[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10842-10851]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03562]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747; FRL-6934.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV38

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on the technology review conducted on the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing (MCM) source category regulated under the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). These final
amendments include provisions for inorganic hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) standards for process vessels.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. 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 https://www.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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 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:
    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
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
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
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRD pressure release devices
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its organic and inorganic HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for the MCM source category in
our June 7, 2022, proposal?
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments
for the NESHAP for the MCM source category?
    A. Inorganic HAP Standards for Process Vessels
    B. Adding 1-BP to the list of HAP
    C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Cost, Enviornmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    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 enviornmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review
    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 of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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 final rule.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this final rule is likely to
affect. These final standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this final rule. 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 Final
                                 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 final 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 final rule and key technical documents at this
same website.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    This final rule amends 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 (RTR) on August 14, 2020.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 49724; 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) section 112(d)(6).\2\ To meet this obligation, the EPA issued
a proposed rule to address 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. These
emissions can occur when raw materials in powder form are added to
paint mixing vessels. Therefore, amendments were proposed to define the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for inorganic 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 end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing
of these products may occur in any combination at any facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 57 FR 31576; 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 a 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 regulated 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 NESHAP did not previously regulate inorganic HAP from process
vessels. During the addition of raw materials in powder form to paint
mixing vessels, emissions of inorganic 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
final rule addresses the previously unaddressed inorganic HAP emissions
from this category and requires MACT for emission sources of inorganic
HAP.

C. What changes did we propose for the MCM source category in our June
7, 2022, proposal?

    On June 7, 2022, the EPA published a proposal in the Federal
Register for the MCM NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, to set a
MACT standard for inorganic HAP metal emissions from process vessels in
the MCM source category. We also proposed to add 1-bromopropane (1-BP)
to 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, to this subpart. We asked for
comment on these changes, and additionally sought comment on the use of
1-BP in this source category.

III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the NESHAP for the MCM source category?

    This section provides a description of what we proposed and what we
are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final
decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses.

A. Inorganic HAP Standards for Process Vessels

1. What comments did we receive on the inorganic HAP standards, and
what are our responses?
    Comment: We received comments that the EPA should include design
evaluations of PM control devices (i.e., baghouses, fabric filters,
cartridge filters, or scrubbers) as alternatives to EPA Method 5
testing for initial compliance demonstrations. The commenters argued
that coatings production often occurs infrequently, taking a fraction
of the time needed to conduct an EPA Method 5 test. The commenters
argued that EPA Method 5 test runs usually require an hour or more,
whereas the addition of dry solids to an MCM subject process vessel
usually takes no more than 10 or 15 minutes for each batch. The
commenters stated that it could be a matter of days, or months, before
another batch of dry solids is added to a process vessel. Further,
commenters argued that typically only 1 or 2 batches in a year would be
subject to these standards for several reasons, including that the
amendments only apply to process vessels that are greater than or equal
to 250 gallons, and that some of the manufactured materials might not
be coatings. The commenters also stated that besides metal HAP,
facilities might already route any PM to a control device resulting
from the addition of dry solids (i.e., for worker hygiene protection).
    Response: Periodic performance tests verify control device
performance and also help identify potential degradation of an add-on
control device over time to ensure the control device remains
effective, reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes or
noncompliance. Therefore, we are finalizing the requirement to conduct
performance testing. The commenters indicate that the most significant
issue is related to the amount of time that the controls are operating
to limit PM emissions. We recognize that there may be instances where
inorganic HAP materials are processed for very limited periods of time
and, therefore, are clarifying that the performance test may be
conducted during any solids addition or processing steps, and not just
during the addition of inorganic HAP-containing materials. We note that
the PM emissions limit proposed for inorganic HAP was based on
performance testing for similar units that had the potential for PM
emissions, and not limited to periods where inorganic HAP-containing
materials were added or processed. We are, therefore, clarifying the
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.8005(i)(1)(i) to specify that EPA Method 5
may be conducted during the addition of any dry materials.
    Comment: Commenters argued that design evaluations are allowed in
other NESHAP rules including 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB, Chemical
Preparations Industry; 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC, Paints
and Allied Products Manufacturing, and therefore should be allowed in
this standard. In addition, commenters argued that the current MCM rule
references 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which they claimed allows design
evaluations to control organic HAP.
    Response: As discussed above, performance testing is important to
verify initial and periodic control device performance. Although design
evaluations have been allowed in some NESHAP such as the area source
standards identified by the commenter, performance testing is required
in a number of MACT standards to demonstrate compliance. In the August
14, 2020, final rule, we finalized requirements for facilities subject
to subpart HHHHH to conduct control device performance testing no less
frequently than once every 5 years when using emission capture systems
and add-on controls to demonstrate compliance, see 85 FR 49724, 49729,
and removed provisions in conflict with this change. However, we
erroneously did not make a conforming change to 40 CFR 63.8005(d)(1) at
that time to remove now obsolete language addressing the conduct of
design evaluations. We are therefore making a correction to 40 CFR
63.8005(d)(1) to remove the remaining reference regarding design
evaluations in this provision.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that the EPA should clarify that 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, does not apply to PM control devices by adding
clarifying language to 40 CFR 63.8000(a)(2) and (c).
    Response: Because the final inorganic HAP metal general
requirements are specified in a separate section from the organic HAP
requirements cited by this commenter, this commenter's suggested
clarifications are unnecessary. The requirements in Sec.  63.8000(a)(2)
and (c) are not related to the metal HAP requirements for PM control
devices. Therefore, we have not made the requested clarifications.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that the EPA provide 3 years, rather
than 1 year, to comply with the final rule amendments. Commenters
argued that the EPA did not account for all facilities that will need
to install new control devices for PM. Commenters stated that some
facilities have process vessels that are already controlled with a PM
control device, but have other process vessels at their facilities that
are not currently controlled with a PM control device and would,
therefore, need to install a new PM control device.
    Response: The final rule provides 1 year to comply with the
amendments. For most facilities, 1 year to conduct performance tests on
existing inorganic HAP control devices is an adequate amount of time.
The commenters were not specific in terms of how many facilities would
have to install new control devices to meet this final rule, but we
expect that number to be minimal to none. Therefore, we have not
provided additional time. We note, however, that 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii)
provides an opportunity to request an additional 2 years to comply if
necessary for the installation of controls.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA conduct further
research on the toxicity of non-mercury metal HAP.
    Response: This comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
Nonetheless, the EPA continues to research and collect information on
pollutants such as non-mercury metal HAP.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA clarify whether
inorganic HAP metal includes compounds of metal HAP (i.e., manganese,
antimony, nickel, lead, cobalt, chromium, cadmium, or arsenic) or just
these metals themselves. The commenter also suggested that the EPA
clarify whether the metal HAP limit of 0.1 percent by weight refers to
the content of one single metal HAP compound or the total content of
the metal HAP compounds combined.
    Response: The definition of material containing metal HAP includes
compounds of the metals listed and the metals themselves. The 0.1
percent by weight refers to the total content of all the metal HAP
compounds combined and the metals themselves, except for elemental
lead.
    Comment: One commenter stated that there is a lack of standards for
pigments and other solids that are in paste or slurry form. The
commenter also suggested that the word ``liquid'' can be removed from
the phrase ``pigments and other solids that are in paste, slurry, or
liquid form,'' as no PM emissions occur in liquids.
    Response: We disagree that there need to be standards for pigments
and other solids that are in paste or slurry form as PM emissions do
not occur from processing liquids, pastes, or slurries.

2. What did we propose and what changes are being made to the inorganic
HAP amendments in this final rule?
    This final rule addresses the previously unregulated inorganic HAP
metal emissions from this source category by setting MACT standards for
emission sources of metal HAP by amending the compliance requirements
in 40 CFR 63.7995(f); the general requirements specified in 40 CFR
63.8005(a)(1)(iii) and (i); the reporting requirements specified in 40
CFR 63.8075; the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.8080(i) and
(g); and the general provisions as specified in table 10 to this
subpart, as proposed, to set PM standards stating that existing sources
must demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emissions limit of
0.014 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) and new sources must
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emissions limit of 0.0079
gr/dscf. We are revising table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, as
proposed, to include the 0.014 gr/dscf emission limit that applies to
process vessels. Facilities are required to continuously comply with
the standards during all operations that emit metal HAP. These final
amendments do not apply to pigments and other solids that are in paste,
slurry, or liquid form.
    We are finalizing, as proposed, the definitions in 40 CFR 63.8105
for Bag Leak Detection System (BLDS), fabric filter, and material
containing metal HAP. We are also amending the regulatory text at 40
CFR 63.8005(i)(1)(i) to specify that EPA Method 5 may be conducted
during the addition of any dry materials, not only when dry material
containing metal HAP are added.
    As finalized, continuous compliance with the emission limits will
be demonstrated through control device parameter monitoring coupled
with periodic emissions testing.
    Under this final rule, a source owner is 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.

