Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31225 

31A conformity determination that meets other 

applicable criteria in Table 1 of paragraph (b) of this 

section (93.109(e)) is still required, including the 

hot-spot requirements for projects in CO, PM10, and 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) areas. 

effective on September 30, 2010. After 

approval of this LMP or an adequacy 

finding for this LMP, there is no 

requirement to meet the budget test 

pursuant to the transportation 

conformity rule for the maintenance 

area. All actions that would require a 

transportation conformity determination 

for the Knoxville 1997 NAAQS Area 

under EPA’s transportation conformity 

rule provisions are considered to have 

already satisfied the regional emissions 

analysis and ‘‘budget test’’ requirements 

in 40 CFR 93.118 as a result of EPA’s 

adequacy finding for this LMP. See 69 

FR 40004 (July 1, 2004). The Knoxville 

2008 NAAQS Area needs to continue to 

meet all of the applicable requirements 

of the transportation conformity 

regulations, including the need for a 

regional emissions analysis and 

comparison of the results of the regional 

emissions analysis to the applicable 

MVEB for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

However, because LMP areas are still 

maintenance areas, certain aspects of 

transportation conformity 

determinations still will be required for 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects. Specifically, for such 

determinations, RTPs, TIPs, and 

transportation projects still will have to 

demonstrate that they are fiscally 

constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet 

the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 

93.105) and Transportation Control 

Measure implementation in the 

conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 

93.113) as well as meet the hot-spot 

requirements for projects (40 CFR 

93.116).31 Additionally, conformity 

determinations for RTPs and TIPs must 

be determined no less frequently than 

every four years, and conformity of plan 

and TIP amendments and transportation 

projects is demonstrated in accordance 

with the timing requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, in order 

for projects to be approved they must 

come from a currently conforming RTP 

and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.114 and 40 CFR 

93.115. The Knoxville 2008 NAAQS 

Area must continue to meet all of the 

applicable requirements of the general 

conformity regulations. 

VI. Proposed Action 

Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the 

CAA and for the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Knoxville Area’s LMP for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by TDEC 

on January 23, 2020, as a revision to the 

Tennessee SIP. EPA is proposing to 

approve the Knoxville Area LMP 

because it includes an acceptable 

update of the various elements of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

Maintenance Plan approved by EPA for 

the first 10-year period (including 

emissions inventory, assurance of 

adequate monitoring and verification of 

continued attainment, and contingency 

provisions), and retains the relevant 

provisions of the SIP. 

EPA also finds that the Knoxville 

Area qualifies for the LMP option and 

that therefore the Knoxville Area’s LMP 

adequately demonstrates maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through documentation of monitoring 

data showing maximum 1997 8-hour 

ozone levels well below the NAAQS 

and continuation of existing control 

measures. EPA believes the Knoxville 

Area’s 1997 8-Hour Ozone LMP to be 

sufficient to provide for maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Knoxville Area over the second 10-year 

maintenance period, through 2031, and 

thereby satisfy the requirements for 

such a plan under CAA section 175A(b). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act 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 proposed 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, the rule 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, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 4, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12164 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0471; FRL–10024–24– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS26 

Addition of 1-Bromopropane to Clean 

Air Act Section 112 HAP List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Having previously granted a 

public petition to add 1-bromopropane 

(1–BP) to the list of hazardous air 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

pollutants (HAP) under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting 

information that will aid in addressing 

the impacts of the regulatory action. 

This is the first time that a substance 

will be added to the HAP list since the 

initial list was established by the 1990 

CAA Amendments. The addition of 1– 

BP to the HAP list could have 

immediate regulatory compliance 

impacts to facilities that emit 1–BP. The 

EPA is soliciting data and information 

on 1–BP usage, emission controls, and 

costs to inform the process to address 

the implementation of the upcoming 

listing action and to ensure that the 

regulatory infrastructure is in place to 

effectively and efficiently control the 

emissions of 1–BP. The EPA is not 

soliciting comments on the decision that 

granted petitions to list 1–BP as a HAP 

and has not reopened that decision for 

comments. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before July 26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0471, 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– 

2014–0471 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0471. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0471, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): 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. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0471 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 closed to the public, 

with limited exceptions, to reduce the 

risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 

Docket Center staff will continue to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. We 

encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there 

may be a delay in processing mail and 

faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may 

be received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information on 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 action, contact 

Susan Miller, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D205–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

2443; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and 

email address: miller.susan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Docket. The EPA has a docket for this 

document and the future listing action 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2014–0471. This docket is the same 

docket used during the petition process. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in 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–2014– 

0471. 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 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 

mail 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 homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA has temporarily suspended 

its Docket Center and Reading Room for 

public visitors, with limited exceptions, 

to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff will 

continue to provide remote customer 

service via email, phone, and webform. 

We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a 

delay in processing mail and faxes. 

Hand deliveries or couriers will be 

received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information and 

updates on 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 Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31227 

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

email. 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, 

mark the outside of the digital storage 

media as CBI and then 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. 

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. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only 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–2014–0471. Note that written 

comments containing CBI and 

submitted by mail may be delayed and 

no hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. 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 (also known as npropyl bromide or nPB) 

APCD air pollution control device 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act 

GACT generally available control 

technology 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HAP list list of HAP under authority of 

section 112 of the CAA 

HSIA Halogenated Solvents Industry 

Alliance 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NYSDEC New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PERC perchloroethylene 

PPA Pollution Prevention Act 

PTE potential to emit 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

TRI Toxics Release Inventory 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Will this upcoming action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the HAP list? 

B. What is 1–BP? 

C. What is the petition process for the 

addition of a substance to the HAP list? 

D. What has happened to date on the 

listing of 1–BP? 

E. What other actions has the EPA taken on 

1–BP? 

F. What is the purpose of this ANPRM? 

III. Future Impacts of Listing 

A. Profile of 1–BP 

B. Possible Regulatory Impacts of Listing 

Action and Data Needs 

C. Information Needed To Assist in 

Evaluating Compliance Timing and 

Potential New Source Categories 

IV. Additional Requests for Data and 

Comments 

A. Additional Requests 

B. Types of Data and Comment Not 

Requested at This Time 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. Will this upcoming action apply to 

me? 

The upcoming action to add 1–BP to 

the CAA section 112 list of hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP list) may result in 

regulatory obligations that will apply to 

your facility if it emits 1–BP. The types 

of regulatory compliance impacts will 

depend on several factors, including the 

amount of 1–BP used and the way that 

it is used (e.g., as a solvent in a plastic 

parts coating operation as compared to 

as a solvent in a dry cleaning machine) 

and the amount of 1–BP and other HAP 

emitted by your facility. In some 

instances, permits for planned 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification of emissions sources at 

your facility could also be affected. 

There may also be impacts for 

regulatory authorities, including state, 

local, and tribal authorities, who are 

delegated the authority to implement 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

under delegation and title V programs. 

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 action at 

https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-listhazardous-air-pollutantsmodifications#mods. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of this document and key 

technical documents at this same 

website. 

II. Background 

A. What is the HAP list? 

The HAP list, which can be found in 

CAA section 112(b)(1), is a list of 

organic and inorganic substances that 

Congress identified as HAP in the 1990 

CAA Amendments. These HAP are 

associated with a wide variety of 

adverse health effects, including, but 

not limited to cancer, neurological 

effects, reproductive effects, and 

developmental effects. The health 

effects associated with various HAP 

differ depending upon the toxicity of 

the individual HAP and the particular 

circumstances of exposure, such as the 

amount of chemical present, the length 

of time a person is exposed, and the 

stage of life at which the person is 

exposed. Modifications to the HAP list 

are codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

C. 

Section 112(c)(1) of the CAA directs 

the EPA to first identify and list source 

categories that emit HAP listed pursuant 

to CAA section 112(b). Then, under 

CAA section 112(e)(1), the EPA was to 

set ‘‘emission standards for categories 

and subcategories as expeditiously as 

practicable’’ but no later than the overall 

deadline of November 15, 2000. CAA 

section 112(e)(1)(e). The EPA sets 

emissions standards under CAA section 

112(d) for those listed source categories 

based on sources being characterized as 

‘‘major’’ or ‘‘area.’’ 

A major source of HAP is defined 

under CAA section 112(a) as any 

‘‘stationary source or group of stationary 

sources located within a contiguous area 

and under common control that emits or 

has the potential to emit considering 

controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per 

year or more of any hazardous air 

pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of 

any combination of hazardous air 

pollutants.’’ Stationary sources of HAP 

that are not major sources are defined as 

‘‘area sources.’’ Standards promulgated 

under CAA section 112(d) are 

commonly referred to as NESHAP but 

are also frequently referred to as either 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards or 

generally available control technology 

(GACT) standards. While MACT 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31228 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1A more detailed discussion of the potential 

health impacts can be found in the June 18, 2020 

(85 FR 36851) document granting the petitions to 

add 1–BP to the HAP list or in the risk evaluation 

of 1–BP conducted under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) and detailed in an August 12, 

2020, Federal Register document (85 FR 48687). 

See also https://www.epa.gov/assessing-andmanagingchemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-1- 

bromopropane-1-bp. 

standards are required for major sources 

and certain categories of area sources, 

the CAA allows for the use of GACT 

standards for most categories of area 

sources rather than specifically 

requiring MACT. 

B. What is 1–BP? 

The compound 1-bromopropane, or 

1–BP, is also known as n-propyl 

bromide or nPB (CAS No. 106–94–5). 

The compound is a brominated organic 

colorless liquid that is insoluble in 

water but soluble in ethanol and ether. 

1–BP has been classified as a probable 

human carcinogen, neurotoxicant, and 

is associated with adverse reproductive 

effects. In addition, it can produce acute 

health effects in humans, such as 

dizziness and nausea.1 The vapor 

pressure for 1–BP is 146 millimeters of 

mercury at 20 degrees Celsius. The 

vapor pressure for 1–BP is higher than 

the vapor pressures for 

perchloroethylene (PERC; CAS No. 127– 

18–4) and trichloroethylene (TCE; CAS 

No. 79–01–6), two chemicals for which 

1–BP has frequently been used as a 

substitute in recent years. This has led 

to concerns that air emissions associated 

with 1–BP use could be higher than 

those caused by similar use of other 

solvents with lower vapor pressures. 

While 1–BP is predominantly used as 

a solvent cleaner/degreaser, it also has 

numerous other uses, as reported in 

literature and by manufacturers, 

distributors, and end users of 1–BP. 

These other uses include, but are not 

limited to, dry cleaning, adhesives and 

adhesive accelerant, mold release agent, 

solvent in aerosol spray applications, 

and as an intermediate chemical in the 

manufacture of organic and inorganic 

chemical manufacturing including 

pharmaceuticals and agricultural 

products. 

C. What is the petition process for the 

addition of a substance to the HAP list? 

Section 112(b)(3)(A) of the CAA 

specifies that any person may petition 

the Administrator to modify the HAP 

list contained in CAA section 112(b)(1) 

by adding or deleting a substance. CAA 

section 112(b)(3)(B) sets out the 

substantive criteria for granting a 

petition. It calls for the Administrator to 

add a substance to the CAA section 

112(b)(1) list, otherwise known as the 

HAP list, ‘‘upon a showing by the 

petitioner or on the Administrator’s own 

determination that the substance is an 

air pollutant and that emissions, 

ambient concentrations, 

bioaccumulation or deposition of the 

substance are known to cause or may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause 

adverse effects to human health or 

adverse environmental effects.’’ 

After a petition is submitted to the 

EPA to modify the HAP list, the EPA 

conducts a completeness determination 

and then a technical review of the 

petition. During the completeness 

determination, a broad review 

determines whether all necessary data 

requirements for the petition are 

addressed. In addition, the EPA 

determines whether adequate data, 

analyses, and evaluations are included 

to meet the petition requirements. The 

EPA may request additional information 

during this process. If a petition is 

determined to be complete, then the 

EPA places a notice of receipt of a 

complete petition in the Federal 

Register. That document announces a 

public comment period on the petition 

and starts the technical review phase. 

The technical review determines 

whether the petition has satisfied the 

necessary requirements and can support 

a decision to list or delist a HAP. All 

comments and data submitted during 

the public comment period are 

considered during the technical review. 

D. What has happened to date on the 

listing of 1–BP? 

The Halogenated Solvents Industry 

Alliance (HSIA) and New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted 

petitions to add 1–BP to the CAA 

section 112(b)(1) HAP list on October 

28, 2010, and November 24, 2011, 

respectively. After requesting and 

receiving additional information from 

the petitioners, the EPA published a 

document in the Federal Register on 

February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6676), that the 

1–BP petitions were complete and 

requested public comments for 

consideration during the technical 

review phase. Following our thorough 

review of the petitions, relevant 

scientific studies, and comments 

received, we concluded that 1–BP was 

reasonably anticipated to cause adverse 

effects to human health based on the 

evidence of the carcinogenicity and 

toxicity of 1–BP and that petitioners’ 

assessments of potential ambient 

concentrations of 1–BP likely to result at 

a facility’s fenceline under normal 

operating conditions were reasonable. 

On January 9, 2017, the EPA issued a 

Federal Register document of its draft 

rationale for granting petitions to add 1– 

BP to the HAP list (82 FR 2354). 

On June 18, 2020, the EPA issued a 

final Federal Register document 

granting the petitions to add 1–BP to the 

CAA section 112(b) HAP list (85 FR 

36851). This was the first occasion 

where the EPA has granted a petition to 

add a substance to the CAA section 

112(b) HAP list that Congress created in 

1990. By granting these petitions, the 

EPA is now obligated by CAA section 

112 (b)(3) to add 1–BP to the list of 

HAP. In section IV of the final 

document granting the petitions, the 

EPA explained that a second step to list 

1–BP was warranted and would entail 

publishing a Federal Register document 

that would formally add 1–BP to the 

CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list. 85 FR 

36854. The EPA also explained that 

there would be a need to take further 

regulatory actions as a result of the 

listing decision. 85 FR 36854 and 36855. 

On August 17, 2020, California 

Communities Against Toxics, Sierra 

Club and Gasp filed a petition for 

judicial review of the agency’s decision 

to grant petitions that did not list 1–BP 

as a HAP under CAA section 112(b)(1). 

California Communities Against Toxics 

v. EPA, Case No. 20–1311 (D.C. Circuit). 

The State of New York is an intervenor 

on behalf of petitioners. This case is 

currently being held in abeyance 

pending review by the new 

administration and motions to govern 

further proceedings are due on June 7, 

2021. 

E. What other actions has the EPA taken 

on 1–BP? 

The EPA evaluated 1–BP under the 

amended Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) and completed the final risk 

evaluation in August 2020. The final 

risk evaluation identified unreasonable 

risks to workers, occupational nonusers, consumers, and bystanders from 

1–BP exposure. The EPA did not find 

unreasonable risks to the environment 

or the general population from the 

evaluated uses of this chemical. The 

next step in the process required by 

TSCA is addressing these risks through 

risk management in formal rulemaking. 

The EPA has begun the process of 

developing ways to address the 

unreasonable risks identified and has up 

to one year to propose and take public 

comments on any risk management 

actions. (See https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2020-08/documents/ 

risk_evaluation_for_1-bromopropane_npropyl_bromide.pdf). 

F. What is the purpose of this ANPRM? 

The EPA has made the determination 

that 1–BP is an air pollutant that should 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31229 

2The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), signed into law on March 

29, 1996, is an amendment to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 and adopts the Small 

Business Act’s definition of ‘‘small entity’’ as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. 601, 15 U.S.C. 632, and Small 

Business Administration regulations. This includes 

small businesses (typically 500 or 750 employees 

Continued 

be added to the HAP list and therefore 

expects to list 1–BP as required by CAA 

section 112(b)(3). Once added to the 

HAP list, 1–BP will become subject to 

regulation under CAA section 112. (EPA 

has a ‘‘clear statutory obligation to set 

emission standards for each listed 

HAP.’’ National Lime Association 233 

F–3d 634). There is no specific period 

for promulgating standards for newly 

listed HAPs under CAA section 

112(b)(1). As previously noted, CAA 

section 112(e)(1)(E) calls for EPA to 

promulgate MACT for all source 

categories on the CAA section 112(c)(1) 

source category list within ten years of 

listing or by November 15, 2000. EPA 

has promulgated standards for all 

currently listed source categories; 

however, some standards have been 

remanded to the Agency. 

While the addition of a new HAP to 

the HAP list can be accomplished with 

a relatively simple revision to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart C, the effective 

incorporation of this new HAP into an 

existing program is more complex. The 

NESHAP program under CAA section 

112 is decades old and numerous 

regulations exist that could be impacted 

by the addition of a new HAP. In order 

to effectively regulate 1–BP when listed, 

the EPA needs additional information 

on the uses of 1–BP, and compliance 

issues, such as source categories that 

could be subject to immediate 

compliance with existing requirements. 

This information will enable the EPA to 

better ensure that the regulatory 

infrastructure is in place to clearly 

explain obligations that might arise 

immediately for some source categories 

without further action by the EPA as 

well as to establish any new regulations 

needed to effectively control the 

emissions of this new HAP. 

This ANPRM solicits information to 

identify and evaluate the regulatory 

impacts, such as changes in the 

applicability of existing regulations or 

changes in how sources comply with 

existing requirements that would be 

expected to result from the upcoming 

action to add 1–BP to the HAP list. The 

EPA intends to review these regulatory 

compliance impacts that could 

potentially include impacts on 

numerous small businesses that may not 

even be aware of any new requirements 

and associated impacts and determine if 

further regulatory action is required to 

address them. Regulatory impacts will 

likely depend on several factors, 

including the amount of 1–BP used and 

the process involved (e.g., as a cleaning 

agent in a solvent cleaner versus as a 

spray gun cleaning solvent at an 

aerospace coating operation), and the 

total amount of HAP emitted by a 

particular facility. 

The EPA is not soliciting comments 

on the June 18, 2020 grant of petitions 

to list 1–BP as a HAP, including the 

technical bases for the grant, and 

therefore, has not reopened that 

decision for comments. EPA intends to 

treat any comments on the decision to 

grant petitions to list as beyond the 

scope of this action/proceeding. Further, 

the EPA currently plans to develop, 

propose, and promulgate revisions to 

the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 

that will build the regulatory 

infrastructure to provide clarity 

regarding changes in the applicability of 

and compliance with existing NESHAP 

when a pollutant is added to the HAP 

list. The EPA will be developing the 

revisions to address the addition of both 

1–BP and any subsequent HAP(s) under 

CAA section 112(b). The EPA also plans 

to consider whether additional revisions 

to other subparts regulating specific 

source categories are warranted to 

account for the inclusion of a new HAP. 

While current plans are to revise the 

General Provisions, the EPA may 

consider and propose alternative 

approaches for providing the regulatory 

infrastructure to ensure the effective 

regulation of 1–BP. 

The EPA has determined that 

issuance of this ANPRM is the most 

efficient means for information 

collection such as on the types and sizes 

of sources of 1–BP, as well as to identify 

other issues for consideration, including 

whether additional source categories 

must be added to regulate 1–BP. The 

EPA expects that this document would 

allow for participation in the data 

gathering process by a large and diverse 

group of stakeholders that includes 

potentially impacted facilities, small 

businesses, and state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

III. Future Impacts of Listing 

A. Profile of 1–BP 

1. Production, Usage, and Emissions 

Control 

Having a complete profile of current 

1–BP usage and emission control would 

assist in the EPA’s analysis of the 

impact of listing 1–BP as a HAP to better 

inform development of regulations and 

public outreach. However, until 

recently, usage and emission records for 

1–BP have been difficult to obtain due 

to the lack of publicly available data. In 

2015, 1–BP was added to the list of toxic 

chemicals subject to reporting under 

section 313 of the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) of 1986 and section 6607 of the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. 

The addition of 1–BP to the EPCRA 

section 313 list of toxic chemicals 

(frequently referred to as the Toxics 

Release Inventory (TRI)) became 

effective beginning January 1, 2016, for 

TRI reporting year 2016 and beyond. For 

more information on TRI reporting 

criteria, see https://www.epa.gov/toxicsrelease-inventory-tri-program/basics-trireporting. 

In its petition to add 1–BP to the HAP 

list, the HSIA estimated the annual 

global production of 1–BP in 2007 to be 

20,000 to 30,000 metric tons and 

estimated the use of 1–BP as a solvent 

in the U.S. to be growing at a rate of 15 

to 20 percent per year. During the 

petition process, Enviro Tech 

International (ETI) commented on the 

HSIA’s estimates and presented its own 

data on the use of 1–BP in the U.S., such 

as in the precision cleaning industry 

sector, the dry cleaning industrial 

sector, and the adhesive, coatings, and 

inks sector. According to ETI, in the 

U.S., approximately 4,080 short tons 

(3,701 metric tons) of 1–BP were used 

within these three sectors in 2014. In 

2015, the EPA’s Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention 

(OCSPP) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) 

database estimated U.S. production and 

imports of 1–BP to be 26 million pounds 

(11,793 metric tons). The EPA requests 

information on U.S. production, usage, 

and import projections for 1–BP. 

2. Emissions Profile—Data Needs 

In order to assess the impacts of 

adding 1–BP to the HAP list, the EPA 

needs additional information on the 

location and use of 1–BP. The EPA is 

requesting information on the usage of 

1–BP in all industries to broaden our 

understanding of regulatory impacts 

that could arise subsequent to the 

addition of 1–BP to the HAP list. 

Specifically, we solicit comment and 

information on the following areas: (1) 

The types of applications or processes 

that employ 1–BP (e.g., chemical 

production, spray coating, solvent 

cleaner/degreaser); (2) the amount of 1– 

BP used in specific applications; (3) 

whether 1–BP is used in a separate 

process from other HAP or is used in 

combination with other HAP; (4) the 

types of facilities where 1–BP is used; 

(5) whether the facility using 1–BP is 

classified as a large or small business; 2


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

including all parent and subsidiary employees), 

small governmental jurisdictions (population of less 

than 50,000), and small organizations (e.g., not-forprofit organizations) that are not dominant in their 

field. The definition of a ‘‘small business’’ is 

determined by a business’s North American 

Industry Classification System code and annual 

receipts or number of employees. https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ121/ 

pdf/PLAW-104publ121.pdf. 

(6) any available information on the 

reasons for the selection of 1–BP (e.g., 

particular effectiveness, replacement for 

HAP); (7) whether the processes are 

controlled or uncontrolled for 1–BP or 

HAP emissions and, if controlled, what 

types of control devices or practices are 

utilized; and (8) any other information 

that the respondent believes is 

important to consider. 

The EPA is also interested in 

information from facilities that are 

currently using and controlling the 

emissions of 1–BP. The EPA believes 

that the same controls used to control 

other volatile HAP would be equally 

effective in controlling 1–BP. The EPA 

is interested in whether industry agrees 

with this assertion or if data are 

available to refute this position. The 

EPA is also aware that the previous 

Federal Register documents discussing 

the petitions to add 1–BP to the HAP list 

may have caused many facilities to 

evaluate the potential to replace the use 

of 1–BP in their operations. The EPA is 

interested in examples from industry of 

the steps taken to evaluate alternatives 

for 1–BP and whether replacements 

were successfully completed. Please 

also provide information on any 

impediments to successful control or 

replacement of 1–BP. 

The information will aid in 

identifying the specific 1–BP use 

scenarios across NESHAP source 

categories so that the Agency is able to 

fully consider and address the direct 

and immediate impacts of listing 1–BP 

in the upcoming action. The 

information will also assist the EPA in 

addressing possible applicability and 

compliance questions going forward, 

including questions or concerns raised 

about the potential impact on small 

businesses, children, tribes, and 

environmental justice communities. By 

minimizing uncertainty in compliance 

requirements, identifying any barriers to 

compliance, and ensuring that the EPA 

has a more complete inventory of 

emission sources, the EPA can better 

assure that the intended emission 

reductions required by the NESHAP are 

understood and that those emission 

reductions are expeditiously attained. 

However, data are required to support 

the analyses of impacts to these groups. 

B. Possible Regulatory Impacts of Listing 

Action-Data Needs 

Once added to the HAP list, 1–BP will 

become subject to regulation under CAA 

section 112 and as explained below, 

some sources’ regulatory obligations 

may change at that point. In granting the 

petitions to list 1–BP, the EPA 

explained that a second step to the 

process was accordingly warranted that 

would entail publishing a Federal 

Register document adding 1–BP to the 

CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list. 85 FR 

36854. The EPA further explained its 

belief at that time that most source 

categories emitting 1–BP would not 

become subject to emissions standards 

addressing the compound until the EPA 

amends or promulgates new standards 

for specific source categories. Although 

the Agency still considers this to be the 

case for many of the source categories 

regulated under CAA section 112, the 

EPA has since determined that the 

requirements of certain NESHAP could 

apply immediately to facilities using 1– 

BP. As explained below, the 

requirements of these NESHAP apply 

broadly to all HAP, and the listing of 1– 

BP could affect the compliance 

obligations of sources subject to these 

requirements. In addition, for some 

sources, the addition of a new HAP 

could change the calculation of whether 

the source is a major source and the 

concomitant regulatory obligations. The 

EPA has determined that additional 

rulemaking is warranted to clarify or 

establish how quickly regulated sources 

impacted by the change in the HAP list 

must adapt to ensure compliance with 

existing regulations. 

The following sections describe 

potential impacts that could occur once 

1–BP is listed as a HAP. Some of these 

impacts could occur immediately with 

the listing of 1–BP, while other impacts 

may require additional EPA action to 

address compliance and 

implementation issues. 

1. Potential Impacts on Major Source 

Facilities 

The EPA reviewed applicability 

provisions for more than 40 current 

NESHAP to identify potential impacts 

from the listing of 1–BP as a HAP. The 

focus of the EPA review was on those 

NESHAP that regulate solvents used for 

cleaning or for applying adhesives or 

surface coatings, which are identified as 

the main uses of 1–BP. Most surface 

coating rules specify both numeric 

limits and work practice requirements 

to ensure the control of HAP used in 

these kinds of operations. Our 

preliminary findings indicate that for 

several NESHAP, the listing of 1–BP 

could impact compliance requirements 

of the NESHAP without changes to 

existing rule language. 

As an example, the numeric limits in 

coating rules are often based on a 

limitation on the amount of organic 

HAP per unit, which often results in 

facilities reducing the HAP content of 

their coatings in order to comply with 

the limits. In many instances, the term 

coating is defined to include adhesives 

and solvent cleaning used in the coating 

process or ancillary operations. The 

addition of 1–BP to the HAP list could 

immediately impact compliance 

calculations for many NESHAP for 

coating operations because these rules 

often define HAP by a direct reference 

to the HAP list published (and 

modified) under CAA section 112(b) 

and codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

C. When 1–BP is listed as a HAP, in 

order to maintain compliance with the 

applicable limits, affected sources using 

1–BP that are subject to numeric limits 

such as these would likely need to reassess compliance with the numeric 

emission limits in the source category 

rule. This may extend to facilities that 

purposely selected to use 1–BP as part 

of their compliance strategy because it 

was not a HAP at the time the facilities 

reformulated their coatings. Further, 

since the compliance dates for most 

NESHAP are long past, there may be 

some question as to the reasonable time 

allowance that would be appropriate for 

sources to include 1–BP in their 

compliance demonstrations. See section 

III.C below for our discussion on 

compliance timing as it relates to listing 

of 1–BP as a HAP. 

The EPA requests comments and 

information on actual uses of 1–BP and 

detailed information on any experiences 

facilities have had in any evaluations of 

1–BP and its potential control or 

replacement. The EPA is also interested 

in examples of issues that might need to 

be resolved in the future for sources to 

achieve compliance with existing 

standards. This may include the 

evaluation of existing air pollution 

control devices (APCDs) or the need for 

the addition of APCDs. A facility may 

also opt to consider elimination or 

reduction of 1–BP use in a covered 

emission unit. The EPA requests 

comments on whether there are 

additional factors that impact 

evaluations of compliance strategies to 

include 1–BP, such as whether the 

facility is already complying with the 

NESHAP for other HAP. The EPA is also 

interested in examples of where the 

addition of 1–BP to the HAP list will 

subject previously unregulated 

emissions units to a current NESHAP, as 

well as when the addition would impact 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31231 

units already being controlled to meet a 

NESHAP. 

Further, several source category rules 

also include work practice requirements 

that require the use of ‘‘low HAP’’ or 

‘‘no HAP’’ products for either cleaning 

or adhesive activities. Typically, in such 

rules, ‘‘no HAP’’ is defined as 

containing less than 1 percent total HAP 

by weight. The EPA believes that there 

are instances where 1–BP is currently 

being used to meet these requirements. 

Once 1–BP is listed as a HAP, affected 

sources might need to employ 

alternatives to 1–BP to meet these lowHAP or no HAP requirements. The EPA 

requests comments on available 

alternatives for 1–BP and any 

impediments to the replacement of 1– 

BP, such as revisions to process 

specifications or other standard 

operating procedures. 

Several NESHAP have requirements 

that apply to emission sources that are 

defined to be ‘‘in HAP service’’ or 

‘‘using HAP based materials.’’ These 

requirements include work practices, 

such as covers on all storage containers 

and transport equipment, requirements 

for closed-loop systems, and in some 

cases leak detection and repair 

requirements. Further, some rules 

regulate halogen emissions from specific 

process units but define halogen to 

include only a subset of halogens (e.g., 

chlorine and fluorine, or just fluorine). 

The EPA requests comments on specific 

examples of regulations with 

requirements such as these that could be 

impacted by the addition of 1–BP to the 

HAP list. 

2. Potential Impacts on Area Source 

Facilities 

Once listed, any facility using 1–BP 

that is currently an area source of HAP 

would need to determine its HAP 

potential to emit (PTE) based on 

calculations that include 1–BP. The 

facility would then need to evaluate 

whether its updated PTE would make 

the facility a major source as defined in 

CAA sections 112(a)(1) and (2) and 40 

CFR 63.3. The EPA has information 

from TRI that suggests that several 

sources could become major HAP 

sources when considering their current 

1–BP emissions. 

An existing source that would begin 

operating as a major HAP source would 

need to evaluate the applicability of 

specific NESHAP that would now 

apply. This could include source 

categories that have requirements 

applicable to the 1–BP emission sources 

or could include general source 

categories, such as industrial boilers. 

For example, by becoming a major 

source, a facility could become subject 

to both a surface coating NESHAP and 

the NESHAP for emergency generators. 

The facility would need to determine 

and implement their compliance 

strategy for each applicable NESHAP. If 

a facility does not already have a title 

V operating permit, they would need to 

apply for one consistent with the 

deadlines in applicable 40 CFR part 70 

program rules. A facility that already 

has a title V operating permit, such as 

a facility that is already a major source 

for criteria pollutants, may need 

revisions to their existing operating 

permit to include major source NESHAP 

applicable requirements and/or any 

additional state implementation plan/ 

state permitting requirements. The EPA 

solicits comments on the steps that a 

facility would need to take if the facility 

is transitioning from an area source to 

a major source of HAP due to the 

addition of 1–BP. The EPA asks for 

details on required facility actions for 

developing and implementing any new 

NESHAP compliance requirements, as 

well as any additional permitting 

required for the facility. The EPA is 

interested in whether the area-to-major 

facilities face additional burdens not 

faced by those facilities that are already 

major HAP sources, such as a need to 

install control equipment for 

compliance with NESHAP standards. 

Area sources would also need to 

determine whether any of the NESHAP 

for area sources apply to their 

operations. For example, area sources 

that are subject to a NESHAP might be 

required to use a non-HAP product or 

comply with specific work practices. If 

the facility currently uses 1–BP to meet 

the non-HAP product requirements, the 

facility may need to either replace 1–BP 

with another non-HAP product or 

switch to the work practice alternatives 

in the rule. The EPA solicits examples 

of area source rules that may apply to 

area sources using 1–BP. In addition to 

the above requests, the EPA welcomes 

comments on other compliance issues 

or concerns that could arise from the 

inclusion of 1–BP on the HAP list. 

C. Information Needed To Assist in 

Evaluating Compliance Timing and 

Potential New Source Categories 

As previously explained, this is the 

first occasion on which the EPA is 

granting a petition to add a substance to 

the HAP list that Congress established 

in the 1990 CAA Amendments. As also 

previously explained, the addition of 1– 

BP to the HAP list will raise compliance 

questions such as the timing of 

incorporating a new HAP into ongoing 

compliance demonstration requirements 

for NESHAP that are already in effect. 

The EPA is requesting comments to 

inform the decision on how to best 

incorporate a new HAP into compliance 

demonstrations. 

The EPA requests comments on 

whether all sources subject to a 

NESHAP at the time of a new HAP 

listing need the same amount of time to 

review and update their obligations 

under a NESHAP and develop and 

implement a compliance strategy. 

Alternatively, the EPA could consider 

providing a different compliance 

timeline for sources that are already 

meeting the standard for other HAP at 

the time 1–BP is added as opposed to a 

facility that is newly subject to the 

specific NESHAP. 

The EPA also requests comments on 

whether there are different 

considerations that should be taken into 

account for sources subject to standards 

for ‘‘existing sources’’ versus standards 

for ‘‘new sources.’’ This is because for 

emission standards, limitations, or 

regulations under CAA section 112, new 

sources are typically required under 

CAA 112(i)(1) to be in compliance 

‘‘upon start up’’ or by the effective date 

of a promulgated rule. Existing sources, 

on the other hand, are allowed up to 3 

years after the effective date of a 

promulgated rule to comply under CAA 

section 112(i)(3). When a pollutant is 

added to the HAP list, however, there 

could be established, operating sources 

already complying with the applicable 

requirements for either new affected 

sources or existing affected sources. The 

EPA is seeking information and data 

that will help the EPA to determine the 

appropriate compliance timeframe for 

these sources. Specifically, we request 

information and examples on whether 

affected sources subject to new or 

existing requirements could face 

different burdens to identify and 

implement a compliance strategy. 

As stated previously, the EPA is 

considering whether changes to the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 

would be the best approach to provide 

clarification or extension to compliance 

schedules for incorporating 1–BP into 

existing NESHAP. Under this approach, 

the EPA could modify 40 CFR 63.6 to 

provide a consistent compliance 

timeline for all sources impacted by the 

addition of any new HAP, rather than 

addressing only 1–BP. For example, the 

EPA could provide a 1-year compliance 

period for all facilities impacted by the 

addition of a new HAP. Alternatively, 

the EPA could provide a schedule that 

is based on the individual source 

category rule. For example, the General 

Provisions could be revised to require 

that compliance demonstration that 

includes a newly listed HAP must be 

provided in the first complete semiVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:55 Jun 10, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JNP1.SGM 11JNP1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

annual reporting period that follows the 

addition of a new HAP. 

Instead of revising the General 

Provisions, the EPA may determine that 

individual evaluations of the time 

needed are warranted for each NESHAP 

with known or likely 1–BP use; the EPA 

could then make individual decisions 

for each NESHAP and incorporate the 

compliance timeline in each rule. The 

EPA requests comments on the relative 

benefits of a NESHAP case-by-case 

approach as opposed to a consistent 

timeline for all NESHAP. We request 

comments and information on any 

alternative schedules and factors that 

should be considered. 

In its review, the EPA has identified 

several NESHAP that control total HAP 

or volatile HAP. As mentioned above, 

several of these NESHAP define HAP as 

all compounds in the CAA HAP list, 

while others regulate a subset of the 

HAP list. We request comments on 

whether the time to develop and 

implement control strategies for rules 

that immediately include 1–BP differ 

from those categories with a categoryspecific HAP list. The EPA requests 

comments on alternatives for 

incorporating 1–BP into rules with 

source category-specific HAP lists. 

The EPA is also seeking information 

to support its determination as to 

whether the Agency should establish 

new source categories and what those 

source categories would be to ensure 

effective and appropriate regulation of 

1–BP. As discussed in the EPA decision 

to grant the petition to list 1–BP, an 

example of a new source category could 

be one that would cover 1–BP emissions 

from dry cleaning operations. 85 FR 

36854. The current NESHAP for Dry 

Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart M) establishes requirements 

only for PERC. The EPA will need to 

evaluate whether this subpart, which 

includes regulation of both area and 

major sources of HAP, should be 

expanded to include dry cleaning 

sources using 1–BP or whether 

regulation would better be 

accomplished by listing a new source 

category and then establishing MACT 

(or GACT) for these 1–BP sources 

independent of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

M. It is also possible that no new 

regulation of dry-cleaning operations 

will be necessary to address 1–BP. 

There have been numerous reports that 

the use of 1–BP in dry cleaning is being 

eliminated by the industry. The EPA 

requests information on whether there is 

any ongoing use of 1–BP in dry 

cleaning, as well as information on the 

size and types of dry-cleaning facilities 

that continue to rely on 1–BP as their 

cleaning solvent. 

In addition to source category 

additions based on current NESHAP 

source categories, the EPA may also 

conclude, based on information 

provided through comment on this 

document and our own evaluation, that 

additional categories of major sources or 

area sources are warranted. The EPA 

requests comments and data on 1–BP 

uses that may not be included in any 

current NESHAP but that might warrant 

consideration for listing under CAA 

section 112(c). 

IV. Additional Requests for Data and 

Comments 

A. Additional Requests 

In addition to the comments 

requested elsewhere in this document, 

the EPA is requesting any and all 

information that will enable Agency 

action as it relates to adding 1–BP to the 

HAP list as well as on the following 

specific areas: 

1. The EPA is requesting comment 

and information to help assess the 

potential impact of the upcoming listing 

action on small businesses. This 

includes requesting information on the 

number of small businesses potentially 

impacted by this listing action; the 

source categories that contain these 

entities; any unique or disproportionate 

burden that these small businesses may 

face; and any suggestions for addressing 

the specific impacts on these sources. 

2. The EPA requests comments and 

information on: The potential impact of 

this action on permitting requirements 

including ongoing preconstruction or 

renewal applications; any need to 

change state, local, or tribal programs to 

address this first-time listing of a new 

HAP; any potential changes to general 

permits that may be needed; and any 

other issues that the EPA should 

consider as the addition of 1–BP to the 

HAP list progresses. The EPA requests 

examples of ongoing permitting 

activities that could be impacted. 

3. The EPA requests comments and 

data on any end- or intermediate-uses of 

1–BP we have not addressed in this 

ANPRM. As previously noted, once 1– 

BP is listed as a HAP, it will potentially 

be regulated in all applications. Early 

identification of specific compliance 

issues will enable the EPA to more 

proactively address these issues. 

4. The EPA has not yet determined 

whether any of the potential actions 

associated with addressing the impacts 

of the listing of 1–BP will have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, which would 

require that we conduct a formal Small 

Business Advocacy Review panel under 

SBREFA. We request comments and 

information on impacts that should be 

included in our evaluations from the 

concurrent regulatory requirements that 

occur with the upcoming listing of 1– 

BP. The EPA is also requesting 

suggestions for additional outreach 

opportunities to ensure that small 

businesses are aware of the upcoming 

listing action and its potential impact on 

their operations. 

5. The EPA is requesting comments 

on whether there are any additional 

impacts or factors, including health 

outcomes and susceptible 

subpopulations, that should be 

considered as they relate to any 

disproportionate impact on children, 

tribes, and environmental justice 

communities. 

6. In order to better assess the cost 

and economic impacts of the upcoming 

listing action, the EPA is soliciting 

comments on all compliance-related 

costs created by the addition of 1–BP to 

the HAP list. Compliance costs could 

include engineering controls, costs to 

meet work practice requirements, as 

well as testing, recordkeeping, and 

reporting costs of complying with 

current NESHAP. 

7. As noted above, there is another 

ongoing EPA regulatory effort for 1–BP 

being conducted by the EPA under 

TSCA. We are aware that those actions 

have the potential to impact some of the 

same facilities, potentially including the 

same small businesses, as will be 

affected by the addition of 1–BP to the 

CAA HAP list. The EPA requests 

comments on additional measures that 

might be considered to ensure that the 

impacts from these two distinct 

programs (TSCA and CAA) are 

understood by the regulated community 

and to ensure that unnecessary 

compliance burden is mitigated to the 

extent possible. 

B. Types of Data and Comment Not 

Requested at This Time 

While the EPA is seeking comment 

and information on all aspects of the 

impact of the addition of 1–BP to the 

HAP list, as discussed elsewhere in this 

document, the EPA is not seeking 

comments on the justification for the 

listing as the decision to grant the 

petition to list 1–BP has been made. 

Those issues were fully considered and 

addressed in the technical review that 

the Agency conducted for purposes of 

granting the petitions to add 1–BP to the 

HAP list. 82 FR 2354, 2358 through 62. 

Therefore, comments on the justification 

for listing would be considered as 

beyond the scope of this action. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31233 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, titled 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and any changes 

made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. Because this action does not 

propose or impose any requirements 

and instead seeks comments and 

suggestions for the Agency to consider 

in possibly developing a subsequent 

proposed rule, the various statutes and 

Executive Orders that normally apply to 

rulemaking do not apply in this case. 

When the EPA develops the rulemaking, 

the EPA will address the applicable 

statutes and Executive Orders. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12287 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2021–0073; FRL–10021– 

64–Region 6] 

Arkansas: Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of Arkansas 

Division of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) has applied to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for final 

authorization of the changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed 

Arkansas’ application and has 

determined that these changes appear to 

satisfy all requirements needed to 

qualify for final authorization and is 

proposing to authorize the State’s 

changes. The EPA is seeking public 

comment prior to taking final action. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by July 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: patterson.alima@epa.gov. 

Instructions: EPA must receive your 

comments by July 12, 2021. Direct your 

comments to Docket ID Number EPA– 

R06–RCRA–2021–0073. 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 Confidential Business 

Information (CBI), or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

Federal regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means 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 EPA without going through 

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, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment with any CD you submit. If 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. 

You can view and copy Arkansas’s 

application and associated publicly 

available docket materials either 

through www.regulations.gov at the 

following locations: Division of 

Environmental Quality, 5301 

Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, 

Arkansas, 72118 telephone: (501) 682– 

0744 and EPA, Region 6, 1201 Elm 

Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270. 

The EPA facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays and facility 

closures due to COVID–19. We 

recommend that you telephone Alima 

Patterson, Regional Authorization/ 

Codification Coordinator at (214) 665– 

8533, before visiting the Region 6 office. 

Interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, (214) 665–8533, 

patterson.alima@epa.gov. Out of an 

abundance of caution for members of 

the public and our staff, the EPA Region 

6 office will be closed to the public to 

reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– 

19. We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov, as there will be a 

delay in processing mail and no courier 

or hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Please call or email the contact listed 

above if you need alternative access to 

material indexed but not provided in 

the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from the EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask the EPA to authorize 

the changes. Changes to State programs 

may be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to the EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

B. What decisions have EPA made in 

this rule? 

On March 2, 2021, the State of 

Arkansas submitted a final complete 

program revision application seeking 

authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program that 

correspond to certain Federal rules 

promulgated between July 1, 2014 and 

June 30, 2018, which includes RCRA 

Clusters XXIV through and RCRA 

Cluster XXVI (Checklists 233A, 233B, 

233C, 233D2, 233E, 234, 235, 236, 237, 

238 and 239). The EPA has reviewed 

Arkansas’ application to revise its 

authorized program and is proposing to 

find that it meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant 

the State of Arkansas final authorization 

to operate its hazardous waste program 

with the changes described in the 

authorization application. 

The State Arkansas will continue to 

have responsibility for permitting 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS