36796 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

69The Bureau, in its discretion, forwards certain 

home confinement cases to the prosecuting United 

States Attorney’s Office for the input of prosecutors, 

taking any objections into account when approving 

or denying those cases. 

the Department’s assessment, public 

safety considerations do not undercut 

the benefits associated with allowing 

inmates placed in home confinement 

under the CARES Act to remain in home 

confinement after the expiration of the 

covered emergency period. 

Other potential costs relate to inmates 

serving longer sentences in home 

confinement as a result of the CARES 

Act. These inmates might lose the 

opportunity to participate in potentially 

beneficial programming and treatment 

offered only in BOP facilities, which 

they might have otherwise taken 

advantage of if placed in secure custody. 

In addition, most sentencing courts 

anticipated that offenders would be 

incarcerated in a secure facility, and 

there may be concern that placing 

inmates in home confinement for longer 

periods might not appropriately honor 

the intent of the courts, the interests of 

prosecuting United States Attorney’s 

Offices,69 any impact on victims or 

witnesses, possible deterrence effects in 

the community, or other aspects of the 

agency’s mission. These costs are all 

mitigated, however, by retaining the 

Director’s discretion to determine 

whether any inmate should be returned 

to secure custody based on an 

individualized assessment. The 

Department and the Bureau will 

consider the factors referenced in this 

paragraph when developing common 

criteria to govern these case-by-case 

assessments, thereby promoting 

operational efficiency and equitable 

treatment of offenders. 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform). 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, under 

Executive Order 13132, the Attorney 

General determines that this proposed 

regulation does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more (adjusted annually for inflation) in 

any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions are 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

G. Congressional Review Act 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined by the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed rule does not impose 

any new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0 

Authority delegations (Government 

agencies), Government employees, 

National defense, Organization and 

functions (Government agencies), 

Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Whistleblowing. 

Accordingly, by virtue of the 

authority vested in me as Attorney 

General, including 5 U.S.C. 301, 18 

U.S.C. 4001 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, part 

0 of title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 0 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 

510, 515–519. 

■ 2. In § 0.96, add paragraph (u) to read 

as follows: 

§ 0.96 Delegations. 

* * * * * 

(u) With respect to the authorities 

granted under the Coronavirus Aid, 

Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) 

Act (Pub. L. 116–136): 

(1) During the ‘‘covered emergency 

period’’ as defined by the CARES Act, 

when the Attorney General determines 

that emergency conditions will 

materially affect the functioning of the 

Bureau of Prisons (Bureau), lengthening 

the maximum amount of time for which 

the Director is authorized to place a 

prisoner in home confinement under 18 

U.S.C. 3624(c)(2), as the Director 

determines appropriate. 

(2) After the expiration of the 

‘‘covered emergency period’’ as defined 

by the CARES Act, permitting any 

prisoner placed in home confinement 

under the CARES Act who is not yet 

otherwise eligible for home confinement 

under separate statutory authority to 

remain in home confinement under the 

CARES Act for the remainder of her 

sentence, as the Director determines 

appropriate. 

(3) This section concerns only 

inmates placed in home confinement 

under the CARES Act. It has no effect 

on any other inmate, including those 

placed in home confinement under 

separate statutory authorities. 

Dated: June 14, 2022. 

Merrick B. Garland, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13217 Filed 6–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36797 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

June 27, 2022, we will hold a virtual 

public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on 

requesting and registering for a public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0200, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0200 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0200. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0200, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. Lisa Sutton, Minerals and 

Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D243–04), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–3450; fax number: 

(919) 541–4991; and email address: 

sutton.lisa@epa.gov. 

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 inperson public meetings at this time. 

To request a virtual public hearing, 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. 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/surfacecoating-plastic-parts-businessmachines-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/surfacecoating-plastic-parts-businessmachines-industrial-surface or contact 

the public hearing team at (888) 372– 

8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. 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-sourcesair-pollution/surface-coating-plasticparts-business-machines-industrialsurface. 