B. Adding 1-BP to the List of HAP

1. What comments did we receive regarding the addition of 1-BP to our
list of HAP, and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter argued that the CAA requires the EPA to
establish MACT standards for each uncontrolled HAP, including 1-BP. The
commenter argued that the LEAN decision specifies that the EPA must set
emissions standards for each HAP emitted by the source category. The
commenter stated that the LEAN decision requires the Agency to set MACT
standards for HAP that have not previously been regulated. The
commenter further stated that the EPA did not calculate MACT standards
or establish emissions limits for 1-BP. The commenter stated that the
EPA has never previously calculated how much 1-BP the best performing
sources emit and has not set emissions standards for 1-BP. The
commenter stated that adding 1-BP to 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, to this subpart does not satisfy the EPA's obligation to set MACT
standards. The commenter argued that the EPA does not have enough
information to set a MACT floor for 1-BP. The commenter also argued
that a similar analysis should have been completed for 1-BP as it was
done for PM. The commenter argued that the EPA did not conduct a
surrogate analysis between 1-BP and other organic HAP.
    Response: As explained in our 2022 proposal, the D.C. Circuit in
LEAN held that EPA has an obligation to address unregulated emissions
from a source category when conducting the 8-year technology review
required by section 112(d)(6). At the time this rule was proposed, we
considered it possible that sources in this source category may use 1-
BP; however, we had no data to support a conclusion that there are
emissions of 1-BP from this source category. Nonetheless, we proposed
to address potential MACT requirements, and stated ``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.''
We asked for comments and data regarding emissions of 1-BP. However, no
one provided data or other evidence demonstrating that 1-BP is emitted
from this source category. In addition to requesting comments, we
surveyed several MCM facilities to verify our position that 1-BP is not
used in this industry. No respondents to our survey use or emit 1-BP
(see Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category (MCM)
Bromopropane (1-BP) Postcard Phone Survey Memo in the docket for this
action).
    In response to this comment, we have examined whether the addition
of 1-BP to the HAP list impacts the source category. We proposed to
include 1-BP in the tables that list the regulated HAP for this source
category as a conservative, protective approach. However, our survey
and our knowledge regarding likely sources of 1-BP emissions lead us to
conclude that 1-BP is not used in this source category. Therefore, the
obligation to address unregulated emissions set out in LEAN does not
apply here, and we are not including 1-BP in the list of HAP regulated
in this final rule. The EPA will continue to evaluate the best approach
to address any new HAP additions for each source category as the
applicable NESHAP is reviewed.
2. What did we propose and what changes are being made regarding the
addition of 1-BP in this final rule?
    On January 5, 2022, the EPA published in the Federal Register (87
FR 393) a final rule amending the list of HAP under the CAA to add 1-BP
in response to public petitions previously granted by the EPA. This
action became effective on February 4, 2022.
    As discussed above, although we proposed to include 1-BP in the
tables that list the regulated HAP for this source category, we
determined that including 1-BP in the tables in this subpart is not the
correct approach for this source category. Based on our brief phone
survey and knowledge of the industry, we have determined that
facilities are not using or emitting 1-BP in this source category.
Therefore, we are not finalizing the addition of 1-BP to 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, to this subpart to include 1-BP.

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on February 22, 2024.
    All the provisions we are finalizing under CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (3) are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined under CAA
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.\5\
In determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as
practicable,'' we examined 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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. This final action is not 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).
    For all affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before June 7, 2022, we are finalizing, as
proposed, 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 finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators comply
with the amended PM provisions by the effective date of the final rule
or upon startup, whichever is later.

