[Federal Register: July 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 38479-38481]
[DOCID:fr07jy08-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58053; File No. SR-NSCC-2008-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Support the Processing of Instructions for the Transfer
or Reallocation of Underlying Investment Options Within a Variable
Insurance Contract

June 26, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on June 19, 2008, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been
prepared primarily by NSCC. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NSCC proposes to amend its rule in order to enhance its insurance
services to support the processing of instructions for the transfer or
reallocation of underlying investment options within a variable
insurance contract.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Changes are to the rule text that appears in the electronic
manual of NSCC found at http://www.nscc.com/legal/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by the NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance NSCC's
insurance

service in order to support the processing of instructions for the
transfer or reallocation of underlying investment options within a
variable insurance contract. Under the proposed rule change, the new
enhancement will be referred to as ``Fund Transfers'' and will be
available within NSCC's current In-Force Transactions service of NSCC's
Insurance and Retirement Processing Service (``IPS,'' formerly called
the Insurance Processing Service). NSCC's current IPS provides a
centralized communication link that connects participating insurance
companies with intermediaries such as broker-dealers, banks and
insurance agencies that distribute their insurance products. The
current platform supports the exchange of information and settlement of
monies at various points through the insurance contract initiation and
servicing cycle, for both fixed and variable insurance products.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ IPS also supports processing of non-insurance retirement
products that may be offered by a broker-dealer, in which case the
funds transfer functionality would support the communication of
changes in investment options offered within a retirement or other
benefit program for which a broker-dealer is the plan administrator
or custodian, supporting communications between this broker-dealer
and with the distributing broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Development and implementation of the new Fund Transfer process is
the second phase of automating and standardizing a broad range of in-
force policy transactions, starting in 2005 with ACATS for insurance
and expanding later to the communication of changes in internally
registered representatives and brokerage account numbers.\5\ The
automation of in-force policy transactions is consistent with the
insurance industry's straight-through processing objectives and the
continued efforts to mainstream insurance products with other financial
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51753 (May 27,
2005), 70 FR 32859 (June 6, 2005) [File No. SR-NSCC-2005-02], and
52343 (August 26, 2005), 70 FR 52461 (September 2, 2005) [File No.
SR-NSCC-2005-09].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A request for a fund transfer is initiated by a distributor of the
insurance contract, on behalf of the contract owner, and transmitted to
the insurance company. The transaction requires validation by both the
distributor and the insurance company, enabling each to review the
transaction request against its own legal and other product and
customer rules applicable to the transaction.
    Prior to initiating a fund transfer request, the distributor
generally must access current contract information to determine if the
fund transfer request can be made with respect to a particular
contract, including fund balances held under the contract and
applicable rules. Accordingly, the fund transfer functionality includes
a real-time inquiry and response transaction from the distributor to
the insurance company that allows the insurance company to provide a
current ``snapshot'' of the contract. NSCC's Positions and Values
(``POV'') service may also be used in conjunction with the fund
transfer request. Receipt of the current contract information from the
insurance company permits the distributor to review the transfer in
light of suitability and compliance requirements.
    Following the values inquiry and response, the distributor
initiates a fund transfer request transaction with the insurance
company through NSCC's Fund Transfer functionality. NSCC performs
industry-defined edits as to transaction format and, once the
transaction passes NSCC edit process, it is forwarded to the insurance
company. The insurance company has the opportunity to review the
requested transfer against its rules and applicable suitability and
compliance requirements and its arrangements with the transmitting
distributor. The insurance company responds back to the distributor
through NSCC with an acceptance or rejection of the fund transfer
request. This message is checked against NSCC's edits as to transaction
form and sent to the distributor.
    When the fund transfer is successfully processed by the insurance
company, it sends a ``success'' message through the fund transfer
functionality to the distributor. Alternatively, the insurance company
may send a failure message to the distributor if the requested
transaction fails (for instance, if a price change in an underlying
fund results in a value that is outside of the amount allowed for a
transfer, after the request is initiated) or send a pending message.
    The fund transfer functionality also supports a cancellation
transaction to allow the distributor to request the cancellation of a
funds transfer request. The insurance company can accept the
cancellation request, or it can reject it (if, for example, the
insurance company does not allow the cancellation under the reject
reason code provided by the distributor). Additional fund transfer
functionality may be developed as the system is enhanced to accommodate
distributor and insurance company requirements.
    The fund transfer functionality is intended to replace current
processes used by distributors today to request a transfer of assets
within the insurance contract, such as on-line insurance company
website requests, telephone, fax and e-mail. Automation of the process
will increase efficiency, create an automated record of the
transaction, and facilitate monitoring compliance with regulatory
requirements.\6\ By centralizing all fund transfer requests initiated
by registered representatives through one application at NSCC, a
broker-dealer should be better able to monitor the activity of its
registered representatives to assure compliance with regulatory
requirements. For example, to facilitate compliance with requirements
under Rule 22c-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment
Company Act''), the fund transfer request message from the distributor
to the insurance company must contain mandatory message fields for the
transaction date and transaction time, including the date and time the
distributing broker-dealer received the funds transfer request from its
customer. Pursuant to arrangements between a distributing broker-dealer
and the insurance company that issued the variable contract, the
insurance company may determine to accept the broker-dealer's receipt
of the order from its customer as the time the order was received for
purposes of Rule 22c-1.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Variable insurance products are ``securities'' for purposes
of federal securities law, the sale of which is subject to
regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'', successor to the
National Association of Securities Dealers, or NASD). In addition,
investment options (or ``funds'') included within a variable
insurance contract are typically separate accounts that are, absent
an exemption, required to register as investment companies under the
Investment Company Act. Fund transfers must therefore also comply
with relevant provisions of the Investment Company Act and the
regulations promulgated thereunder.
    \7\ Rule 22c-1 under the Investment Company Act, often referred
to as the `forward pricing rule', requires that orders in investment
company shares be priced based upon the current net asset value
(NAV) next computed after receipt of the order to buy or redeem
shares (17 CFR 270.22c-1(a)). The receipt of an order for the
purchase or redemption of mutual fund shares by a distributing
broker-dealer, from its customer, is generally deemed receipt of the
order in investment company shares for purposes of Rule 22c-1. This
practice is generally subject to the provisions of the distribution
agreement between the fund and the distributing broker-dealer. The
NSCC funds transfer working group has developed a model agreement
provision that can be adopted by the insurance company and the
broker-dealer, based on the analogous provisions relating to the
receipt of orders contained in the distribution agreement between a
mutual fund company and a distributing broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\