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 sutton.lisa@epa.gov. 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/surfacecoating-plastic-parts-businessmachines-industrial-surface. While the 

EPA expects the hearing to go forward 

as set forth in this document, please 

monitor our website or contact the 

public hearing team at (888) 372–8699 

or by email at SPPDpublichearing@

epa.gov 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 preregister 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36798 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov, 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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

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? 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36799 

E. What are the proposed requirements for 

emissions from sources subject to the 

proposed NSPS subpart TTTa? 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

G. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the benefits? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The source category that is the subject 

of this proposal is surface coating of 

plastic parts for business machines 

regulated under CAA section 111, New 

Source Performance Standards. These 

surface coating operations may be (but 

are not necessarily) among 

establishments indexed under the 2022 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code 333310— 

Commercial and Service Industry 

Machinery Manufacturing. This NAICS 

code merely provides a guide for readers 

regarding the entities that this proposed 

action is likely to affect. Three 

stationary sources that currently 

perform surface coating of plastic parts 

for business machines and are subject to 

the New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) subpart TTT will be affected by 

the portions of this proposal that amend 

NSPS subpart TTT. With respect to the 

proposed requirements to be added in 

NSPS new subpart TTT a, which is 

specific to affected facilities that are 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed 

after June 21, 2022, the EPA estimates 

that over the next 8 years following this 

proposal, no new, modified, or 

reconstructed facilities that perform 

surface coating of plastic parts for 

business machines will be affected by 

this proposal. Information supporting 

that estimate is provided in the 

memorandum Best System of Emission 

Reduction (BSER) Review for Surface 

Coating of Plastic Parts for Business 

Machines (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) 

(BSER Review memorandum), available 

in the docket for this action. The 

proposed standards, once promulgated, 

will be directly applicable to the 

affected sources. Federal, state, local, 

and tribal government entities would 

not be affected by this proposed action. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-plastic-parts-businessmachines-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-airpollution/surface-coating-plastic-partsbusiness-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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36800 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1Alternative Control Techniques Document: 

Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and 

Business Machine Plastic Parts, EPA 453/R–94–017, 

February 1994, p. 2–1. 

2Proposed 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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 flashoff area and oven.5

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 flashoff 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). 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36801 

7 1985 BID, p. 4–14. 

8EPA. AP–42, April 1981, section 4.2.2.1.2. 

Emissions from surface coating for an uncontrolled 

facility can be estimated by assuming that all VOC 

in the coatings is emitted. 

9EPA. A Guideline for Surface Coating 

Calculations, EPA–340/1–86–016, July 1986, p. 2. 

10 51 FR 854 at 863. 

11Surface 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. 

booths and flash-off areas for a mediumsized 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. 

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

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 lowVOC-content coatings alone. When addon controls or transfer efficiency 

improvements are used, compliance 

calculations must be done on an 

equivalent solids basis.9

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

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

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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36802 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12 40 CFR 60.723(b)(i). 13 40 CFR 60.723(b)(2)(iv). 

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. 

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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36803 

14Records 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. 

15Official 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). 

16See https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaerclearinghouse-rblc-basic-information. 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 SherwinWilliams 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: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36804 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

• 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, costeffectiveness 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36805 

18EPA. Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. 

EPA–453/R–08–003. September 2008. 

19EPA. 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. 20BSER Review memorandum. 

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. 

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 ultravioletcured 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. 

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. 

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 airassisted 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 higherefficiency 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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

22 1986 proposed NSPS, 51 FR 854 at 860. 

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. 

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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36807 

23See 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. 24EPA. Costs/Impacts memorandum. 

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. 

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 lowestemitting 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 earlierdescribed 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 ACTbased 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 airatomized 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 ACTbased 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. 

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 ACTbased option) was estimated to be 

$2,725/ton of VOC reduced less than 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Option evaluated Representative coating 

limit for VOC 

Estimated per-facility 

VOC emission reduction 

Cost effectiveness, 

$/ton of VOC reduced 

Baseline—Comply with VOC emission limits of 1988 NSPS.1.5 kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/gal) 

coating solids applied.

Not applicable ............................... Not applicable. 

Option 1—Comply with VOC emission limits based on 2008 CTG.1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) 

coating solids applied.

1.5 Mg/yr (1.7 tpy) ........................ $0 [Note 1]. 

Option 2—Comply with VOC emission limits based on 1994 ACT.0.72 kg VOC/l (6.0 lb VOC/gal) 

coating solids applied.

11.8 Mg/yr (13.0 tpy) .................... $9,024. 

Option 3—Employ add-on control 

(RTO) to reduce VOC emissions 

from spray booth.

Not applicable ............................... 20.7 Mg/yr (22.8 tpy) .................... $6,299. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36809 

consideration of application method, 

durability, and color. We specifically 

solicit information on what factors may 

be relevant in evaluating the cost 

effectiveness of option 1 and any data 

available on these factors. Because the 

option 1 level of control, somewhat 

more stringent than that of the 1988 

NSPS, is demonstrated in practice and 

is the most cost effective of all three 

regulatory options that the EPA 

evaluated, the EPA proposes to 

determine that option 1 represents the 

BSER and that the 2008 CTG’s VOC 

emission limits for primer, topcoat, 

texture coat, and touch-up and repair 

represent the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through 

application of the BSER. 

We are soliciting data, information, 

analysis, and other input with respect to 

the emission reductions, and the cost 

effectiveness identified for each of the 

regulatory options presented later in 

this preamble. 

E. What are the proposed requirements 

for emissions from sources subject to the 

proposed NSPS subpart TTTa? 

Based on the NSPS review and 

proposed determination presented in 

section IV.D, the EPA is proposing 

revised VOC emission limits for 

application of coatings onto plastic parts 

for business machines at affected 

facilities that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

June 21, 2022. The proposed VOC 

emission limits reflect the EPA’s 

preliminary determination that a 

combination of coating formulation and 

efficiency in application technology 

represents the updated BSER for surface 

coating of plastic parts for business 

machines. The proposed standard for 

NSPS subpart TTTa based on this 

updated BSER would limit VOC 

emissions from prime coating, color 

coating, texture coating, and touch-up 

coating to 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) 

coating solids applied. Just as in subpart 

TTT, new subpart TTTa would treat fog 

coating as a type of color coating. 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

the effective date of the final rule 

requirements in NSPS subparts TTT and 

TTTa will be the promulgation date. 

Affected sources that commence 

construction, or reconstruction, or 

modification after June 21, 2022 must 

comply with all requirements of the 

subpart TTTa, no later than the effective 

date of the final rule or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

Affected facilities for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction began on or after January 

8, 1986, but on or before June 21, 2022 

would continue to comply with the 

applicable standards under the NSPS in 

40 CFR part 60 subpart TTT. 

G. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

1. Testing Requirements 

In performing an NSPS review, the 

EPA also evaluates and determines the 

proper testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements needed to ensure 

compliance with the emission 

standards. The NSPS at 40 CFR 60 

subpart TTT lists EPA Method 24 as the 

method for determination of VOC 

content of each coating as received. In 

the alternative, 40 CFR 60.725 allows 

use of ‘‘other methods . . . to determine 

the VOC content of each coating if 

approved by the Administrator before 

testing.’’ In performing this NSPS 

review, we looked at whether there are 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 

available and practical for use as 

alternatives to EPA Method 24 for 

industrial surface coating of plastic 

parts for business machines. The results 

of our VCS search are provided in the 

memorandum Voluntary Consensus 

Standard Results for New Source 

Performance Standards Review for 

Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic 

Parts for Business Machines, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

The complete list of acceptable VCS is 

listed in section VIII.I. of this preamble, 

and the VCS that we propose to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) under 40 

CFR 60.17 as potential alternatives to 

EPA Method 24 are listed in section VII 

of this preamble. These changes are 

proposed for use with NSPS subparts 

TTT and TTTa. 