IV. Summary of Cost, Enviornmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

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 a 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 finalizes first-time
standards for inorganic 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 final 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 currently achieving
the level of control required by these final 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 final 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 final rule. The estimated
annualized cost of the final rule would be $205,000 per year. The
annualized costs account for submitting the notifications and for
control device performance testing, inspections, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for 12 facilities that are expected to
have add-on controls. As stated in the technical support document,
Update of Summary of Data Collected for the MCM RTR Amendments, there
are 12 facilities that reported metal HAP to the 2017 NEI. Therefore,
we expect only 12 facilities to incur costs. This document is available
in the docket for this action. No other capital costs are associated
with this final rule, and no additional operational and maintenance
costs are expected.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    For the final 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 $6,700 for each facility, with an estimated nationwide
annual cost of $205,000 (2019$). The 42 affected facilities are owned
by 27 parent companies, and the total costs associated with these
amendments are expected to be less than 1 percent of annual sales
revenue per ultimate owner. These costs account for 12 facilities
expected to have add-on controls 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 whether 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 (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0747). Three of the affected facilities are owned by small
entities. However, since the costs associated with these amendments for
these 3 affected small entities are expected to be less than 1 percent
of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner, there are no significant
economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities from these
final amendments.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the MCM
source category is available in the docket for this final rule.

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with the 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 determined
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns. For MCM
facilities, the demographic proximity analysis shows the population for
people of color is similar to or lower than the national average.
However, the subcategory of the African American population is above
the national average, as well as low-income and the population without
a high-school diploma. This action will set emission standards for
inorganic HAP metals. However, all existing sources currently operate
control technologies and devices such that no further emission
reductions are anticipated as a result of this action, including in
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often minority
(i.e., people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income.
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, which are specifically minority populations (i.e.,
people of color and/or indigenous people) and low-income populations
(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.'' 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 determine ways of protecting them from adverse public
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with 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.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the
major source MCM facilities is included as Table 2 of the proposal (see
87 FR 34622). The results of the demographic analysis 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). 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 results of the analysis of
populations within 50 km of the 42 major source MCM facilities 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 also lower than
the corresponding national averages. 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 ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747).
    With regard to HAP emissions, this action requires facilities with
process vessels emitting inorganic 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. Because all
existing sources control these emissions, no further emission
reductions are anticipated as a result of this action, including in
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often minority
(i.e., people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income.

V. 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 final rule will be
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.10. 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 12, and in year 3 is 12.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the final
amendments to the 42 MCM facilities over the first year if the
amendments are finalized is estimated to be 1,593 hours (per year). The
average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be 49 hours (per year). Burden is
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the final
amendments to the MCM facilities is $178,000 in labor costs in the
first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual
capital and operation and maintenance costs are $28,000. The total
average annual Agency cost of the final amendments over the first 3
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $2,330.
    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. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this 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. Three of the affected facilities
are owned by small entities. However, since the costs associated with
the amendments for these three 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 amendments. Details of this analysis are
described in section IV.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. This
action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections IV.E of
this preamble.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered consultation to tribal officials
during the development of this action. However, the Agency did not
receive a request for consultation. The EPA also provided an overview
on a tribal partnership call on June 30, 2022, during the public
comment period to inform the tribes of the content of the proposed
action and to encourage them to submit comments.

G. 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 reviewed voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases 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 a particular VCS.
    No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Method 5. The search
identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this rule in
lieu of EPA Method 29. However, 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.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and
low-income populations.
    The EPA anticipates that the human health or environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the
potential to result in disproportionate effects on African American and
low-income populations. Near MCM facilities, the percentages of
residents who are African American or low income are higher than the
nationwide percentages. However, based on prior analyses of this source
category (85 FR 49727), risks from HAP pollutants have been found to be
at acceptable levels and this rule will continue to maintain acceptable
levels of exposure.
    The EPA anticipates that this action will not change this
characterization of impacts and is not likely to result in new
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples. All existing sources currently
operate control technologies and devices such that no further emission
reductions are anticipated as a result of this action, including in
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often minority
(i.e., people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income. The
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are available
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747) in
the technical report Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near MCM Facilities.

I. 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 this action does not present any changes to the rule that would
affect environmental health or safety risks, including those that would
present a disproportionate risk to children.

J. 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.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Business and industry, Carbon oxides, Environmental protection,
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

0
2. Amend Sec.  63.7995 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(b) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7995  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (a) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,
if you have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,
if you have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, then you
must comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart
no later than December 11, 2006.
* * * * *
    (f) All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before June 7, 2022, must be in compliance with
the requirements listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this
section upon initial startup or February 22, 2024, whichever is later.
All affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction
after June 7, 2022, must be in compliance with the requirements listed
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section upon initial startup,
or February 22, 2023, whichever is later.
    (1) The general requirements specified in Sec.  63.8005(a)(1)(iii)
and (i).
    (2) The reporting requirements specified in Sec.  63.8075.
    (3) The recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  63.8080(i)
and (g).
    (4) The general provisions as specified in table 10 to this
subpart.

