[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36796-36815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12250]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200; FRL-8515-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV23


New Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface 
Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface 
Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines as the preliminary 
results of the review of the new source performance standards required 
by the Clean Air Act. Specific to affected facilities that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 21, 2022, the 
EPA is, in new subpart TTTa, proposing volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emission limitations for prime, color, texture, and touch-up coating 
operations. We are also proposing in subparts TTTa and TTT to include a 
requirement for electronic submission of periodic compliance reports.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before July 21, 2022.

[[Page 36797]]

    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before June 27, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering 
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0200, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0200 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0200.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Lisa Sutton, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, 
Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3450; 
fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that because 
of current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social 
distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-
person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. If 
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on July 12, 2022. The 
hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude 
at 4:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last 
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional 
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after 
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual 
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface or contact the public 
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at 
[email protected]. The last day to pre-register to speak at the 
hearing will be July 5, 2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a 
general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate 
order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral 
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to 
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of 
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth 
in this document, please monitor our website or contact the public 
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] 
to determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to 
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by June 
28, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without 
advance notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0200. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/ 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed in the Submitting CBI section of this document.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points

[[Page 36798]]

you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or 
comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on 
the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional 
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information 
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making 
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must 
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in the Instructions section of this document. If you submit 
any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and 
note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in 
the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as 
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket 
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that 
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not 
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to 
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the 
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped 
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer 
envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice 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:

ACT Alternative Control Techniques document
ADI Applicability Determination Index database
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM ASTM International
BACT best achievable control technology
BID background information document
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTG Control Techniques Guidelines document
CDX Central Data Exchange
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online database
EIS Emissions Inventory System database
EJ environmental justice
EMI/RFI electromagnetic interference/radio frequency interference
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
HVLP high-volume, low-pressure
ICR information collection request
kg VOC/l kilograms volatile organic carbon per liter
km kilometer
lb VOC/gal pounds volatile organic carbon per gallon
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
Mg megagram
Mg/yr megagrams per year
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
scf standard cubic feet
SIC standard industrial classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions
TE transfer efficiency
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
UV/EB ultraviolet/electron beam
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

    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 the source category?
    C. How do the current standards regulate emissions?
    D. Background on Sources Subject to Subpart TTT
    E. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    F. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale
    A. What are the preliminary results and proposed decisions based 
on our NSPS review, and what is the rationale for those proposed 
decisions?
    B. What are the results of our review of powder coatings and UV/
EB coatings formulation?
    C. What are the results of our review of spray application 
technology?
    D. What regulatory options did we identify, and how did we 
evaluate them?

[[Page 36799]]

    E. What are the proposed requirements for emissions from sources 
subject to the proposed NSPS subpart TTTa?
    F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    G. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the 
rationale for those actions?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source category that is the subject of this proposal is surface 
coating of plastic parts for business machines regulated under CAA 
section 111, New Source Performance Standards. These surface coating 
operations may be (but are not necessarily) among establishments 
indexed under the 2022 North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code 333310--Commercial and Service Industry Machinery 
Manufacturing. This NAICS code merely provides a guide for readers 
regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. 
Three stationary sources that currently perform surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines and are subject to the New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart TTT will be affected by the 
portions of this proposal that amend NSPS subpart TTT. With respect to 
the proposed requirements to be added in NSPS new subpart TTT a, which 
is specific to affected facilities that are constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after June 21, 2022, the EPA estimates that over the next 
8 years following this proposal, no new, modified, or reconstructed 
facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business 
machines will be affected by this proposal. Information supporting that 
estimate is provided in the memorandum Best System of Emission 
Reduction (BSER) Review for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 
Business Machines (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) (BSER Review 
memorandum), available in the docket for this action. The proposed 
standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the 
affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities 
would not be affected by this proposed action.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website.
    A redline/strikeout version of the regulatory language showing the 
edits that would be necessary to incorporate the changes to NSPS 
subpart TTT and NSPS subpart TTT a proposed in this action is available 
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200). 
Following signature by the Administrator, the EPA will also post a copy 
of this document at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The EPA's authority for this proposed rule is CAA section 111, 
which governs the establishment of standards of performance for 
stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA 
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the 
Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air 
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and 
modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to 
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source 
performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the 
scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which 
standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards, 
and distinguish among classes, type and sizes within categories in 
establishing the standards.
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' new source performance 
standards. However, the Administrator need not review any such standard 
if the ``Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate 
in light of readily available information on the efficacy'' of the 
standard. When conducting a review of an existing performance standard, 
the EPA has the discretion and authority to add emission limits for 
pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source 
category.
    In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section 
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost 
of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of 
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to 
determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the 
regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission 
limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must 
then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of 
performance for new sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA 
section 111(b)(5) precludes the EPA from prescribing a particular 
technological system that must be used to comply with a standard of 
performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or combination of 
measures that will achieve the standard. Pursuant to the definition of 
new source in CAA section 111(a)(2), standards of performance apply to 
facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the Federal 
Register. Under CAA section 111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any 
physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a 
stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant 
emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any

[[Page 36800]]

air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an existing facility 
that do not result in an increase in emissions are not considered 
modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, reconstruction 
means the replacement of components of an existing facility such that: 
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of 
the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable 
entirely new facility; and (2) it is technologically and economically 
feasible to meet the applicable standards. Pursuant to CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B), the standards of performance or revisions thereof shall 
become effective upon promulgation.

B. What is the source category?

1. Background on the Source Category
    The surface coating of plastic parts for business machines was 
listed as a source category for regulation under section 111 of the CAA 
in 1986, based on the Administrator's determination that emissions from 
facilities that surface coat plastic business machine parts cause, or 
contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. See 51 FR 869 
(January 8, 1986). The NSPS for surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines was proposed on January 8, 1986 (51 FR 854), and 
promulgated at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, on January 29, 1988 (53 FR 
2672) (1988 NSPS). Subpart TTT applies to affected facilities that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 
1986.
    The 1988 NSPS established VOC emission limits calculated for each 
type of coating used at each spray booth during each nominal 1-month 
period. Subsequent to promulgation of the NSPS, in 1988 the EPA issued 
a correction because of an inadvertent inclusion of delegable functions 
in the list of nondelegable functions in 40 CFR 60.726 (53 FR 19300, 
May 27, 1988). In 1989, the EPA issued a final rule (54 FR 25458, June 
15, 1989) to clarify that electromagnetic interference and radio 
frequency interference (EMI/RFI) shielding coatings that are applied to 
the surface of plastic business machine parts to attenuate EMI/RFI 
signals were exempt from the regulation.
    In general, plastic parts are coated to provide color, texture, and 
protection, improve appearance and durability, attenuate EMI/RFI 
signals, and conceal mold lines and flaws. Examples of plastic parts 
specific to the coatings industry sector for the surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines include plastic housings for 
electronic office equipment, such as computers and copy machines, and 
for medical equipment.\1\ Structural foam injection molding and 
straight injection molding are among predominant forming techniques 
used to manufacture plastic parts that are used in business machines. 
The surface coating of plastic parts for business machines may be 
performed within several industries, including business machine 
manufacturers, independent plastic molders and coaters, and ``coating 
only'' shops. Sources that perform surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines include job shops that must accommodate a wide 
variety of coatings and wide range of part shapes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alternative Control Techniques Document: Surface Coating of 
Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts, EPA 
453/R-94-017, February 1994, p. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1986 NSPS proposal and the 1988 NSPS, the EPA identified the 
spray booth as the affected facility subject to subpart TTT. In the 
1986 proposed NSPS, the EPA explained why the spray booth, a narrow and 
simple equipment grouping, was selected as the affected facility.\2\ 
The term ``spray booth'' means the structure housing the spray 
application equipment and ancillary equipment associated with the 
enclosure. It includes not only the enclosure and ventilation system 
for spray coating but also the spray gun(s) and ancillary equipment 
such as pumps and hoses associated with the enclosure.\3\ The 1988 NSPS 
applies to these sources regardless of production capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed rule, ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary 
Sources: Industrial Surface Coating; Plastic Parts for Business 
Machines'' (51 FR 854, January 8, 1986) (1986 proposed NSPS) at pp. 
862-63.
    \3\ 1986 proposed NSPS, 51 FR 854 at 855 and 862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As used in the affected facility (spray booth), the types of 
coatings subject to VOC emission limits in the 1988 NSPS include prime 
coats, color coats, texture coats, and touch-up coats. The VOC emission 
sources covered in the 1988 NSPS are: (1) the spray booths; (2) the 
flash-off areas; and (3) the curing ovens.\4\ According to the 
regulation at 40 CFR 60.722(b), all VOC emissions that are caused by 
coatings applied in each affected facility, regardless of the actual 
point of discharge of emissions into the atmosphere, shall be included 
in determining compliance with the emission limits. Thus, as the EPA 
explained in the 1988 NSPS, VOC emissions from the flash-off area and 
oven are covered by the standards on the basis that the coatings 
application that takes place in the spray booth is the cause of VOC 
emissions from the flash-off area and oven.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In this source category, approximately 80 percent of the 
emissions occur in the spray booths, 10 percent occur in the flash-
off areas, and 10 percent occur in the ovens (1986 proposed NSPS, 51 
FR 854 at 858/3).
    \5\ 53 FR 2672 at 2674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Typically, a plastic part is surface coated in a spray booth that 
houses either automatic or manual spray application equipment (one or 
more spray guns). After being coated, the part is moved, whether 
manually or by conveyor, to a flash-off area and then to a curing oven. 
The purpose of the flash-off area is to allow sufficient time for some 
portion of the solvents from a newly applied coating to evaporate, 
sometimes between coats, because the coating may not dry correctly 
unless it is given the recommended flash time. The flash-off area is 
usually very large and not enclosed, and indoor VOC concentrations 
resulting from flash-off are typically reduced by dilution ventilation 
for worker safety.\6\ Whether a batch oven or a conveyor oven, the 
curing oven applies enough heat to the newly coated part to create a 
chemical reaction that stabilizes the newly applied coating. For 
surface coating of plastic parts for business machines, coatings are 
typically cured at a relatively low temperature, near 60 degrees 
Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 1986 proposed NSPS, 51 FR 854 at 858/3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of the type of coating in use at a facility that surface 
coats plastic parts for business machines, approximately 80 percent of 
total VOC emissions occur in the spray booth. Most of the solvent-laden 
air in these facilities comes from the spray booth and flash-off areas, 
and the concentration of VOC in that air is very low because it must be 
diluted to protect workers from breathing harmful levels of organic 
solvents. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has 
specific requirements for the design and construction of spray booths 
(see 29 CFR 1910.107(b)) and requires a minimum velocity of air into 
all openings of a spray booth (see 29 CFR 1910.94(c)(6), table G-10). 
An induced air flow is maintained in a spray booth not only to keep 
solvent concentrations at a safe level but also to remove overspray in 
order to minimize contamination. The VOC from these areas can be 
captured and ducted to a control device, but the high volume of air and 
low concentration of VOC make this a costly method of control. For 
example, the cost of using a thermal incinerator with primary heat 
recovery to control VOC emissions from the spray