and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because the
proposed rule change should promote processing efficiencies between
insurance companies and distributors of variable insurance products,
thereby facilitating the prompt and accurate processing of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been
solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by NSCC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\
thereunder in that it (1) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; (iii) by its terms, does not become
operative for 30 days after the date from which it was filed (June 19,
2008), or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. At
any time within sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2008-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-SCC-2008-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's
Web site, http://www.nscc.com/legal/. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2008-03 and should be submitted on
or before July 28, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15251 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34614-34624]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12180]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747; FRL-6934.1-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV38

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP)
facilities, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). In order to
complete the required technology review that was originally promulgated
on August 14, 2020, the EPA is proposing inorganic

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards for process vessels.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2022.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before July 7, 2022.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before June 13, 2022 by 5:00 p.m. ET, we will hold a virtual
public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on
requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0747, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0747 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Participation in virtual public hearing.
Please note that because of current Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders for
social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold
in-person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing
team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. If
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on June 22, 2022. The
hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude
at 5:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards or contact the public hearing
team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. The
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be June 21, 2022.
Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list
pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by June
14, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. All documents in the docket are
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be
submitted as discussed below.

    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in the Instructions section of this document. If you submit
any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and
note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in
the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer
envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:

1-BP 1-bromopropane
BLDS bag leak detection system
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCM miscellaneous coating manufacturing
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows below. Section III of this preamble summarizes the
results of the inorganic HAP emissions assessment. Section IV of this
preamble describes the majority of the Agency's rationale for the
actions proposed in this preamble: sections IV. A. and B. summarize
changes we are proposing, including regulatory language changes related
to the inorganic HAP emissions requirements; and section IV.C.
summarizes our rationale for the compliance dates we are proposing.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. Proposed Decisions for Inorganic HAP Standards
    B. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of HAP
    C. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 13563
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the
Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives source category ``is any
facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the particular
end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of these
products may occur in any combination at any facility.'' This source
category has since been renamed Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
(MCM).