0
3. Amend Sec.  63.8000 by revising paragraph (d)(1) introductory text
and adding paragraph (d)(1)(vii) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8000  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified
in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section apply instead of
or in addition to the requirements for performance testing of control
devices as specified in subpart SS of this part.
* * * * *
    (vii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.8005(i) within 5 years following
the previous performance test. You must conduct the initial or first
periodic performance test before February 22, 2024, unless you are
already required to complete a periodic performance test as a
requirement of renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR
part 70 or 71, and have conducted a performance test on or before
February 22, 2024. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no
later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating
limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  63.8005 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(i);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.8005  What requirements apply to my process vessels?

    (a) * * *
    (1) You must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in
table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, and you must meet each
applicable requirement specified in Sec.  63.8000(b), except as
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section,
you are not required to meet the emission limits and work practice
standards in table 1 to this subpart if you comply with Sec.  63.8050
or Sec.  63.8055.
* * * * *
    (iii) You must meet the inorganic HAP emissions limit in table 1 to
this subpart during the addition of material containing metal HAP to a
process vessel. You are not required to meet this limit for the
addition of pigments and other solids that are in paste, slurry, or
liquid form.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction
emission limit in table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct the
performance test under conditions as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1),
except as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section, and except
that the performance test must be conducted under worst-case
conditions. Also, the performance test for a control device used to
control emissions from process vessels must be conducted according to
Sec.  63.1257(b)(8), including the submittal of a site-specific test
plan for approval prior to testing. The requirements in Sec.
63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply for performance tests
conducted to determine compliance with the emission limits for process
vessels.
* * * * *
    (i) Inorganic HAP standards. You must demonstrate initial
compliance with the inorganic HAP limit in table 1 to this subpart and
as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section by following the
requirements specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this section. You
must demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirements in Sec.
63.11583(a) through (e) and (h).
    (1) You must follow the requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and include the results in your
notification of compliance status report in accordance with Sec.
63.8070.
    (i) You must conduct the tests under conditions that represent
normal operation, during which dry materials are added; tests may be
conducted whether or not those dry materials contain metal HAP.
    (ii) You must perform the test using EPA Method 5 in appendix A to
40 CFR part 60.
    (iii) You must conduct a minimum of three separate test runs with a
minimum sample volume of 70 dry standard cubic feet (2 dry standard
cubic meters) per run for each performance test required in this
section, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3).
    (2) For existing sources only, you may demonstrate initial
compliance using the results of an emissions test conducted in the past
5 years provided the test meets the requirements in paragraph (i)(1) of
this section.

0
5. Amend Sec.  63.8075 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8075  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in
Sec.  63.7995. You must submit a separate notification of compliance
status report after the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.7995(e) and (f).
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  63.8080 by revising paragraph (g) and paragraph (i)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8080  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (g) If you establish separate operating limits as allowed in Sec.
63.8005(e) or (i), you must maintain a log of operation or a daily
schedule indicating the time when you change from one operating limit
to another.
* * * * *
    (i) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e),
for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under Sec.
63.8075(e)(5) or Sec.  63.8005(i), a record of the information
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  63.8105 in paragraph (g) by adding the definitions ``Bag
Leak Detection System'', ``Fabric filter'', and ``Material containing
metal HAP'', in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8105  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    Bag Leak Detection System (BLDS) means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the
exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A BLDS includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or
other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter
loadings.
* * * * *
    Fabric filter means an air collection and control system that
utilizes a bag filter to reduce the emissions of metal HAP and other
particulate matter.
* * * * *
    Material containing metal HAP means 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.
* * * * *

