Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12633 

more per year of VOC or NOX. Because 

Maryland’s major stationary source 

thresholds were established for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment 

designations, they have been changed, 

and therefore they are more stringent 

than required by the 2008 and 2015 8- 

hour ozone NAQQS. 

COMAR 26.11.17 currently includes 

provisions allowing ozone 

interprecursor trading. On January 31, 

2020, MDE submitted a SIP revision 

(#20–02) to incorporate the 

interprecursor trading provisions of 

COMAR 26.11.17 into the Maryland SIP. 

On October 27, 2020, EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

in which EPA proposed to approve 

Maryland SIP revision #20–02). 85 FR 

68029 (October 27, 2020). MDE’s SIP 

Revision #20–05 submission to EPA 

referenced those interprecursor trading 

provisions of COMAR 26.11.17 in its 

certification that Maryland’s NNSR 

program was consistent with Federal 

requirements. Subsequently, on January 

29, 2021, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded 

that ozone interprecursor trading is not 

permissible under the CAA and vacated 

ozone interprecursor trading, i.e., the 

interprecursor trading provision in the 

Federal NNSR regulations. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 985 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

EPA removed the language allowing 

interprecursor trading for ozone and 

restored the language in the NNSR 

regulations to the form it was in after 

the EPA’s 2008 p.m.2.5 implementation 

rule. 86 FR 37918 (July 19, 2021). After 

the court decision and EPA’s 

withdrawal of the interprecursor trading 

provisions, by letter dated October 26, 

2021, Maryland withdrew SIP revision 

#20–02 with the interprecursor trading 

provisions in its entirety. Additionally, 

in a separate clarification letter dated 

October 26, 2021, MDE requested that 

EPA withdraw from EPA’s 

consideration those portions of SIP 

revision #20–05 which related to ozone 

interprecursor trading. Furthermore, 

MDE committed to removing the 

interprecursor trading provisions from 

COMAR and to not implementing them 

in the interim. Consequently, those 

provisions are no longer pending action 

before EPA. EPA is publishing this 

notice of proposed rulemaking to notify 

commenters that EPA no longer intends 

to take final action on SIP revision #20– 

02 or to consider that SIP revision in 

this proposal to approve SIP revision 

#20–05. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of this material 

indicates that the Maryland’s 

submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 

revision requirement, meets the 

requirements of CAA sections 110 and 

172 and the minimum SIP requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is proposing to 

approve Maryland’s SIP revision 

addressing the NNSR requirements for 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Baltimore, MD, PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE, and Washington, DC-MD-VA 

nonattainment areas, which was 

submitted on June 3, 2020. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in the proposed 

approval. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

Additionally, because MDE has 

officially withdrawn its January 31, 

2020 SIP revision #20–02 in its entirety, 

EPA is withdrawing the proposed action 

for that SIP revision in this action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04719 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0133; FRL–8473–02– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV27 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Technology 

Review for Wood Preserving Area 

Sources; Technical Correction for 

Surface Coating of Wood Building 

Products 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

the results of the technology review 

conducted in accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Wood 

Preserving Area Sources. The EPA is 

proposing no changes to the standards 

as a result of the technology review. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12634 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

EPA is proposing minor editorial and 

formatting changes to the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources NESHAP table 

of applicable general provisions. 

Unrelated to the review for the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources NESHAP, the 

EPA is also proposing technical 

corrections to the Surface Coating of 

Wood Building Products NESHAP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 21, 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 April 6, 2022. 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

March 14, 2022, 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–2021–0133, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0133 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0133. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0133, 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. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff also continues to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. Hand deliveries 

and couriers may be received by 

scheduled appointment only. For 

further information on the EPA Docket 

Center services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. John Evans, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143–03), Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

3633; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and 

email address: Evans.John@epa.gov. 

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 inperson public meetings at this time. 

To request a virtual public hearing, 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the virtual hearing will be 

held on March 22, 2022. The hearing 

will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time 

(ET) and will conclude at 3:00 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/woodpreserving-area-sources-nationalemission-standards-hazardous. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing upon publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/woodpreserving-area-sources-nationalemission-standards-hazardous or 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last 

day to pre-register to speak at the 

hearing will be March 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-sourcesair-pollution/wood-preserving-areasources-national-emission-standardshazardous. 

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 Evans.John@epa.gov. 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/woodpreserving-area-sources-nationalemission-standards-hazardous. 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 SPPDpublichearing@

epa.gov 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 special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by March 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–2021–0133. 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. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0133. 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:// 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12635 

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 by as 

discussed below. 

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 home page at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Due to public health concerns related 

to COVID–19, the Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only. Our Docket Center 

staff also continues to provide remote 

customer service via email, phone, and 

webform. Hand deliveries or couriers 

will be received by scheduled 

appointment only. For further 

information and updates on the EPA 

Docket Center services, please visit us 

online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the CDC, local area health departments, 

and our Federal partners so that we can 

respond rapidly as conditions change 

regarding COVID–19. 

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 Instructions 

above. 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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov, 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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

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–2021–0133. 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 wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ is used, it 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: 

BACT best available control technology 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CCA chromated copper arsenate 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ET eastern time 

FR Federal Register 

GACT generally available control 

technology 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

km kilometer 

LAER lowest achievable emission rate 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NSR New Source Review 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RACT reasonably available control 

technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

tpy tons per year 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 

HAP emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

E. How does the EPA perform the 

technology review? 

III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review, and what is the rationale for 

those decisions? 

B. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

C. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12636 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1For categories of area sources subject to GACT 

standards, CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide 

that the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk review 

is not required. However, the CAA section 112(d)(6) 

technology review is required for such categories. 

D. What are the proposed corrections to 

subpart QQQQ: Surface Coating of Wood 

Building Products. 

IV. 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 are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

V. Request for Comments 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 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 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

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? 

The source category that is the main 

subject of this proposal is Wood 

Preserving Area Sources regulated 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

QQQQQQ. The North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code for the wood preserving industry is 

321114. 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. Wood Preserving Area Sources 

was added to the area source category 

list under the Integrated Urban Air 

Toxics Strategy in 2002 (see 67 FR 

43112, June 26, 2002) and the 

Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List, Final 

Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 

1992) defines the Wood Preserving Area 

Sources category as any area source 

facility engaged in the treatment of 

wood products for preservation or other 

purposes. Wood treatment is 

accomplished by pressure or thermal 

impregnation of chemicals into wood to 

provide long-term resistance to attack by 

fungi, bacteria, insects, and marine 

borers. 

This action also proposes technical 

corrections to the Surface Coating of 

Wood Building Products source 

category. The technical corrections are 

described in section III.D. 

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/woodpreserving-area-sources-nationalemission-standards-hazardous. 

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 

QQQQQQ: Wood Preserving Area 

Sources, available in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0133). 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 301 of 

the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.). Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA 

to review standards promulgated under 

CAA section 112(d) and revise them ‘‘as 

necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less often 

than every 8 years following 

promulgation of those standards. This is 

referred to as a ‘‘technology review’’ and 

is required for all standards established 

under CAA section 112(d) including 

generally available control technology 

(GACT) standards that apply to area 

sources.1 This proposed action 

constitutes the CAA 112(d)(6) 

technology review for the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources NESHAP. 

Several additional CAA sections are 

relevant to this action as they 

specifically address regulation of 

hazardous air pollutant emissions from 

area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 

112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) are the basis 

of the Area Source Program under the 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which 

provides the framework for regulation of 

area sources under CAA section 112. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to identify at least 30 

HAP that pose the greatest potential 

health threat in urban areas with a 

primary goal of achieving a 75 percent 

reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted from 

stationary sources. As discussed in the 

Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 

FR 38706, 38715, July 19, 1999), the 

EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from 

area sources that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas, 

and these HAP are commonly referred 

to as the ‘‘30 urban HAP.’’ 

Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA, in turn, 

requires the EPA to list sufficient 

categories or subcategories of area 

sources to ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation. The EPA implemented these 

requirements through the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying 

and setting standards for categories of 

area sources including the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources category that is 

addressed in this action. 

Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides 

that for area source categories, in lieu of 

setting maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards (which 

are generally required for major source 

categories), the EPA may elect to 

promulgate standards or requirements 

for area sources ‘‘which provide for the 

use of generally available control 

technology or management practices 

[GACT] by such sources to reduce 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’ 

In developing such standards, the EPA 

evaluates the control technologies and 

management practices that reduce HAP 

emissions that are generally available 

for each area source category. Consistent 

with the legislative history, we can 

consider costs and economic impacts in 

determining what constitutes GACT. 

GACT standards were promulgated 

for the Wood Preserving Area Sources 

category in 2007 (72 FR 38864, July 16, 

2007). As noted above, this proposed 

action presents the required CAA 

112(d)(6) technology review for that 

source category. 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

The Wood Preserving Area Sources 

category includes facilities that use 

either a pressure or thermal treatment 

process to impregnate chemicals into 

wood to provide long-term resistance to 

attack by fungi, bacteria, insects, or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12637 

marine borers. Some of the products 

produced by the wood preserving 

industry include posts, cross ties, 

switch ties, utility poles, round timber 

pilings, lumber for aquatic applications, 

and fire-retardant lumber products. 

More than 95 percent of all treated 

wood is preserved through pressurized 

processes. Almost all wood preservation 

employing a pressure process takes 

place in a closed treating cylinder or 

retort. A retort is an airtight pressure 

vessel, typically a long horizontal 

cylinder, used for the pressure 

impregnation of wood products with a 

liquid wood preservative. In a thermal 

treatment process, the wood is exposed 

to the preservative in an open vessel. 

The wood is immersed alternately in 

separate tanks containing heated and 

cold preservative, either oil- or 

waterborne. Alternatively, the wood 

may be immersed in one tank that is 

first heated then allowed to cool. During 

the hot bath, air in the wood expands, 

which forces some air out. Heating 

improves penetration of preservatives. 

In the cold bath, air in the wood 

contracts, creating a partial vacuum, and 

atmospheric pressure forces more 

preservative into the wood. 

There are three general classes of 

wood preservatives: (a) Oils, such as 

creosote and petroleum solutions of 

pentachlorophenol (also called ‘‘penta’’ 

or ‘‘PCP’’) and copper naphthenate, (b) 

waterborne salts that are applied as 

water solutions, such as chromated 

copper arsenate (CCA), and (c) light 

organic solvents, which serve as the 

carriers for synthetic insecticides. Over 

the past few decades, the wood 

preserving industry has undergone 

several changes related to the types of 

preservatives used for certain 

applications and the associated 

emissions. Of the wood preservatives 

being used today, some contain HAP, 

and some do not contain HAP. 

The NESHAP is applicable to any 

wood preserving operation located at an 

area source. The EPA has estimated that 

there are 322 wood preserving area 

sources. However, only those facilities 

that are using a wood preservative 

containing one or more of the target 

HAP, arsenic, chromium, dioxins, or 

methylene chloride, are subject to the 

GACT standards. Three wood 

preservatives, pentachlorophenol, CCA, 

and ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate 

(ACZA) contain at least one of the target 

HAP. Pentachlorophenol (a HAP) 

contains trace concentrations of dioxins, 

which are a target HAP. CCA contains 

the target HAP arsenic and chromium. 

ACZA contains the target HAP arsenic. 

The EPA is not aware of any facilities 

currently using a wood preservative 

containing the target HAP methylene 

chloride. The EPA has estimated that 

177 wood preserving area sources use a 

wood preservative containing a target 

HAP and are subject to the GACT 

standards. The remaining area sources 

use wood preservatives that do not 

contain HAP or use creosote, which 

contains the HAP naphthalene. 

The GACT standards require any 

facility using a pressure treatment 

process to use a retort or similarly 

enclosed vessel for the preservative 

treatment. Facilities using a thermal 

treatment process are required to use 

process treatment tanks equipped with 

air scavenging systems to capture and 

control air emissions. In addition, all 

facilities must prepare and operate 

according to a management practice 

plan to minimize air emissions, 

including emissions from process tanks 

and equipment (e.g., retorts, other 

enclosed vessels, thermal treatment 

tanks), storage, handling, and transfer 

operations. These standards are required 

to be documented in a management 

practices plan. See 40 CFR 63.11430(c). 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

For this technology review, the EPA 

used information from several available 

databases to compile a list of wood 

preserving area sources. These databases 

included the Enforcement and 

Compliance History Online (ECHO), the 

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and 

Integrated Compliance Information 

System for Air (ICIS–AIR). Additional 

information about these data collection 

activities for the technology review is 

contained in the memoranda titled 

Technology Review for the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, available in the docket for 

this action. 

Also, for the technology review, the 

EPA searched for reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), best 

available control technology (BACT), 

and lowest achievable emission rate 

(LAER) determinations in the EPA’s 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

(RBLC). This database contains casespecific information on air pollution 

technologies that have been required to 

reduce the emissions of air pollutants 

from stationary sources. Under the 

EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) 

program, an NSR permit must be 

obtained if a facility is planning new 

construction that increases the air 

emissions of any regulated NSR 

pollutant at or above 100 or 250 tons per 

year (tpy) (or a lower threshold 

depending upon nonattainment 

severity) or a modification that results 

in a significant emissions increase and 

a significant net emissions increase of 

any regulated NSR pollutant. 

‘‘Significant’’ emissions increase is 

defined in the NSR regulations and is 

pollutant-specific, ranging from less 

than 1 pound (lb) to 100 tpy of the 

applicable regulated NSR pollutant. The 

RBLC database promotes the sharing of 

information among permitting agencies 

and aids in case-by-case determinations 

for NSR permits. The EPA examined 

information contained in the RBLC to 

determine if there were any 

technologies or practices that are 

currently used for reducing emissions of 

arsenic, chromium, or dioxins from 

wood preserving. The EPA also 

searched the EPA’s Applicability 

Determination Index (ADI) website to 

determine if any alternative emission 

standards or management practices had 

been requested or approved. 

The EPA also searched available 

online state databases for state issued air 

quality construction and operating 

permits for the purposes of identifying 

wood preserving area sources and to 

determine if states required emission 

technologies or practices beyond those 

required under the current NESHAP for 

the purposes of reducing emissions of 

the arsenic, chromium, or dioxins from 

wood preserving area sources. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

Additional details and background 

information regarding this review, 

including the information sources 

described in section II.C above, are 

contained in the Technology Review for 

the Wood Preserving Area Sources 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, which can be 

found in the docket for this action. 

E. How does the EPA perform the 

technology review? 

This technology review primarily 

focused on the identification and 

evaluation of developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

have occurred since the GACT 

standards were promulgated. Where the 

EPA identifies such developments, their 

technical feasibility, estimated costs, 

energy implications, and non-air 

environmental impacts are analyzed. 

The EPA also considers the emission 

reductions associated with applying 

each development. The analysis informs 

the EPA’s decision of whether it is 

‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions 

standards. In addition, the EPA 

considers the appropriateness of 

applying controls to new sources versus 

retrofitting existing sources. For this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12638 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

exercise, the EPA considers any of the 

following to be a ‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original GACT standards; 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the original 

GACT standards) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction; 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

original GACT standards; 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original GACT 

standards; and 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original GACT 

standards). 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

were considered at the time the 

NESHAP was originally developed, the 

EPA reviews a variety of data sources in 

the investigation of potential practices, 

processes, or controls to consider. See 

sections II.C and II.D of this preamble 

for information on the specific data 

sources that were reviewed as part of 

the technology review. 

III. Proposed Rule Summary and 

Rationale 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review, and what is the rationale for 

those decisions? 

As described in section II of this 

preamble, the technology review 

focused on identifying developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies for the Wood Preserving 

Area Sources category. The EPA 

reviewed various sources of information 

regarding emission sources that are 

currently regulated by the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources GACT. Based 

on this review the EPA did not identify 

any developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies for 

wood preserving area source facilities 

that would further reduce emissions of 

the four urban HAP for which the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources category was 

listed. As a result of this review, the 

EPA is proposing that revisions to the 

existing GACT standards are not 

necessary. 

B. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

In this proposal, the EPA is proposing 

minor editorial and formatting changes 

to Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 

63—Applicability of General Provisions 

to Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63. These 

proposed changes are based on updated 

text and references in the General 

Provisions and will be consistent with 

other NESHAP. The updates include 

listing individual provisions on separate 

lines as opposed to grouping provisions 

and including explanations, where 

appropriate, for the applicability of the 

general provision to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart QQQQQQ (e.g., the general 

provisions at 40 CFR 60.6(h)(6) through 

(9) are not applicable because the 

subpart does not contain opacity limits). 

The proposed redline-strikeout 

regulatory edits that would be necessary 

to incorporate the minor editorial and 

formatting changes proposed in this 

action are presented in an attachment to 

the memorandum titled: Proposed 

Redline Strikeout Edits, Subpart 

QQQQQQ: Wood Preserving Area 

Sources, available in the docket for this 

action. 

C. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 

There are no proposed changes to the 

existing compliance dates because we 

are not proposing any revisions to 

existing requirements. 

D. What are the proposed corrections to 

subpart QQQQ: Surface Coating of 

Wood Building Products? 

In this proposal, and unrelated to the 

technology review for the Wood 

Preserving Area Sources NESHAP, the 

EPA is proposing technical corrections 

to a different NESHAP: The NESHAP for 

Surface Coating of Wood Building 

Products. The proposed changes are 

necessary because the NESHAP for 

Surface Coating of Wood Building 

Products contains a reference to an 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) provision that 

has changed. The EPA proposes to 

amend 40 CFR 63.4741(a)(1)(i) and 

(a)(4), which describe how to determine 

the mass fraction of organic HAP in 

each material used, to remove references 

to OSHA-defined carcinogens as 

specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). 

The reference to OSHA-defined 

carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 

1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify 

which compounds must be included in 

calculating total organic HAP content of 

a coating material if they are present at 

0.1 percent or greater by mass. The EPA 

proposes to remove this reference 

because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has 

been amended and no longer readily 

defines which compounds are 

carcinogens. The EPA is proposing to 

replace these references to OSHAdefined carcinogens and 29 CFR 

1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed 

new Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

QQQQ) of those organic HAP that must 

be included in calculating the total 

organic HAP content of a coating 

material if they are present at 0.1 

percent or greater by mass. The 

proposed redline strikeout regulatory 

edits that would be necessary to 

incorporate the changes proposed in 

this action related to the technical 

correction are presented in the 

memorandum titled: Proposed Redline 

Strikeout Edits, Subpart QQQQ: Surface 

Coating of Wood Products, available in 

the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0133). 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

Currently, the EPA estimates that 

there are 322 wood preserving area 

source facilities in the United States that 

are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

QQQQQQ. Approximately 177 of those 

facilities use or are permitted to use a 

wood preservative containing arsenic, 

chromium, dioxins, or methylene 

chloride and therefore must comply 

with the management practice 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

QQQQQQ. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

Emissions of arsenic, chromium, 

dioxins, and methylene chloride are not 

expected to change in any significant 

way due to this action and therefore no 

change in air quality impacts is 

expected. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

The one-time cost associated with 

reviewing the proposed rule is 

estimated to be $270 per affected facility 

in 2019 dollars. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

Economic impact analyses focus on 

changes in market prices and output 

levels. If changes in market prices and 

output levels in the primary markets are 

significant enough, impacts on other 

markets may also be examined. Both the 

magnitude of costs needed to comply 

with a final rule and the distribution of 

these costs among affected facilities can 

have a role in determining how the 

market will change in response to a final 

rule. The total cost associated with this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12639 

final rule across all facilities is 

estimated to be approximately $87,000. 

The estimated cost for each facility is 

$270, which represents a one-time cost 

associated with reviewing the revised 

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. 

E. What are the benefits? 

If finalized as proposed, the EPA does 

not anticipate any significant changes in 

arsenic, chromium, dioxin, or 

methylene chloride emissions as a result 

of the proposed action. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

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 

was signed to advance racial equity and 

support underserved communities 

through Federal government actions (86 

FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA 

defines environmental justice (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 the 

term 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’’ (https://www.epa.gov/ 

environmentaljustice). 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. 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with the 

source category, we performed a 

demographic analysis, which is an 

assessment of individual demographic 

groups of the populations living within 

5 kilometers (km) and within 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 (Table 1) indicate that, for 

populations within 5 km of the 322 

facilities in the source category, the 

percent minority population (being the 

total population minus the white 

population) is larger than the national 

average (48 percent versus 40 percent). 

Within minorities, the percent of the 

population that is African American is 

significantly higher than the national 

average (21 percent versus 12 percent). 

The percent of the population that is 

Other and Multiracial (6 percent) and 

Hispanic/Latino (21 percent) is slightly 

higher than the national averages (8 

percent and 19 percent, respectively). 

The percent of the population that is 

Native American is similar to the 

national average (0.5 percent versus 0.7 

percent). The percent of people living 

below the poverty level is higher than 

the national average (18 percent versus 

13 percent). The percent of people over 

25 without a high school diploma, and 

those living in linguistic isolation is 

similar to the national average. 

The results of the analysis (Table 1) 

indicate that, for populations within 50 

km of the 322 facilities in the source 

category, the percent minority 

population (38 percent) is smaller than 

the national average (40 percent). 

Within minorities, the percent of the 

population that is African American is 

slightly higher than the national average 

(14 percent versus 12 percent). Within 

50 km, the percent of the population for 

all other minorities is similar to or lower 

than the national average. The percent 

of people living below the poverty level, 

over 25 without a high school diploma, 

and living in linguistic isolation is 

similar to the national average. 

A summary of the proximity 

demographic assessment performed for 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Technology 

Review for Wood Preserving Area 

Sources facilities is included as Table 1. 

The methodology and the results of the 

demographic analysis are presented in a 

technical report, Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Technology Review for Wood Preserving 

Area Sources, available in this docket 

for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0133). 

TABLE 1—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS: TECHNOLOGY REVIEW FOR WOOD PRESERVING AREA SOURCES

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km 

of 322 facilities 

Population 

within 5 km of 

322 facilities 

Total Population ........................................................................................................................... 328,016,242 129,342,574 5,382,118 

White and Minority by Percent 

White ............................................................................................................................................ 60 62 52 

Minority ........................................................................................................................................ 40 38 48 

Minority by Percent 

African American ......................................................................................................................... 12 14 21 

Native American .......................................................................................................................... 0.70 0.4 0.5 

Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ....................................................................... 19 17 21

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... 8 8 6 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 13 13 18 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 87 87 82 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12640 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS: TECHNOLOGY REVIEW FOR WOOD PRESERVING AREA SOURCES—Continued 

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km 

of 322 facilities 

Population 

within 5 km of 

322 facilities 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without a High School Diploma .............................................................................. 12 12 15

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................................... 88 88 85 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent 

Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................................... 5 5 6 

Notes: 

• The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey fiveyear 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. 

Based on our technology review, we 

did not identify any add-on control 

technologies, process equipment, work 

practices or procedures that were not 

previously considered during 

development of the 2007 Wood 

Preserving Area Sources NESHAP, and 

we did not identify developments in 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies that would result in 

additional emission reductions. 

V. Request for Comments 

The EPA solicits comments on this 

proposed action. In addition to general 

comments on this proposed action, the 

EPA is also interested in additional data 

that may improve the analyses. The EPA 

is specifically interested in receiving 

any information regarding 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that reduce 

HAP emissions from the sources within 

the wood preserving area sources 

category. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the OMB for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0598. This proposal does not 

include any new reporting or record 

keeping requirements and therefore 

does not impose an information 

collection burden. 

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 small businesses. The Agency 

has determined that all small entities 

affected by this action, estimated to be 

175 entities, may experience an impact 

of less than 0.7 percent of revenues, 

with approximately 95 percent of these 

entities estimated to experience a 

potential impact of less than 0.1 percent 

of revenues. Details of the analysis are 

presented in the spreadsheet titled RFA_

Analysis_Wood_2022_Proposal.xlsx, 

which is found in the docket. 

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. 

While this action creates an enforceable 

duty on the private sector, the cost does 

not exceed $100 million or more. 

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. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

However, consistent with the EPA 

policy on coordination and consultation 

with Indian tribes, the EPA will offer 

government-to-government consultation 

with tribes as requested. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because the EPA does not 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12641 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The methodology and the results of the 

demographic analysis are discussed in 

section IV.F above. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and record 

keeping requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04571 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 22–78; RM–11918; DA 22– 

189; FR ID 74154] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Wichita, Kansas 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by Gray 

Television Licensee, LLC (Petitioner), 

the licensee of KSCW–DT, channel 12, 

Wichita, Kansas. The Petitioner requests 

the substitution of channel 28 for 

channel 12 at in the Table of 

Allotments. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 6, 2022 and reply 

comments on or before April 21, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for the Petitioner as follows: 

Joan Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 

2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 

20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media 

Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

support, the Petitioner states that the 

proposed channel substitution serves 

the public interest because it will 

resolve significant over-the-air reception 

problems in KSCW–DT’s existing 

service area. The Petitioner further 

states that the Commission has 

recognized the deleterious effects 

manmade noise has on the reception of 

digital VHF signals, and that the 

propagation characteristics of these 

channels allow undesired signals and 

noise to be receivable at relatively 

farther distances compared to UHF 

channels and nearby electrical devices 

can cause interference. According to the 

Petitioner, although the proposed 

channel 28 noise limited contour will 

fall slightly short of the licensed 

channel 12 noise limited contour, a 

terrain-limited analysis using the 

Commission’s TVStudy software 

demonstrates that there is no predicted 

loss in population served. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 22–78; 

RM–11918; DA 22–189, adopted 

February 22, 2022, and released 

February 23, 2022. The full text of this 

document is available for download at 

https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request 

materials in accessible formats (braille, 

large print, computer diskettes, or audio 

recordings), please send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, do not apply to this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that all ex parte contacts are prohibited 

from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is issued to the time the 

matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, 

however, exceptions to this prohibition, 

which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.1204(a). 

See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the 

Commission’s rules for information 

regarding the proper filing procedures 

for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan, 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—Radio Broadcast Service 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

§ 73.622 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (j), amend 

the Table of Allotments under Kansas 

by revising the entry for Wichita to read 

as follows: 

§ 73.622 Digital television table of 

allotments. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

Community Channel No. 

* * * * * 

KANSAS 

* * * * * 

Wichita .............................. 10, 15, 26, 28 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–04407 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–00199] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Denial of Petitions for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petitions for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document denies the 

September 27, 2021 petitions for 

rulemaking submitted by the Small 

Business in Transportation Coalition 

(SBTC) (‘‘petitioner’’). The petitioner 

requested that the agency initiate 

rulemaking to establish a new Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 

on the installation of electronic logging 

devices (ELDs), and to amend existing 

FMVSSs for heavy vehicle braking and 

accelerator control systems (i.e., FMVSS 

Nos. 105, 121, and 124). NHTSA is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS