Item 4. Controls and Procedures

a. Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures. Based on their evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-Q, the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)) are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms and to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

b. Changes in internal control over financial reporting. There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

PPG is involved in a number of lawsuits and claims, both actual and potential, including some that it has asserted against others, in which substantial monetary damages are sought. These lawsuits and claims may relate to contract, patent, environmental, product liability, asbestos exposure, antitrust, employment, securities and other matters arising out of the conduct of PPG’s current and past business activities. To the extent these lawsuits and claims involve personal injury, property damage and certain other claims, PPG believes it has adequate insurance; however, certain of PPG’s insurers are contesting coverage with respect to some of these claims, and other insurers may contest coverage. PPG’s lawsuits and claims against others include claims against insurers and other third parties with respect to actual and contingent losses related to environmental, asbestos and other matters.

From the late 1880’s until the early 1970’s, PPG owned property located in Cadogan and North Buffalo Townships, Pennsylvania which was used for the disposal of solid waste from PPG’s former glass manufacturing facility in Ford City, Pennsylvania. In October 2018, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the “DEP”) approved PPG’s cleanup plan for the Cadogan Property. In April 2019, PPG and the DEP entered into a consent order and agreement (“CO&A”) which incorporated PPG’s approved cleanup plan and a draft final permit for the collection and discharge of seeps emanating from the former disposal area. The CO&A includes a civil penalty of $1.2 million for alleged past unauthorized discharges. PPG’s former disposal area is also the subject of a citizens’ suit filed by the Sierra Club and PennEnvironment seeking remedial measures beyond the measures specified in PPG’s approved cleanup plan, a civil penalty in addition to the penalty included in the CO&A and plaintiffs’ attorneys fees. PPG and the plaintiffs settled plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief and PPG agreed to enhancements to the DEP approved cleanup plan and a $250,000 donation to a Pennsylvania nonprofit organization. This settlement has been memorialized by an amendment to the CO&A which was appended to a Consent Agreement between PPG and the plaintiffs which has been entered by the federal court. The remaining claims in the case for attorneys’ fees

Table of Contents

and a civil penalty are not affected by this settlement. PPG believes that the remaining claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against these claims vigorously.

For many years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. For a description of asbestos litigation affecting the Company, see Note 14, “Commitments and Contingent Liabilities” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q.

In the past, the Company and others have been named as defendants in several cases in various jurisdictions claiming damages related to exposure to lead and remediation of lead-based coatings applications. PPG has been dismissed as a defendant from most of these lawsuits and has never been found liable in any of these cases. After having not been named in a new lead-related lawsuit for 15 years, PPG was named as a defendant in two Pennsylvania state court lawsuits filed by the Counties of Montgomery and Lehigh on October 4, 2018 and October 12, 2018, respectively. Both suits seek declaratory relief arising out of alleged public nuisances in the counties associated with the presence of lead paint on various buildings constructed prior to 1980. By Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2023, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed both lower trial courts, unanimously ruling the Counties failed to plead valid causes of action, and remanding both cases to their respective trial courts for dismissal. On June 5, 2023, the Counties filed Petitions for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Acceptance of such Petitions is discretionary. The Company continues to believe these actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously until the Counties have exhausted their appellate options.