0
8. Table 1 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is revised and republished to
read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                      Standards for Process Vessels
  [As required in Sec.   63.8005, you must meet each emission limit and
   work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
                            process vessels.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For each . . .            You must . . .      And you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Portable process vessel    a. Equip the vessel   Nonapplicable.
 at an existing source.        with a cover or lid
                               that must be in
                               place at all times
                               when the vessel
                               contains a HAP,
                               except for material
                               additions and
                               sampling.
2. Stationary process vessel  a. Equip the vessel   i. Considering both
 at an existing source.        with a cover or lid   capture and any
                               that must be in       combination of
                               place at all times    control (except a
                               when the vessel       flare), reduce
                               contains a HAP,       emissions of
                               except for material   organic HAP with a
                               additions and         vapor existing
                               sampling; or          pressure >=0.6 kPa
                              b. Equip the vessel    by >=75 percent by
                               with a tightly        weight, and reduce
                               fitting vented        emissions of
                               cover or lid that     organic HAP with a
                               must be closed at     vapor pressure <0.6
                               all times when the    kPa by >=60 percent
                               vessel contains       by weight.
                               HAP, except for      i. Reduce emissions
                               material additions    of organic HAP with
                               and sampling.         a vapor pressure
                              c. As specified in     >=0.6 kPa by >=75
                               Sec.   63.8005(i),    percent by weight,
                               on or before          and reduce
                               February 22, 2024,    emissions of
                               during the addition   organic HAP with a
                               of dry material,      vapor pressure <0.6
                               route material        kPa by >=60 percent
                               containing metal      by weight, by
                               HAP to a capture      venting emissions
                               and control system    through a closed-
                               that is maintained    vent system to any
                               and operated          combination of
                               according to the      control devices
                               provisions of Sec.    (except a flare);
                                63.8005.             or
                                                    ii. Reduce emissions
                                                     of total organic
                                                     HAP by venting
                                                     emissions from a
                                                     non-halogenated
                                                     vent stream through
                                                     a closed-vent
                                                     system to a flare;
                                                     or
                                                    iii. Reduce
                                                     emissions of total
                                                     organic HAP by
                                                     venting emissions
                                                     through a closed-
                                                     vent system to a
                                                     condenser that
                                                     reduces the outlet
                                                     gas temperature to:
                                                    <10 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     <0.6 kPa, or
                                                    <2 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=0.6 kPa and <17.2
                                                     kPa, or
                                                    <-5 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=17.2 kPa.
                                                    i. Reduce emissions
                                                     of material
                                                     containing metal
                                                     HAP to 0.014 gr/
                                                     dscf or less.
3. Portable and stationary    a. Equip the vessel   i. Reduce emissions
 process vessel at a new       with a tightly        of total organic
 source.                       fitting vented        HAP by >=95 percent
                               cover or lid that     by weight by
                               must be closed at     venting emissions
                               all times when the    through a closed-
                               vessel contains       vent system to any
                               HAP, except for       combination of
                               material additions    control devices
                               and sampling.         (except a flare);
                              b. As specified in     or
                               Sec.   63.8005(i),   ii. Reduce emissions
                               upon startup or       of total organic
                               February 22, 2023,    HAP by venting
                               whichever is later,   emissions from a
                               during the addition   non-halogenated
                               of dry material,      vent stream through
                               route material        a closed-vent
                               containing metal      system to a flare;
                               HAP to a capture      or
                               and control system   iii. Reduce
                               that is maintained    emissions of total
                               and operated          organic HAP by
                               according to the      venting emissions
                               provisions of Sec.    through a closed-
                                63.8005.             vent system to a
                                                     condenser that
                                                     reduces the outlet
                                                     gas temperature to:
                                                    <-4 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     <0.7 kPa, or
                                                    <-20 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=0.7 kPa and <17.2
                                                     kPa, or
                                                    <-30 [deg]C if the
                                                     process vessel
                                                     contains HAP with a
                                                     partial pressure
                                                     >=17.2 kPa.
                                                    i. Reduce emissions
                                                     of material
                                                     containing metal
                                                     HAP to 0.0079 gr/
                                                     dscf or less.

4. Halogenated vent stream    a. Use a halogen      i. Reduce overall
 from a process vessel         reduction device      emissions of
 subject to the requirements   after the             hydrogen halide and
 of item 2 or 3 of this        combustion control    halogen HAP by >=95
 table for which you use a     device; or.           percent; or
 combustion control device    b. Use a halogen      ii. Reduce overall
 to control organic HAP        reduction device      emissions of
 emissions.                    before the            hydrogen halide and
                               combustion control    halogen HAP to
                               device.               <=0.45 kilogram per
                                                     hour (kg/hr).
                                                    Reduce the halogen
                                                     atom mass emission
                                                     rate to <=0.45 kg/
                                                     hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-03562 Filed 2-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13786-13787]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154; FMCSA-2014-0106; FMCSA-2014-0384; FMCSA-
2015-0328; FMCSA-2017-0057; FMCSA-2018-0136]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for nine
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to https://www.regulations.gov. Insert the
docket number, FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-2014-0106, FMCSA-2014-0384,
FMCSA-2015-032, FMCSA-2017-0057, or FMCSA-2018-0136 in the keyword box,
and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, and click ``Browse
Comments.'' If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On January 15, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for nine individuals from the hearing
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce and requested comments from the public (86 FR 4175). The
public comment period ended on February 16, 2021, and one comment was
received.

