approach for this source category. Based on our brief phone 
survey and knowledge of the industry, we have determined that 
facilities are not using or emitting 1-BP in this source category. 
Therefore, we are not finalizing the addition of 1-BP to 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, to this subpart to include 1-BP.

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on February 22, 2024.
    All the provisions we are finalizing under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 
and (3) are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined under CAA 
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.\5\ 
In determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as 
practicable,'' we examined the amount of time needed to plan and 
construct projects and change

[[Page 10846]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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. This final action is not 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).
    For all affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before June 7, 2022, we are finalizing, as 
proposed, 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 finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators comply 
with the amended PM provisions by the effective date of the final rule 
or upon startup, whichever is later.

IV. Summary of Cost, Enviornmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

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 a material such 
as paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended 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 finalizes first-time 
standards for inorganic 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 final 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 currently achieving 
the level of control required by these final 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 final 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 final rule. The estimated 
annualized cost of the final rule would be $205,000 per year. The 
annualized costs account for submitting the notifications and for 
control device performance testing, inspections, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting for 12 facilities that are expected to 
have add-on controls. As stated in the technical support document, 
Update of Summary of Data Collected for the MCM RTR Amendments, there 
are 12 facilities that reported metal HAP to the 2017 NEI. Therefore, 
we expect only 12 facilities to incur costs. This document is available 
in the docket for this action. No other capital costs are associated 
with this final rule, and no additional operational and maintenance 
costs are expected.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    For the final 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 $6,700 for each facility, with an estimated nationwide 
annual cost of $205,000 (2019$). The 42 affected facilities are owned 
by 27 parent companies, and the total costs associated with these 
amendments are expected to be less than 1 percent of annual sales 
revenue per ultimate owner. These costs account for 12 facilities 
expected to have add-on controls 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 whether 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 (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0747). Three of the affected facilities are owned by small 
entities. However, since the costs associated with these amendments for 
these 3 affected small entities are expected to be less than 1 percent 
of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner, there are no significant 
economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities from these 
final amendments.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the MCM 
source category is available in the docket for this final rule.

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with the 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 determined 
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns. For MCM 
facilities, the demographic proximity analysis shows the population for 
people of color is similar to or lower than the national average. 
However, the subcategory of the African American population is above 
the national average, as well as low-income and the population without 
a high-school diploma. This action will set emission standards for 
inorganic HAP metals. However, all existing sources currently operate 
control technologies and devices such that no further emission 
reductions are anticipated as a result of this action, including in 
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often minority 
(i.e., people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income. 
Following is a more detailed description of how the Agency considers EJ 
in the context of regulatory

[[Page 10847]]

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, which are specifically minority populations (i.e., 
people of color and/or indigenous people) and low-income populations 
(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.'' 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 determine ways of protecting them from adverse public 
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
    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.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the 
major source MCM facilities is included as Table 2 of the proposal (see 
87 FR 34622). The results of the demographic analysis 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). 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 results of the analysis of 
populations within 50 km of the 42 major source MCM facilities 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 also lower than 
the corresponding national averages. 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 ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747).
    With regard to HAP emissions, this action requires facilities with 
process vessels emitting inorganic 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. Because all 
existing sources control these emissions, no further emission 
reductions are anticipated as a result of this action, including in 
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often minority 
(i.e., people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income.

V. 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 final rule will be 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.10. 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 12, and in year 3 is 12.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the final 
amendments to the 42 MCM facilities over the first year if the 
amendments are finalized is estimated to be 1,593 hours (per year). The 
average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the 
amendments are final is estimated to be 49 hours (per year). Burden is 
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the final 
amendments to the MCM facilities is $178,000 in labor costs in the 
first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual 
capital and operation and maintenance costs are $28,000. The total 
average annual Agency cost of the final amendments over the first 3 
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $2,330.
    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. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this 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. Three of the affected facilities 
are owned by small entities. However, since the costs associated with 
the amendments for these three 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 amendments. Details of this analysis are 
described in section IV.D. above and additional detail is provided

[[Page 10848]]

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. This 
action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections IV.E of 
this preamble.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered consultation to tribal officials 
during the development of this action. However, the Agency did not 
receive a request for consultation. The EPA also provided an overview 
on a tribal partnership call on June 30, 2022, during the public 
comment period to inform the tribes of the content of the proposed 
action and to encourage them to submit comments.

G. 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 reviewed voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their 
databases 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 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 a particular VCS.
    No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Method 5. The search 
identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this rule in 
lieu of EPA Method 29. However, 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.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and 
low-income populations.
    The EPA anticipates that the human health or environmental 
conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the 
potential to result in disproportionate effects on African American and 
low-income populations. Near MCM facilities, the percentages of 
residents who are African American or low income are higher than the 
nationwide percentages. However, based on prior analyses of this source 
category (85 FR 49727), risks from HAP pollutants have been found to be 
at acceptable levels and this rule will continue to maintain acceptable 
levels of exposure.
    The EPA anticipates that this action will not change this 
characterization of impacts and is not likely to result in new 
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples. All existing sources currently 
operate control technologies and devices such that no further emission 
reductions are anticipated as a result of this action, including in 
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often minority 
(i.e., people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income. The 
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are available 
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747) in 
the technical report Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near MCM Facilities.

