[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18056-18072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200; FRL-8515-01-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the new source performance standards for Industrial
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines pursuant to the
review required by the Clean Air Act. For affected facilities that
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 21,
2022, the EPA is, in a new subpart, finalizing volatile organic
compound (VOC) emission limitations for prime, color, texture, and
touch-up coating operations. We are also finalizing a requirement for
electronic submission of periodic compliance reports.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 27, 2023. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 27,
2023.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM ASTM International
BID background information document
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTG Control Techniques Guidelines document
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
IBR incorporate by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
Mg megagram
Mg/yr megagrams per year
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SIC standard industrial classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
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?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
[[Page 18057]]
C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
III. What changes did we propose for the surface coating of plastic
parts for business machines NSPS, and what actions are we finalizing
and what is our rationale for such decisions?
A. Revised NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for
Business Machines
B. NSPS Subpart TTTa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunctions
Exemptions
C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
D. Electronic Reporting
E. Other Final Amendments
F. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the secondary impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. 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
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject of this final action is
surface coating of plastic parts for business machines regulated under
CAA section 111 New Source Performance Standards. The 2022 North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the source
category is 333310--Commercial and Service Industry Machinery
Manufacturing. The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers outlining
the type of entities that this final action is likely to affect. The
new source performance standards (NSPS) codified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart TTTa, are directly applicable to affected facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022,
which is the date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, are
applicable to affected facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 1986, but that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification no later than June 21,
2022. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 60,
subparts TTT and TTTa, and consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state air pollution
control agency with delegated authority for NSPS, or your EPA Regional
Office.
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 final action is available on the internet 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
final rule and key technical documents at this same website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by May 26, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
The EPA's authority for this final 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, types, 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
[[Page 18058]]
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 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. 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 considering 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:
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 indicates 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,'' and therefore represents the BSER. 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.
C. What is this source category regulated in this final action?
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 EPA first promulgated new source performance
standards for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines on
January 29, 1988 (53 FR 2672) (1988 NSPS). These standards of
performance are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, and are
applicable to sources that commence construction, modification, or
reconstruction after January 8, 1986. These standards of performance
regulate VOC emissions from 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
[[Page 18059]]
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 862
and 863.
\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 and 863).
\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 and 863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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, in 1985 dollars.\7\ The specific cost
depends in part on the booth ventilation rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 1985 BID, p. 4-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposed the current review of the surface coating of
plastic parts for business machines NSPS subpart TTT on June 21, 2022.
No comments were received on the proposed revisions associated with the
NSPS review, so the EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed, as
follows: Specific to affected facilities that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction after June 21, 2022, the EPA is, in a
new subpart TTTa, finalizing the proposed volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission limitations for prime, color, texture, and touch-up
coating operations. We are also finalizing in subparts TTTa and TTT the
proposed requirements for electronic submission of periodic compliance
reports. For the new subpart TTTa, 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
final rule, no affected facilities will be new, modified, or
reconstructed that perform surface coating of plastic parts for
business machines.
III. What changes did we propose for the surface coating of plastic
parts for business machines NSPS, and what actions are we finalizing
and what is our rationale for such decisions?
On June 21, 2022 (87 FR 36796), the EPA proposed to amend NSPS
subpart TTT and add a new NSPS subpart TTTa for the surface coating of
plastic parts for business machines. In that action,
[[Page 18060]]
we proposed revised emission limit requirements for new, modified, and
reconstructed sources in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa. We also proposed
testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with 40
CFR part 60, subpart TTTa, that include the requirement for electronic
submittal of reports. Further, we proposed changes to the reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, by including
the requirement for electronic submittal of reports.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to the NSPS for
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines pursuant to the
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is promulgating NSPS revisions
in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa. The revised NSPS
subpart is applicable to affected sources constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after June 21, 2022.The standards of performance in
subpart TTTa apply at all times including during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
The EPA is also finalizing the proposed revisions to NSPS subpart
TTT, which applies to affected sources that are constructed, modified,
or reconstructed after January 8, 1986, but that are constructed,
modified, or reconstructed no later than June 21, 2022. With these
changes, NSPS subpart TTT requires electronic reporting, provides an
updated definition of ``business machine,'' and makes new voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) available for use as alternatives to EPA
Method 24 for industrial surface coating of plastic parts for business
machines. These same changes are reflected in new subpart TTTa.
No comments were received on these changes, so the EPA is
finalizing these amendments as proposed.
A. Revised NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business
Machines
In its BSER review in the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to
determine that a combination of coating formulation and efficiency in
application technology represents the updated BSER for surface coating
of plastic parts for business machines. Additionally, the EPA proposed
to determine that the 2008 Control Techniques Guidelines document's
(CTG) VOC emission limits for primer, topcoat, texture coat, and touch-
up and repair, which are more stringent than the current NSPS subpart
TTT emission limits, represent the degree of emission limitation
achievable through application of the updated BSER.
To make this determination, the EPA compared costs and emission
reductions for three regulatory options with a baseline of the
requirements in the 1988 NSPS subpart TTT. This analysis utilized a
representative coating limit for VOC for each of the three regulatory
options and estimated the per-facility VOC emission reduction and the
cost effectiveness in dollars per ton of VOC reduced for each option.
The CTG-based option was found to represent the BSER because it was the
most cost effective of the three regulatory options and has been
demonstrated in practice. We found no significant nonair quality
impacts or energy requirements associated with this BSER determination.
More details on the BSER review and determination can be found in the
proposed rule preamble, section III.D (87 FR 36796 at 36805).
Based on this BSER review and determination, the EPA is finalizing
VOC emission limits in NSPS subpart TTTa for application of coatings
onto plastic parts for business machines at affected facilities that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 21,
2022. The finalized NSPS 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 treats fog coating as a type of color coating and applies the same
level of VOC emission control to fog coating and other color coating.
No comments were received on these changes, so the EPA is finalizing
these VOC emission limits as proposed.
The EPA is also finalizing the proposed menu of subpart TTT default
transfer efficiency (TE) values and their associated spray applicator
types in new subpart TTTa. Further, what the EPA is finalizing in
subpart TTTa allows 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 is also finalizing the case-by-case compliance approaches in
the new subpart TTTa. Specifically, facilities are not required to use
the formulas and compliance demonstrations based on coating content and
TE but can demonstrate compliance using add-on controls if the same VOC
emissions reductions are demonstrated to the Administrator. No comments
were received on including these provisions in new subpart TTTa, so the
EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed.
B. NSPS Subpart TTTa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunctions Exemptions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times.
We are finalizing in subpart TTTa specific requirements at Sec.
60.723a that override the general provisions for SSM requirements. In
finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in this
section of the preamble, has not finalized 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. No comments were received on the proposed
requirements, so these requirements are being finalized as proposed.
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
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 (2016).
[[Page 18061]]
C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
In performing an NSPS review, the EPA also evaluates and determines
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements needed to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS. The NSPS
at 40 CFR part 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 initial VCS search, conducted prior to proposal, 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 dated April 18, 2022, and
is available in the docket for this action. Subsequent to proposal, the
EPA learned, the ASTM International (ASTM) approved and published a new
method as replacement for one of the methods that we proposed to
incorporate by reference (IBR). The new method, designated ASTM D2697-
22, approved July 1, 2022, is titled ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' Having compared
the new method against the method it replaced, ASTM D2697-03 (2014),
the EPA notes that use of the new method would likely improve the
overall precision of the measurements, as the new method includes
prescriptive procedures instead of referencing other procedures.
Accordingly, the EPA has concluded that the new method is preferable to
its replacement. The complete list of currently acceptable VCS is
listed in a revised memorandum, dated November 30, 2022, and available
in the docket. The VCS that that the EPA is incorporating by reference
(IBR) under 40 CFR 60.17 as potential alternatives to EPA Method 24 are
listed in section V.I of this preamble. These changes are being
finalized for use with NSPS subparts TTT and TTTa. No comments were
received on the proposed acceptable VCS. The EPA is finalizing these
changes as proposed, with the exception that one method last reapproved
in 2014 is being replaced by a new 2022 method for purposes of IBR in
this final rule. This substitution of one method being incorporated by
reference does not change any other aspect of what the EPA proposed and
is finalizing.
D. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that owners and
operators of facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts
for business machines subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR
part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa, 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). For sources subject to subpart TTT, before May 26,
2023, performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and
semiannual statements of compliance shall be postmarked no later than
10 days after the end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2) of 40 CFR 60.724. Beginning May 26, 2023, performance test reports,
quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of
compliance shall be submitted as a portable document format (PDF)
upload not later than 10 days after the end of the periods specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 40 CFR 60.724, according to paragraph (f)
of 40 CFR 60.724. No comments were received on the proposed electronic
reporting requirements, so the EPA is finalizing these changes as
proposed.
E. Other Final Amendments
The EPA is finalizing the proposed definition of ``business
machine'' in subpart TTT, 40 CFR 60.721, that revises the list of
example products included within the definition. Specifically, the EPA
is deleting the listed Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes,
which are no longer in use, and is replacing the 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 is deleting 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. These same changes are reflected in new subpart TTTa. The EPA
received no comments on these proposed revisions to the definition of
``business machine'' and so is finalizing these changes as proposed.
F. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in NSPS subparts TTT and TTTa is the
promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022, must comply with
all requirements of subpart TTTa, no later than the effective date of
the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
IV. 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 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 finalized
are 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 the proposed rule preamble, for 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, which is the same as the 1988 NSPS VOC emission limit
both for prime coating and color coating. Of the three regulatory
options that the EPA identified and evaluated in its NSPS review, the
EPA found that its 2008 CTG-based option represents the BSER because it
is demonstrated in practice and is the most cost-effective option. The
EPA used an emission limit of 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating
solids applied as the representative coating limit for this option,
which is derived from the 2008 CTG. The standard for NSPS subpart TTTa,
based on this updated BSER, limits 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. Therefore, the potential
reduction in VOC emissions to result from NSPS subpart TTTa is
estimated at 1.5 Mg/yr (13.0 tpy) per facility based on the BSER
analysis in this NSPS review.
[[Page 18062]]
B. What are the secondary impacts?
Because we do not anticipate that any source will operate a control
device to meet NSPS subpart TTTa requirements, we anticipate no energy
impacts (electricity, natural gas consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions production) or secondary air quality impacts from NSPS
subpart TTTa.
C. 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 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.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for this review, 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 finalized rule are expected to be
minimal. The only incremental costs are associated with the electronic
report submission requirements for the three existing facilities
affected by subpart TTT. The EPA estimates total costs for this 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 rule other than these Year 1
costs. Because the estimated compliance costs are minimal, this 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 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
E. What are the benefits?
The 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 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 are 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.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating EJ in the
Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple
Executive orders, the Agency has conducted an analysis of the
demographic groups living near existing facilities in the surface
coating of plastic parts for business machines source category. Because
this rule will affect new, modified, or reconstructed facilities that
commence construction after June 21, 2022, we are not able to identify
the location of those future new, modified, or reconstructed
facilities. We anticipate that a total of three existing facilities
will be affected by NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, in the next 8
years and that no facilities will be affected by NSPS at 40 CFR part
60, subpart TTTa, in the next 8 years. For the demographic proximity
analysis, we analyzed populations living near existing facilities to
serve as a proxy of potential populations living near future
facilities. The preamble for the proposed rule (87 FR 36796, June 21,
2022) indicated that the following demographic group was above the
national average at the 5 kilometer (km) radius: People without a high
school diploma. The analysis of the final rule remains unchanged from
proposal. Therefore, the Agency used results from the proposal analysis
to assess EJ impacts for this final rule.
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.'' The EPA further
defines the term 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 people of color 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.
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis at
proposal and have determined that the data and
[[Page 18063]]
affected facilities did not change as a result of public comments.
Therefore, the analysis from the proposed rule is still applicable for
this final action.
Because this action finalizes standards of performance for new,
modified, and reconstructed sources that commence construction after
June 21, 2022, the locations of the construction of new facilities that
perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines are not
known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing facilities
will be modified or reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the
demographic analysis was conducted for the three existing facilities as
a characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities
are now located.
The results of the demographic analysis can be found in section V.J
of the proposed rule's preamble (see 87 FR 36796 at 36813) and are
summarized in this document. The analysis included an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and
within 50 km of the facilities. We then compared the data from the
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups.
The results show that for populations within 5 km of the three existing
facilities, the percent of the population that is categorized as people
of color (being the total population minus the white population) is
below the national average (23 percent versus 40 percent). The percent
of people living below the poverty level is below the national average
(10 percent versus 13 percent). The percent of the population over 25
without a high school diploma (13 percent) and the percent of the
population in linguistic isolation (5 percent) are 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 facilities show that the percent of the population that
is categorized as people of color (being the total population minus the
white population) is significantly below 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 is slightly above the national average
(14 percent versus 13 percent). The percent of the population over 25
without a high school diploma (10 percent) and the percent of the
population in linguistic isolation (2 percent) were below the
corresponding national averages (12 percent and 5 percent,
respectively).
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 the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0200).
The EPA expects that the NSPS for Industrial Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts for Business Machines subpart TTT and new subpart TTTa
will ensure compliance via testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting, and that the new subpart TTTa will ensure compliance with
the standards at all times (including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions). The rule will also increase data transparency through
electronic reporting. Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in
proximity to any future affected sources, including in communities
potentially overburdened by pollution, which are often people of color
and low-income and indigenous communities, will be minimized due to the
compliance with the standards of performance being finalized in this
action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1093.15. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
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, subparts TTT and TTTa. As
part of the NSPS review, the EPA is finalizing emission limit
requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed sources in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart TTTa. We are also finalizing 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 finalizing 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, subparts TTT
and 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, subparts TTT and TTTa.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts TTT and 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 one-time 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. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will
[[Page 18064]]
announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the
approved information collection activities contained in this 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 the analysis in support of this determination 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 IV.C of
this preamble.
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.
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 it 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 offered 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. No health or risk assessments were performed for this action.
As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the EPA estimates that
there will be no reduction in VOC emissions from 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
are more stringent than the subpart TTT emission limits.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This
action 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 NSPS subpart TTTa entirely through
use of a variety of currently available coating formulations, without
operation of a control device to meet the standards.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the Enhanced National Standards Systems
Network (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 is amending 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by
reference the following VCS:
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 an alternative
to EPA Method 24.
ASTM Method D2697-22, ``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 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'' is a test method that can be
used to determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings and is 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 incorporating by reference 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 (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 Revised,
[[Page 18065]]
which is dated November 30, 2022, and is available in the docket for
this action.
Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) 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.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and
adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples. See section IV.F of this preamble for additional
details on the analysis of the distribution of the demographic groups
living near existing facilities in the surface coating of plastic parts
for business machines source category conducted by the EPA.
The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples. 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 the new NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new
source were to be constructed at a future date, the emission limits in
subpart TTTa reflect the BSER demonstrated and establish a new more
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 that the
requirements in subpart TTTa 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.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending part 60 of title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 60.17 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(179) through (214) as paragraphs
(h)(182) through (217);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(108) through (178) as paragraphs
(h)(110) through (180);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(96) through (107) as paragraphs (h)(97)
through (108); and
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (h)(96), (109), and (181).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(96) ASTM D2369-20, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, Approved June 1, 2020; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.723(b)(1), 60.724(a)(2), 60.725(b), 60.723a(b)(1), 60.724a(a)(2),
and 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(109) ASTM D2697-22, Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, Approved July 1, 2022; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 60.723(b)(1), 60.724(a)(2), 60.725(b),
60.723a(b)(1), 60.724a(a)(2), and 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(181) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016; IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 60.723(b)(1), 60.724(a)(2), 60.725(b), 60.723a(b)(1),
60.724a(a)(2), and 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
Subpart TTT--Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface
Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines
0
3. Amend Sec. 60.720 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.720 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(b) This subpart applies to any affected facility for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction begins after January 8,
1986, but before June 21, 2022.
0
4. Amend Sec. 60.721 by revising the definition of ``Business
machine'' in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.721 Definitions.
(a) * * *
Business machine means a device that uses electronic or mechanical
methods to process information, perform calculations, print or copy
information, or convert sound into electrical impulses for
transmission, such as products classified as: electronic computing
devices; calculating and accounting machines; telephone equipment;
office machines; and photocopy machines.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 60.723 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1);
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C), removing the text ``table 1'' and adding,
in its place, the text ``table 1 to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this
section''; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(D) and (b)(2)(i)(E) and the last
sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(iv).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 60.723 Performance tests and compliance provisions.
(a) Section 60.8(d) through (i) do not apply to the performance
test procedures required by this section.
(b) * * *
(1) The owner or operator shall determine the composition of
coatings by analysis of each coating, as received, using Method 24 of
appendix A-7 to this part or an acceptable alternative method, from
data that have been determined by the coating manufacturer using Method
24 or an acceptable
[[Page 18066]]
alternative method. Acceptable alternative methods to Method 24
include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all
incorporated by reference; see Sec. 60.17).
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Where more than one application method is used within a single
coating operation, the owner or operator shall determine the volume of
each coating applied by each method through a means acceptable to the
Administrator and compute the volume-weighted average transfer
efficiency by the following equation:
Equation 3 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.002
Where n is the number of coatings of each type used and p is the
number of application methods used.
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)--Transfer Efficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer
Application methods efficiency Type of coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Air atomized spray............ 0.25 Prime, color,
texture, touch-up,
and fog coats.
(2) Air-assisted airless spray.... 0.40 Prime and color
coats.
(3) Electrostatic air spray....... 0.40 Prime and color
coats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E) Calculate the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted per
unit volume of coating solids applied (N) during each nominal 1-month
period for each coating operation for each affected facility by the
following equation:
Equation 4 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.003
Where Tavg = T when only one type of coating operation
occurs.
* * * * *
(iv) * * * In such cases, compliance will be determined by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
0
6. Amend Sec. 60.724 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c), and (e); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.724 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) For each affected facility where compliance is determined under
the provisions of Sec. 60.723(b)(2)(iii), a list of the coatings used
during the initial nominal 1-month period, the VOC content of each
coating calculated from data determined using Method 24 of appendix A-7
to this part or an acceptable alternative method, and the lowest
transfer efficiency at which each coating is applied during the initial
nominal 1-month period. Acceptable alternative methods to Method 24
include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all
incorporated by reference; see Sec. 60.17).
* * * * *
(c) Before May 26, 2023, performance test reports, quarterly
reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance shall
be postmarked not later than 10 days after the end of the periods
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. Beginning May
26, 2023, performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance,
and semiannual statements of compliance shall be submitted as a
portable document format (PDF) upload not later than 10 days after the
end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section, according to paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for
facilities using add-on controls will be determined by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
(f) Beginning May 26, 2023, the owner or operator must submit all
subsequent performance test reports, quarterly reports of
noncompliance, and semiannual statements in PDF format to the EPA via
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which
can be accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim
of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information
in the report, you must submit a complete file, including information
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may
be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted
at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later
be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data
is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to
make emissions data
[[Page 18067]]
available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as
CBI and will be made publicly available. You must submit the same file
submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the
EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (f).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described in this paragraph (f), should
include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector Lead. 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.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector
Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly
marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(3) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with
the electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system
outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)
through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required notification or report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the notification or
report is due.
(iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in submitting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
submitting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to submit, or if you have already
met the electronic submittal requirement in this paragraph (f) at the
time of the notification, the date you submitted the notification or
report.
(vi) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
(vii) In any circumstance, the notification or report must be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure,
you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through
(v) of this section.
(i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a
notification or report electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in submitting through CEDRI.
(iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
(A) A written description of the force majeure event;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to submit the notification or
report, or if you have already met the electronic submittal requirement
in this paragraph (f) at the time of the notification, the date you
submitted the notification or report.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the submittal deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(g) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
7. Amend Sec. 60.725 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.725 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) Other methods may be used to determine the VOC content of each
coating if approved by the Administrator before testing. Acceptable
alternative methods to Method 24 of appendix A-7 to this part include:
ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 60.17).
0
8. Amend Sec. 60.726 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.726 Delegation of authority.
* * * * *
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to the States:
(1) Section 60.723(b)(1).
(2) Section 60.723(b)(2)(i)(C).
(3) Section 60.723(b)(2)(iv).
(4) Section 60.724(b).
(5) Section 60.724(e).
(6) Section 60.724(f).
(7) Section 60.725(b).
0
9. Add subpart TTTa, consisting of Sec. Sec. 60.720a through 60.726a,
to read as follows:
[[Page 18068]]
Subpart TTTa--Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface
Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
June 21, 2022
Sec.
60.720a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.721a Definitions.
60.722a Standards for volatile organic compounds.
60.723a Performance tests and compliance provisions.
60.724a Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
60.725a Test methods and procedures.
60.726a Delegation of authority.
Sec. 60.720a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each spray booth in
which plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines
receive prime coats, color coats, texture coats, or touch-up coats.
(b) This subpart applies to any affected facility for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction begins after June 21,
2022.
Sec. 60.721a Definitions.
(a) As used in this subpart, all terms not defined in this subpart
shall have the meaning given them in the Act or in subpart A of this
part.
Business machine means a device that uses electronic or mechanical
methods to process information, perform calculations, print or copy
information, or convert sound into electrical impulses for
transmission, such as products classified as: electronic computing
devices; calculating and accounting machines; telephone equipment;
office machines; and photocopy machines.
Coating operation means the use of a spray booth for the
application of a single type of coating (e.g., prime coat); the use of
the same spray booth for the application of another type of coating
(e.g., texture coat) constitutes a separate coating operation for which
compliance determinations are performed separately.
Coating solids applied means the coating solids that adhere to the
surface of the plastic business machine part being coated.
Color coat means the coat applied to a part that affects the color
and gloss of the part, not including the prime coat or texture coat.
This definition includes fog coating, but does not include conductive
sensitizers or electromagnetic interference/radio frequency
interference shielding coatings.
Conductive sensitizer means a coating applied to a plastic
substrate to render it conductive for purposes of electrostatic
application of subsequent prime, color, texture, or touch-up coats.
Electromagnetic interference/radio frequency interference (EMI/RFI)
shielding coating means a conductive coating that is applied to a
plastic substrate to attenuate EMI/RFI signals.
Fog coating (also known as mist coating and uniforming) means a
thin coating applied to plastic parts that have molded-in color or
texture or both to improve color uniformity.
Nominal 1-month period means either a calendar month, 30-day month,
accounting month, or similar monthly time period that is established
prior to the performance test (i.e., in a statement submitted with
notification of anticipated actual startup pursuant to Sec. 60.7(2)).
Plastic parts means panels, housings, bases, covers, and other
business machine components formed of synthetic polymers.
Prime coat means the initial coat applied to a part when more than
one coating is applied, not including conductive sensitizers or
electromagnetic interference/radio frequency interference shielding
coatings.
Spray booth means the structure housing automatic or manual spray
application equipment where a coating is applied to plastic parts for
business machines.
Texture coat means the rough coat that is characterized by
discrete, raised spots on the exterior surface of the part. This
definition does not include conductive sensitizers or EMI/RFI shielding
coatings.
Touch-up coat means the coat applied to correct any imperfections
in the finish after color or texture coats have been applied. This
definition does not include conductive sensitizers or EMI/RFI shielding
coatings.
Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the amount of coating solids
deposited onto the surface of a plastic business machine part to the
total amount of coating solids used.
VOC emissions means the mass of VOC's emitted from the surface
coating of plastic parts for business machines expressed as kilograms
of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied (i.e., deposited on the
surface).
(b) All symbols used in this subpart not defined in this paragraph
(b) are given meaning in the Act or subpart A of this part.
Dc = density of each coating as received (kilograms per
liter).
Dd = density of each diluent VOC (kilograms per liter).
Lc = the volume of each coating consumed, as received
(liters).
Ld = the volume of each diluent VOC added to coatings
(liters).
Ls = the volume of coating solids consumed (liters).
Md = the mass of diluent VOC's consumed (kilograms).
Mo = the mass of VOC's in coatings consumed, as received
(kilograms).
N = the volume-weighted average mass of VOC emissions to the
atmosphere per unit volume of coating solids applied (kilograms per
liter).
T = the transfer efficiency for each type of application equipment
used at a coating operation (fraction).
Tavg = the volume-weighted average transfer efficiency
for a coating operation (fraction).
Vs = the proportion of solids in each coating, as
received (fraction by volume).
Wo = the proportion of VOC's in each coating, as
received (fraction by weight).
Sec. 60.722a Standards for volatile organic compounds.
(a) Each owner or operator of any affected facility which is
subject to the requirements of this subpart shall comply at all times
with the emission limitations set forth in this section on and after
the date on which the initial performance test, required by Sec. Sec.
60.8 and 60.723 is completed, but not later than 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, or 180 days after the initial startup, whichever date
comes first. No affected facility shall cause the discharge into the
atmosphere in excess of:
(1) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied from
prime coating of plastic parts for business machines.
(2) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied from
color coating of plastic parts for business machines.
(3) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied from
texture coating of plastic parts for business machines.
(4) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coatings solids applied
from touch-up coating of plastic parts for business machines.
(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
[[Page 18069]]
emission limits in paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 60.723a Performance tests and compliance provisions.
(a) Section 60.8(c) through (i) do not apply to the performance
test procedures required by this section.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an
initial performance test as required under Sec. 60.8(a) and thereafter
a performance test each nominal 1-month period for each affected
facility according to the procedures in this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall determine the composition of
coatings by analysis of each coating, as received, using Method 24 of
appendix A-7 to this part or an acceptable alternative method, from
data that have been determined by the coating manufacturer using Method
24 or an acceptable alternative method. Acceptable alternative methods
to Method 24 include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97
(all incorporated by reference; see Sec. 60.17).
(2) The owner or operator shall determine the volume of coating and
the mass of VOC used for dilution of coatings from company records
during each nominal 1-month period. If a common coating distribution
system serves more than one affected facility or serves both affected
and nonaffected spray booths, the owner or operator shall estimate the
volume of coatings used at each facility by using procedures approved
by the Administrator.
(i) The owner or operator shall calculate the volume-weighted
average mass of VOC's in coatings emitted per unit volume of coating
solids applied (N) at each coating operation [i.e., for each type of
coating (prime, color, texture, and touch-up) used] during each nominal
1-month period for each affected facility. Each 1-month calculation is
considered a performance test. Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section, N will be determined by the following
procedures:
(A) Calculate the mass of VOC's used (Mo +
Md) for each coating operation during each nominal 1-month
period for each affected facility by the following equation:
Equation 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.004
Where n is the number of coatings of each type used during each nominal
1-month period and m is the number of different diluent VOC's used
during each nominal 1-month period. ([Sigma] Ldj
Ddj will be 0 if no VOC's are added to the coatings, as
received.)
(B) Calculate the total volume of coating solids consumed
(Ls) in each nominal 1-month period for each coating
operation for each affected facility by the following equation:
Equation 2 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.005
Where n is the number of coatings of each type used during each nominal
1-month period.
(C) Select the appropriate transfer efficiency (T) from table 1 to
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section for each type of coating
applications equipment used at each coating operation. If the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that
transfer efficiencies other than those shown are appropriate, the
Administrator will approve their use on a case-by-case basis. Transfer
efficiency values for application methods not listed in table 1 to
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) shall be approved by the Administrator on a
case-by-case basis. An owner or operator must submit sufficient data
for the Administrator to judge the validity of the transfer efficiency
claims.
(D) Where more than one application method is used within a single
coating operation, the owner or operator shall determine the volume of
each coating applied by each method through a means acceptable to the
Administrator and compute the volume-weighted average transfer
efficiency by the following equation:
Equation 3 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.006
Where n is the number of coatings of each type used and p is the number
of application methods used.
[[Page 18070]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)--Transfer Efficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer
Application methods efficiency Type of coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Air atomized spray............ 0.25 Prime, color,
texture, touch-up,
and fog coats.
(2) Air-assisted airless spray.... 0.40 Prime and color
coats.
(3) Electrostatic air spray....... 0.40 Prime and color
coats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E) Calculate the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted per
unit volume of coating solids applied (N) during each nominal 1-month
period for each coating operation for each affected facility by the
following equation:
Equation 4 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.007
Where Tavg = T when only one type of coating operation
occurs.
(ii) Where the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted to the
atmosphere per unit volume of coating solids applied (N) is less than
or equal to 1.5 kilograms per liter for prime coats, is less than or
equal to 1.5 kilograms per liter for color coats, is less than or equal
to 2.3 kilograms per liter for texture coats, and is less than or equal
to 2.3 kilograms per liter for touch-up coats, the affected facility is
in compliance.
(iii) If each individual coating used by an affected facility has a
VOC content (kg VOC/l of solids), as received, which when divided by
the lowest transfer efficiency at which the coating is applied for each
coating operation results in a value equal to or less than 1.5
kilograms per liter for prime and color coats and equal to or less than
2.3 kilograms per liter for texture and touch-up coats, the affected
facility is in compliance provided that no VOC's are added to the
coatings during distribution or application.
(iv) If an affected facility uses add-on controls to control VOC
emissions and if the owner or operator can demonstrate to the
Administrator that the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted to
the atmosphere during each nominal 1-month period per unit volume of
coating solids applied (N) is within each of the applicable limits
expressed in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section because of this
equipment, the affected facility is in compliance. In such cases,
compliance will be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case
basis.
(c) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator shall specify to the plant operator based on
representative performance of the affected facility. The owner or
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of the performance tests.
Sec. 60.724a Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The reporting requirements of Sec. 60.8(a) apply only to the
initial performance test. Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall include the following data in the
report of the initial performance test required under Sec. 60.8(a):
(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted to the atmosphere per
volume of applied coating solids (N) for the initial nominal 1-month
period for each coating operation from each affected facility.
(2) For each affected facility where compliance is determined under
the provisions of Sec. 60.723(b)(2)(iii), a list of the coatings used
during the initial nominal 1-month period, the VOC content of each
coating calculated from data determined using Method 24 of appendix A-7
to this part or an acceptable alternative method, and the lowest
transfer efficiency at which each coating is applied during the initial
nominal 1-month period. Acceptable alternative methods to Method 24
include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all
incorporated by reference; see Sec. 60.17).
(b) Following the initial report, each owner or operator shall:
(1) Report the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's per unit
volume of coating solids applied for each coating operation for each
affected facility during each nominal 1-month period in which the
facility is not in compliance with the applicable emission limits
specified in Sec. 60.722. Reports of noncompliance shall be submitted
on a quarterly basis, occurring every 3 months following the initial
report; and
(2) Submit statements that each affected facility has been in
compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Sec.
60.722 during each nominal 1-month period. Statements of compliance
shall be submitted on a semiannual basis.
(c) Performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance,
and semiannual statements of compliance shall be submitted as a
portable document format (PDF) upload not later than 10 days after the
end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section, according to paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall maintain at the source, for a period of at least 2 years,
records of all data and calculations used to determine monthly VOC
emissions from each coating operation for each affected facility as
specified in Sec. 60.7(d).
(e) Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
facilities using add-on controls will be determined by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
(f) The owner or operator must submit all performance test reports,
quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements in PDF
format to the EPA viathe Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the
information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim
as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information in the report, you must submit a complete file,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the
procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI.
Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release
without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All
CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under
CAA section 114(c),
[[Page 18071]]
emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA
is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available. You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier
in this paragraph (f).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described in this paragraph (f), should
include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector Lead. 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.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector
Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly
marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(3) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with
the electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system
outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)
through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required notification or report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the notification or
report is due.
(iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in submitting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
submitting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to submit, or if you have already
met the electronic submittal requirement in this paragraph (f) at the
time of the notification, the date you submitted the notification or
report.
(vi) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
(vii) In any circumstance, the notification or report must be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure,
you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through
(v) of this section.
(i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a
notification or report electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in submitting through CEDRI.
(iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
(A) A written description of the force majeure event;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to submit the notification or
report, or if you have already met the electronic submittal requirement
in this paragraph (f) at the time of the notification, the date you
submitted the notification or report.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the submittal deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(g) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
Sec. 60.725a Test methods and procedures.
(a) The reference methods in appendix A to this part except as
provided under Sec. 60.8(b) shall be used to determine compliance with
Sec. 60.722 as follows:
(1) Method 24 of appendix A-7 to this part for determination of VOC
content of each coating as received.
(2) For Method 24, the sample must be at least a 1-liter sample in
a 1-liter container.
(b) Other methods may be used to determine the VOC content of each
coating if approved by the Administrator before testing. Acceptable
alternative methods to Method 24 include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22;
and ASTM D6093-97 (all incorporated by reference; see Sec. 60.17).
Sec. 60.726a Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 111(c) of the Act, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to the States:
[[Page 18072]]
(1) Section 60.723a(b)(1).
(2) Section 60.723a(b)(2)(i)(C).
(3) Section 60.723a(b)(2)(iv).
(4) Section 60.724a(b).
(5) Section 60.724a(e).
(6) Section 60.724a(f).
(7) Section 60.725a(b).
[FR Doc. 2023-04966 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P