    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment received
was outside the scope of this notice.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the nine renewal exemption
applications and comment received, FMCSA announces its decision to
exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in Sec.
391.41(b)(11).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of January
and are discussed below:
    As of January 15, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following eight individuals have satisfied the
renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing
requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (86 FR 4175):

Stephen Goen (GA)
Jerry Jones (TX)
James Laughrey (KS)
Christopher McKenzie (TX)
Kathy Miller (IA)
Lesley O'Rorke (IL)
Gerson Ramirez (MT)
Michael Wilkes (MA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-
2014-0106, FMCSA-2014-0384, FMCSA-2017-0057, or FMCSA-2018-0136. Their
exemptions were applicable as of January 15, 2021, and will expire on
January 15, 2023.
    As of January 22, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), Jaymes Haar (IA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for
interstate CMV drivers.
    This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0328. The
exemption was applicable as of January 22, 2021, and will expire on
January 22, 2023.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-04958 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58558-58559]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-66-000; CP17-67-000]

Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator
Express, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline Project, proposed by
Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express,
LLC (collectively called Venture Global) in the above-referenced
dockets. Venture Global requests authorization to construct and operate
a new LNG export terminal and associated facilities along the west bank
of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (LNG
Terminal) and to construct and operate two new 42-inch-diameter natural
gas pipeline laterals that would connect to the LNG Terminal. The new
liquefaction facilities would have a design production capacity of 20
million metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per annum.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express
Pipeline Project in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval
of the proposed project, with the mitigation measures recommended in
the draft EIS, would have some adverse environmental impacts. These
impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the
implementation of Venture Global's proposed mitigation measures and the
additional measures recommended in the draft EIS.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department
of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of
Transportation participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation
of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the
proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following project facilities:
     LNG Terminal: Construction and operation of various
liquefaction, LNG distribution, and appurtenant facilities within the
boundaries of the site leased by Venture Global on the Mississippi
River, including:
    [cir] Six pretreatment facilities (three in each phase);
    [cir] a liquefaction plant with 18 integrated single-mixed
refrigerant blocks and support facilities (otherwise referred to as
liquefaction blocks or blocks) to be constructed in two phases (nine
blocks in each phase);
    [cir] four 200,000-cubic-meter aboveground LNG storage tanks;
    [cir] three LNG loading docks within a common LNG berthing area;
and
    [cir] air-cooled electric power generation facilities.
     Pipeline System: Construction and operation of two
parallel 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipelines that share one right-
of-way corridor for the majority of their respective routes and
appurtenant aboveground facilities, including the following:
    [cir] 15.1-mile-long Southwest Lateral Tennessee Gas Pipeline, LLC
(TGP) Pipeline;
    [cir] 11.7-mile-long Southwest Lateral Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (TETCO) Pipeline;
    [cir] TGP metering and regulation station; and
    [cir] TETCO metering and regulation station.

    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be
viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using
the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP17-66 or CP17-67). Be sure you
have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Your
comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of
potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures
to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of
your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that
the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on January 7, 2019.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket numbers
(CP17-66-000 and CP17-67-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend the public comment session its staff
will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS,
scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 11, 2018 (4:00 p.m.-7:00  Belle Chasse Library, 8442
 p.m. CST).                                  Hwy 23, Belle Chasse,
                                             Louisiana 70037, (504) 394-
                                             3570.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary goal of these comment sessions is to have you identify
the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS.
Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a
court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount
of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
    The comment session is scheduled from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. CST.
You may arrive at any time after 4:00 p.m. There will not be a formal
presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to
speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your
arrival. Comments will be taken until 7:00 p.m. However, if no
additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to
provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude
the session at 6:30 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional
information on the session format and conduct.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on connecting to
eLibrary, refer to page 2 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your verbal comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with
FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public
record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on
FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary).
If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal
comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be
implemented for each commentor.
    It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight
as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will
not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available
throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the
environmental review process.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are
more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.

Questions?

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: November 13, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25308 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P