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source category and NESHAP                 NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry............      3255, 3259
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website.
    A redline strikeout version of the rule showing the edits that
would be necessary to incorporate the changes proposed in this action
is presented in the memorandum titled: Proposed Redline Strikeout
Edits, Subpart HHHHH: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing, available
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    This action proposes to amend the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing,
which was previously amended when the EPA finalized the Residual Risk
and Technology Review on August 14, 2020.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN)
decision issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA has an
obligation to address unregulated emissions from a source category when
the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required by Clean Air
Act (CAA) 112(d)(6).\2\ This proposed rule addresses currently
unregulated emissions of HAP from the MCM source category. Inorganic
HAP can be emitted from sources in the MCM category as part of a
source's particulate matter (PM) emissions, containing metal HAP. These
emissions can occur when raw materials in powder form are added to the
paint mixing vessels. Therefore, the amendments proposed here define
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for inorganic
HAP, or metal HAP, within the MCM source category pursuant to CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (``LEAN'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its organic and inorganic HAP emissions?

    As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 \3\ and
Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final
Report,\4\ the ``manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives''
source category ``is any facility engaged in their manufacture without
regard to the particular end-uses or consumers of such products. The
manufacturing of these products may occur in any combination at any
facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 57 FR 31,576, July 16, 1992.
    \4\ See EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000MTDN.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000015%5C2000MTDN.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MCM source category includes the collection of equipment that
is used to manufacture coatings at a facility. MCM operations also
include cleaning operations. Coatings are materials such as paints,
inks, or adhesives that are intended to be applied to a substrate and
consist of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other
additives, where the material is produced by a manufacturing operation
where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or otherwise formulated.
Coatings do not include materials made in processes where a formulation
component is synthesized by chemical reaction or separation activity
and then transferred to another vessel where it is formulated to
produce a material used as a coating, where the synthesized or
separated component is not stored prior to formulation.
    The equipment controlled by the MCM NESHAP includes process
vessels, storage tanks for feedstocks and products, equipment leak
components (pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices
(PRDs), sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems), wastewater tanks,
heat exchangers, and transfer racks.
    The current NESHAP regulates process vessels based on the volume of
the process vessel and the maximum true vapor pressure of the organic
HAP processed or stored. Control requirements range from the use of
tightly fitted lids on process vessels to the capture and reduction of
organic HAP emissions through the use of add-on controls (i.e., a
flare, oxidizer, or condenser).
    The current NESHAP does not regulate metal HAP from process
vessels. During the addition of raw materials in powder form to paint
mixing vessels, emissions of metal HAP in the form of PM emissions may
occur

and are typically collected and routed to a PM control device (i.e.,
baghouse, fabric filters, cartridge filters, or scrubbers). This
proposal addresses the previously unregulated metal HAP emissions from
this category and proposes MACT for emission sources of metal HAP.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?

    Although no formal data collection activity was conducted, the EPA
contacted industry representatives and obtained supplemental
information about the emission processes, control technologies, and
speciation profiles for metal HAP. New information provided by the
American Coatings Association on four area source PM performance tests
is available in the docket for this action, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0747.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    For the MCM source category, we have limited information for metal
HAP. We reviewed the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for the 42
facilities in the MCM source category and identified emissions of
manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, chromium III, chromium VI,
cadmium, and arsenic compounds, all inorganic HAP, and all metals.
Based on discussions with industry, these reported metals emissions are
not based on performance test results; rather, they are based on
loading rates, emissions factors, and engineering calculations. The EPA
has determined that, in this case, it is appropriate to use PM
emissions as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions from process vessels
in which dry materials (e.g., pigments) containing metal HAP are added
to the process vessels. In MCM, ``metal HAP'' is defined as including
compounds of manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, chromium III,
chromium VI, cadmium, and arsenic compounds. MCM sources would be
subject to this proposed rule if they emit any of these metal HAP.
    The EPA used information from title V permits for each MCM
facility, performance tests for area source coating manufacturing
facilities, and vendor specifications for baghouses and cartridge
filters in this industry to determine the MACT emission limit for metal
HAP. The American Coatings Association provided the EPA with
performance tests for PM emission control devices from process vessels
from four area source paint manufacturing facilities. These four
performance tests results are available in the docket for this action,
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. We could not locate PM stack test
information for any of the 42 major source coating manufacturing
facilities, but the four area sources' test data are from similar
equipment used in similar processes and the EPA has determined that the
data are a reasonable representation of the control achieved by the
best performers in the major source coatings manufacturing source
category. Emissions from the four source tests ranged from 0.003 to
0.0138 gr/dscf PM, based on EPA Method 5 testing. Results from these
source tests did not include measurement of metal HAP. The EPA also had
discussions with baghouse and cartridge filter vendors who service this
industry, and they provided performance specifications indicating that
some systems could achieve PM emissions on the order of 0.002 to 0.005
gr/dscf, which is on the same order as the values determined from the
sources tests.
    The EPA also reviewed title V permits of the 42 currently affected
MCM sources and found that seven hold permits with PM limits.\5\ The
limits in the MCM permits ranged from 0.03 to 0.3 gr/dscf from seven
facilities using cartridge filters, baghouses, fabric filters, and bag
filters. However, these limits are not supported by any measurement or
performance test information. Further, facilities estimated their
emissions of metal HAP using an assumed composition of PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Summary of Data Collected for the Miscellaneous Coatings
Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Amendments, available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