2. Electronic Submission of Reports 

The EPA is proposing that owners or 

operators of facilities that perform 

surface coating of plastic parts for 

business machines subject to the NSPS 

at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test reports, quarterly 

reports of noncompliance, and 

semiannual statements of compliance, 

through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). A description of the electronic 

data submission process is provided in 

the memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, available in the docket for this 

action. The proposed rule requires that 

the performance test reports, quarterly 

reports of noncompliance, and 

semiannual statements of compliance be 

submitted as a portable document 

format (PDF) upload in CEDRI. The 

same requirements are being proposed 

in subpart TTTa. The proposed 

requirements would apply to all affected 

facilities that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction after 

January 8, 1986 (i.e., all affected 

facilities under both subpart TTT and 

proposed subpart TTTa). 

Additionally, the EPA has identified 

two broad circumstances in which 

extensions to the electronic submission 

of reports may be provided. These 

circumstances are (1) outages of the 

EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which preclude an 

owner or operator from accessing the 

system and submitting required reports 

and (2) force majeure events, which are 

defined as events that will be or have 

been caused by circumstances beyond 

the control of the affected facility, its 

contractors, or any entity controlled by 

the affected facility that prevent an 

owner or operator from complying with 

the requirement to submit a report 

electronically. Examples of force 

majeure events are acts of nature, acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazards beyond the control of 

the facility. The EPA is providing these 

potential extensions to protect owners 

or operators from noncompliance in 

cases where they cannot successfully 

submit a report by the reporting 

deadline for reasons outside of their 

control. In both circumstances, the 

decision to accept the claim of needing 

additional time to report is within the 

discretion of the Administrator, and 

reporting should occur as soon as 

possible. 

The electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

will increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

submission of reports also eliminates 

paper-based, manual processes, thereby 

saving time and resources, simplifying 

data entry, eliminating redundancies, 

minimizing data reporting errors, and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

25EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 

26E-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/digitalgovernment.html. 

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 Agencywide 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. 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36811 

28 1994 ACT, p. 2–1. 

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

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-tosales 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: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

• ASTM D2369–20, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Volatile Content of 

Coatings’’ is a test method that allows 

for more accurate results for multicomponent 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/lawsregulations/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 OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, 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 ICRrelated 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36813 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Federally recognized Tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law, 

and does not have substantial direct 

effects on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). No tribal 

facilities are known to be engaged in the 

industry that would be affected by this 

action nor are there any adverse health 

or environmental effects from this 

action. However, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis for this source 

category and found that one affected 

facility is located within 50 miles of 

Tribal lands. Consistent with the EPA 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes, the 

EPA will offer consultation with Tribal 

officials during the development of this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

Further, sources will be able to achieve 

the level of control in proposed NSPS 

subpart TTTa entirely through use of a 

variety of currently available coating 

formulations, without operation of a 

control device to meet the proposed 

standards. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches through the 

Enhanced NSSN Database managed by 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are 

VCS that are relevant to this action. The 

Agency also contacted VCS 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. Searches were 

conducted for EPA Method 24. 

During the search, if the title or 

abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s reference method, the EPA 

considered it as a potential equivalent 

method. All potential standards were 

reviewed to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data which meets the requirements of 

the EPA Method 301 for accepting 

alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to 

procedures in the EPA reference 

methods. The EPA may reconsider 

determinations of impracticality when 

additional information is available for 

particular VCS. As a result, the EPA 

identified the following as acceptable 

VCS: 

• ASTM D2369–20, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Volatile Content of 

Coatings’’ as an alternative to EPA 

Method 24. 

• ASTM Method D2697–03 

(Reapproved 2014), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter 

in Clear or Pigmented Coatings’’ as an 

alternative to EPA Method 24. 

• ASTM Method D6093–97 

(Reapproved 2016) ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile 

Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings 

Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer’’ as an 

alternative to EPA Method 24. 

• ASTM D2111–10 (2015), ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Specific Gravity of 

Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 

Admixtures’’ as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 24. This 

ASTM standard can be used to 

determine the density for the specific 

coatings (halogenated organic solvents) 

cited using Method B (pycnometer) only 

(as in ASTM 1217). 

The ASTM standards (methods) are 

available for purchase individually 

through the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) Webstore, 

https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone 

(212) 642–4980 for customer service. 

Additional information for the VCS 

search and determinations can be found 

in the memorandum Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for New 

Source Performance Standards Review 

for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic 

Parts for Business Machines, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of 

subpart A of the General Provisions, a 

source may apply to the EPA to use 

alternative test methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in place of any 

required testing methods, performance 

specifications or procedures in the final 

rule or any amendments. The EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This action does not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or indigenous peoples, 

as specified in Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

We performed a demographic analysis 

for the surface coating of plastic parts 

for business machines source category, 

which is an assessment of the proximity 

of individual demographic groups living 

close to the facilities (within 50 km and 

within 5 km). Results of the 

demographic analysis indicate 

representation within 5 km of existing 

facilities of one group above the 

national average: People without a High 

School Diploma. 

Following the directives set forth in 

multiple Executive Orders, the Agency 

has carefully analyzed the impacts of 

this action on communities with EJ 

concerns. For Surface Coating of Plastic 

Parts for Business Machines facilities, 

the proximity demographic analysis of 

the three existing sources subject to 

NSPS subpart TTT shows that key 

demographic indicators for the 

populations around these facilities 

(such as the proportion of residents who 

are low-income or people of color) are 

similar to or lower than the national 

average. Based on the EPA’s 

determination that there will be no new, 

modified, or reconstructed sources over 

the next 8 years, we estimate that there 

will be no reduction in VOC emissions 

from proposed NSPS subpart TTTa and 

no EJ impacts. If a new source were to 

be constructed at a future date, the new 

emission limits proposed for NSPS 

subpart TTTa reflect the BSER 

demonstrated and establish a new more 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36814 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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

stringent standard of performance for 

the primary sources of VOC emissions 

from the source category. Thus, if a 

source were to be constructed, modified, 

or reconstructed, the EPA expects the 

proposed requirements in subpart TTT 

will result in VOC emission reductions 

for communities surrounding the 

affected subpart TTTa sources compared 

to the existing rule in subpart TTT and 

will result in lower VOC emissions for 

communities located in areas designated 

as ozone non-attainment areas. These 

areas are already overburdened by 

pollution. 

Executive Order 12898 directs the 

EPA to identify the populations of 

concern who are most likely to 

experience unequal burdens from 

environmental harms; specifically, 

minority populations (i.e., people of 

color), low-income populations, and 

indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). Additionally, 

Executive Order 13985 is intended to 

advance racial equity and support 

underserved communities through 

federal government actions (86 FR 7009, 

January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ 

as ‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income, 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ 29 The EPA further defines 

fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of 

people should bear a disproportionate 

burden of environmental harms and 

risks, including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ In recognizing that minority 

and low-income populations often bear 

an unequal burden of environmental 

harms and risks, the EPA continues to 

consider ways of protecting them from 

adverse public health and 

environmental effects of air pollution. 

This action proposes standards of 

performance for new, modified, and 

reconstructed sources that commence 

construction after the rule is proposed. 

Therefore, the future locations of the 

new sources at Surface Coating of 

Plastic Parts for Business Machines 

facilities are not known. In addition, it 

is not known which of the existing 

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 

Business Machines facilities will modify 

or reconstruct in the future. Therefore, 

the proximity demographic analysis was 

conducted for the three existing 

facilities to characterize the 

demographics in areas where the 

facilities are currently located. 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with 

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 

Business Machines facilities, a 

demographic analysis assessed the 

individual demographic groups of the 

populations living within 5 kilometers 

(km) and 50 km of the three existing 

facilities. The EPA then compared the 

data from this analysis to the national 

average for each of the demographic 

groups. 

The results of the demographic 

analysis (see Table 2) indicate that, for 

populations within 5 km of existing 

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 

Business Machines facilities, the 

percent of the population that are 

people of color (calculated as the total 

population minus the white population) 

is significantly lower than the national 

average (23 percent versus 40 percent). 

All demographic subgroups within 

people of color are also below the 

corresponding national averages. The 

percent of people living below the 

poverty level (10 percent) is below the 

national average (13 percent). The 

percent of the population that is over 25 

without a high school diploma (13 

percent) and those living in linguistic 

isolation (5 percent) were similar to the 

corresponding national averages (12 

percent and 5 percent, respectively). 

The results of the analysis of 

populations within 50 km of the three 

existing Surface Coating of Plastic Parts 

for Business Machines facilities are 

shown in Table 2. The percent of the 

population that are people of color 

(calculated as the total population 

minus the white population) is 

significantly lower than the national 

average (29 percent versus 40 percent). 

However, the percent of the population 

that is African American (17 percent) is 

higher than the national average (12 

percent). All other demographic 

subgroups within people of color are 

below the corresponding national 

averages. The percent of people living 

below the poverty level (14 percent) is 

slightly above the national average (13 

percent). The percent of the population 

that is over 25 without a high school 

diploma (10 percent) and those living in 

linguistic isolation (2 percent) were 

below the corresponding national 

averages (12 percent and 5 percent, 

respectively). 

A summary of the proximity 

demographic assessment performed for 

the three existing Surface Coating of 

Plastic Parts for Business Machines 

facilities is included as Table 2. The 

methodology and the results of the 

demographic analysis are presented in a 

technical report, Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic 

Parts for Business Machines, available 

in this docket for this action (Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0200). 

TABLE 2—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR SURFACE COATING OF PLASTIC PARTS FOR BUSINESS

MACHINES NSPS SOURCE CATEGORY OPERATIONS * 

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km 

of 3 existing 

facilities 

Population 

within 5 km 

of 3 existing 

facilities 

Total Population ....................................................................................................................... 328,016,242 2,979,558 79,323 

White and People of Color by Percent 

White ........................................................................................................................................ 60 71 77 

People of Color ........................................................................................................................ 40 29 23 

People of Color by Percent 

African American ..................................................................................................................... 12 17 2 

Native American ...................................................................................................................... 0.7 0.4 0.2 

Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ................................................................... 19 6 14 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36815 

TABLE 2—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR SURFACE COATING OF PLASTIC PARTS FOR BUSINESS

MACHINES NSPS SOURCE CATEGORY OPERATIONS *—Continued 

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km 

of 3 existing 

facilities 

Population 

within 5 km 

of 3 existing 

facilities 

Other and Multiracial ............................................................................................................... 8 5 7 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level ................................................................................................................ 13 14 10 

Above Poverty Level ................................................................................................................ 87 86 90 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without a High School Diploma .......................................................................... 12 10 13 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ............................................................................... 88 90 87 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent 

Linguistically Isolated ............................................................................................................... 5 2 5 

Notes: 

• The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey fiveyear block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population 

counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations. 

• People of Color population is the total population minus the white population. 

• To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is 

identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A 

person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also 

identified as in the Census. 

* This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence construction after the rule is 

proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities are not known. In 

addition, it is not known which of the existing Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines facilities will be modified or reconstructed in 

the future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 3 existing facilities as a characterization of the demographics in areas 

where these facilities are now located. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12250 Filed 6–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket No. 21–190; MD Docket No. 22– 

223; FCC 22–39; FR ID 91190] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2022 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notification of amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission released a Report and 

Order and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in June 2022. The 

Commission has corrected that 

document. 

DATES: June 21, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The June document is 

available at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

document/fy-2022-regulatory-feesnotice-proposed-rulemaking. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities, email FCC504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 

Director at (202) 418–0444. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2, 

2022, the Federal Communications 

Commission released a Report and 

Order and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (Report and Order), FCC 

22–39, in the above captioned 

proceeding. The Report and Order has 

not been published in the Federal 

Register and is available at https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fy-2022- 

regulatory-fees-notice-proposedrulemaking. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities, email FCC504@fcc.gov or 

call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). The 

Commission corrects the date ‘‘August 

31, 2022’’ in paragraph 72 of the 

Ordering Clause to read ‘‘September 1, 

2022.’’ 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12812 Filed 6–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1