[[Page 36801]]

booths and flash-off areas for a medium-sized model plant was estimated 
in the EPA's 1985 document titled Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 
Business Machines--Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-
450/3-85-019a, December 1985 (1985 BID), available in the docket for 
this action, to be $11,000 to $21,000 per megagram (Mg) ($10,000 to 
$19,000 per ton) of VOC controlled.\7\ The specific cost depends in 
part on the booth ventilation rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 1985 BID, p. 4-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Coatings Used in the Source Category
    Low-VOC-content coatings have been developed for surface coating 
operations generally; as demonstrated by sources' compliance with VOC 
emission limits in the EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines for 
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, EPA-453/R-08-003, 
September 2008 (2008 CTG) as well as state regulations, coatings 
manufacturers have been successful in reformulating coating products to 
meet more stringent limits.
    The types of coatings currently in use for application to plastic 
business machine parts include conventional solvent-based coatings, 
higher-solids coatings, and waterborne coatings, all of which emit VOC 
to the atmosphere when organic solvents evaporate from the coatings 
during coating and curing processes. The properties of the different 
plastics determine the types of coatings that can be used on them. For 
instance, some plastics are damaged by the organic solvents in solvent-
based or waterborne coatings. Also, adhesion characteristics can differ 
between plastics.
    The constituents of a coating typically include a mixture of 
solvents and solids. If a coating needs to be made thinner before use, 
the owner or operator may add additional solvents to dilute the 
coating. The solvents portion of the coating (sometimes referred to as 
the volatiles portion) can include water and exempt solvents as well as 
regulated VOCs. The solids portion of the coating typically includes 
pigments, binders, and additives. The solids portion is what is 
intended to be applied to and remain on the product being coated. As a 
product is sprayed with coating, some of the solids will adhere to the 
product being coated. Even under optimal conditions, however, some of 
the solids will be excess spray that is discarded as waste. When 
calculated as a percentage of the total volume of a coating, the solids 
may be referred to as ``volume solids.'' When comparing a gallon of a 
coating with a higher volume solids (e.g., 60 percent volume solids) 
and a gallon of coating with a lower volume solids (e.g., 30 percent 
volume solids), one cannot simply conclude that the higher-solids 
coating will emit less VOC. To calculate the mass of VOC in that gallon 
of coating, one must know the makeup of the solvents portion and the 
coating's VOC density (or solids density).
    Although a coating's solids content and regulated VOC content are 
not directly inversely proportional to each other, they are closely 
related. To evaluate coating reformulation options and to estimate 
total VOC emissions from coating operations, the EPA often relies on a 
material balance approach that is based on our determination that all 
of the coating's VOC content will evaporate and will be emitted unless 
captured and routed to a control device.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA. AP-42, April 1981, section 4.2.2.1.2. Emissions from 
surface coating for an uncontrolled facility can be estimated by 
assuming that all VOC in the coatings is emitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Spray Application Technology
    The type of coating to be used is a factor in selecting the 
appropriate spray application technique (type of spray gun, choice of 
fluid nozzle size, amount of thinning). Higher-solids coatings are 
especially suited to application by a conventional (air atomized) spray 
gun, which allows a lot of air pressure to atomize the coating. 
Coatings of lower viscosity may be sprayed with, e.g., a high-volume, 
low-pressure (HVLP) spray gun, an airless air-assisted spray gun, or an 
electrostatic air spray gun, which waste less coating compared to a 
conventional spray gun.
    The transfer efficiency (TE) is the ratio of the coating solids 
that adhere to a part to the total amount of coating solids used. More 
simply, the TE of the spray application method indicates the amount of 
coating solids that will land on the intended target. Thus, TE also 
indicates the amount of excess coating sprayed, which is referred to as 
overspray. Improving TE reduces total coating consumption and results 
in decreased VOC emissions. Thus, owners and operators of surface 
coating operations are economically motivated to maximize the 
efficiency of their spray application methods. Even so, owners and 
operators are constrained in the extent to which TE can be improved: 
the type of plastic being coated affects the choice of coating, which 
in turn affects the choice of and efficiency of the spray application 
technique.
4. Format of VOC Content Data and Emission Limits
    Emission limits for coatings operations, such as those recommended 
in CTGs and adopted by many state and local agencies, are sometimes 
expressed in terms of pounds of VOC per gallon of coating less water. 
Those units are directly useful, however, only for cases where 
compliance is achieved with low-VOC-content coatings alone. When add-on 
controls or transfer efficiency improvements are used, compliance 
calculations must be done on an equivalent solids basis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA. A Guideline for Surface Coating Calculations, EPA-340/
1-86-016, July 1986, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Coatings regulations and information from coatings manufacturers, 
when providing VOC content in terms of mass of VOC per volume of 
coating material, typically provide VOC content information (whether in 
metric or English units) in one or more of the following three formats. 
In the first format, ``as supplied,'' VOC content of the material is 
characterized as it leaves the coatings manufacturer site. In the 
second format, ``as applied,'' VOC content of the coating is 
characterized ``at application'' or ``as used.'' The coating has been 
mixed according to manufacturer's instructions, which may include a 
maximum amount of thinning with non-exempt compound solvents. The third 
format, ``VOC per unit of applied coating solids,'' considers the 
transfer efficiency of the application method to account for overspray. 
The NSPS subpart TTT limits are in this third format. The format of the 
1988 NSPS was selected over a format that was based on mass of VOC per 
unit volume of coating consumed, because the latter format would not 
give credit for improving TE.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 51 FR 854 at 863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional details on the development of the 1988 NSPS for surface 
coating of plastic parts for business machines can be found in the 1985 
BID.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines--
Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-85-019a, 
December 1985, available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How do the current standards regulate emissions?

1. Best System of Emission Reduction in the 1988 NSPS
    In the 1986 proposed NSPS, the EPA evaluated regulatory options 
that considered EMI/RFI shielding and exterior coating processes 
together. To simplify examination of those regulatory alternatives for 
the proposal, the EPA chose to present the cost,

[[Page 36802]]

environmental, and energy impacts and cost effectiveness of control 
options for EMI/RFI shielding and exterior coating separately. For EMI/
RFI shielding, the EPA evaluated four control options in the 1986 
proposed NSPS. Three of those control options concerned VOC emissions 
from coatings, and the fourth concerned a non-VOC-emitting process, 
zinc-arc spray. For each of the four EMI/RFI shielding options 
considered, the cost effectiveness compared to the baseline was judged 
to be unreasonable. As a result, the EPA did not regulate EMI/RFI 
shielding in the 1988 NSPS. None of the currently affected facilities 
subject to NSPS subpart TTT is engaged in application of EMI/RFI 
shielding on plastic parts for business machines. Accordingly, the EPA 
is not proposing to address EMI/RFI shielding options in NSPS subpart 
TTTa.
    For exterior coatings, in the 1986 proposed NSPS, the EPA evaluated 
eight control options. All eight of those control options concerned VOC 
emissions from coatings. For fog coating, the 1988 NSPS selected the 
application of waterborne coatings applied at a TE of 25 percent as the 
BSER. For prime, color (except fog coating), texture, and touch-up 
coating, the EPA selected the application of organic-solvent-based 
coatings containing 60 percent solids--at 40 percent TE for prime and 
color coats and at 25 percent TE for texture and touch-up coats--as the 
BSER.
2. Emission Limits in the 1988 NSPS
    The 1988 NSPS established emission limits that are based on the 
BSER (a combination of coating formulation and application technology). 
For prime and color coats, and for fog coating, affected facilities 
must limit VOC emissions to no more than 1.5 kilograms of VOC per liter 
(kg VOC/l), or 13 pounds of VOC per gallon (lb VOC/gal) of coating 
solids applied. For texture and touch-up coats, affected facilities 
subject to the 1988 NSPS must limit VOC emissions to no more than 2.3 
kg VOC/l (19 lb VOC/gal) of coating solids applied.
    Noteworthy is that the regulation at 40 CFR 60.721 defines 
``coating solids applied'' to mean the coating solids that adhere to 
the surface of the plastic business machine part being coated. Thus, 
the TE of the spray application technology is taken into account in the 
setting of the VOC emission limits of the 1988 NSPS and in calculation 
of compliance with those emission limits. It may be helpful to think of 
the denominator in those emission limits in terms of coating solids 
deposited.
3. Demonstrating Compliance With the 1988 NSPS
    To demonstrate compliance with the 1988 NSPS emission limits, the 
owner or operator of an affected facility is provided equations (in 40 
CFR 60.723(b)(i)) that factor in both VOC content and TE. The equations 
calculate the mass of VOC used for each type of coating used, the total 
volume of coating solids consumed for each coating type, and the 
volume-weighted average transfer efficiency, all used to calculate the 
volume-weighted average mass of VOC emitted per unit volume of coating 
solids applied.
    For purposes of compliance calculations, the regulation at 40 CFR 
60.723 specifies the default TE to be used, depending on the 
application technology employed. A TE of 0.25 is the default value when 
air atomized spray is the application method used, and a TE of 0.40 is 
the default value when either air-assisted airless spray or 
electrostatic air spray is the application method used.
    Because TE is a factor in calculations for demonstrating compliance 
with the VOC emission limits in the 1988 NSPS, the owner or operator at 
a surface coating facility is afforded some flexibility as to which 
combination of coating formulation and application technique to use for 
a given plastic part. For example, compliance with a limit of 1.5 kg 
VOC/l (13 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied (the limit for both prime 
and color coating) can be achieved with a higher-VOC-content coating 
and a more efficient spray application method or with a lower-VOC-
content coating and a less efficient spray application method. 
(Remember that the regulation at 40 CFR 60.721 defines ``coating solids 
applied'' to mean the coating solids that adhere to the surface of the 
plastic business machine part being coated.)
    The 1988 NSPS requires that the owner or operator of an affected 
facility conduct an initial performance test and thereafter a 
performance test each nominal 1-month period, for each affected 
facility. Each monthly period, the owner or operator will calculate the 
volume-weighted average mass of VOC in coatings emitted per unit volume 
of coating solids applied (i.e., deposited), for each type of coating 
(prime, color, texture, and touch-up) used during that period. Each 1-
month calculation is considered a performance test.\12\ Following an 
initial report, the owner or operator will submit a statement of 
compliance on a semiannual basis or, if the affected facility is not in 
compliance with the application emission limits, will submit a report 
of noncompliance on a quarterly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 40 CFR 60.723(b)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Options for Case-by-Case Approval in the 1988 NSPS
    The 1988 NSPS provides that if an owner or operator can demonstrate 
to the satisfaction of the Administrator that TE values other than 
those specified in subpart TTT are appropriate, the Administrator will 
approve their use on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, the Administrator 
will on a case-by-case basis approve a TE value for an application 
method not listed in the regulation.
    Finally, facilities are not required to use the formulas and 
compliance demonstrations based on coating content and TE. Consistent 
with CAA section 111(b)(5), the 1988 NSPS expressly allows that 
compliance with subpart TTT can achieved through the use of add-on 
controls, if the owner or operator at an affected facility can 
demonstrate to the Administrator on a case-by-case basis that VOC 
emissions reductions through use of add-on controls are within the 
otherwise applicable limits.\13\ The EPA is proposing to include in the 
new subpart TTTa these same case-by-case compliance approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 60.723(b)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Background on Sources Subject to Subpart TTT

    The EPA is aware of three stationary sources, located among three 
states, that currently perform surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines. Of those three sources, two are small entities. 
Based on our review, the EPA has determined that all three sources are 
currently subject to the 1988 NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, 
because they have affected surface coating operations that were 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after January 8, 1986. The 
number of affected facilities (spray booths subject to NSPS subpart 
TTT) per stationary source ranges from one to ten. We also determined 
that none of the three sources are currently subject to the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Plastic 
Parts at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, since each is an area source and 
so not subject to major source requirements under CAA section 112. None 
of the currently affected facilities subject to NSPS subpart TTT is 
engaged in application of EMI/RFI shielding on plastic parts for 
business machines. Add-on controls are not used by any of the three 
sources that are actively engaged in the surface coating of plastic

[[Page 36803]]

parts for business machines, and no new plants are expected to be built 
that rely on add-on control for VOC emissions.
    The EPA has determined that all three sources currently subject to 
the 1988 NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, use low-VOC-coatings in 
combination with efficiency in spray application technology to comply 
with the emission limitations. The EPA also found that, through use of 
low-VOC-content coatings in combination with efficiency in spray 
application technology, one of the three sources actively engaged in 
the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines is complying 
with air permit limits that are more stringent than the VOC emission 
limits of the 1988 NSPS.\14\ That source is subject to New York State 
regulations requiring that all sources applying surface coatings to 
plastic parts for business machines in New York must comply with these 
more stringent VOC emission limits.\15\ These New York emission limits 
are identical to the VOC emission limits recommended for surface 
coating of business machines in table 4 of the 2008 CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Records prepared by Xerox Corporation; required under 40 
CFR 60.723(b)(2)(iii) and codified in the source's Air State 
Facility air permit issued December 10, 2019, by New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation.
    \15\ Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the 
State of New York--Surface Coating Processes; 6 CRR--NY 228-1.4. In 
table B6, under Business Machine Coatings, the VOC content limit for 
primers, topcoats, texture coats, and touchup and repair is 0.35 kg 
per liter of coating (minus water and excluded compounds) at 
application, and the VOC content limit for fog coats is 0.26 kg per 
liter of coating (minus water and excluded compounds) at 
application. As comparison, these values are between 61 and 93 
percent of the NSPS subpart TTT values, depending on coating type 
(and assuming a 40 percent transfer efficiency in converting to the 
NSPS format).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A full discussion of the EPA's data collection activities for the 
NSPS review is found in the BSER Review memorandum, available in the 
docket for this action. This section of the preamble provides a summary 
of those activities.
    For review of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, and 
development of the proposed new NSPS subpart TTTa, the EPA collected 
information from a typical variety of data sources.
    To compile a list of sources subject to subpart TTT (facility 
list), we queried the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) 
database, which provides integrated compliance and enforcement 
information for approximately 800,000 regulated sources nationwide. 
Using the feature in ECHO to search on NSPS subpart TTT, the EPA 
identified 17 sources as potentially subject to NSPS subpart TTT. Of 
the 17 sources, nine had permit documents indicating that they were 
subject to the NSPS at the time of review. Upon contacting these nine 
individual sources, we learned that only three of those sources 
currently perform surface coating of plastic parts for business 
machines.
    The EPA recognizes that not all states submit data to ECHO for the 
smallest sources, and so we sought to supplement the information from 
ECHO by collecting information on reasonably available control 
technology (RACT), best available control technology (BACT), and lowest 
achievable emission rate (LAER) determinations in the EPA's RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse.\16\ The EPA established the RACT/BACT/LAER 
Clearinghouse, or RBLC, to provide a central database of air pollution 
technology information--including past RACT, BACT, and LAER decisions 
contained in New Source Review (NSR) permits--to promote the sharing of 
information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case 
determinations. Data in the RBLC are not limited to sources subject to 
RACT, BACT, and LAER requirements. Noteworthy prevention and control 
technology decisions and information are included even if they are not 
related to past RACT, BACT, or LAER decisions. Our search of the RBLC 
resulted in one potential addition to the facility list, but we found 
that the source does not currently perform surface coating of plastic 
parts for business machines and so did not include it in the facility 
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also queried the EPA's Applicability Determination Index 
(ADI),\17\ which is a web-based database containing memoranda issued by 
EPA on applicability and compliance issues associated with NSPS, 
NESHAP, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Recently issued determinations 
are added to the database on a quarterly basis. Our search of the ADI 
did not result in any additions to the facility list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See https://cfpub.epa.gov/adi/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the EPA queried the EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) 
database, which includes emissions data and supporting information from 
the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Our search of the EIS did 
not result in any additions to the facility list.
    For assistance in development of the facility list, and to confirm 
information compiled, we consulted: the industry trade association, the 
American Coatings Association; a major industrial coatings 
manufacturer, The Sherwin-Williams Company; and numerous EPA Regional 
Office contacts. Our communications with these representatives did not 
result in any additions to the facility list.

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

    In addition to the data sources described in section II.E of this 
preamble, the EPA reviewed the following information sources for 
advances in technologies, changes in cost, and other factors to review 
the standards in the 1988 NSPS for surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines. The additional information sources include:
     Operating permits for 18 sources.
     Compliance demonstration reports for two sources.
     Publicly available inspection reports for one source.
     Alternative Control Techniques Document: Surface Coating 
of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts, EPA-
453/R-94-017, February 1994, available in the docket for this action.
     Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and 
Plastic Parts Coatings, EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008, available in 
the docket for this action.
     Background documents and industry supplied data for 
supporting regulatory actions promulgated subsequent to the 1988 NSPS, 
including the 2004 Plastic Parts NESHAP and the 2020 RTR amendments to 
the 2004 Plastic Parts NESHAP.

III. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, CAA section 111 requires 
the EPA, at least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise 
the standards of performance applicable to new, modified, and 
reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards of performance, 
they must reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through 
the application of the BSER taking into account the cost of achieving 
such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact 
and energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to 
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory 
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:

[[Page 36804]]

     Expected growth for the source category, including how 
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger 
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control 
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or 
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately 
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and 
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission 
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current 
standards are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with 
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through 
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
    In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission 
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated 
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of 
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission 
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can 
achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the 
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also 
considers cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric and a means of 
evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a 
reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of 
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In 
general, cost-effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by 
resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost-
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing 
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant 
reductions realized annually.
    After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the 
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is 
``best.'' The EPA then establishes a standard of performance that 
reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 
implementation of the BSER. In doing this analysis, the EPA can 
determine whether subcategorization is appropriate based on classes, 
types, and sizes of sources, and may identify a different BSER and 
establish different performance standards for each subcategory. The 
result of the analysis and BSER determination leads to standards of 
performance that apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the 
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because the new source 
performance standards reflect the best system of emission reduction 
under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in doing its 
review, the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure 
compliance with the emission standards.
    See sections II.E and II.F of this preamble for information on the 
specific data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

A. What are the preliminary results and proposed decisions based on our 
NSPS review, and what is the rationale for those proposed decisions?

    This action presents the EPA's review of the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart TTT pursuant to CAA 111(b)(1)(B). As described in 
section III of this preamble, the statutory review of NSPS subpart TTT 
for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines focused on 
whether there are any emission reduction techniques that are used in 
practice that achieve greater emission reductions than those currently 
required by NSPS subpart TTT for surface coating operations and whether 
any of these developments in practices have become the ``best system of 
emissions reduction.''
    In the 1988 NSPS, the EPA determined the BSER to be a combination 
of application technology and coating formulation. Control techniques 
commonly used to reduce VOC emissions from general surface coating 
processes include use of more efficient coating application techniques, 
low-VOC-content coatings, and add-on controls. In reviewing the NSPS 
for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines, the EPA 
considered each of these emission reduction techniques.
    Subsequent to the promulgation of the 1988 NSPS, the EPA 
promulgated other regulatory actions pursuant to CAA sections 112 and 
183(e) that also regulate or otherwise address emissions from the same 
surface coating operations covered by NSPS subpart TTT. These 
regulatory actions include: (i) the Alternative Control Techniques 
Document: Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business 
Machine Plastic Parts, EPA 453/R-94-017, February 1994 (1994 ACT); (ii) 
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, promulgated at 40 CFR part 63 
subpart PPPP on April 19, 2004 (69 FR 20968) (Plastic Parts NESHAP); 
(iii) the Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and 
Plastic Parts Coatings, EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008 (2008 CTG); 
and (iv) the Plastic Parts NESHAP risk and technology review (RTR) 
promulgated on July 8, 2020 (85 FR 41100).
    Although the NESHAP and CTG requirements for surface coating of 
plastic parts are different in some respects from the NSPS for surface 
coating of plastic parts for business machines, due to the differences 
in CAA authorities, pollutants, emission limits and format, they apply 
to overlapping operations and were therefore considered in our review.
    Based on this review, we have preliminarily determined that there 
are emission reduction techniques used in practice that achieve greater 
emission reductions than those currently required by NSPS subpart TTT 
for surface coating operations. The results and proposed decisions 
based on the analyses performed pursuant to CAA section 111(b) are 
presented in more detail later in this preamble. Pursuant to this 
review we are proposing revised standards in a new NSPS subpart, TTTa, 
that would apply to facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, 
or modification after June 21, 2022.
    For sources that are subject to NSPS subpart TTT, we are proposing 
certain revisions to subpart TTT that would not change the 
applicability of NSPS subpart TTT or the emission limits for VOC in 
subpart TTT. The proposed revisions pertaining to electronic submission 
of reports would apply to all affected facilities that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after January 8, 1986 
(i.e., all affected facilities under both subpart TTT and proposed 
subpart TTTa). With respect to affected facilities subject to subpart 
TTT, none of these amendments would significantly increase the cost of 
the rule or result in a change in VOC emissions.

B. What are the results of our review of powder coatings and UV/EB 
coatings formulation?

    The 2008 CTG identified the substitution of higher-solvent coatings

[[Page 36805]]

with coatings containing little or no solvents as one way to reduce VOC 
emissions.\18\ These coatings include powder coatings, waterborne 
coatings, higher-solids coatings, and ultraviolet-cured coatings 
(either powder or liquid). However, the 2008 CTG also concluded that 
many of the low-VOC coatings or coatings with no solvents would not 
meet the performance requirements of certain plastic coating 
applications and therefore are not viable options for all plastic parts 
coating operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA. Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal 
and Plastic Parts Coatings. EPA-453/R-08-003. September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among low-VOC-content coatings that the EPA considered in this NSPS 
review are thermal (heat-cured) powder coatings and UV/EB (ultraviolet/
electron beam)-cured powder coatings. Powder coatings are essentially 
100 percent solids. Powder coatings emit little or no VOC, but they 
typically require curing temperatures that exceed the temperature 
limitations of the plastic parts. For that reason, the EPA is not 
proposing thermal powder coatings as the BSER for surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines. With respect to powder coatings 
that can be cured with ultraviolet or infrared radiation instead of 
heat, the EPA recognized in the 1985 BID (p. 3-17) that coatings 
manufacturers are developing such powder coatings. The use of UV/EB-
cured coatings was not in practice in the coatings industry when the 
1988 NSPS was being developed. Due to development in technology, use of 
UV/EB-cured coatings is technically feasible in many coating 
operations. A source subject to NSPS subpart TTT or subpart TTTa may 
adopt UV/EB technology as part of its compliance strategy. However, in 
promulgating the Plastic Parts NESHAP in 2004, the EPA determined that 
incremental emission reduction of requiring UV/EB-cured coatings would 
be relatively small and that the additional cost was not warranted.\19\ 
Since 2004, there have been no improvements in UV/EB technology that 
would justify a change in this conclusion. Among sources that perform 
surface coating of plastic parts for business machines, the EPA did not 
identify any sources using UV/EB technology and based on the 
information from the Plastic Parts NESHAP analysis, emission reductions 
from UV/EB-cured coatings would be small and not cost effective. 
Accordingly, the EPA is not proposing use of either thermal powder 
coating or UV/EB options as the potential BSER for this NSPS review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP): Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products--
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule. EPA-453/
R-03-007. August 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the results of our review of spray application technology?

    As part of our NSPS review and BSER analysis, we evaluated whether 
there are changes in the transfer efficiency (via application 
technology) as well as in the formulation of coatings. The spray 
applicator types through which the BSER was determined in 1988 continue 
to be in use at sources that perform surface coating of plastic parts 
for business machines, which include job shops that must use the types 
of spray applicators that accommodate a wide variety of coatings and 
wide range of part shapes. For conventional and air-assisted airless 
spray application technology, trade literature shows that TE values of 
0.25 and 0.40, respectively, continue to be representative of the spray 
technologies in use.\20\ A provision of subpart TTT allows a source to 
request the Administrator's approval to use some value other than 
subpart TTT default TE values for compliance purposes. However, in 
analysis of data collected in our review, we learned of no cases where 
a source needed to use a TE value other than (i.e., higher than) the 
subpart TTT default TE values in order to comply with subpart TTT. On 
this basis, the EPA is proposing to retain the menu of subpart TTT 
default TE values and their associated spray applicator types in new 
subpart TTTa. The EPA is proposing also to allow a subpart TTTa 
affected facility, for a given type of coating application equipment at 
a given coating operation, to use a different (higher) TE with the 
Administrator's case-by-case approval. The EPA solicits comment on the 
proposed use of current subpart TTT default TE values in subpart TTTa. 
As described in the BSER Review memorandum (available in the docket for 
this action), the use of higher-efficiency spray application 
technology, such as HVLP spray guns, has grown among surface coating 
operations generally. We are also soliciting data, information, 
analysis, and other input with respect to the ability of new, modified, 
or reconstructed sources to perform some or all surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines through use of HVLP spray 
technology and whether a default transfer efficiency as high as 0.65 
would be appropriately used, without case-by-case approval by the 
Administrator, in calculations of compliance with VOC emission limits 
under NSPS subpart TTTa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ BSER Review memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What regulatory options did we identify, and how did we evaluate 
them?

1. Options Identified
    For this NSPS review, as a result of the information and findings 
described in this preamble, we evaluated two regulatory options that 
rely on coating formulation and are more stringent than the current 
NSPS. The first option we evaluated is a VOC emission limit 
representative of the 2008 CTG's level of control (option 1, or the 
CTG-based option). The second option we evaluated is a VOC emission 
limit representative of the 1994 ACT's ``Level 2'' level of control 
(option 2, or the ACT-based option).
    As a third option, in our NSPS review we evaluated the use of an 
add-on control device--a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO)--to remove 
a portion of VOC emissions that enter the spray booth exhaust. The EPA 
recognizes that other add-on control devices, such as adsorbers, 
absorbers, and concentrators, might be just as effective as an RTO 
alone for control of VOC emissions from coating operations generally. 
However, our review here focused on the RTO because performance of 
other devices can be influenced by specific compounds while an RTO is 
not so selective in terms of VOC destruction.
    As a starting point in identifying potential control options, the 
EPA found the use of a prime coating, or primer, to be common. For 
example, for prime coating, the 1988 NSPS established an emission limit 
of 1.5 kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/gal) of coating solids applied. As described 
in section II.D of this preamble, one of the three active affected 
facilities, Xerox, is complying with a New York air permit emission 
limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l (2.9 lb VOC/gal) of prime coating minus water 
and excluded compounds at application, and it is doing so entirely 
through use of currently available coating formulations. That New York 
limit is identical to the VOC emission limit that is recommended in the 
2008 CTG as RACT for primer coatings used in surface coating of 
business machines.\21\ In the format of the 1988 NSPS, the EPA 
calculates the 2008 CTG's equivalent VOC emission limit to be 1.4 kg 
VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. That is, for prime 
coating, the 2008 CTG level and one active source's air permit emission 
limit are more stringent than the 1988 NSPS limit (the baseline) by

[[Page 36806]]

0.1 kg VOC/l coating solids applied (deposited). For that reason, the 
EPA evaluated as regulatory option 1 (the CTG-based option) a 
tightening of VOC emission limits to the levels recommended in the 2008 
CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ VOC emission limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l (2.9 lb VOC/gal) of 
coating as applied, excluding water and exempt compounds. 2008 CTG, 
Table 4, p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA, in its 1994 ACT, presented a reformulation control level 
(Level 2, as later described in this preamble) at 0.28 kg VOC/l (2.3 lb 
VOC/gal) coating, less water and exempt solvents, as a control option 
(short of recommendation as RACT) for ``primer'' for coating of plastic 
parts for business machines. In the format of the 1988 NSPS, the EPA 
calculates the 1994 ACT's equivalent VOC emission limit to be 0.43 kg 
VOC/l (3.6 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. That is, for prime 
coating, the 1994 ACT level is more stringent than the 1988 NSPS limit 
(the baseline) by 1.1 kg VOC/l coating solids applied (deposited). For 
that reason, the EPA evaluated as regulatory option 2 (the ACT-based 
option) a tightening of VOC emission limits to the reformulation 
``Level 2'' presented in the 1994 ACT. The EPA, in its 1994 ACT, 
developed three control levels to estimate potential VOC emissions 
reductions. Two of the ACT levels, Level 1 and Level 2, were based on 
reformulation (i.e., use of waterborne or higher-solids coatings); the 
third ACT control level, Level 3, was based on thermal incineration. We 
did not use the 1994 ACT's ``Level 1'' level of control as the basis 
for the ACT-based option for the reason that it is not significantly 
different overall from the 1988 NSPS level of control. For the 1994 
ACT's ``Level 3'' level of control, estimated cost effectiveness was 
unacceptably high, ranging from $6,900 (large plant) to $34,000 (small 
plant) per ton of VOC removed. Nevertheless, for the NSPS review, the 
EPA did evaluate an RTO (a type of thermal incineration) as regulatory 
option 3.
2. Model Plant
    Based on information the EPA collected from current affected 
facilities, a trade association, and a coatings manufacturer, we expect 
no new, modified, or reconstructed sources to become subject to the new 
NSPS subpart TTTa over the next 8 years. Therefore, for purposes of our 
review, the EPA evaluated the identified regulatory options in terms of 
impacts on affected facilities--cost, environmental, and energy 
impacts, as well as cost effectiveness of control options--based on a 
representative model plant (which we call ``model plant A''). Model 
plant A, with total plant VOC emissions of 27.2 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (30.0 tons per year (tpy)), was developed using information from 
the three stationary sources currently subject to NSPS subpart TTT.
    Additional detailed information on model plant A and how the EPA 
estimated emission reductions and cost effectiveness for the evaluated 
options is provided in the memorandum Estimated Costs/Impacts 40 CFR 60 
Subpart TTT (Costs/Impacts memorandum), available in the docket for 
this action.
3. Representative Coating Approach and Baseline Emissions
    Multiple coating applications are performed in the spray booth 
(color coating, prime coating, texture coating, and touch-up coating) 
and each coating type has its own VOC limit. To evaluate coating 
formulation options, the EPA adopted a ``representative coating'' 
approach. This approach allows standardization of coating variables 
across options so that the EPA could estimate comparable emission 
reductions between two coating formulation-based regulatory options 
evaluated in this NSPS review.
    To grasp why the EPA employed a ``representative coating'' 
approach, consider first a calculation of the baseline VOC emission 
rate. Without employing some standardizing assumptions about our 
coating variables, four coating types (color coating, prime coating, 
texture coating, and touch-up coating) would contribute to that 
baseline (1988 NSPS level of control), each coating type with a 
corresponding coating limit (VOC content). To calculate a given 
option's VOC emission reduction from the baseline, a straightforward 
calculation would be based on the same set of coating types, and with 
the same correspondence of coating limit to coating type. However, in 
this NSPS review, we have a different set of coating types contributing 
to emissions when we consider a VOC emission rate representative of a 
2008 CTG-based level of control (option 1). Yet another set of coating 
types, with another correspondence of coating limits, contributes to 
emissions when we consider a VOC emission rate representative of a 1994 
ACT-based level of control (option 2). Thus, without some 
standardization of assumptions, no direct comparison can be made 
between options.
    In the 1986 NSPS proposal, the EPA based its proposed control 
options on the expectation that prime and color coats represent 
approximately one-half of the exterior coating solids applied.\22\ 
Toward an ``apples to apples'' comparison for our analysis, the EPA 
reconciled multiple emission limits within a given control option by 
calculating VOC emission reductions that are based on an average of the 
emission limits applicable to prime coating and color coating (or 
topcoat, as described in the 2008 CTG). For each regulatory option 
where this approach is used, the EPA applies the average of the prime 
coating and color coating emission limits as a ``representative 
coating'' limit for VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 1986 proposed NSPS, 51 FR 854 at 860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the baseline (the 1988 NSPS) level of control for evaluation of 
regulatory options, the EPA is using an emission limit of 1.5 kg VOC/l 
(13 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied as the representative coating 
limit. In the 1988 NSPS, the VOC emission limit both for prime coating 
and for color coating is 1.5 kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/gal) coating solids 
applied; the representative coating limit is the average of those 
limits.
4. Option 1, CTG-Based Formulation
    To evaluate the CTG-based option, the EPA is using an emission 
limit of 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied as the 
representative coating limit; this limit is derived from the 2008 CTG. 
In the 2008 CTG, the VOC emission limit both for primer and for topcoat 
(which the EPA believes to be equivalent to color coat) is, upon 
conversion by calculation to the NSPS format, 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/
gal) coating solids applied.
    For option 1, based on the 2008 CTG recommended VOC emission 
limits, the estimated reduction in VOC emissions per facility (model 
plant A) would be 1.5 Mg/yr, (1.7 tpy) if option 1's representative 
coating comprised the entirety of the facility's 15,100 l/yr (4,000 
gal/yr) of coating solids deposited. Option 1 (the CTG-based option) 
represents a level of VOC emission control demonstrated in practice by 
at least one of the three sources actively engaged in surface coating 
of plastic parts for business machines. In the Cost/Impacts memorandum 
(available in the docket for this action), table 4 shows VOC content of 
a representative list of compliant coatings currently available and 
identifies those we found to be currently in use at one or more 
sources. Because at least one source is already achieving the CTG-based 
option's level of control entirely through use of a variety of 
currently available coating formulations, the EPA assumes the cost 
effectiveness of option 1 (the CTG-based option) for the representative 
coating to be $0 per ton of VOC reduction, as

[[Page 36807]]

explained in section IV.D.7 of this preamble.
    The 1988 NSPS treats fog coating operations as a special type of 
color coating \23\ and at 40 CFR 60.721 defines ``fog coat'' (also 
known as mist coating and uniforming) to mean a thin coating applied to 
plastic parts that have molded-in color or texture or both to improve 
color uniformity. The EPA recognizes that even though the 1988 NSPS 
applies the same VOC emission limit for fog coating (1.5 kg VOC/l 
coating solids applied) as for other color coating, the 2008 CTG 
recommends a more stringent VOC emission limit for ``fog coat,'' at 
0.95 kg VOC/l coating solids applied when the EPA calculates the limit 
in the format of the NSPS. The CTG's recommended limit for fog coat is 
lower than that for its other coating types (primer, topcoat, texture 
coat, and touch-up and repair), which are at 1.4 kg VOC/l coating 
solids applied when the EPA calculates the limit in the format of the 
NSPS. The CTG based its recommended limit for fog coat on a Michigan 
regulation (see 2008 CTG at p. E-9). In considering the limitations of 
the data available for this review, we are proposing to follow in new 
subpart TTTa the same approach used for subpart TTT, which is to treat 
fog coating as a type of color coating and to apply the same level of 
VOC emission control to fog coating and other color coating. 
Notwithstanding the VOC emission limits proposed for new subpart TTTa, 
an affected facility that is subject to more stringent federally 
enforceable requirements, such as a state's SIP-approved RACT limit for 
fog coating that is lower than proposed for the NSPS, would be required 
to comply with the applicable provisions of those rules. The EPA 
solicits comment on the proposed approach for fog coating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See explanation in 1986 proposed NSPS (51 FR 854 at 862 and 
864) as to why NSPS subpart TTT treats fog coating as a type of 
color coating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also recognizes that we did not, in the 2008 CTG, recommend 
the CTG's control approaches for sources that emit VOC below a certain 
emissions rate. (The CTG describes that cutoff to be sources where the 
total actual VOC emissions from all miscellaneous metal product and 
plastic parts surface coating operations, including related cleaning 
activities, at the source are below 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day), or an 
equivalent level of 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period, before 
consideration of controls.) For option 1 (the CTG-based option), which 
relies on a combination of coating formulation and application 
technique for compliance, we see no reason why the EPA should exempt 
the lowest-emitting sources from having to meet the same VOC emission 
limits in subpart TTTa that would apply to the higher-emitting ones. 
The EPA solicits comment on whether a minimum VOC emission rate cutoff 
for applicability of the NSPS would be necessary.
    We found no significant nonair quality impacts or energy 
requirements associated with option 1 (the CTG-based option). We are 
soliciting data, information, analysis, and other input with respect to 
the energy and other impacts that are presented in the Costs/Impacts 
memorandum, available in the docket for this action.
5. Option 2, ACT-Based Formulation
    To evaluate the ACT-based option, the EPA is using an emission 
limit of 0.72 kg VOC/l (6.0 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied as the 
representative coating limit; this limit is derived from the 1994 ACT. 
In the 1994 ACT, under earlier-described Level 2, the VOC emission 
limit for primer is, upon conversion by calculation to the NSPS format, 
0.43 kg VOC/l (3.6 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied, and the VOC 
emission limit for color coat is, upon conversion by calculation to the 
NSPS format, 1.0 kg VOC/l (8.4 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied, for 
an average equal to 0.72 kg VOC/l (6.0 lb VOC/gal) coating solids 
applied.
    For option 2, the estimated reduction in VOC emissions per facility 
(model plant A) would be 11.8 Mg/yr (13.0 tpy), if option 2's 
representative coating comprised the entirety of the facility's 15,100 
l/yr (4,000 gal/yr) of coating solids deposited. Option 2 (the ACT-
based option) represents a more stringent level of VOC emission control 
than the 1988 NSPS and what is demonstrated in practice by any of the 
three sources actively engaged in surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines. The EPA reviewed compliance demonstration records 
collected from two active sources and coating manufacturers' 
Environmental Data Sheets for coatings that are marketed to operations 
that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines and 
that are representative of products in use for that purpose. The EPA 
then used the VOC content values (in the format of lb VOC/gal of 
coating, less water and exempt solvents) to calculate, in the format of 
the NSPS, a conservatively low VOC emission rate for each coating (13 
unique coatings), assuming a TE of 0.40 (the higher of the NSPS default 
TE values). Comparing those calculated emission rates to the VOC 
emission limits at the option 2 (ACT-based) level of control, we found 
that all but four of the coatings would be able to achieve the option 2 
level of control without reformulation.\24\ Only one of the 13 coatings 
could achieve the option 2 level of control without reformulation, if 
applied using a conventional air-atomized spray gun (for which the 
default TE is 0.25). For compliance with the option 2 level of control, 
the EPA has estimated an annualized cost of $29,300 per reformulation 
and assumes that one facility (model plant A) would bear the cost of 
reformulation of one product among each of four coating types, totaling 
$117,306 per year. On that basis, the EPA estimates the cost 
effectiveness of option 2 (the ACT-based option) for the representative 
coating to be $9,024/ton VOC reduction. Thus, we propose to determine 
that this ACT-based option is not as cost effective as the CTG-based 
option. We found no significant nonair quality impacts or energy 
requirements associated with this option. We are soliciting data, 
information, analysis, and other input with respect to the energy and 
other impacts that are presented in the Costs/Impacts memorandum, 
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA. Costs/Impacts memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Option 3, Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
    In addition to the BSER evaluation of transfer efficiency and 
coating formulation described in earlier sections of this preamble, in 
our NSPS review we evaluated whether there are add-on controls that 
could be considered the BSER for this source category. As an initial 
point, none of the three sources that currently perform surface coating 
of plastic parts for business machines use add-on controls to comply 
with NSPS subpart TTT. Nonetheless, we evaluated add-on controls 
because they are available, are adequately demonstrated in surface 
coatings operations more generally, and can in practice achieve 
emission reductions beyond those required by the current standards.
    Under this option, the EPA estimates, the RTO would remove 
approximately 95 percent of the 80 percent of total VOC emissions that 
are estimated to enter the spray booth exhaust due to coating 
operations. The estimated reduction in VOC emissions per source (model 
plant A) would be 20.7 Mg/yr (22.8 tpy). The EPA used a publicly 
available tool to estimate cost effectiveness of the RTO option to be 
$6,299/ton VOC reduction. The incremental cost effectiveness of this 
option compared to option 2 (the ACT-based option) was estimated to be 
$2,725/ton of VOC reduced less than

[[Page 36808]]

option 2. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that add-on 
controls, when compared to reformulation, can achieve a greater 
reduction at a lower cost. As described in the Costs/Impacts 
memorandum, available in the docket for this action, we estimated a 
$917,808 total capital investment cost per source associated with the 
RTO option. However, we expect that a new source smaller than that 
represented by model plant A would achieve a smaller mass reduction in 
VOC, which would increase the cost effectiveness value beyond $6,299/
ton VOC reduction.
    As required by CAA section 111, the EPA evaluated the nonair 
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements 
associated with the add-on control option. Indirect or secondary air 
emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased 
electricity usage and natural gas consumption associated with the 
operation of control devices to meet the proposed NSPS subpart TTTa. To 
evaluate this RTO option, these impacts were calculated on a per source 
basis and were based on model plant A. The energy impacts associated 
with the electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the 
operation of an RTO to control VOC emissions from the spray booth to 
meet proposed NSPS subpart TTTa include an estimated average 
electricity consumption of 93,700 kilowatt-hours per year per source 
and an estimated average natural gas consumption of 3,149 thousand 
standard cubic feet (mscf) per year per source compared to that of the 
current NSPS subpart TTT. For the RTO option, we estimated a greenhouse 
gas (GHG) impact (GHG emissions production) on a per source basis to be 
167 Mg carbon dioxide equivalent. We are soliciting data, information, 
analysis, and other input with respect to the energy requirements and 
other impacts presented here. Additional detailed information is 
provided in the Costs/Impacts memorandum, available in the docket for 
this action.
    Of the options evaluated, the RTO option provides for greater VOC 
emission reductions than the coating formulation options; however, 
there are secondary impacts associated with the RTO option (impacts 
that would result from the increased electricity usage and natural gas 
consumption associated with the operation of control devices). 
Regarding cost effectiveness, as described in the Costs/Impacts 
memorandum, available in the docket for this action, the estimated RTO 
cost effectiveness value of $6,299/ton VOC reduction, was calculated 
using the annual emissions attributed to model plant A (27.2 Mg, or 30 
tons). The annual emission rate for model plant A is closer to the 
potential emissions than to the actual emissions of the three sources 
that are currently subject to NSPS subpart TTT. In addition, we expect 
that a new source would be smaller than that represented by model plant 
A and have lower VOC concentration which will lead to higher $/ton 
value than the one estimated for Option 3.
    Even though no VOC concentration data are available for any of the 
three active sources, a new source--especially if smaller than that 
represented by model plant A--could produce a VOC concentration in the 
spray booth exhaust lower than the value used for model plant A i.e., 
167 parts per million by volume (ppmv). As can be calculated using the 
EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual spreadsheet for incinerators and 
oxidizers (see Cost/Impacts memorandum for additional information), 
control of a lower VOC concentration through use of an RTO would 
require more auxiliary fuel and electricity than what was accounted for 
in our cost effectiveness value for the RTO option. On that basis, we 
can expect a cost effectiveness value beyond $6,299/ton VOC reduction 
for new sources smaller than the model plant. Given the uncertainty of 
the cost effectiveness value, we are not recommending the RTO option as 
the BSER.
7. Summary of Regulatory Options and Proposed Determination of BSER
    For the three regulatory options that the EPA identified and 
evaluated in this NSPS review (described earlier in this preamble), the 
EPA compared costs and emission reductions to the baseline of the 
requirements in the 1988 NSPS subpart TTT. The EPA calculated costs and 
emission reductions (and cost effectiveness) based on model plant A. 
See table 1, Baseline and Regulatory Options Evaluated for New, 
Modified, or Reconstructed Sources after June 21, 2022.

  Table 1--Baseline and Regulatory Options Evaluated for New, Modified, or Reconstructed Sources After June 21,
                                                      2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Representative coating   Estimated per-facility   Cost effectiveness, $/
           Option evaluated                 limit for VOC        VOC emission reduction     ton of VOC reduced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline--Comply with VOC emission     1.5 kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/ Not applicable.........  Not applicable.
 limits of 1988 NSPS.                   gal) coating solids
                                        applied.
Option 1--Comply with VOC emission     1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/ 1.5 Mg/yr (1.7 tpy)....  $0 [Note 1].
 limits based on 2008 CTG.              gal) coating solids
                                        applied.
Option 2--Comply with VOC emission     0.72 kg VOC/l (6.0 lb    11.8 Mg/yr (13.0 tpy)..  $9,024.
 limits based on 1994 ACT.              VOC/gal) coating
                                        solids applied.
Option 3--Employ add-on control (RTO)  Not applicable.........  20.7 Mg/yr (22.8 tpy)..  $6,299.
 to reduce VOC emissions from spray
 booth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The EPA assumes this cost to be $0/ton based on the lack of cost data available and on our understanding
  of the availability of other low-VOC-content coatings.

    The EPA assumes the cost effectiveness of option 1 (the CTG-based 
option) to be $0 per ton of VOC reduction, on expectation that new, 
modified, and reconstructed sources will be able to achieve that 
option's level of control entirely through use of currently available 
coating formulations at the same cost. We lack information sufficient 
to determine the incremental costs that sources may incur to make 
necessary substitutions of current coatings with lower-VOC-content 
coatings. However, we expect the costs to be minimal because we expect 
compliance can be achieved through substitution with reformulated 
coatings that are currently available. We recognize that there are 
aspects of coatings substitution for which we do not have cost 
comparison data. Multiple factors could affect both direct and indirect 
costs as well as coating performance; these include

[[Page 36809]]

consideration of application method, durability, and color. We 
specifically solicit information on what factors may be relevant in 
evaluating the cost effectiveness of option 1 and any data available on 
these factors. Because the option 1 level of control, somewhat more 
stringent than that of the 1988 NSPS, is demonstrated in practice and 
is the most cost effective of all three regulatory options that the EPA 
evaluated, the EPA proposes to determine that option 1 represents the 
BSER and that the 2008 CTG's VOC emission limits for primer, topcoat, 
texture coat, and touch-up and repair represent the degree of emission 
limitation achievable through application of the BSER.
    We are soliciting data, information, analysis, and other input with 
respect to the emission reductions, and the cost effectiveness 
identified for each of the regulatory options presented later in this 
preamble.

E. What are the proposed requirements for emissions from sources 
subject to the proposed NSPS subpart TTTa?

    Based on the NSPS review and proposed determination presented in 
section IV.D, the EPA is proposing revised VOC emission limits for 
application of coatings onto plastic parts for business machines at 
affected facilities that commence construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after June 21, 2022. The proposed VOC emission limits 
reflect the EPA's preliminary determination that a combination of 
coating formulation and efficiency in application technology represents 
the updated BSER for surface coating of plastic parts for business 
machines. The proposed standard for NSPS subpart TTTa based on this 
updated BSER would limit VOC emissions from prime coating, color 
coating, texture coating, and touch-up coating to 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb 
VOC/gal) coating solids applied. Just as in subpart TTT, new subpart 
TTTa would treat fog coating as a type of color coating.

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the 
final rule requirements in NSPS subparts TTT and TTTa will be the 
promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction, or 
reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022 must comply with 
all requirements of the subpart TTTa, no later than the effective date 
of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
    Affected facilities for which construction, modification, or 
reconstruction began on or after January 8, 1986, but on or before June 
21, 2022 would continue to comply with the applicable standards under 
the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 subpart TTT.

G. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for 
those actions?

1. Testing Requirements
    In performing an NSPS review, the EPA also evaluates and determines 
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards. 
The NSPS at 40 CFR 60 subpart TTT lists EPA Method 24 as the method for 
determination of VOC content of each coating as received. In the 
alternative, 40 CFR 60.725 allows use of ``other methods . . . to 
determine the VOC content of each coating if approved by the 
Administrator before testing.'' In performing this NSPS review, we 
looked at whether there are voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 
available and practical for use as alternatives to EPA Method 24 for 
industrial surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. The 
results of our VCS search are provided in the memorandum Voluntary 
Consensus Standard Results for New Source Performance Standards Review 
for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines, 
which is available in the docket for this action. The complete list of 
acceptable VCS is listed in section VIII.I. of this preamble, and the 
VCS that we propose to incorporate by reference (IBR) under 40 CFR 
60.17 as potential alternatives to EPA Method 24 are listed in section 
VII of this preamble. These changes are proposed for use with NSPS 
subparts TTT and TTTa.
2. Electronic Submission of Reports
    The EPA is proposing that owners or operators of facilities that 
perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines subject 
to the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, submit electronic copies of 
required performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, 
and semiannual statements of compliance, through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission 
process is provided in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements 
for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the 
docket for this action. The proposed rule requires that the performance 
test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual 
statements of compliance be submitted as a portable document format 
(PDF) upload in CEDRI. The same requirements are being proposed in 
subpart TTTa. The proposed requirements would apply to all affected 
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
after January 8, 1986 (i.e., all affected facilities under both subpart 
TTT and proposed subpart TTTa).
    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which extensions to the electronic submission of reports may be 
provided. These circumstances are (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI 
which preclude an owner or operator from accessing the system and 
submitting required reports and (2) force majeure events, which are 
defined as events that will be or have been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevent an owner or 
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically. Examples of force majeure events are acts of nature, 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond 
the control of the facility. The EPA is providing these potential 
extensions to protect owners or operators from noncompliance in cases 
where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting 
deadline for reasons outside of their control. In both circumstances, 
the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report 
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should 
occur as soon as possible.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic submission 
of reports also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby 
saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating 
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and

[[Page 36810]]

providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air 
agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic submission of 
reports is consistent with the EPA's plan \25\ to implement Executive 
Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \26\ 
developed in response to the White House's Digital Government 
Strategy.\27\ For more information on the benefits of electronic 
submission of reports, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \26\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \27\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated portions of two provisions in 
the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 
during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM 
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or 
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption 
violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply 
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing 
standards in this rule that apply at all times. The NSPS general 
provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(c) currently exempt non-opacity emission 
standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing that new NSPS subpart 
TTTa include specific requirements at 40 CFR 60.723a(c) that override 
the general provisions with respect to SSM. This proposal would make 
all standards in subpart TTTa apply at all times. These proposed 
requirements would apply to all affected facilities that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 21, 2022.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the general provisions we are 
proposing to override are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. The 
primary means of controlling VOC emissions from surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines is use of low-VOC-content coatings. 
This means of control is unaffected by startup and shutdown events.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). 
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that 
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of 
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law 
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what 
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission 
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While 
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, 
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions 
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a 
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance 
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no 
statutory language compels EPA to consider such events in setting CAA 
section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to 
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable'' 
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the 
D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. 
Cir. 2016).
4. Definition of Business Machine
    The EPA proposes to keep the definition of ``business machine'' 
that appears in subpart TTT, 40 CFR 60.721, except to make certain 
revisions to the list of example products included within the 
definition. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to delete the listed 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, which are no longer in 
use, and replace the current list of example products that accompanied 
those SIC codes with a revised list of examples, as follows: ``such as 
products classified as: electronic computing devices; calculating and 
accounting machines; telephone equipment; office machines; and 
photocopy machines.'' Among example products that the EPA proposes to 
delete from the definition are typewriters and telegraph equipment, in 
light of the fact that these machines are far less commonly used than 
when this definition was first promulgated in 1988. The EPA's current 
view is that to provide examples is helpful to the general reader but 
we are also considering whether we could instead simply delete from the 
definition the ``such as'' list of example business machine products 
altogether, and we welcome comments on that.
    The EPA considered revising the definition to substitute the 
outdated SIC codes with the latest NAICS codes. However, upon 
comparison, we found no crosswalk between those SIC codes and suggested 
NAICS codes that would be helpful toward updating the definition of 
``business machine.'' The surface coating of plastic parts for business 
machines source category focuses on a process rather than on some 
clearly delineated industry making specific business machines. As was 
noted in the 1985 BID (pp. 9-1 to 9-2), it is difficult to analyze the 
surface coating of plastic parts for business machines as an industry 
unto itself. First, the surface coating of plastic parts for business 
machines represents an intermediate step in the production of business 
machines. Second, these surface coating operations are not classified 
within the representative industries. Third, it appears that individual 
existing markets are so small and specialized that publicly available 
data on them do not exist.
    The EPA wishes to make clear that by changing the list of example 
business machine products, the EPA would not be changing the scope of 
the applicability of the current NSPS. The proposed revisions are 
intended to keep the meaning and intent of the definition as originally 
promulgated while allowing the definition to reflect changes in the 
business machines that are commonly used subsequent to the promulgation 
of subpart TTT in 1988. The same clarifications are being proposed in 
subpart TTTa. None of these amendments would increase the cost of the 
rule or result in a change in VOC emissions.

[[Page 36811]]

    The EPA solicits comment on the proposed revisions to the 
definition of ``business machine,'' in particular on the proposed 
revised list of example business machine products. The EPA also 
solicits suggestions for additional examples to include in the 
definition. For example, in the 1994 ACT, plastic housings for medical 
equipment are among example surface-coated plastic parts for business 
machines.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 1994 ACT, p. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    Based on the EPA's expectation that there will be no new, modified, 
or reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there 
will be no reduction in VOC emissions from proposed NSPS subpart TTTa. 
If a new source were to be constructed, however, there would be a 
reduction in VOC emissions, because the subpart TTTa emission limits 
being proposed would be more stringent than the subpart TTT emission 
limits. There would be no emission control cost associated with that 
hypothetical emission reduction because compliance with the subpart 
TTTa emission limits can be achieved through use of low-VOC-content 
coatings that are commercially available. As described in section 
IV.D.3 of this preamble, as the baseline level of control for the BSER 
analysis, the EPA used an emission limit of 1.5 kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/
gal) coating solids applied as the representative coating limit. In the 
1988 NSPS, the VOC emission limit both for prime coating and for color 
coating is 1.5 kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. For two 
other coatings--texture coatings and touch-up coatings--the VOC 
emission limits in the 1988 NSPS are less stringent, at 2.3 kg VOC/l 
(19 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. Therefore, the potential 
reduction in VOC emissions to result from proposed NSPS subpart TTTa is 
even greater than was calculated using the representative coating limit 
for purposes of the BSER analysis in this NSPS review.
    Because we do not anticipate that any source will operate a control 
device to meet proposed NSPS subpart TTTa, we anticipate no energy 
impacts (electricity, natural gas consumption, GHG emissions 
production) or air quality impacts from the proposed NSPS subpart TTTa.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    Based on the EPA's expectation that there will be no new, modified, 
or reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there 
will be no capital or annual costs incurred to comply with the proposed 
NSPS subpart TTTa in the 8-year period after the rule is final.
    We anticipate minimal cost impacts on sources subject to NSPS 
subpart TTT. The EPA estimates a total cost of $828 ($276 per source), 
for sources subject to subpart TTT to become familiar with the CDX and 
CEDRI systems used to comply with the requirement to submit reports 
electronically. The labor costs (2 hours per source) would occur only 
in the first year following promulgation of the amendments to NSPS 
subpart TTT.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for this proposal, as 
detailed in the memorandum Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed 
New Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating 
of Plastic Parts for Business Machines, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
    The economic impacts of this proposed rule are expected to be 
minimal. The only incremental costs are associated with the proposed 
electronic report submission requirements for three existing facilities 
affected by subpart TTT. The EPA estimates total costs for this 
proposed rule of $828 in 2021 dollars, which will be incurred in the 
first year following promulgation of the rule. No other costs are 
expected in the 8 years following promulgation of this proposal other 
than these Year 1 costs. Since the estimated compliance costs are 
minimal, this proposed rule is not expected to result in market 
impacts, regardless of whether costs are passed on to consumers or 
absorbed by affected firms.
    Two of the three facilities affected by this proposed rule are 
owned by small entities. However, neither small entity is expected to 
incur significant cost impacts based on a comparison of the Year 1 
facility-level compliance costs to the annual sales revenues (i.e., 
cost-to-sales ratios) of the two small parent companies. Thus, this 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

D. What are the benefits?

    The proposed requirements in subpart TTT and new subpart TTTa to 
submit reports and test results electronically will improve monitoring, 
compliance, and implementation of the rule. Based on the EPA's 
expectation that there will be no new, modified, or reconstructed 
sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there will be no 
reduction in VOC emissions from proposed NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new 
source were to be constructed, however, there would be a reduction in 
VOC emissions, because the subpart TTTa emission limits would be more 
stringent than the subpart TTT emission limits.
    Reducing emissions of VOC is expected to help reduce ambient 
concentrations of ground level ozone and increase compliance with the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. A 
quantitative analysis of the impacts on the NAAQS in the areas located 
near hypothetical new sources that perform surface coating of plastic 
parts for business machines would be technically complicated, resource 
intensive, and infeasible to perform in the time available, and would 
not represent the impacts for new, modified, and reconstructed affected 
facilities because the locations of those sources are currently 
unknown. For these reasons, we did not perform a quantitative analysis. 
However, currently available health effects evidence supporting the 
December 23, 2020, final decision for the ozone NAAQS continues to 
support the conclusion that ozone can cause difficulty breathing and 
other respiratory system effects. For people with asthma, these effects 
can lead to emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Exposure 
over the long term may lead to the development of asthma. People most 
at risk from breathing air containing ozone include people with asthma, 
children, the elderly, and outdoor workers. For children, exposure to 
ozone increases their risk of asthma attacks while playing, exercising, 
or engaging in strenuous activities outdoors.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. 
Comments on the proposed emission limits, cost effectiveness estimates, 
and other impacts in this proposed action should be accompanied by data 
to support the comment. We are specifically interested in receiving 
information related to developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies that reduce VOC emissions from owners or operators 
of facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines and any other interested persons with such 
information.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    The EPA proposes to amend the 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by 
reference the following VCS:

[[Page 36812]]

     ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile Content 
of Coatings'' is a test method that allows for more accurate results 
for multi-component chemical resistant coatings and is proposed as an 
alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test Method 
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' is a 
test method that can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile 
matter in clear and pigmented coatings and is proposed as an 
alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) ``Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' is a test method that can be used to 
determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and 
pigmented coatings and is proposed as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
    We also identified VCS ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test 
Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24. This ASTM 
standard can be used to determine the density for the specific coatings 
(halogenated organic solvents) cited using Method B (pycnometer) only 
(as in ASTM 1217). We are not proposing this VCS because facilities 
that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines do 
not use halogenated organic solvents, based on our knowledge of the 
industry.
    The ASTM standards are available from ASTM, International (ASTM), 
100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 
19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 
have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic impact 
analysis (EIA) of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action. This analysis is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document, under OMB Control Number 2060-0162, 
has been assigned EPA ICR number 1093.14. You can find a copy of the 
ICR in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200), 
and it is briefly summarized here. The ICR is specific to information 
collection associated with the source category referred to as surface 
coating of plastic parts for business machines, through 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart TTT and subpart TTTa.
    As part of the NSPS review, the EPA is proposing emission limit 
requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed sources in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart TTTa. We are also proposing testing, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
TTTa, that include the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. 
Further, we are proposing changes to the reporting requirements 
associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, by including the 
requirement for electronic submittal of reports. This information is 
being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT 
and subpart TTTa.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities 
performing surface coating of plastic parts for business machines 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT and subpart TTTa.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart TTT and subpart TTTa).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately 3 respondents per year will be 
subject to the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, and approximately 0 
respondents per year will be subject to the NSPS as 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart TTTa.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule 
requirements, reports of performance tests, quarterly reports of 
noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements 
in the NSPS subpart TTT and NSPS subpart TTTa over the 3 years after 
the rule is final is estimated to be 2 hours (per year). The average 
annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the rule is final is 
estimated to be 0 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to facilities that 
perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines is $276 
in labor costs in the first 3 years after the rule is final. The 
average annual capital and operation and maintenance cost is $0. The 
total average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the 
amendments are final is estimated to be $0.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than August 22, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Details 
of this analysis are presented in the memorandum Economic Impact 
Analysis for the Proposed New Source Performance Standards Review for 
Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines, 
which is available in the docket for this action. The annualized costs 
associated with the requirements in this action for the affected small 
entities are described in section V.C. above.

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. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

[[Page 36813]]

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. It will neither impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on Federally recognized Tribal governments, nor 
preempt Tribal law, and does not have substantial direct effects on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). No tribal facilities are known to be 
engaged in the industry that would be affected by this action nor are 
there any adverse health or environmental effects from this action. 
However, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis for this source 
category and found that one affected facility is located within 50 
miles of Tribal lands. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation 
and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer consultation 
with Tribal officials during the development of this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. Further, sources will be able to achieve 
the level of control in proposed NSPS subpart TTTa entirely through use 
of a variety of currently available coating formulations, without 
operation of a control device to meet the proposed standards.

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are 
VCS that are relevant to this action. The Agency also contacted VCS 
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. Searches were 
conducted for EPA Method 24.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the 
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are 
similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a 
potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to 
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review 
requires significant method validation data which meets the 
requirements of the EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or 
scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA 
reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for particular 
VCS. As a result, the EPA identified the following as acceptable VCS:
     ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile Content 
of Coatings'' as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test 
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' 
as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) ``Standard Test 
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented 
Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' as an alternative to EPA 
Method 24.
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test Methods for Specific 
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures'' as an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24. This ASTM standard can be used 
to determine the density for the specific coatings (halogenated organic 
solvents) cited using Method B (pycnometer) only (as in ASTM 1217).
    The ASTM standards (methods) are available for purchase 
individually through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
Webstore, https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone (212) 642-4980 for 
customer service.
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be 
found in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for New 
Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts for Business Machines, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
    Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test 
methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required 
testing methods, performance specifications or procedures in the final 
rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the 
proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be 
used in this regulation.

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

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    We performed a demographic analysis for the surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines source category, which is an 
assessment of the proximity of individual demographic groups living 
close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). Results of the 
demographic analysis indicate representation within 5 km of existing 
facilities of one group above the national average: People without a 
High School Diploma.
    Following the directives set forth in multiple Executive Orders, 
the Agency has carefully analyzed the impacts of this action on 
communities with EJ concerns. For Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 
Business Machines facilities, the proximity demographic analysis of the 
three existing sources subject to NSPS subpart TTT shows that key 
demographic indicators for the populations around these facilities 
(such as the proportion of residents who are low-income or people of 
color) are similar to or lower than the national average. Based on the 
EPA's determination that there will be no new, modified, or 
reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there 
will be no reduction in VOC emissions from proposed NSPS subpart TTTa 
and no EJ impacts. If a new source were to be constructed at a future 
date, the new emission limits proposed for NSPS subpart TTTa reflect 
the BSER demonstrated and establish a new more

[[Page 36814]]

stringent standard of performance for the primary sources of VOC 
emissions from the source category. Thus, if a source were to be 
constructed, modified, or reconstructed, the EPA expects the proposed 
requirements in subpart TTT will result in VOC emission reductions for 
communities surrounding the affected subpart TTTa sources compared to 
the existing rule in subpart TTT and will result in lower VOC emissions 
for communities located in areas designated as ozone non-attainment 
areas. These areas are already overburdened by pollution.
    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations 
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations (i.e., people 
of color), low-income populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to 
advance racial equity and support underserved communities through 
federal government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 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.'' \29\ The EPA further 
defines fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies.'' In recognizing that minority and low-income populations 
often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA 
continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public 
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, 
and reconstructed sources that commence construction after the rule is 
proposed. Therefore, the future locations of the new sources at Surface 
Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities are not 
known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing Surface 
Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities will modify 
or reconstruct in the future. Therefore, the proximity demographic 
analysis was conducted for the three existing facilities to 
characterize the demographics in areas where the facilities are 
currently located.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities, 
a demographic analysis assessed the individual demographic groups of 
the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and 50 km of the three 
existing facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis 
to the national average for each of the demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 2) indicate 
that, for populations within 5 km of existing Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities, the percent of the 
population that are people of color (calculated as the total population 
minus the white population) is significantly lower than the national 
average (23 percent versus 40 percent). All demographic subgroups 
within people of color are also below the corresponding national 
averages. The percent of people living below the poverty level (10 
percent) is below the national average (13 percent). The percent of the 
population that is over 25 without a high school diploma (13 percent) 
and those living in linguistic isolation (5 percent) were similar to 
the corresponding national averages (12 percent and 5 percent, 
respectively).
    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 
three existing Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines 
facilities are shown in Table 2. The percent of the population that are 
people of color (calculated as the total population minus the white 
population) is significantly lower than the national average (29 
percent versus 40 percent). However, the percent of the population that 
is African American (17 percent) is higher than the national average 
(12 percent). All other demographic subgroups within people of color 
are below the corresponding national averages. The percent of people 
living below the poverty level (14 percent) is slightly above the 
national average (13 percent). The percent of the population that is 
over 25 without a high school diploma (10 percent) and those living in 
linguistic isolation (2 percent) were below the corresponding national 
averages (12 percent and 5 percent, respectively).
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the 
three existing Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines 
facilities is included as Table 2. The methodology and the results of 
the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts for Business Machines, available in this docket for this 
action (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200).

  Table 2--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines
                                        NSPS Source Category Operations *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Population       Population
                                                                                within 50 km of   within 5 km of
                       Demographic group                          Nationwide       3 existing       3 existing
                                                                                   facilities       facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................................     328,016,242        2,979,558           79,323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      White and People of Color by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................................              60               71               77
People of Color...............................................              40               29               23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           People of Color by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American..............................................              12               17                2
Native American...............................................             0.7              0.4              0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)..............              19                6               14

[[Page 36815]]

 
Other and Multiracial.........................................               8                5                7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level...........................................              13               14               10
Above Poverty Level...........................................              87               86               90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.....................              12               10               13
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma........................              88               90               87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.......................................               5                2                5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities
  are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 People of Color population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.
* This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence
  construction after the rule is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new Surface Coating
  of Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the
  existing Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities will be modified or reconstructed
  in the future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 3 existing facilities as a
  characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities are now located.


Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-12250 Filed 6-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P