    The MACT floor limit for PM from existing sources is calculated
based on the average performance of the best-performing units in each
category or subcategory and on a consideration of these units'
variability. The MACT floor for new sources is based on the single
best-performing source, with a similar consideration of that source's
variability. The MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent
than the emissions performance that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar source. To account for variability in the
operation and emissions, we calculated the MACT floors using the 99
percent Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) using the available stack test
information. We note that the MACT floor for new units is based on a
limited data set.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information regarding the general use of the UPL
and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see Use of
Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors (UPL Memo), which
is available in the docket for this action. For more information on
the calculation of MCM-specific MACT floor limits, see UPL for Area
Source Paint.xlsx, also available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The UPL approach addresses variability of emissions data from the
best-performing source or sources in setting MACT standards. The UPL
also accounts for uncertainty associated with emission values in a
dataset, which can be influenced by components such as the number of
samples available for developing MACT standards and the number of
samples that will be collected to assess compliance with the emission
limit. The UPL approach has been used in many environmental science
applications. As explained in more detail in the UPL Memo cited above,
the EPA uses the UPL approach to reasonably estimate the emissions
performance of the best-performing source or sources to establish MACT
floor standards.
    As described above, we obtained additional data on PM emissions
from area sources in the paints and coatings industry. Specifically, we
obtained PM data from four facilities that are area source emissions
for PM. This proposal is based on this data and the EPA's determination
that, due to the similarities in processes and emissions controls, this
data is representative of the best performers in the MCM source
category.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. Proposed Decisions for Inorganic HAP Standards

a. How did we develop the MACT standard?
    In reviewing available information, we found no performance test
data for metal HAP emissions. However, we reviewed information from the
paints and allied products area source standard that indicated the
composition of metal HAP from PM was estimated to be approximately 0.13
weight percent. Furthermore, one facility in the MCM source category
reported that an analysis of its dust collector dust indicated a value
of 0.12 weight percent chromium compounds. Assuming a typical metal HAP
weight fraction of PM of approximately 0.12 weight percent, metal HAP
emissions from the outlet of a PM control device emitting on the order
of 0.003 to 0.0138 gr/dscf would result in metal HAP emissions
approaching or below the in-stack detection limit of the analysis
method for total selected metals, EPA Method

