34614 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6Once removed from the SIP, 401 KAR 50:055 

sections 1(1) and 1(4) will apply to Kentucky in 

exercising its enforcement authority for state-law 

purposes only. Citizens and EPA may seek 

injunctive relief or civil penalties for excess 

emissions, as 401 KAR 50:055 sections 1(1) and 1(4) 

will not be in the Kentucky SIP. 

(b) All reasonable steps were taken to 

correct, as expeditiously as practicable, 

the conditions causing the emissions to 

exceed the standards, including the use 

of off shift labor and overtime if 

necessary; 

(c) All reasonable steps were taken to 

minimize the emissions and their effect 

on air quality resulting from the 

occurrence; 

(d) The excess emissions are not part 

of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or 

maintenance; and 

(e) The malfunction or shutdown and 

ensuing start-up was not caused entirely 

or in part by poor maintenance, careless 

operation or any other preventable upset 

conditions or equipment breakdown. 

Although EPA did not include 401 

KAR 50:055 section 1(4) in the SIP call 

with the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the 

provision is referenced within the SIPcalled provision, 401 KAR 50:055 

section 1(1), and removing it from the 

SIP is consistent with the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. Kentucky’s submittal states that 

401 KAR 50:055 section 1(1) and section 

1(4) will remain in the Commonwealth’s 

regulations to be enforceable as stateonly provisions.6

Based on Kentucky’s request to 

remove 401 KAR 50:055 section 1(1) 

and section 1(4) from the Kentucky SIP, 

EPA proposes to find that Kentucky’s 

November 17, 2016, SIP revision is 

consistent with CAA requirements and 

adequately addresses the specific 

deficiencies that EPA identified in the 

2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to 

the Kentucky SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule amended 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. EPA is 

proposing to remove the incorporation 

by reference of specific provisions 

under 401 KAR 50:055, General 

Compliance Requirements. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing the removal of 401 

KAR 50:055 section 1(1) and section 

1(4) from the Kentucky SIP, which is 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

the SIP generally available at the EPA 

Region 4 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Commonwealth’s November 17, 2016, 

SIP submission requesting removal of 

401 KAR 50:055 section 1(1) and section 

1(4) from the Kentucky SIP. EPA is 

proposing approval of the SIP revision 

because the Agency has determined that 

it is consistent with the requirements for 

SIP provisions under the CAA. EPA is 

further proposing to determine that such 

SIP revision corrects the deficiencies 

identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call. 

EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action and is taking comment only on 

whether this SIP revision is consistent 

with CAA requirements and whether it 

addresses the substantial inadequacy in 

the specific Kentucky SIP provision 

(401 KAR 50:055 section 1(1)) identified 

in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 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. This action merely proposes to 

approve State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this proposed 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this rulemaking does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Daniel Blackman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12069 Filed 6–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747; FRL–6934.1– 

01–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV38 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 

Technology Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Miscellaneous Coating 

Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP) 

facilities, as required by the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). In order to complete the 

required technology review that was 

originally promulgated on August 14, 

2020, the EPA is proposing inorganic 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34615 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards 

for process vessels. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before August 8, 2022. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before July 7, 2022. 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

June 13, 2022 by 5:00 p.m. ET, we will 

hold a virtual public hearing. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

information on requesting and 

registering for a public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0747, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0747 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 

0747. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 

0747, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143–01), Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

2187; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and 

email address: carey.angela@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 June 22, 2022. The hearing will 

convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) 

and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. ET. The 

EPA may close a session 15 minutes 

after the last pre-registered speaker has 

testified if there are no additional 

speakers. The EPA will announce 

further details at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

miscellaneous-coating-manufacturingnational-emission-standards. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing no later than 1 business 

day after a request has been received. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

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

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

miscellaneous-coating-manufacturingnational-emission-standards 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 June 21, 2022. Prior to 

the hearing, the EPA will post a general 

agenda that will list pre-registered 

speakers in approximate order at: 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/miscellaneous-coatingmanufacturing-national-emissionstandards. 

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 carey.angela@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/ 

miscellaneous-coating-manufacturingnational-emission-standards. While the 

EPA expects the hearing to go forward 

as set forth above, please monitor our 

website or contact the public hearing 

team at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

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 a special accommodation 

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

hearing team and describe your needs 

by June 14, 2022. The EPA may not be 

able to arrange accommodations without 

advanced notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Although 

listed, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 

Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 

0747. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically to https:// 

www.regulations.gov any information 

that you consider to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed below. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34616 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in the Instructions 

section of this document. If you submit 

any digital storage media that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

digital storage media clearly that it does 

not contain CBI and note the docket ID. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the 

EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address 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–2018–0747. The mailed CBI 

material should be double wrapped and 

clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. Throughout this 

document the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. 

We use multiple acronyms and terms in 

this preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

1–BP 1-bromopropane 

BLDS bag leak detection system 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

ICR Information Collection Request 

km kilometer 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MCM miscellaneous coating manufacturing 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM particulate matter 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper prediction limit 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows below. Section III 

of this preamble summarizes the results 

of the inorganic HAP emissions 

assessment. Section IV of this preamble 

describes the majority of the Agency’s 

rationale for the actions proposed in this 

preamble: sections IV. A. and B. 

summarize changes we are proposing, 

including regulatory language changes 

related to the inorganic HAP emissions 

requirements; and section IV.C. 

summarizes our rationale for the 

compliance dates we are proposing. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. Proposed Decisions for Inorganic HAP 

Standards 

B. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of HAP 

C. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and 13563 Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34617 

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

2 Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. 

EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (‘‘LEAN’’). 

3See 57 FR 31,576, July 16, 1992. 

4See EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992, available at 

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/ 

2000MTDN.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument

&Client=EPA&Index=1991

+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=&

Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=

1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&

QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&

QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=

0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles

%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94%5CTxt

%5C00000015%5C2000MTDN.txt

&User=ANONYMOUS&Password

=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-

&MaximumDocuments=1&

FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/ 

x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&

SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&

BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=

1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

NESHAP and associated regulated 

industrial source categories that are the 

subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

the entities that this proposed action is 

likely to affect. The proposed standards, 

once promulgated, will be directly 

applicable to the affected sources. 

Federal, state, local, and tribal 

government entities would not be 

affected by this proposed action. As 

defined in the Initial List of Categories 

of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and 

Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List, Final 

Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 

1992), the Manufacture of Paints, 

Coatings, and Adhesives source category 

‘‘is any facility engaged in their 

manufacture without regard to the 

particular end-uses or consumers of 

such products. The manufacturing of 

these products may occur in any 

combination at any facility.’’ This 

source category has since been renamed 

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 

(MCM). 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category and NESHAP NAICS code 1

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry .............................. 3255, 3259 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

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

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

miscellaneous-coating-manufacturingnational-emission-standards. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same 

website. 

A redline strikeout version of the rule 

showing the edits that would be 

necessary to incorporate the changes 

proposed in this action is presented in 

the memorandum titled: Proposed 

Redline Strikeout Edits, Subpart 

HHHHH: Miscellaneous Coatings 

Manufacturing, available in the docket 

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

OAR–2018–0747). 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

This action proposes to amend the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): 

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 

which was previously amended when 

the EPA finalized the Residual Risk and 

Technology Review on August 14, 

2020.1

In the Louisiana Environmental 

Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) decision 

issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA 

has an obligation to address unregulated 

emissions from a source category when 

the Agency conducts the 8-year 

technology review required by Clean Air 

Act (CAA) 112(d)(6).2 This proposed 

rule addresses currently unregulated 

emissions of HAP from the MCM source 

category. Inorganic HAP can be emitted 

from sources in the MCM category as 

part of a source’s particulate matter 

(PM) emissions, containing metal HAP. 

These emissions can occur when raw 

materials in powder form are added to 

the paint mixing vessels. Therefore, the 

amendments proposed here define the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standard for 

inorganic HAP, or metal HAP, within 

the MCM source category pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

organic and inorganic HAP emissions? 

As defined in the Initial List of 

Categories of Sources Under Section 

112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 3 and 

Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List, Final 

Report,4 the ‘‘manufacture of paints, 

coatings, and adhesives’’ source 

category ‘‘is any facility engaged in their 

manufacture without regard to the 

particular end-uses or consumers of 

such products. The manufacturing of 

these products may occur in any 

combination at any facility.’’ 

The MCM source category includes 

the collection of equipment that is used 

to manufacture coatings at a facility. 

MCM operations also include cleaning 

operations. Coatings are materials such 

as paints, inks, or adhesives that are 

intended to be applied to a substrate 

and consist of a mixture of resins, 

pigments, solvents, and/or other 

additives, where the material is 

produced by a manufacturing operation 

where materials are blended, mixed, 

diluted, or otherwise formulated. 

Coatings do not include materials made 

in processes where a formulation 

component is synthesized by chemical 

reaction or separation activity and then 

transferred to another vessel where it is 

formulated to produce a material used 

as a coating, where the synthesized or 

separated component is not stored prior 

to formulation. 

The equipment controlled by the 

MCM NESHAP includes process 

vessels, storage tanks for feedstocks and 

products, equipment leak components 

(pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure 

relief devices (PRDs), sampling 

connection systems, open-ended valves 

or lines, valves, connectors, and 

instrumentation systems), wastewater 

tanks, heat exchangers, and transfer 

racks. 

The current NESHAP regulates 

process vessels based on the volume of 

the process vessel and the maximum 

true vapor pressure of the organic HAP 

processed or stored. Control 

requirements range from the use of 

tightly fitted lids on process vessels to 

the capture and reduction of organic 

HAP emissions through the use of addon controls (i.e., a flare, oxidizer, or 

condenser). 

The current NESHAP does not 

regulate metal HAP from process 

vessels. During the addition of raw 

materials in powder form to paint 

mixing vessels, emissions of metal HAP 

in the form of PM emissions may occur 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34618 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5See Summary of Data Collected for the 

Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Risk and 

Technology Review Amendments, available in the 

docket for this action. 

6For more information regarding the general use 

of the UPL and why it is appropriate for calculating 

MACT floors, see Use of Upper Prediction Limit for 

Calculating MACT Floors (UPL Memo), which is 

available in the docket for this action. For more 

information on the calculation of MCM-specific 

MACT floor limits, see UPL for Area Source 

Paint.xlsx, also available in the docket for this 

action. 

and are typically collected and routed to 

a PM control device (i.e., baghouse, 

fabric filters, cartridge filters, or 

scrubbers). This proposal addresses the 

previously unregulated metal HAP 

emissions from this category and 

proposes MACT for emission sources of 

metal HAP. 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

Although no formal data collection 

activity was conducted, the EPA 

contacted industry representatives and 

obtained supplemental information 

about the emission processes, control 

technologies, and speciation profiles for 

metal HAP. New information provided 

by the American Coatings Association 

on four area source PM performance 

tests is available in the docket for this 

action, Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 

0747. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

For the MCM source category, we 

have limited information for metal HAP. 

We reviewed the 2017 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) for the 42 

facilities in the MCM source category 

and identified emissions of manganese, 

antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, 

chromium III, chromium VI, cadmium, 

and arsenic compounds, all inorganic 

HAP, and all metals. Based on 

discussions with industry, these 

reported metals emissions are not based 

on performance test results; rather, they 

are based on loading rates, emissions 

factors, and engineering calculations. 

The EPA has determined that, in this 

case, it is appropriate to use PM 

emissions as a surrogate for metal HAP 

emissions from process vessels in which 

dry materials (e.g., pigments) containing 

metal HAP are added to the process 

vessels. In MCM, ‘‘metal HAP’’ is 

defined as including compounds of 

manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, 

cobalt, chromium III, chromium VI, 

cadmium, and arsenic compounds. 

MCM sources would be subject to this 

proposed rule if they emit any of these 

metal HAP. 

The EPA used information from title 

V permits for each MCM facility, 

performance tests for area source 

coating manufacturing facilities, and 

vendor specifications for baghouses and 

cartridge filters in this industry to 

determine the MACT emission limit for 

metal HAP. The American Coatings 

Association provided the EPA with 

performance tests for PM emission 

control devices from process vessels 

from four area source paint 

manufacturing facilities. These four 

performance tests results are available 

in the docket for this action, Docket ID: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747. We could 

not locate PM stack test information for 

any of the 42 major source coating 

manufacturing facilities, but the four 

area sources’ test data are from similar 

equipment used in similar processes 

and the EPA has determined that the 

data are a reasonable representation of 

the control achieved by the best 

performers in the major source coatings 

manufacturing source category. 

Emissions from the four source tests 

ranged from 0.003 to 0.0138 gr/dscf PM, 

based on EPA Method 5 testing. Results 

from these source tests did not include 

measurement of metal HAP. The EPA 

also had discussions with baghouse and 

cartridge filter vendors who service this 

industry, and they provided 

performance specifications indicating 

that some systems could achieve PM 

emissions on the order of 0.002 to 0.005 

gr/dscf, which is on the same order as 

the values determined from the sources 

tests. 

The EPA also reviewed title V permits 

of the 42 currently affected MCM 

sources and found that seven hold 

permits with PM limits.5 The limits in 

the MCM permits ranged from 0.03 to 

0.3 gr/dscf from seven facilities using 

cartridge filters, baghouses, fabric filters, 

and bag filters. However, these limits 

are not supported by any measurement 

or performance test information. 

Further, facilities estimated their 

emissions of metal HAP using an 

assumed composition of PM. 

III. Analytical Procedures and 

Decision-Making 

The MACT floor limit for PM from 

existing sources is calculated based on 

the average performance of the bestperforming units in each category or 

subcategory and on a consideration of 

these units’ variability. The MACT floor 

for new sources is based on the single 

best-performing source, with a similar 

consideration of that source’s 

variability. The MACT floor for new 

sources cannot be less stringent than the 

emissions performance that is achieved 

in practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. To account for variability in the 

operation and emissions, we calculated 

the MACT floors using the 99 percent 

Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) using the 

available stack test information. We note 

that the MACT floor for new units is 

based on a limited data set.6

The UPL approach addresses 

variability of emissions data from the 

best-performing source or sources in 

setting MACT standards. The UPL also 

accounts for uncertainty associated with 

emission values in a dataset, which can 

be influenced by components such as 

the number of samples available for 

developing MACT standards and the 

number of samples that will be collected 

to assess compliance with the emission 

limit. The UPL approach has been used 

in many environmental science 

applications. As explained in more 

detail in the UPL Memo cited above, the 

EPA uses the UPL approach to 

reasonably estimate the emissions 

performance of the best-performing 

source or sources to establish MACT 

floor standards. 

As described above, we obtained 

additional data on PM emissions from 

area sources in the paints and coatings 

industry. Specifically, we obtained PM 

data from four facilities that are area 

source emissions for PM. This proposal 

is based on this data and the EPA’s 

determination that, due to the 

similarities in processes and emissions 

controls, this data is representative of 

the best performers in the MCM source 

category. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. Proposed Decisions for Inorganic 

HAP Standards 

a. How did we develop the MACT 

standard? 

In reviewing available information, 

we found no performance test data for 

metal HAP emissions. However, we 

reviewed information from the paints 

and allied products area source standard 

that indicated the composition of metal 

HAP from PM was estimated to be 

approximately 0.13 weight percent. 

Furthermore, one facility in the MCM 

source category reported that an 

analysis of its dust collector dust 

indicated a value of 0.12 weight percent 

chromium compounds. Assuming a 

typical metal HAP weight fraction of PM 

of approximately 0.12 weight percent, 

metal HAP emissions from the outlet of 

a PM control device emitting on the 

order of 0.003 to 0.0138 gr/dscf would 

result in metal HAP emissions 

approaching or below the in-stack 

detection limit of the analysis method 

for total selected metals, EPA Method 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34619 

7For example, the average RDL for chromium 

compounds in an EPA Method 29 train is 2.5 mg/ 

dscm. 

29.7 (See EPA Springdale Chromium 

Q.docx and Data and Procedure for 

Handling Below Detection Level Data in 

Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions 

Databases for MACT and RTR 

Emissions Limits in the MCM Docket ID: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747 and Model 

Plants for Paint and Allied Products 

Manufacturing Area Sources in the 

Paints and Allied Products Docket ID: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0053.) Therefore, 

while it is clear that some of the PM 

emissions are metal HAP, it is difficult 

to set a limit for specific metal HAP 

because controls achieving low PM 

loading rates (e.g., the best performers) 

will likely result in concentrations of 

metal HAP below limits of detection. 

However, measurement of PM is feasible 

and represents the best performers and, 

therefore, we are using PM as a 

surrogate. As we do not have 

measurements of metal HAP, we are 

establishing standards for filterable PM. 

Metal HAP are non-volatile metals that 

are a part of filterable PM. While the 

EPA method selected (EPA Method 5) is 

for filterable PM, we note that we are 

testing for filterable, not condensable, 

PM. We also note that if a source should 

use solid additives that do not contain 

metal HAP, then the source is not 

required to comply with this standard. 

Likewise, the PM standard does not 

apply to pigments and other solids that 

are in paste, slurry, or liquid form, 

because metal HAP emissions and PM 

emissions are not expected to occur 

when using such pigments and other 

solids because they are not readily 

dispersed in the air. 

To support the proposed use of PM as 

a surrogate for certain non-mercury HAP 

metals, we considered the holding in 

National Lime v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 

(D.C. Cir. 2000). In considering whether 

the EPA may use PM, a criteria 

pollutant, as a surrogate for metal HAP, 

the D.C. Circuit stated that the EPA 

‘‘may use a surrogate to regulate 

hazardous pollutants if it is ‘reasonable’ 

to do so,’’ id. at 637, and laid out criteria 

for determining whether the use of PM 

as a surrogate for non-mercury metal 

HAP was reasonable. The court found 

that PM is a reasonable surrogate for 

HAP if: (1) ‘‘HAP metals are invariably 

present’’ in the source’s PM,’’ id.; (2) the 

‘‘source’s PM control technology 

indiscriminately captures HAP metals 

along with other particulates,’’ id. at 

639; and (3) ‘‘PM control is the only 

means by which facilities ‘achieve’ 

reductions in HAP metal emissions,’’ id. 

If these criteria are satisfied and the PM 

emission standards reflect what the best 

sources achieve—complying with CAA 

section 7412(d)(3)—‘‘EPA is under no 

obligation to achieve a particular 

numerical reduction in HAP metal 

emissions.’’ Id. 

While a requirement to meet all of the 

criteria laid out in the court opinion has 

never been established, we considered 

those criteria in evaluating whether the 

proposed surrogate standards for the 

MCM source category are reasonable 

and concluded that they are. 

Specifically, since the proposed 

standards would only apply if metal 

HAP are present in the materials being 

processed, the first criteria is satisfied. 

The types of controls used in the 

industry indiscriminately capture HAP 

metals along with other particulates, 

thus satisfying the second criteria. 

Finally, for each type of product, means 

other than air pollution controls are not 

used to reduce emissions. Therefore, we 

conclude that it is reasonable to use PM 

as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP 

metals. 

To account for variability in the 

operation and emissions, the stack test 

data were used to calculate the MACT 

floor limits based on the 99 percent 

UPL. The UPL for new sources was 

determined to be 0.0079 gr/dscf, and the 

UPL for existing sources was 

determined to be 0.014 gr/dscf. We also 

conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis, 

where we determined that requiring all 

facilities to go beyond either limit 

would not be cost-effective. We based 

this conclusion on cost information 

developed for the paints and allied 

products area source standard, see EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0053–0072. All 

facilities in the source category 

currently have PM controls in place 

using existing baghouses, fabric filters, 

or cartridge filters. The estimated cost to 

completely replace these filters with 

new filters would be $695,142 in capital 

costs for all 42 facilities, and the 

incremental reductions from moving 

beyond the proposed 0.014 gr/dscf limit 

to 0.002, the lowest value provided by 

a vendor, would result in a costeffectiveness for PM of about $3800/ton, 

and over $3.5 million/ton metal HAP. 

Therefore, the beyond-the-floor options 

were not considered to be cost-effective. 

As explained above, the MACT floor 

for new sources cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions performance that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The EPA 

performed a variability analysis similar 

to that used for existing sources to 

calculate a 99 percent UPL using the test 

runs from the lowest emitting source to 

derive the new source MACT floor limit. 

b. Performance Testing 

We are proposing, based on these 

limits, that existing sources demonstrate 

initial compliance with the PM 

emissions limit of 0.014 gr/dscf and new 

sources demonstrate initial compliance 

with the PM emissions limit of 0.0079 

gr/dscf. We are proposing to revise 

Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

HHHHH to include the emission limits 

that apply to process vessels. Facilities 

will be required to comply continuously 

with the standards during all operations 

that emit metal HAP. Consistent with 

the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing: NESHAP for Area 

Sources, this requirement does not 

apply to pigments and other solids that 

are in paste, slurry, or liquid form. 

As stated in section III. above, 

controls achieving low PM loading rates 

(e.g., the best performers) will likely 

result in concentrations of metal HAP 

below limits of detection, particularly 

with materials with very low 

concentrations of metal HAP. Therefore, 

we have also provided owners and 

operators the ability to demonstrate that 

materials containing inorganic HAP 

metals below certain levels are not 

subject to these standards. We are 

proposing to add to the list of 

definitions to this subpart, material 

containing metal HAP, to mean a 

material containing compounds of 

manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, 

cobalt, chromium, cadmium, and 

arsenic compounds, in amounts greater 

than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight 

as shown in formulation data provided 

by the manufacturer or supplier, such as 

the Material Safety Data Sheet for the 

material. 

c. Monitoring 

Under this proposal, continuous 

compliance with the emission limits 

would be demonstrated through control 

device parameter monitoring coupled 

with periodic emissions testing. 

Appropriate operating parameters 

would include those recommended by 

the control device manufacturer as 

appropriate for the control device, 

including but not limited to pressure 

drop, scrubber water supply pressure, 

and/or flow rate. Each operating 

parameter for a PM control device 

would be established during emissions 

performance testing in which the results 

demonstrate compliance; the average 

parameter value recorded during the test 

becomes the facility’s operating limit 

and would be recorded continuously 

using a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS). The 

operating limit could be reset based on 

results obtained during subsequent 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34620 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 

F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘Section 112(i)(3)’s 

3-year maximum compliance period applies 

generally to any emission standard . . . 

promulgated under [section 112]’’ (brackets in 

original)). 

performance tests that demonstrate 

compliance with the emissions limit. 

Consistent with NESHAP general 

provisions, a source owner would be 

required to operate and maintain the 

source, its air pollution control 

equipment, and its monitoring 

equipment in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control 

practices for minimizing emissions, and 

its control device in a manner consistent 

with good engineering control practice, 

including operating and maintaining 

equipment in accordance with 

manufacturer’s recommendations. 

Source owners would be required to 

prepare and keep records of calibration 

and accuracy checks of the CPMS to 

document proper operation and 

maintenance of the monitoring system. 

Note that an acceptable example of a 

CPMS is a bag leak detection system 

(BLDS) used in conjunction with a 

baghouse. A source owner would 

determine the average BLDS value 

obtained during concurrent emission 

performance testing, record the value 

during source operation, and maintain 

that value between emissions 

performance tests, while conducting 

quality assurance checks. 

d. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Under this proposal, a source owner 

would be required to submit semiannual compliance summary reports 

which document both compliance with 

the requirements of this rule and any 

deviations from compliance with any of 

those requirements. 

Owners and operators would be 

required to maintain the records 

specified by 40 CFR 63.10 and, in 

addition, would be required to maintain 

records of all inspection and monitoring 

data, including: 

• Records of PM control device 

operating parameters. For fabric filters 

without BLDS, the pressure drop across 

the baghouse is would be included as an 

operating parameter. 

• Records of calibration and accuracy 

checks for the CPMS. 

• Records of test results to 

demonstrate initial and ongoing 

compliance with the PM standard. 

• If no metal HAP present, records 

showing a Method 29 test result of no 

metal HAP emissions, or documentation 

of formulation data for added dry 

materials. 

B. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of 

HAP 

On January 5, 2022, the EPA 

published in the Federal Register (87 

FR 393) a final rule amending the list of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) to add 1- 

bromopropane (1–BP) in response to 

public petitions previously granted by 

the EPA. 

For this source category, we do not 

believe that the inclusion of 1–BP as an 

organic HAP would have affected the 

representativeness of the MACT 

standard. Owners and operators of 

emission sources regulated by the 

MACT, including process vessels, 

wastewater, equipment leaks, and 

storage may comply with these 

standards by using a control device or 

system that achieves a percent reduction 

and is not HAP-specific. Therefore, we 

are proposing to include 1–BP in Table 

7 Partially Soluble HAP and Table 11 

List of Hazardous Air Pollutants That 

Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic 

HAP Content If Present at 0.1 Percent or 

More by Mass of this subpart to include 

1–BP. We are taking comment on these 

changes, as well as requesting comment 

on the use of 1–BP emissions in this 

source category. 

C. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

Amendments to the MCM NESHAP 

proposed in this rulemaking for 

adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (3) are subject to the compliance 

deadlines outlined in the CAA under 

section 112(i). For existing sources, 

CAA section 112(i)(3) provides there 

shall be compliance ‘‘as expeditiously 

as practicable, but in no event later than 

3 years after the effective date of such 

standard . . . .’’ subject to certain 

exemptions further detailed in the 

statute.8 In determining what 

compliance period is as ‘‘expeditious as 

practicable,’’ we consider the amount of 

time needed to plan and construct 

projects and change operating 

procedures. As provided in CAA section 

112(i), all new affected sources would 

comply with these provisions by the 

effective date of the final amendments 

to the MCM NESHAP or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

All affected facilities would have to 

continue to meet the current provisions 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH until 

the applicable compliance date of the 

amended rule. The final action is not 

expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date 

of the final rule will be the 

promulgation date as specified in CAA 

section 112(d)(10). 

Because these facilities have controls 

in place already, we expect the sources 

to require time to conduct applicability 

reviews, conduct performance testing 

and implement monitoring to comply 

with the revised provisions. From our 

assessment of the timeframe needed for 

compliance with the entirety of the 

revised requirements related to the PM 

provisions, the EPA considers a period 

of 1 year to be the most expeditious 

compliance period practicable and, 

thus, is proposing that existing affected 

sources be in compliance with 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart HHHHH’s revised PM 

provisions within 1 year of this final 

rule’s effective date. 

Therefore, for all affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction on or before June 7, 2022, 

we are proposing that it is necessary to 

provide 1 year after the effective date of 

the final rule (or upon startup, 

whichever is later) for owners and 

operators to comply with the PM 

provisions. For all affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after June 7, 2022, we are 

proposing that owners and operators 

comply with the amended PM 

provisions by the effective date of the 

final rule (or upon startup, whichever is 

later). For all affected sources, we are 

proposing that owners and operators 

comply with the amendments to include 

1–BP in Table 7 and Table 11 provisions 

by the effective date of the final rule. 

We solicit comment on these 

proposed compliance periods, and we 

specifically request submission of 

information from sources in this source 

category regarding specific actions that 

would need to be undertaken to comply 

with the proposed amended provisions 

and the time needed to make the 

adjustments for compliance with any of 

the revised provisions. We note that 

information provided may result in 

changes to the proposed compliance 

dates. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

Currently, 42 major sources subject to 

the MCM NESHAP are operating in the 

United States. The affected source under 

the NESHAP is the facility-wide 

collection of equipment used to 

manufacture coatings and includes all 

process vessels; storage tanks for 

feedstocks and products; components 

such as pumps, compressors, agitators, 

PRDs, sampling connection systems, 

open-ended valves or lines, valves, 

connectors, and instrumentation 

systems; wastewater tanks; transfer 

racks; and cleaning operations. A 

coating is defined as material such as 

paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34621 

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

to be applied to a substrate and consists 

of a mixture of resins, pigments, 

solvents, and/or other additives, where 

the material is produced by a 

manufacturing operation and materials 

are blended, mixed, diluted, or 

otherwise formulated. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

We project no emissions reductions of 

PM from the MCM source category 

because all facilities reporting PM 

emissions are already equipped with 

particulate controls. This action 

proposes first-time standards for metal 

HAP that will limit emissions and 

require that controls are effective. 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

impacts are impacts that would result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices (e.g., increased secondary 

emissions of criteria pollutants from 

power plants). Energy impacts consist of 

the electricity and steam needed to 

operate control devices and other 

equipment. The proposed amendments 

would have no effect on the energy 

needs of the affected facilities and 

would, therefore, have no indirect or 

secondary air emissions impacts. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

All existing MCM facilities are 

expected to be achieving currently the 

level of control required by the 

proposed standards. That is, we believe 

that all existing sources currently route 

vent streams from specified equipment 

through a PM control device such that 

PM emissions are reduced to at least 

0.014 gr/dscf. Although this proposed 

rule contains requirements for new 

sources, we are not aware of any new 

sources being constructed now or 

planned in the next year, and, 

consequently, we did not estimate any 

cost impacts for new sources. Therefore, 

there are no capital costs of this 

proposed rule. The estimated 

annualized cost of the proposed rule 

would be $305,000 per year. The 

annualized costs account for submitting 

the notifications and for control device 

performance testing, inspections, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting for 13 facilities that are 

expected to have add-on controls. As 

stated in the technical support 

document, Summary of Data Collected 

for the MCM RTR Amendments, there 

are 13 facilities that reported metal HAP 

to the 2017 NEI, therefore, we expect 

only 13 facilities to incur costs. This 

document is available in the docket for 

this action. No other capital costs are 

associated with this proposed rule, and 

no additional operational and 

maintenance costs are expected. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

For the proposed rule, the EPA 

estimated the cost of performing an 

initial performance test and annual 

control device inspections at affected 

facilities. To assess the potential 

economic impacts, the expected annual 

cost is compared to the total sales 

revenue for the ultimate owners of 

affected facilities. For this rule, the 

expected annual cost is $7,300 for each 

facility, with an estimated nationwide 

annual cost of $305,000 (2019$). The 42 

affected facilities are owned by 27 

parent companies, and the total costs 

associated with the proposed 

amendments are expected to be less 

than one percent of annual sales 

revenue per ultimate owner. These costs 

account for 13 facilities expected to 

have on control for metal HAP, as well 

as all 42 facilities to become familiar 

with the rule. These costs are not 

expected to result in a significant 

market impact, regardless of whether 

they are passed on to the purchaser or 

absorbed by the firms. 

The EPA also prepared a small 

business screening assessment to 

determine if any of the identified 

affected entities are small entities, as 

defined by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. This analysis is 

available in the Docket for this action, 

Docked ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 

0747–0020. Two of the affected facilities 

are owned by small entities. However, 

since the costs associated with the 

proposed amendments for these two 

affected small entities are expected to be 

less than one percent of annual sales 

revenue per ultimate owner, there are 

no significant economic impacts on a 

substantial number of small entities 

from these proposed amendments. 

Information on our cost impact 

estimates on the sources in the MCM 

source category is available in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

E. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

Consistent with EPA’s commitment to 

integrating environmental justice (EJ) in 

the Agency’s actions, and following the 

directives set forth in multiple 

Executive Orders, the Agency has 

carefully considered the impacts of this 

action on communities with EJ 

concerns. For MCM facilities, the 

demographic screening analysis shows 

the population of people of color is 

similar to the national average. The EPA 

expects that the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 

Technology Review will limit emissions 

and require that controls are effective, 

including in communities already 

overburdened by pollution, which are 

often minority, low-income and 

indigenous communities. This action 

requires facilities with process vessels 

emitting metal HAP, which consist of 

PM emissions from addition of raw 

materials in powder form to paint 

mixing vessels, to demonstrate 

compliance with PM emissions of 0.014 

gr/dscf for existing sources and 0.0079 

gr/dscf for new sources. Following is a 

more detailed description of how the 

Agency considers EJ in the context of 

regulatory development, and specific 

actions taken to address EJ concerns for 

this action. 

Executive Order 12898 directs the 

EPA to identify the populations of 

concern who are most likely to 

experience unequal burdens from 

environmental harms; specifically, 

minority populations, low-income 

populations, and indigenous peoples 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is 

intended to advance racial equity and 

support underserved communities 

through federal government actions (86 

FR 7009, January 25, 2021). The EPA 

defines EJ as ‘‘the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, 

or income, with respect to the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies’’.9 The EPA 

further defines fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies’’. In recognizing that minority 

and low-income populations often bear 

an unequal burden of environmental 

harms and risks, the EPA continues to 

consider ways of protecting them from 

adverse public health and 

environmental effects of air pollution. 

Based on these analyses of potentially 

exposed populations and actions taken 

to reduce adverse human health 

impacts, the EPA anticipates that this 

action is not likely to result in 

disproportionate impacts on minority 

populations and/or low-income 

populations, as specified in Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994) and referenced in Executive Order 

13985 (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021). 

The EPA remains committed to 

engaging with communities and 

stakeholders throughout the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34622 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

development of air pollution 

regulations. 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with 

MCM facilities, we performed a 

demographic analysis, which is an 

assessment of individual demographic 

groups of the populations living within 

5 kilometers (km) and 50 km of the 

facilities. The EPA then compared the 

data from this analysis to the national 

average for each of the demographic 

groups. 

The results of the demographic 

analysis (see Table 2) indicate that, for 

populations within 5 km of the 42 major 

source MCM facilities, the percent of the 

population who are people of color 

(being the total population minus the 

white population) is similar to the 

national average (41 percent versus 40 

percent). However, the percent African 

American population is higher than the 

national percent (20 percent versus 12 

percent nationally), whereas the percent 

Other/Multiracial (6 percent versus 8 

percent nationally) and Hispanic/Latino 

(14 percent versus 19 percent 

nationally) are both below national 

averages. The percent of people living 

below the poverty level (19 percent) and 

those over 25 without a high school 

diploma (15 percent) are higher than the 

national averages (13 percent and 12 

percent, respectively). The percent of 

people living in linguistic isolation is 

lower than the national average (4 

percent versus 5 percent). 

The results of the analysis of 

populations within 50 km of the 42 

major source MCM facilities (see Table 

2) indicate that, the percent population 

of people of color (being the total 

population minus the white population) 

is significantly lower than the national 

average (28 percent versus 40 percent). 

The percent of people living below the 

poverty level, those over 25 without a 

high school diploma, and people living 

in linguistic isolation are lower than the 

corresponding national averages. 

A summary of the proximity 

demographic assessment performed for 

the major source MCM facilities is 

included as Table 2. The methodology 

and the results of the demographic 

analysis are presented in a technical 

report, Analysis of Demographic Factors 

for Populations Living Near MCM 

Facilities, available in this docket for 

this action (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0747). 

TABLE 2—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR MAJOR SOURCE MCM FACILITIES

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km of 

42 facilities 

Population 

within 5 km of 

42 facilities 

Total Population ......................................................................................................... 328,016,242 34,082,528 1,500,328 

White and Minority by Percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 60 72 59 

Minority ...................................................................................................................... 40 28 41 

People of Color by Percent 

African American ....................................................................................................... 12 13 20

Native American ........................................................................................................ 0.7 0.3 0.3 

Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ..................................................... 19 8 14 

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

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................. 13 12 19 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................. 87 88 81 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ............................................................ 12 9 15 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................. 88 91 85 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent 

Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................. 5 3 4 

Notes: 

• The nationwide population count, and all demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey5-

year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population 

counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations. 

• Minority population is the total population minus the white population. 

• To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is 

identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A 

person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also 

identified as in the Census. 

The proposed changes to the NESHAP 

subpart HHHHH will improve human 

health exposures for populations in 

these demographic groups. The 

proposed changes will provide 

additional health protection for all 

populations, including communities 

already overburdened by pollution, 

which are often minority, low-income, 

and indigenous communities. The 

proposed changes will have beneficial 

effects on air quality and public health 

for populations exposed to emissions 

from MCM facilities. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on this proposed 

action. In addition to general comments 

on this proposed action, we are also 

interested in receiving additional data 

that may improve the metal HAP 

assessment for this source category. We 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34623 

are specifically interested in receiving 

performance test results showing metal 

HAP emissions in this category. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Information should be 

submitted to the EPA’s ERT website. 

The ERT website, https://www.epa.gov/ 

electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ 

electronic-reporting-tool-ert provides 

more information on submitting data. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and 13563 Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposal have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA. The 

ICR document that the EPA prepared 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2115.09. You can find a copy of the ICR 

in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747), and it is 

briefly summarized here. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Facilities manufacturing surface 

coatings. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

HHHHH). 

Estimated number of respondents: In 

the year after the amendments are final, 

approximately 42 respondents per year 

would be subject to the NESHAP and no 

additional respondents are expected to 

become subject to the NESHAP during 

that period. 

Frequency of response: The total 

number of responses in year 1 is 42, in 

year 2 is 13, and in year 3 is 13. 

Total estimated burden: The average 

annual burden of the proposed 

amendments to the 42 MCM facilities 

over the first year if the amendments are 

finalized is estimated to be 1,720 hours 

(per year). The average annual burden to 

the Agency over the 3 years after the 

amendments are final is estimated to be 

53 hours (per year). Burden is defined 

in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The average 

annual cost of the proposed 

amendments to the MCM facilities is 

$192,000 in labor costs in the first 3 

years after the amendments are final. 

The average annual capital and 

operation and maintenance costs are 

$30,000. The total average annual 

Agency cost of the proposed 

amendments over the first 3 years after 

the amendments are final is estimated to 

be $2,500. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than July 7, 2022. The EPA will 

respond to any ICR-related comments in 

the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are MCM facilities owned by 

small businesses. Two of the affected 

facilities are owned by small entities. 

However, since the costs associated 

with the proposed amendments for 

these two affected small entities are 

expected to be less than one percent of 

annual sales revenue per ultimate 

owner, there are no significant 

economic impacts on a substantial 

number of small entities from these 

proposed amendments. Details of this 

analysis are described in section V.D 

above and additional detail is provided 

in the economic impact memorandums 

associated with this action. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. No tribal facilities are 

known to be engaged in any of the 

industries that would be affected by this 

action (MCM). Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are documented in the 

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 

Risk Assessment Report, in the MCM 

Docket. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the MCM 

NESHAP through the Enhanced 

National Standards Systems Network 

(NSSN) Database managed by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). We also conducted voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. We conducted 

searches for EPA Methods 5 and 29. 

During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title 

or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s referenced method, the EPA 

ordered a copy of the standard and 

reviewed it as a potential equivalent 

method. We reviewed all potential 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34624 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

standards to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data that meet the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering, and 

policy equivalence to procedures in the 

EPA referenced methods. The EPA may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for particular 

VCS. 

No applicable VCS was identified for 

EPA Method 5 or EPA Method 29. The 

search identified one VCS that was 

potentially applicable for this rule in 

lieu of EPA Method 29. After reviewing 

the available standard, the EPA 

determined that the VCS identified for 

measuring emissions of pollutants 

subject to emissions standards in the 

rule would not be practical due to lack 

of equivalency. Additional information 

for the VCS search and determination 

can be found in the memorandum, 

Voluntary Consensus Standard Results 

for National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing 

Technology Review, which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS, and 

to explain why the EPA should use such 

standards in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

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

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

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

As discussed in section V.E of this 

preamble, the assessment of populations 

in close proximity of MCM facilities 

shows no demographic groups that are 

higher than the national average and the 

proposed changes will provide health 

protection for all populations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12180 Filed 6–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 22–215; RM–11929; DA 22– 

578; FRS–89945] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Orono, Maine 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by Maine 

Public Broadcasting Corporation 

(Petitioner), the licensee of WMEB, 

channel *9, Orono, Maine. The 

Petitioner requests the substitution of 

channel *22 for channel *9 at Orono in 

the Table of Allotments. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before July 7, 2022 and reply comments 

on or before July 22, 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: 

Derek Teslik, Esq., Gray Miller Persh, 

2233 Wisconsin Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20007. 

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 would 

serve the public interest, since moving 

the Station to a UHF channel would 

improve indoor reception. According to 

the Petitioner, although the proposed 

channel *22 facilities will result in a 

slight reduction in the Station’s 

predicted population served, much of 

the predicted loss area is served by the 

Petitioner’s other commonly owned 

stations WCBB–TV, Augusta, Maine4 

and WMED–TV, Calais, Maine, which 

largely air the same programming as 

WMEB–TV. The Petitioner further states 

that once terrain-limitations are factored 

into the analysis, the new loss area that 

would be created by the proposed 

channel substitution would contain 

only 523 persons, which it asserts is 

below the level the Commission 

considers de minimis in the context of 

determining whether there would be an 

impermissible loss of service. Moreover, 

the proposed channel change would 

result in first service to a substantial 

number of persons. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 22–215; 

RM–11929; DA 22–578, adopted May 

25, 2022, and released May 25, 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 Maine by 

revising the entry for Orono to read as 

follows: 

§ 73.622 Table of allotments. 

* * * * * 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1