[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36796-36815]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12250]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

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

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

B. What is the source category?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \8\ EPA. AP-42, April 1981, section <IP_ADDRESS>.2. Emissions from
surface coating for an uncontrolled facility can be estimated by
assuming that all VOC in the coatings is emitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. How do the current standards regulate emissions?

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

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

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

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

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

D. Background on Sources Subject to Subpart TTT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

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

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

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

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

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

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

    The 2008 CTG identified the substitution of higher-solvent coatings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

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

B. What are the cost impacts?

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

C. What are the economic impacts?

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

D. What are the benefits?

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

VI. Request for Comments

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

VII. Incorporation by Reference

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

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

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not
exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are
VCS that are relevant to this action. The Agency also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. Searches were
conducted for EPA Method 24.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a
potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation data which meets the
requirements of the EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA
reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS. As a result, the EPA identified the following as acceptable VCS:
     ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile Content
of Coatings'' as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings''
as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) ``Standard Test
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented
Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' as an alternative to EPA
Method 24.
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures'' as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24. This ASTM standard can be used
to determine the density for the specific coatings (halogenated organic