29.\7\ (See EPA Springdale Chromium Q.docx and Data and Procedure for
Handling Below Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant
Emissions Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits in the MCM Docket
ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747 and Model Plants for Paint and Allied Products
Manufacturing Area Sources in the Paints and Allied Products Docket ID:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053.) Therefore, while it is clear that some of the PM
emissions are metal HAP, it is difficult to set a limit for specific
metal HAP because controls achieving low PM loading rates (e.g., the
best performers) will likely result in concentrations of metal HAP
below limits of detection. However, measurement of PM is feasible and
represents the best performers and, therefore, we are using PM as a
surrogate. As we do not have measurements of metal HAP, we are
establishing standards for filterable PM. Metal HAP are non-volatile
metals that are a part of filterable PM. While the EPA method selected
(EPA Method 5) is for filterable PM, we note that we are testing for
filterable, not condensable, PM. We also note that if a source should
use solid additives that do not contain metal HAP, then the source is
not required to comply with this standard. Likewise, the PM standard
does not apply to pigments and other solids that are in paste, slurry,
or liquid form, because metal HAP emissions and PM emissions are not
expected to occur when using such pigments and other solids because
they are not readily dispersed in the air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, the average RDL for chromium compounds in an
EPA Method 29 train is 2.5 [micro]g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support the proposed use of PM as a surrogate for certain non-
mercury HAP metals, we considered the holding in National Lime v. EPA,
233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In considering whether the EPA may use
PM, a criteria pollutant, as a surrogate for metal HAP, the D.C.
Circuit stated that the EPA ``may use a surrogate to regulate hazardous
pollutants if it is `reasonable' to do so,'' id. at 637, and laid out
criteria for determining whether the use of PM as a surrogate for non-
mercury metal HAP was reasonable. The court found that PM is a
reasonable surrogate for HAP if: (1) ``HAP metals are invariably
present'' in the source's PM,'' id.; (2) the ``source's PM control
technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with other
particulates,'' id. at 639; and (3) ``PM control is the only means by
which facilities `achieve' reductions in HAP metal emissions,'' id. If
these criteria are satisfied and the PM emission standards reflect what
the best sources achieve--complying with CAA section 7412(d)(3)--``EPA
is under no obligation to achieve a particular numerical reduction in
HAP metal emissions.'' Id.
    While a requirement to meet all of the criteria laid out in the
court opinion has never been established, we considered those criteria
in evaluating whether the proposed surrogate standards for the MCM
source category are reasonable and concluded that they are.
Specifically, since the proposed standards would only apply if metal
HAP are present in the materials being processed, the first criteria is
satisfied. The types of controls used in the industry indiscriminately
capture HAP metals along with other particulates, thus satisfying the
second criteria. Finally, for each type of product, means other than
air pollution controls are not used to reduce emissions. Therefore, we
conclude that it is reasonable to use PM as a surrogate for non-mercury
HAP metals.
    To account for variability in the operation and emissions, the
stack test data were used to calculate the MACT floor limits based on
the 99 percent UPL. The UPL for new sources was determined to be 0.0079
gr/dscf, and the UPL for existing sources was determined to be 0.014
gr/dscf. We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis, where we
determined that requiring all facilities to go beyond either limit
would not be cost-effective. We based this conclusion on cost
information developed for the paints and allied products area source
standard, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0072. All facilities in the source
category currently have PM controls in place using existing baghouses,
fabric filters, or cartridge filters. The estimated cost to completely
replace these filters with new filters would be $695,142 in capital
costs for all 42 facilities, and the incremental reductions from moving
beyond the proposed 0.014 gr/dscf limit to 0.002, the lowest value
provided by a vendor, would result in a cost-effectiveness for PM of
about $3800/ton, and over $3.5 million/ton metal HAP. Therefore, the
beyond-the-floor options were not considered to be cost-effective.
    As explained above, the MACT floor for new sources cannot be less
stringent than the emissions performance that is achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source. The EPA performed a variability
analysis similar to that used for existing sources to calculate a 99
percent UPL using the test runs from the lowest emitting source to
derive the new source MACT floor limit.
b. Performance Testing
    We are proposing, based on these limits, that existing sources
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emissions limit of 0.014 gr/
dscf and new sources demonstrate initial compliance with the PM
emissions limit of 0.0079 gr/dscf. We are proposing to revise Table 1
of 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHH to include the emission limits that
apply to process vessels. Facilities will be required to comply
continuously with the standards during all operations that emit metal
HAP. Consistent with the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing:
NESHAP for Area Sources, this requirement does not apply to pigments
and other solids that are in paste, slurry, or liquid form.
    As stated in section III. above, controls achieving low PM loading
rates (e.g., the best performers) will likely result in concentrations
of metal HAP below limits of detection, particularly with materials
with very low concentrations of metal HAP. Therefore, we have also
provided owners and operators the ability to demonstrate that materials
containing inorganic HAP metals below certain levels are not subject to
these standards. We are proposing to add to the list of definitions to
this subpart, material containing metal HAP, to mean a material
containing compounds of manganese, antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt,
chromium, cadmium, and arsenic compounds, in amounts greater than or
equal to 0.1 percent by weight as shown in formulation data provided by
the manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet
for the material.
c. Monitoring
    Under this proposal, continuous compliance with the emission limits
would be demonstrated through control device parameter monitoring
coupled with periodic emissions testing. Appropriate operating
parameters would include those recommended by the control device
manufacturer as appropriate for the control device, including but not
limited to pressure drop, scrubber water supply pressure, and/or flow
rate. Each operating parameter for a PM control device would be
established during emissions performance testing in which the results
demonstrate compliance; the average parameter value recorded during the
test becomes the facility's operating limit and would be recorded
continuously using a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). The
operating limit could be reset based on results obtained during
subsequent

performance tests that demonstrate compliance with the emissions limit.
Consistent with NESHAP general provisions, a source owner would be
required to operate and maintain the source, its air pollution control
equipment, and its monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions, and its control device in a manner consistent with good
engineering control practice, including operating and maintaining
equipment in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Source
owners would be required to prepare and keep records of calibration and
accuracy checks of the CPMS to document proper operation and
maintenance of the monitoring system. Note that an acceptable example
of a CPMS is a bag leak detection system (BLDS) used in conjunction
with a baghouse. A source owner would determine the average BLDS value
obtained during concurrent emission performance testing, record the
value during source operation, and maintain that value between
emissions performance tests, while conducting quality assurance checks.
d. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    Under this proposal, a source owner would be required to submit
semi-annual compliance summary reports which document both compliance
with the requirements of this rule and any deviations from compliance
with any of those requirements.
    Owners and operators would be required to maintain the records
specified by 40 CFR 63.10 and, in addition, would be required to
maintain records of all inspection and monitoring data, including:
     Records of PM control device operating parameters. For
fabric filters without BLDS, the pressure drop across the baghouse is
would be included as an operating parameter.
     Records of calibration and accuracy checks for the CPMS.
     Records of test results to demonstrate initial and ongoing
compliance with the PM standard.
     If no metal HAP present, records showing a Method 29 test
result of no metal HAP emissions, or documentation of formulation data
for added dry materials.

B. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of HAP

    On January 5, 2022, the EPA published in the Federal Register (87
FR 393) a final rule amending the list of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to add 1-bromopropane (1-BP) in
response to public petitions previously granted by the EPA.
    For this source category, we do not believe that the inclusion of
1-BP as an organic HAP would have affected the representativeness of
the MACT standard. Owners and operators of emission sources regulated
by the MACT, including process vessels, wastewater, equipment leaks,
and storage may comply with these standards by using a control device
or system that achieves a percent reduction and is not HAP-specific.
Therefore, we are proposing to include 1-BP in Table 7 Partially
Soluble HAP and Table 11 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants That Must Be
Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content If Present at 0.1 Percent or
More by Mass of this subpart to include 1-BP. We are taking comment on
these changes, as well as requesting comment on the use of 1-BP
emissions in this source category.

C. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Amendments to the MCM NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the
compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i). For
existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides there shall be
compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later
than 3 years after the effective date of such standard . . . .''
subject to certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\8\ In
determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as
practicable,'' we consider the amount of time needed to plan and
construct projects and change operating procedures. As provided in CAA
section 112(i), all new affected sources would comply with these
provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to the MCM
NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected
to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective
date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in
CAA section 112(d)(10).
    Because these facilities have controls in place already, we expect
the sources to require time to conduct applicability reviews, conduct
performance testing and implement monitoring to comply with the revised
provisions. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance
with the entirety of the revised requirements related to the PM
provisions, the EPA considers a period of 1 year to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that
existing affected sources be in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH's revised PM provisions within 1 year of this final rule's
effective date.
    Therefore, for all affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before June 7, 2022, we are proposing that it is
necessary to provide 1 year after the effective date of the final rule
(or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to
comply with the PM provisions. For all affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after June 7, 2022, we are proposing
that owners and operators comply with the amended PM provisions by the
effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later).
For all affected sources, we are proposing that owners and operators
comply with the amendments to include 1-BP in Table 7 and Table 11
provisions by the effective date of the final rule.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended provisions and the time
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
provisions. We note that information provided may result in changes to
the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    Currently, 42 major sources subject to the MCM NESHAP are operating
in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the
facility-wide collection of equipment used to manufacture coatings and
includes all process vessels; storage tanks for feedstocks and
products; components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, PRDs,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves,
connectors, and instrumentation systems; wastewater tanks; transfer
racks; and cleaning operations. A coating is defined as material such
as paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended

to be applied to a substrate and consists of a mixture of resins,
pigments, solvents, and/or other additives, where the material is
produced by a manufacturing operation and materials are blended, mixed,
diluted, or otherwise formulated.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We project no emissions reductions of PM from the MCM source
category because all facilities reporting PM emissions are already
equipped with particulate controls. This action proposes first-time
standards for metal HAP that will limit emissions and require that
controls are effective.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy
needs of the affected facilities and would, therefore, have no indirect
or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    All existing MCM facilities are expected to be achieving currently
the level of control required by the proposed standards. That is, we
believe that all existing sources currently route vent streams from
specified equipment through a PM control device such that PM emissions
are reduced to at least 0.014 gr/dscf. Although this proposed rule
contains requirements for new sources, we are not aware of any new
sources being constructed now or planned in the next year, and,
consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new sources.
Therefore, there are no capital costs of this proposed rule. The
estimated annualized cost of the proposed rule would be $305,000 per
year. The annualized costs account for submitting the notifications and
for control device performance testing, inspections, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for 13 facilities that are expected to
have add-on controls. As stated in the technical support document,
Summary of Data Collected for the MCM RTR Amendments, there are 13
facilities that reported metal HAP to the 2017 NEI, therefore, we
expect only 13 facilities to incur costs. This document is available in
the docket for this action. No other capital costs are associated with
this proposed rule, and no additional operational and maintenance costs
are expected.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    For the proposed rule, the EPA estimated the cost of performing an
initial performance test and annual control device inspections at
affected facilities. To assess the potential economic impacts, the
expected annual cost is compared to the total sales revenue for the
ultimate owners of affected facilities. For this rule, the expected
annual cost is $7,300 for each facility, with an estimated nationwide
annual cost of $305,000 (2019$). The 42 affected facilities are owned
by 27 parent companies, and the total costs associated with the
proposed amendments are expected to be less than one percent of annual
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs account for 13 facilities
expected to have on control for metal HAP, as well as all 42 facilities
to become familiar with the rule. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine if any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. This
analysis is available in the Docket for this action, Docked ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0747-0020. Two of the affected facilities are owned by
small entities. However, since the costs associated with the proposed
amendments for these two affected small entities are expected to be
less than one percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner, there
are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small
entities from these proposed amendments.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the MCM
source category is available in the docket for this proposed rule.

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set
forth in multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has carefully considered
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns. For MCM
facilities, the demographic screening analysis shows the population of
people of color is similar to the national average. The EPA expects
that the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Technology Review will limit
emissions and require that controls are effective, including in
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often
minority, low-income and indigenous communities. This action requires
facilities with process vessels emitting metal HAP, which consist of PM
emissions from addition of raw materials in powder form to paint mixing
vessels, to demonstrate compliance with PM emissions of 0.014 gr/dscf
for existing sources and 0.0079 gr/dscf for new sources. Following is a
more detailed description of how the Agency considers EJ in the context
of regulatory development, and specific actions taken to address EJ
concerns for this action.
    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial
equity and support underserved communities through federal government
actions (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies''.\9\ The EPA further defines fair treatment
to mean that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden
of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies''. In recognizing that
minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden of
environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Based on these analyses of potentially exposed populations and
actions taken to reduce adverse human health impacts, the EPA
anticipates that this action is not likely to result in
disproportionate impacts on minority populations and/or low-income
populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009,
January 25, 2021). The EPA remains committed to engaging with
communities and stakeholders throughout the

development of air pollution regulations.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with MCM facilities, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an
assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living
within 5 kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then
compared the data from this analysis to the national average for each
of the demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 2) indicate
that, for populations within 5 km of the 42 major source MCM
facilities, the percent of the population who are people of color
(being the total population minus the white population) is similar to
the national average (41 percent versus 40 percent). However, the
percent African American population is higher than the national percent
(20 percent versus 12 percent nationally), whereas the percent Other/
Multiracial (6 percent versus 8 percent nationally) and Hispanic/Latino
(14 percent versus 19 percent nationally) are both below national
averages. The percent of people living below the poverty level (19
percent) and those over 25 without a high school diploma (15 percent)
are higher than the national averages (13 percent and 12 percent,
respectively). The percent of people living in linguistic isolation is
lower than the national average (4 percent versus 5 percent).
    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 42
major source MCM facilities (see Table 2) indicate that, the percent
population of people of color (being the total population minus the
white population) is significantly lower than the national average (28
percent versus 40 percent). The percent of people living below the
poverty level, those over 25 without a high school diploma, and people
living in linguistic isolation are lower than the corresponding
national averages.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the
major source MCM facilities is included as Table 2. The methodology and
the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical
report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near MCM
Facilities, available in this docket for this action (Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0747).

                Table 2--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source MCM Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Population within  Population within
                   Demographic group                         Nationwide        50 km of 42         5 km of 42
                                                                                facilities         facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        328,016,242         34,082,528          1,500,328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 60                 72                 59
Minority...............................................                 40                 28                 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        People of Color by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.......................................                 12                 13                 20
Native American........................................                0.7                0.3                0.3
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......                 19                  8                 14
Other and Multiracial..................................                  8                  6                  6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 13                 12                 19
Above Poverty Level....................................                 87                 88                 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma..............                 12                  9                 15
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 88                 91                 85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  5                  3                  4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count, and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on
  different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based
  on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    The proposed changes to the NESHAP subpart HHHHH will improve human
health exposures for populations in these demographic groups. The
proposed changes will provide additional health protection for all
populations, including communities already overburdened by pollution,
which are often minority, low-income, and indigenous communities. The
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public
health for populations exposed to emissions from MCM facilities.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in receiving
additional data that may improve the metal HAP assessment for this
source category. We

are specifically interested in receiving performance test results
showing metal HAP emissions in this category. Such data should include
supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization
of the quality and representativeness of the data or information.
Information should be submitted to the EPA's ERT website. The ERT
website, https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert provides more information on submitting
data.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 13563 Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposal have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.09. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747),
and it is briefly summarized here.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities manufacturing surface
coatings.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the year after the amendments
are final, approximately 42 respondents per year would be subject to
the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject
to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
42, in year 2 is 13, and in year 3 is 13.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the proposed
amendments to the 42 MCM facilities over the first year if the
amendments are finalized is estimated to be 1,720 hours (per year). The
average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be 53 hours (per year). Burden is
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the proposed
amendments to the MCM facilities is $192,000 in labor costs in the
first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual
capital and operation and maintenance costs are $30,000. The total
average annual Agency cost of the proposed amendments over the first 3
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $2,500.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than July 7, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are MCM
facilities owned by small businesses. Two of the affected facilities
are owned by small entities. However, since the costs associated with
the proposed amendments for these two affected small entities are
expected to be less than one percent of annual sales revenue per
ultimate owner, there are no significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments.
Details of this analysis are described in section V.D above and
additional detail is provided in the economic impact memorandums
associated with this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (MCM).
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are documented in
the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Risk Assessment Report, in the
MCM Docket.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the MCM NESHAP through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 5 and 29. During the
EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar
to the EPA's referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard
and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all
potential

standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
    No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Method 5 or EPA Method 29.
The search identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this
rule in lieu of EPA Method 29. After reviewing the available standard,
the EPA determined that the VCS identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency. Additional information for the
VCS search and determination can be found in the memorandum, Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such standards in
this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    As discussed in section V.E of this preamble, the assessment of
populations in close proximity of MCM facilities shows no demographic
groups that are higher than the national average and the proposed
changes will provide health protection for all populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-12180 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 77857]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30269]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 65

[Docket No.: FAA-FAA-2014-1000; Amdt. No. 65-56A]
RIN 2120-AK40

Elimination of the Air Traffic Control Tower Operator Certificate
for Controllers Who Hold a Federal Aviation Administration Credential
With a Tower Rating; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule with request for comments,
published on December 16, 2014 (79 FR 74607). In that final rule, the
FAA amended its regulations to eliminate the requirement for an air
traffic control tower operator to hold a control tower operator
certificate if the individual also holds a Federal Aviation
Administration Credential with a tower rating (FAA Credential). In that
document, the FAA inadvertently made an error in the part heading for
14 CFR part 65. This document corrects that error.

DATES: This correction will become effective on February 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Michele Cappelle, Air Traffic Safety Oversight
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 16, 2014, the FAA published a final rule with request
for comments, entitled ``Elimination of the Air Traffic Control Tower
Operator Certificate for Controllers Who Hold a Federal Aviation
Administration Credential with a Tower Rating'' (79 FR74607).
    In that final rule, the FAA revised the requirement for an air
traffic control tower operator to hold a control tower operator
certificate if the individual also holds a Federal Aviation
Administration Credential with a tower rating (FAA Credential). In that
final rule, the FAA inadvertently printed the incorrect part heading
for part 65 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

 Correction

    In FR Doc. 2014-29386, beginning on page 74611 in the Federal
Register of December 16, 2014, make the following correction.

Correction to Regulatory Text

    1. On page 74611, in the third column, revise the heading of Part
65 to read as follows:

PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS

* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), in
Washington, DC, on December 19, 2014.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking .
[FR Doc. 2014-30269 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P