[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12633-12641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04571]


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

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

[[Page 12634]]

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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9b8f4b8b7bdf4abf4bdb6bab2bcad99bca9b8f7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3d29ed2ddd79ec19ed7dcd0d8d6c7f3d6c3d29dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0133 in the subject line of the message.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0133.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6b380979885d8bc999e98b6938697d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="296c5f48475a0763464147694c5948074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that because 
of current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social 
distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-
person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a494a4a5e6a6f78767379727f7b6873747d5a7f6a7b347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcafacacb88c899e90959f94999d8e95929bbc998c9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/wood-preserving-area-sources-national-emission-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/wood-preserving-area-sources-national-emission-standards-hazardous or contact the public 
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8edddedecafefbece2e7ede6ebeffce7e0e9ceebfeefa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="11424141556164737d787279747063787f76517461703f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>. 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-sources-air-pollution/wood-preserving-area-sources-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#256053444b560b6f4a4d4b654055440b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="276251464954096d484f496742574609404851">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/wood-preserving-area-sources-national-emission-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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90c3c0c0d4e0e5f2fcf9f3f8f5f1e2f9fef7d0f5e0f1bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d380838397a3a6b1bfbab0bbb6b2a1babdb493b6a3b2fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a> 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 pre-register 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://

[[Page 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5aaa4b4b5b6a6a7ac85a0b5a4eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0bfb1a1a0a3b3b2b990b5a0b1feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb1bfafaeadbdbcb79ebbaebff0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d9b6b8a8a9aababbb099bca9b8f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a> 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?

[[Page 12636]]

    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/wood-preserving-area-sources-national-emission-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 
case-specific 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

[[Page 12638]]

exercise, the EPA considers any of the following to be a 
``development'':
    <bullet> Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT 
standards;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original GACT 
standards;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 OSHA-defined 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

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                   within 50 km     Population
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide        of 322      within 5 km of
                                                                                    facilities    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
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 12640]]

 
                                                                               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:
<bullet> The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities
  are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
<bullet> Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
<bullet> 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/laws-regulations/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

[[Page 12641]]

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, 
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>