Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471-0093
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Addition of 1-Bromopropane to Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants List
Posted Date: 2021-06-11T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31225-31233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12287]

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

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

[[Page 31226]]

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

[[Page 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 n-propyl 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-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications#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

[[Page 31228]]

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

    \1\ A 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-and-managingchemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-1-bromopropane-1-bp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-users, 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_n-propyl_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

[[Page 31229]]

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/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/basics-tri-reporting.
    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\

[[Page 31230]]

(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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 
including all parent and subsidiary employees), small governmental 
jurisdictions (population of less than 50,000), and small 
organizations (e.g., not-for-profit 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 re-assess 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

[[Page 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 low-HAP 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 
semi-

[[Page 31232]]

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 category-specific 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.

[[Page 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