I. 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 this action does not present any changes to the rule that would 
affect environmental health or safety risks, including those that would 
present a disproportionate risk to children.

J. 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.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Business and industry, Carbon oxides, Environmental protection, 
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, 
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

[[Page 10849]]

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

0
2. Amend Sec.  63.7995 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and 
(b) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7995  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (a) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, 
if you have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, 
if you have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, then you 
must comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart 
no later than December 11, 2006.
* * * * *
    (f) All affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before June 7, 2022, must be in compliance with 
the requirements listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this 
section upon initial startup or February 22, 2024, whichever is later. 
All affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction 
after June 7, 2022, must be in compliance with the requirements listed 
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section upon initial startup, 
or February 22, 2023, whichever is later.
    (1) The general requirements specified in Sec.  63.8005(a)(1)(iii) 
and (i).
    (2) The reporting requirements specified in Sec.  63.8075.
    (3) The recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  63.8080(i) 
and (g).
    (4) The general provisions as specified in table 10 to this 
subpart.

0
3. Amend Sec.  63.8000 by revising paragraph (d)(1) introductory text 
and adding paragraph (d)(1)(vii) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8000  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified 
in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section apply instead of 
or in addition to the requirements for performance testing of control 
devices as specified in subpart SS of this part.
* * * * *
    (vii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.8005(i) within 5 years following 
the previous performance test. You must conduct the initial or first 
periodic performance test before February 22, 2024, unless you are 
already required to complete a periodic performance test as a 
requirement of renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR 
part 70 or 71, and have conducted a performance test on or before 
February 22, 2024. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no 
later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating 
limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  63.8005 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(i);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.8005  What requirements apply to my process vessels?

    (a) * * *
    (1) You must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in 
table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, and you must meet each 
applicable requirement specified in Sec.  63.8000(b), except as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, 
you are not required to meet the emission limits and work practice 
standards in table 1 to this subpart if you comply with Sec.  63.8050 
or Sec.  63.8055.
* * * * *
    (iii) You must meet the inorganic HAP emissions limit in table 1 to 
this subpart during the addition of material containing metal HAP to a 
process vessel. You are not required to meet this limit for the 
addition of pigments and other solids that are in paste, slurry, or 
liquid form.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction 
emission limit in table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct the 
performance test under conditions as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1), 
except as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section, and except 
that the performance test must be conducted under worst-case 
conditions. Also, the performance test for a control device used to 
control emissions from process vessels must be conducted according to 
Sec.  63.1257(b)(8), including the submittal of a site-specific test 
plan for approval prior to testing. The requirements in Sec.  
63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply for performance tests 
conducted to determine compliance with the emission limits for process 
vessels.
* * * * *
    (i) Inorganic HAP standards. You must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the inorganic HAP limit in table 1 to this subpart and 
as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section by following the 
requirements specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this section. You 
must demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirements in Sec.  
63.11583(a) through (e) and (h).
    (1) You must follow the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and include the results in your 
notification of compliance status report in accordance with Sec.  
63.8070.
    (i) You must conduct the tests under conditions that represent 
normal operation, during which dry materials are added; tests may be 
conducted whether or not those dry materials contain metal HAP.
    (ii) You must perform the test using EPA Method 5 in appendix A to 
40 CFR part 60.
    (iii) You must conduct a minimum of three separate test runs with a 
minimum sample volume of 70 dry standard cubic feet (2 dry standard 
cubic meters) per run for each performance test required in this 
section, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3).
    (2) For existing sources only, you may demonstrate initial 
compliance using the results of an emissions test conducted in the past 
5 years provided the test meets the requirements in paragraph (i)(1) of 
this section.

0
5. Amend Sec.  63.8075 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8075  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no 
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in 
Sec.  63.7995. You must submit a separate notification of compliance 
status report after the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e) and (f).
* * * * *

[[Page 10850]]


0
6. Amend Sec.  63.8080 by revising paragraph (g) and paragraph (i) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8080  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (g) If you establish separate operating limits as allowed in Sec.  
63.8005(e) or (i), you must maintain a log of operation or a daily 
schedule indicating the time when you change from one operating limit 
to another.
* * * * *
    (i) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under Sec.  
63.8075(e)(5) or Sec.  63.8005(i), a record of the information 
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  63.8105 in paragraph (g) by adding the definitions ``Bag 
Leak Detection System'', ``Fabric filter'', and ``Material containing 
metal HAP'', in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8105  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    Bag Leak Detection System (BLDS) means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the 
exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A BLDS includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 
other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter 
loadings.
* * * * *
    Fabric filter means an air collection and control system that 
utilizes a bag filter to reduce the emissions of metal HAP and other 
particulate matter.
* * * * *
    Material containing metal HAP means 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.
* * * * *

0
8. Table 1 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is revised and republished to 
read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                      Standards for Process Vessels
  [As required in Sec.   63.8005, you must meet each emission limit and
   work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
                            process vessels.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For each . . .            You must . . .      And you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Portable process vessel    a. Equip the vessel   Nonapplicable.
 at an existing source.        with a cover or lid
                               that must be in
                               place at all times
                               when the vessel
                               contains a HAP,
                               except for material
                               additions and
                               sampling.
2. Stationary process vessel  a. Equip the vessel   i. Considering both
 at an existing source.        with a cover or lid   capture and any
                               that must be in       combination of
                               place at all times    control (except a
                               when the vessel       flare), reduce
                               contains a HAP,       emissions of
                               except for material   organic HAP with a
                               additions and         vapor existing
                               sampling; or          pressure >=0.6 kPa
                              b. Equip the vessel    by >=75 percent by
                               with a tightly        weight, and reduce
                               fitting vented        emissions of
                               cover or lid that     organic HAP with a
                               must be closed at     vapor pressure <0.6
                               all times when the    kPa by >=60 percent
                               vessel contains       by weight.
                               HAP, except for      i. Reduce emissions
                               material additions    of organic HAP with
                               and sampling.         a vapor pressure
                              c. As specified in     >=0.6 kPa by >=75
                               Sec.   63.8005(i),    percent by weight,
                               on or before          and reduce
                               February 22, 2024,    emissions of
                               during the addition   organic HAP with a
                               of dry material,      vapor pressure <0.6
                               route material        kPa by >=60 percent
                               containing metal      by weight, by
                               HAP to a capture      venting emissions
                               and control system    through a closed-
                               that is maintained    vent system to any
                               and operated          combination of
                               according to the      control devices
                               provisions of Sec.    (except a flare);
                                63.8005.             or
                                                    ii. Reduce emissions
                                                     of total organic
                                                     HAP by venting
                                                     emissions from a
                                                     non-halogenated
                                                     vent stream through
                                                     a closed-vent
                                                     system to a flare;
                                                     or
                                                    iii. Reduce
                                                     emissions of total
                                                     organic HAP by
                                                     venting emissions
                                                     through a closed-
                                                     vent system to a
                                                     condenser that
                                                     reduces the outlet
                                                     gas temperature to:
                                                    <10 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     <0.6 kPa, or
                                                    <2 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=0.6 kPa and <17.2
                                                     kPa, or
                                                    <-5 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=17.2 kPa.
                                                    i. Reduce emissions
                                                     of material
                                                     containing metal
                                                     HAP to 0.014 gr/
                                                     dscf or less.
3. Portable and stationary    a. Equip the vessel   i. Reduce emissions
 process vessel at a new       with a tightly        of total organic
 source.                       fitting vented        HAP by >=95 percent
                               cover or lid that     by weight by
                               must be closed at     venting emissions
                               all times when the    through a closed-
                               vessel contains       vent system to any
                               HAP, except for       combination of
                               material additions    control devices
                               and sampling.         (except a flare);
                              b. As specified in     or
                               Sec.   63.8005(i),   ii. Reduce emissions
                               upon startup or       of total organic
                               February 22, 2023,    HAP by venting
                               whichever is later,   emissions from a
                               during the addition   non-halogenated
                               of dry material,      vent stream through
                               route material        a closed-vent
                               containing metal      system to a flare;
                               HAP to a capture      or
                               and control system   iii. Reduce
                               that is maintained    emissions of total
                               and operated          organic HAP by
                               according to the      venting emissions
                               provisions of Sec.    through a closed-
                                63.8005.             vent system to a
                                                     condenser that
                                                     reduces the outlet
                                                     gas temperature to:
                                                    <-4 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     <0.7 kPa, or
                                                    <-20 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=0.7 kPa and <17.2
                                                     kPa, or
                                                    <-30 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=17.2 kPa.
                                                    i. Reduce emissions
                                                     of material
                                                     containing metal
                                                     HAP to 0.0079 gr/
                                                     dscf or less.

[[Page 10851]]

 
4. Halogenated vent stream    a. Use a halogen      i. Reduce overall
 from a process vessel         reduction device      emissions of
 subject to the requirements   after the             hydrogen halide and
 of item 2 or 3 of this        combustion control    halogen HAP by >=95
 table for which you use a     device; or.           percent; or
 combustion control device    b. Use a halogen      ii. Reduce overall
 to control organic HAP        reduction device      emissions of
 emissions.                    before the            hydrogen halide and
                               combustion control    halogen HAP to
                               device.               <=0.45 kilogram per
                                                     hour (kg/hr).
                                                    Reduce the halogen
                                                     atom mass emission
                                                     rate to <=0.45 kg/
                                                     hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-03562 Filed 2-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


