Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200-0061
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: New Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines
Posted Date: 2023-03-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18056-18072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04966]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200; FRL-8515-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV23

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 27, 2023. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 27, 
2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We 
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may 
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for 
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms 
here:

ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM ASTM International
BID background information document
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTG Control Techniques Guidelines document
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
IBR incorporate by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
Mg megagram
Mg/yr megagrams per year
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SIC standard industrial classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
    B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

[[Page 18057]]

    C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
III. What changes did we propose for the surface coating of plastic 
parts for business machines NSPS, and what actions are we finalizing 
and what is our rationale for such decisions?
    A. Revised NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 
Business Machines
    B. NSPS Subpart TTTa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunctions 
Exemptions
    C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
    D. Electronic Reporting
    E. Other Final Amendments
    F. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the secondary impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source category that is the subject of this final action is 
surface coating of plastic parts for business machines regulated under 
CAA section 111 New Source Performance Standards. The 2022 North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the source 
category is 333310--Commercial and Service Industry Machinery 
Manufacturing. The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers outlining 
the type of entities that this final action is likely to affect. The 
new source performance standards (NSPS) codified in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart TTTa, are directly applicable to affected facilities that begin 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022, 
which is the date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, are 
applicable to affected facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 1986, but that begin 
construction, reconstruction, or modification no later than June 21, 
2022. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not 
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, you should 
carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts TTT and TTTa, and consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state air pollution 
control agency with delegated authority for NSPS, or your EPA Regional 
Office.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface. Following publication in the 
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the 
final rule and key technical documents at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by May 26, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel 
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail 
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?

    The EPA's authority for this final rule is CAA section 111, which 
governs the establishment of standards of performance for stationary 
sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator 
to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's 
judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA 
must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or 
reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source performance 
standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the scope of 
the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards 
should be developed, set the emission level of the standards, and 
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in 
establishing the standards.
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' new source performance 
standards. However, the Administrator need not review any such standard 
if the ``Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate 
in light of readily available information on the efficacy'' of the 
standard. When conducting a review of an existing performance standard, 
the EPA has the discretion and authority to add emission limits for 
pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source 
category.
    In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section 
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
best system of

[[Page 18058]]

emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving 
such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact 
and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been 
adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of performance'' in CAA 
section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to determine both the 
best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the regulated sources in 
the source category and the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through application of the BSER. The EPA must then, under CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new sources that 
reflect that level of stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the 
EPA from prescribing a particular technological system that must be 
used to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources can 
select any measure or combination of measures that will achieve the 
standard.
    Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2), 
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the 
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section 
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in 
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the 
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in 
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an 
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are 
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, 
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing 
facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components 
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to 
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is 
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable 
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of 
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon 
promulgation.

B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, CAA section 111 requires 
the EPA, at least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise 
the standards of performance applicable to new, modified, and 
reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards of performance, 
they must reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through 
the application of the BSER considering the cost of achieving such 
reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 
energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to 
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory 
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:
     Expected growth for the source category, including how 
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger 
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control 
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or 
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately 
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and 
enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations 
and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards 
are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with 
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through 
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
    In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission 
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated 
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of 
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission 
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can 
achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the 
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also 
considers cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means 
of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a 
reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of 
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In 
general, cost-effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by 
resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost 
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing 
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant 
reductions realized annually.
    After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the 
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is 
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a 
standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this 
analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is 
appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may 
identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards 
for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination 
leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of 
publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because 
the new source performance standards reflect the best system of 
emission reduction under conditions of proper operation and 
maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines 
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.

C. What is this source category regulated in this final action?

    The surface coating of plastic parts for business machines was 
listed as a source category for regulation under section 111 of the CAA 
in 1986, based on the Administrator's determination that emissions from 
facilities that surface coat plastic business machine parts cause, or 
contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. See 51 FR 869 
(January 8, 1986). The EPA first promulgated new source performance 
standards for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines on 
January 29, 1988 (53 FR 2672) (1988 NSPS). These standards of 
performance are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, and are 
applicable to sources that commence construction, modification, or 
reconstruction after January 8, 1986. These standards of performance 
regulate VOC emissions from each type of coating used at each spray 
booth during each nominal 1-month period. Subsequent to promulgation of 
the NSPS, in 1988, the EPA issued a correction because of an 
inadvertent inclusion of delegable functions in the list of 
nondelegable functions in 40 CFR 60.726 (53 FR 19300, May 27, 1988). In 
1989, the EPA issued a final rule (54 FR 25458, June 15, 1989) to 
clarify that electromagnetic interference and radio

[[Page 18059]]

frequency interference (EMI/RFI) shielding coatings that are applied to 
the surface of plastic business machine parts to attenuate EMI/RFI 
signals were exempt from the regulation.
    In general, plastic parts are coated to provide color, texture, and 
protection, improve appearance and durability, attenuate EMI/RFI 
signals, and conceal mold lines and flaws. Examples of plastic parts 
specific to the coatings industry sector for the surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines include plastic housings for 
electronic office equipment, such as computers and copy machines, and 
for medical equipment.\1\ Structural foam injection molding and 
straight injection molding are among predominant forming techniques 
used to manufacture plastic parts that are used in business machines. 
The surface coating of plastic parts for business machines may be 
performed within several industries, including business machine 
manufacturers, independent plastic molders and coaters, and ``coating 
only'' shops. Sources that perform surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines include job shops that must accommodate a wide 
variety of coatings and wide range of part shapes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \2\ Proposed rule, ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary 
Sources: Industrial Surface Coating; Plastic Parts for Business 
Machines'' (51 FR 854, January 8, 1986) (1986 proposed NSPS) at 862 
and 863.
    \3\ 1986 proposed NSPS, 51 FR 854 at 855 and 862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \4\ In this source category, approximately 80 percent of the 
emissions occur in the spray booths, 10 percent occur in the flash-
off areas, and 10 percent occur in the ovens (1986 proposed NSPS, 51 
FR 854 at 858 and 863).
    \5\ 53 FR 2672 at 2674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \6\ 1986 proposed NSPS, 51 FR 854 at 858 and 863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of the type of coating in use at a facility that surface 
coats plastic parts for business machines, approximately 80 percent of 
total VOC emissions occur in the spray booth. Most of the solvent-laden 
air in these facilities comes from the spray booth and flash-off areas, 
and the concentration of VOC in that air is very low because it must be 
diluted to protect workers from breathing harmful levels of organic 
solvents. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has 
specific requirements for the design and construction of spray booths 
(see 29 CFR 1910.107(b)) and requires a minimum velocity of air into 
all openings of a spray booth (see 29 CFR 1910.94(c)(6), table G-10). 
An induced air flow is maintained in a spray booth not only to keep 
solvent concentrations at a safe level but also to remove overspray in 
order to minimize contamination. The VOC from these areas can be 
captured and ducted to a control device, but the high volume of air and 
low concentration of VOC make this a costly method of control. For 
example, the cost of using a thermal incinerator with primary heat 
recovery to control VOC emissions from the spray booths and flash-off 
areas for a medium-sized model plant was estimated in the EPA's 1985 
document titled Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business 
Machines--Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-85-
019a, December 1985 (1985 BID), available in the docket for this 
action, to be $11,000 to $21,000 per megagram (Mg) ($10,000 to $19,000 
per ton) of VOC controlled, in 1985 dollars.\7\ The specific cost 
depends in part on the booth ventilation rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA proposed the current review of the surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines NSPS subpart TTT on June 21, 2022. 
No comments were received on the proposed revisions associated with the 
NSPS review, so the EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed, as 
follows: Specific to affected facilities that commence construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after June 21, 2022, the EPA is, in a 
new subpart TTTa, finalizing the proposed volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emission limitations for prime, color, texture, and touch-up 
coating operations. We are also finalizing in subparts TTTa and TTT the 
proposed requirements for electronic submission of periodic compliance 
reports. For the new subpart TTTa, which is specific to affected 
facilities that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after June 
21, 2022, the EPA estimates that over the next 8 years following this 
final rule, no affected facilities will be new, modified, or 
reconstructed that perform surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines.

III. What changes did we propose for the surface coating of plastic 
parts for business machines NSPS, and what actions are we finalizing 
and what is our rationale for such decisions?

    On June 21, 2022 (87 FR 36796), the EPA proposed to amend NSPS 
subpart TTT and add a new NSPS subpart TTTa for the surface coating of 
plastic parts for business machines. In that action,

[[Page 18060]]

we proposed revised emission limit requirements for new, modified, and 
reconstructed sources in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa. We also proposed 
testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with 40 
CFR part 60, subpart TTTa, that include the requirement for electronic 
submittal of reports. Further, we proposed changes to the reporting 
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, by including 
the requirement for electronic submittal of reports.
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to the NSPS for 
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines pursuant to the 
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is promulgating NSPS revisions 
in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa. The revised NSPS 
subpart is applicable to affected sources constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after June 21, 2022.The standards of performance in 
subpart TTTa apply at all times including during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
    The EPA is also finalizing the proposed revisions to NSPS subpart 
TTT, which applies to affected sources that are constructed, modified, 
or reconstructed after January 8, 1986, but that are constructed, 
modified, or reconstructed no later than June 21, 2022. With these 
changes, NSPS subpart TTT requires electronic reporting, provides an 
updated definition of ``business machine,'' and makes new voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) available for use as alternatives to EPA 
Method 24 for industrial surface coating of plastic parts for business 
machines. These same changes are reflected in new subpart TTTa.
    No comments were received on these changes, so the EPA is 
finalizing these amendments as proposed.

A. Revised NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business 
Machines

    In its BSER review in the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to 
determine that a combination of coating formulation and efficiency in 
application technology represents the updated BSER for surface coating 
of plastic parts for business machines. Additionally, the EPA proposed 
to determine that the 2008 Control Techniques Guidelines document's 
(CTG) VOC emission limits for primer, topcoat, texture coat, and touch-
up and repair, which are more stringent than the current NSPS subpart 
TTT emission limits, represent the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through application of the updated BSER.
    To make this determination, the EPA compared costs and emission 
reductions for three regulatory options with a baseline of the 
requirements in the 1988 NSPS subpart TTT. This analysis utilized a 
representative coating limit for VOC for each of the three regulatory 
options and estimated the per-facility VOC emission reduction and the 
cost effectiveness in dollars per ton of VOC reduced for each option. 
The CTG-based option was found to represent the BSER because it was the 
most cost effective of the three regulatory options and has been 
demonstrated in practice. We found no significant nonair quality 
impacts or energy requirements associated with this BSER determination. 
More details on the BSER review and determination can be found in the 
proposed rule preamble, section III.D (87 FR 36796 at 36805).
    Based on this BSER review and determination, the EPA is finalizing 
VOC emission limits in NSPS subpart TTTa for application of coatings 
onto plastic parts for business machines at affected facilities that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 
2022. The finalized NSPS limit VOC emissions from prime coating, color 
coating, texture coating, and touch-up coating to 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb 
VOC/gal) coating solids applied. Just as in subpart TTT, new subpart 
TTTa treats fog coating as a type of color coating and applies the same 
level of VOC emission control to fog coating and other color coating. 
No comments were received on these changes, so the EPA is finalizing 
these VOC emission limits as proposed.
    The EPA is also finalizing the proposed menu of subpart TTT default 
transfer efficiency (TE) values and their associated spray applicator 
types in new subpart TTTa. Further, what the EPA is finalizing in 
subpart TTTa allows a subpart TTTa affected facility, for a given type 
of coating application equipment at a given coating operation, to use a 
different (higher) TE with the Administrator's case-by-case approval. 
The EPA is also finalizing the case-by-case compliance approaches in 
the new subpart TTTa. Specifically, facilities are not required to use 
the formulas and compliance demonstrations based on coating content and 
TE but can demonstrate compliance using add-on controls if the same VOC 
emissions reductions are demonstrated to the Administrator. No comments 
were received on including these provisions in new subpart TTTa, so the 
EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed.

B. NSPS Subpart TTTa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunctions Exemptions

    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. 
We are finalizing in subpart TTTa specific requirements at Sec.  
60.723a that override the general provisions for SSM requirements. In 
finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in this 
section of the preamble, has not finalized alternate standards for 
those periods. The primary means of controlling VOC emissions from 
surface coating of plastic parts for business machines is use of low-
VOC-content coatings. This means of control is unaffected by startup 
and shutdown events. No comments were received on the proposed 
requirements, so these requirements are being finalized as proposed.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2). 
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that 
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of 
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law 
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what 
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission 
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While 
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, 
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions 
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a 
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance 
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no 
statutory language compels EPA to consider such events in setting 
section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to 
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable'' 
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the 
D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).

[[Page 18061]]

C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    In performing an NSPS review, the EPA also evaluates and determines 
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements needed to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS. The NSPS 
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, lists EPA Method 24 as the method for 
determination of VOC content of each coating as received. In the 
alternative, 40 CFR 60.725 allows use of ``other methods . . . to 
determine the VOC content of each coating if approved by the 
Administrator before testing.'' In performing this NSPS review, we 
looked at whether there are voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 
available and practical for use as alternatives to EPA Method 24 for 
industrial surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. The 
results of our initial VCS search, conducted prior to proposal, are 
provided in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for New 
Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts for Business Machines, which is dated April 18, 2022, and 
is available in the docket for this action. Subsequent to proposal, the 
EPA learned, the ASTM International (ASTM) approved and published a new 
method as replacement for one of the methods that we proposed to 
incorporate by reference (IBR). The new method, designated ASTM D2697-
22, approved July 1, 2022, is titled ``Standard Test Method for Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' Having compared 
the new method against the method it replaced, ASTM D2697-03 (2014), 
the EPA notes that use of the new method would likely improve the 
overall precision of the measurements, as the new method includes 
prescriptive procedures instead of referencing other procedures. 
Accordingly, the EPA has concluded that the new method is preferable to 
its replacement. The complete list of currently acceptable VCS is 
listed in a revised memorandum, dated November 30, 2022, and available 
in the docket. The VCS that that the EPA is incorporating by reference 
(IBR) under 40 CFR 60.17 as potential alternatives to EPA Method 24 are 
listed in section V.I of this preamble. These changes are being 
finalized for use with NSPS subparts TTT and TTTa. No comments were 
received on the proposed acceptable VCS. The EPA is finalizing these 
changes as proposed, with the exception that one method last reapproved 
in 2014 is being replaced by a new 2022 method for purposes of IBR in 
this final rule. This substitution of one method being incorporated by 
reference does not change any other aspect of what the EPA proposed and 
is finalizing.

D. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that owners and 
operators of facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts 
for business machines subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa, submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and 
semiannual statements of compliance, through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). For sources subject to subpart TTT, before May 26, 
2023, performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and 
semiannual statements of compliance shall be postmarked no later than 
10 days after the end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(2) of 40 CFR 60.724. Beginning May 26, 2023, performance test reports, 
quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of 
compliance shall be submitted as a portable document format (PDF) 
upload not later than 10 days after the end of the periods specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 40 CFR 60.724, according to paragraph (f) 
of 40 CFR 60.724. No comments were received on the proposed electronic 
reporting requirements, so the EPA is finalizing these changes as 
proposed.

E. Other Final Amendments

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed definition of ``business 
machine'' in subpart TTT, 40 CFR 60.721, that revises the list of 
example products included within the definition. Specifically, the EPA 
is deleting the listed Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, 
which are no longer in use, and is replacing the list of example 
products that accompanied those SIC codes with a revised list of 
examples, as follows: ``such as products classified as: electronic 
computing devices; calculating and accounting machines; telephone 
equipment; office machines; and photocopy machines.'' Among example 
products that the EPA is deleting from the definition are typewriters 
and telegraph equipment, in light of the fact that these machines are 
far less commonly used than when this definition was first promulgated 
in 1988. These same changes are reflected in new subpart TTTa. The EPA 
received no comments on these proposed revisions to the definition of 
``business machine'' and so is finalizing these changes as proposed.

F. Effective Date and Compliance Dates

    Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the 
final rule requirements in NSPS subparts TTT and TTTa is the 
promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022, must comply with 
all requirements of subpart TTTa, no later than the effective date of 
the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    Based on the EPA's expectation that there will be no new, modified, 
or reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there 
will be no reduction in VOC emissions from NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new 
source were to be constructed, however, there would be a reduction in 
VOC emissions, because the subpart TTTa emission limits being finalized 
are more stringent than the subpart TTT emission limits. There would be 
no emission control cost associated with that hypothetical emission 
reduction because compliance with the subpart TTTa emission limits can 
be achieved through use of low-VOC-content coatings that are 
commercially available.
    As described in the proposed rule preamble, for the baseline level 
of control for the BSER analysis, the EPA used an emission limit of 1.5 
kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied as the representative 
coating limit, which is the same as the 1988 NSPS VOC emission limit 
both for prime coating and color coating. Of the three regulatory 
options that the EPA identified and evaluated in its NSPS review, the 
EPA found that its 2008 CTG-based option represents the BSER because it 
is demonstrated in practice and is the most cost-effective option. The 
EPA used an emission limit of 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating 
solids applied as the representative coating limit for this option, 
which is derived from the 2008 CTG. The standard for NSPS subpart TTTa, 
based on this updated BSER, limits VOC emissions from prime coating, 
color coating, texture coating, and touch-up coating to 1.4 kg VOC/l 
(12 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. Therefore, the potential 
reduction in VOC emissions to result from NSPS subpart TTTa is 
estimated at 1.5 Mg/yr (13.0 tpy) per facility based on the BSER 
analysis in this NSPS review.

[[Page 18062]]

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    Because we do not anticipate that any source will operate a control 
device to meet NSPS subpart TTTa requirements, we anticipate no energy 
impacts (electricity, natural gas consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions production) or secondary air quality impacts from NSPS 
subpart TTTa.

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

E. What are the benefits?

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

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating EJ in the 
Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple 
Executive orders, the Agency has conducted an analysis of the 
demographic groups living near existing facilities in the surface 
coating of plastic parts for business machines source category. Because 
this rule will affect new, modified, or reconstructed facilities that 
commence construction after June 21, 2022, we are not able to identify 
the location of those future new, modified, or reconstructed 
facilities. We anticipate that a total of three existing facilities 
will be affected by NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, in the next 8 
years and that no facilities will be affected by NSPS at 40 CFR part 
60, subpart TTTa, in the next 8 years. For the demographic proximity 
analysis, we analyzed populations living near existing facilities to 
serve as a proxy of potential populations living near future 
facilities. The preamble for the proposed rule (87 FR 36796, June 21, 
2022) indicated that the following demographic group was above the 
national average at the 5 kilometer (km) radius: People without a high 
school diploma. The analysis of the final rule remains unchanged from 
proposal. Therefore, the Agency used results from the proposal analysis 
to assess EJ impacts for this final rule.
    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations 
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms--specifically, minority populations (i.e., people 
of color), low-income populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to 
advance racial equity and support underserved communities through 
Federal Government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA 
defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further 
defines the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people 
should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, 
including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences 
of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies.'' In recognizing that people of color and low-income 
populations often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and 
risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of protecting them from 
adverse public health and environmental effects of air pollution.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis at 
proposal and have determined that the data and

[[Page 18063]]

affected facilities did not change as a result of public comments. 
Therefore, the analysis from the proposed rule is still applicable for 
this final action.
    Because this action finalizes standards of performance for new, 
modified, and reconstructed sources that commence construction after 
June 21, 2022, the locations of the construction of new facilities that 
perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines are not 
known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing facilities 
will be modified or reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the 
demographic analysis was conducted for the three existing facilities as 
a characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities 
are now located.
    The results of the demographic analysis can be found in section V.J 
of the proposed rule's preamble (see 87 FR 36796 at 36813) and are 
summarized in this document. The analysis included an assessment of 
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and 
within 50 km of the facilities. We then compared the data from the 
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups. 
The results show that for populations within 5 km of the three existing 
facilities, the percent of the population that is categorized as people 
of color (being the total population minus the white population) is 
below the national average (23 percent versus 40 percent). The percent 
of people living below the poverty level is below the national average 
(10 percent versus 13 percent). The percent of the population over 25 
without a high school diploma (13 percent) and the percent of the 
population in linguistic isolation (5 percent) are similar to the 
corresponding national averages (12 percent and 5 percent, 
respectively).
    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 
three existing facilities show that the percent of the population that 
is categorized as people of color (being the total population minus the 
white population) is significantly below the national average (29 
percent versus 40 percent). However, the percent of the population that 
is African American (17 percent) is higher than the national average 
(12 percent). All other demographic subgroups within people of color 
are below the corresponding national averages. The percent of people 
living below the poverty level is slightly above the national average 
(14 percent versus 13 percent). The percent of the population over 25 
without a high school diploma (10 percent) and the percent of the 
population in linguistic isolation (2 percent) were below the 
corresponding national averages (12 percent and 5 percent, 
respectively).
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, ``Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business 
Machines,'' available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0200).
    The EPA expects that the NSPS for Industrial Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts for Business Machines subpart TTT and new subpart TTTa 
will ensure compliance via testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting, and that the new subpart TTTa will ensure compliance with 
the standards at all times (including periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunctions). The rule will also increase data transparency through 
electronic reporting. Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in 
proximity to any future affected sources, including in communities 
potentially overburdened by pollution, which are often people of color 
and low-income and indigenous communities, will be minimized due to the 
compliance with the standards of performance being finalized in this 
action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 1093.15. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The ICR is specific to information collection associated with the 
source category referred to as surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines, through 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa. As 
part of the NSPS review, the EPA is finalizing emission limit 
requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed sources in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart TTTa. We are also finalizing testing, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
TTTa, that include the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. 
Further, we are finalizing changes to the reporting requirements 
associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, by including the 
requirement for electronic submittal of reports. This information is 
being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT 
and TTTa.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities 
performing surface coating of plastic parts for business machines 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, 
subparts TTT and TTTa).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately 3 respondents per year will be 
subject to the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, and approximately 0 
respondents per year will be subject to the NSPS as 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart TTTa.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule 
requirements, reports of performance tests, quarterly reports of 
noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements 
in the NSPS subpart TTT and NSPS subpart TTTa over the 3 years after 
the rule is final is estimated to be 2 hours (per year). The average 
annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the rule is final is 
estimated to be 0 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to facilities that 
perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines is $276 
in labor costs in the first 3 years after the rule is final. The 
average annual capital and operation and maintenance cost is $0. The 
total average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the 
amendments are final is estimated to be $0.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will

[[Page 18064]]

announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical 
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the 
approved information collection activities contained in this final 
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. No health or risk assessments were performed for this action. 
As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the EPA estimates that 
there will be no reduction in VOC emissions from NSPS subpart TTTa. If 
a new source were to be constructed, however, there would be a 
reduction in VOC emissions, because the subpart TTTa emission limits 
are more stringent than the subpart TTT emission limits.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This 
action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, sources will be able 
to achieve the level of control in NSPS subpart TTTa entirely through 
use of a variety of currently available coating formulations, without 
operation of a control device to meet the standards.

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

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches through the Enhanced National Standards Systems 
Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are VCS that are relevant to 
this action. The Agency also contacted VCS organizations and accessed 
and searched their databases. Searches were conducted for EPA Method 
24.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the 
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are 
similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a 
potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to 
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review 
requires significant method validation data which meets the 
requirements of the EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or 
scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA 
reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for particular 
VCS. As a result, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by 
reference the following VCS:
     ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile Content 
of Coatings'' is a test method that allows for more accurate results 
for multi-component chemical resistant coatings and is an alternative 
to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D2697-22, ``Standard Test Method for Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' is a test method 
that can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile matter in clear 
and pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) ``Standard Test 
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented 
Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' is a test method that can be 
used to determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and 
pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.
    We also identified VCS ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test 
Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24. This ASTM 
standard can be used to determine the density for the specific coatings 
(halogenated organic solvents) cited using Method B (pycnometer) only 
(as in ASTM 1217). We are not incorporating by reference this VCS 
because facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts for 
business machines do not use halogenated organic solvents, based on our 
knowledge of the industry.
    The ASTM standards (methods) are available for purchase 
individually through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
Webstore, https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone (212) 642-4980 for 
customer service.
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be 
found in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for New 
Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts for Business Machines Revised,

[[Page 18065]]

which is dated November 30, 2022, and is available in the docket for 
this action.
    Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of the general provisions, a 
source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing 
methods, performance specifications or procedures in the final rule or 
any amendments.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous 
peoples) and low-income populations.
    The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and 
adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples. See section IV.F of this preamble for additional 
details on the analysis of the distribution of the demographic groups 
living near existing facilities in the surface coating of plastic parts 
for business machines source category conducted by the EPA.
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new 
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Based on the EPA's 
determination that there will be no new, modified, or reconstructed 
sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there will be no 
reduction in VOC emissions from the new NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new 
source were to be constructed at a future date, the emission limits in 
subpart TTTa reflect the BSER demonstrated and establish a new more 
stringent standard of performance for the primary sources of VOC 
emissions from the source category. Thus, if a source were to be 
constructed, modified, or reconstructed, the EPA expects that the 
requirements in subpart TTTa will result in VOC emission reductions for 
communities surrounding the affected subpart TTTa sources compared to 
the existing rule in subpart TTT and will result in lower VOC emissions 
for communities located in areas designated as ozone non-attainment 
areas. These areas are already overburdened by pollution.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency is amending part 60 of title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  60.17 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(179) through (214) as paragraphs 
(h)(182) through (217);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(108) through (178) as paragraphs 
(h)(110) through (180);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(96) through (107) as paragraphs (h)(97) 
through (108); and
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (h)(96), (109), and (181).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (96) ASTM D2369-20, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of 
Coatings, Approved June 1, 2020; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
60.723(b)(1), 60.724(a)(2), 60.725(b), 60.723a(b)(1), 60.724a(a)(2), 
and 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
    (109) ASTM D2697-22, Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile 
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, Approved July 1, 2022; IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  60.723(b)(1), 60.724(a)(2), 60.725(b), 
60.723a(b)(1), 60.724a(a)(2), and 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
    (181) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016; IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  60.723(b)(1), 60.724(a)(2), 60.725(b), 60.723a(b)(1), 
60.724a(a)(2), and 60.725a(b).
* * * * *

Subpart TTT--Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface 
Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines

0
3. Amend Sec.  60.720 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.720  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) This subpart applies to any affected facility for which 
construction, modification, or reconstruction begins after January 8, 
1986, but before June 21, 2022.

0
4. Amend Sec.  60.721 by revising the definition of ``Business 
machine'' in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.721  Definitions.

    (a) * * *
    Business machine means a device that uses electronic or mechanical 
methods to process information, perform calculations, print or copy 
information, or convert sound into electrical impulses for 
transmission, such as products classified as: electronic computing 
devices; calculating and accounting machines; telephone equipment; 
office machines; and photocopy machines.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  60.723 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1);
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C), removing the text ``table 1'' and adding, 
in its place, the text ``table 1 to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this 
section''; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(D) and (b)(2)(i)(E) and the last 
sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(iv).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  60.723  Performance tests and compliance provisions.

    (a) Section 60.8(d) through (i) do not apply to the performance 
test procedures required by this section.
    (b) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall determine the composition of 
coatings by analysis of each coating, as received, using Method 24 of 
appendix A-7 to this part or an acceptable alternative method, from 
data that have been determined by the coating manufacturer using Method 
24 or an acceptable

[[Page 18066]]

alternative method. Acceptable alternative methods to Method 24 
include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all 
incorporated by reference; see Sec.  60.17).
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Where more than one application method is used within a single 
coating operation, the owner or operator shall determine the volume of 
each coating applied by each method through a means acceptable to the 
Administrator and compute the volume-weighted average transfer 
efficiency by the following equation:

Equation 3 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.002

    Where n is the number of coatings of each type used and p is the 
number of application methods used.

        Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)--Transfer Efficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Transfer
        Application methods           efficiency       Type of coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Air atomized spray............            0.25  Prime, color,
                                                     texture, touch-up,
                                                     and fog coats.
(2) Air-assisted airless spray....            0.40  Prime and color
                                                     coats.
(3) Electrostatic air spray.......            0.40  Prime and color
                                                     coats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (E) Calculate the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted per 
unit volume of coating solids applied (N) during each nominal 1-month 
period for each coating operation for each affected facility by the 
following equation:

Equation 4 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.003

Where Tavg = T when only one type of coating operation 
occurs.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * * In such cases, compliance will be determined by the 
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.

0
6. Amend Sec.  60.724 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c), and (e); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.724  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) For each affected facility where compliance is determined under 
the provisions of Sec.  60.723(b)(2)(iii), a list of the coatings used 
during the initial nominal 1-month period, the VOC content of each 
coating calculated from data determined using Method 24 of appendix A-7 
to this part or an acceptable alternative method, and the lowest 
transfer efficiency at which each coating is applied during the initial 
nominal 1-month period. Acceptable alternative methods to Method 24 
include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all 
incorporated by reference; see Sec.  60.17).
* * * * *
    (c) Before May 26, 2023, performance test reports, quarterly 
reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance shall 
be postmarked not later than 10 days after the end of the periods 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. Beginning May 
26, 2023, performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, 
and semiannual statements of compliance shall be submitted as a 
portable document format (PDF) upload not later than 10 days after the 
end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section, according to paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for 
facilities using add-on controls will be determined by the 
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
    (f) Beginning May 26, 2023, the owner or operator must submit all 
subsequent performance test reports, quarterly reports of 
noncompliance, and semiannual statements in PDF format to the EPA via 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which 
can be accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through 
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use 
CEDRI to submit information you claim as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI). Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim 
of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information 
in the report, you must submit a complete file, including information 
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in paragraphs 
(f)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may 
be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information 
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted 
at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later 
be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data 
is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to 
make emissions data

[[Page 18067]]

available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as 
CBI and will be made publicly available. You must submit the same file 
submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the 
EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (f).
    (1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address 
[email protected], and as described in this paragraph (f), should 
include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the 
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector Lead. If 
assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed 
the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your 
own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a 
file transfer link.
    (2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector 
Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly 
marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    (3) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or 
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with 
the electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system 
outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) 
through (vii) of this section.
    (i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required notification or report within the time 
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the notification or 
report is due.
    (iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing 
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in submitting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
submitting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to submit, or if you have already 
met the electronic submittal requirement in this paragraph (f) at the 
time of the notification, the date you submitted the notification or 
report.
    (vi) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    (vii) In any circumstance, the notification or report must be 
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is 
resolved.
    (4) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or 
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the 
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, 
you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through 
(v) of this section.
    (i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a 
notification or report electronically within the time period 
prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., 
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected 
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing 
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in submitting through CEDRI.
    (iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (A) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to submit the notification or 
report, or if you have already met the electronic submittal requirement 
in this paragraph (f) at the time of the notification, the date you 
submitted the notification or report.
    (iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the submittal deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (g) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
7. Amend Sec.  60.725 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.725  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) Other methods may be used to determine the VOC content of each 
coating if approved by the Administrator before testing. Acceptable 
alternative methods to Method 24 of appendix A-7 to this part include: 
ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  60.17).

0
8. Amend Sec.  60.726 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.726  Delegation of authority.

* * * * *
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to the States:
    (1) Section 60.723(b)(1).
    (2) Section 60.723(b)(2)(i)(C).
    (3) Section 60.723(b)(2)(iv).
    (4) Section 60.724(b).
    (5) Section 60.724(e).
    (6) Section 60.724(f).
    (7) Section 60.725(b).

0
9. Add subpart TTTa, consisting of Sec. Sec.  60.720a through 60.726a, 
to read as follows:

[[Page 18068]]

Subpart TTTa--Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface 
Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines for 
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After 
June 21, 2022

Sec.
60.720a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.721a Definitions.
60.722a Standards for volatile organic compounds.
60.723a Performance tests and compliance provisions.
60.724a Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
60.725a Test methods and procedures.
60.726a Delegation of authority.

Sec.  60.720a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each spray booth in 
which plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines 
receive prime coats, color coats, texture coats, or touch-up coats.
    (b) This subpart applies to any affected facility for which 
construction, modification, or reconstruction begins after June 21, 
2022.

Sec.  60.721a  Definitions.

    (a) As used in this subpart, all terms not defined in this subpart 
shall have the meaning given them in the Act or in subpart A of this 
part.
    Business machine means a device that uses electronic or mechanical 
methods to process information, perform calculations, print or copy 
information, or convert sound into electrical impulses for 
transmission, such as products classified as: electronic computing 
devices; calculating and accounting machines; telephone equipment; 
office machines; and photocopy machines.
    Coating operation means the use of a spray booth for the 
application of a single type of coating (e.g., prime coat); the use of 
the same spray booth for the application of another type of coating 
(e.g., texture coat) constitutes a separate coating operation for which 
compliance determinations are performed separately.
    Coating solids applied means the coating solids that adhere to the 
surface of the plastic business machine part being coated.
    Color coat means the coat applied to a part that affects the color 
and gloss of the part, not including the prime coat or texture coat. 
This definition includes fog coating, but does not include conductive 
sensitizers or electromagnetic interference/radio frequency 
interference shielding coatings.
    Conductive sensitizer means a coating applied to a plastic 
substrate to render it conductive for purposes of electrostatic 
application of subsequent prime, color, texture, or touch-up coats.
    Electromagnetic interference/radio frequency interference (EMI/RFI) 
shielding coating means a conductive coating that is applied to a 
plastic substrate to attenuate EMI/RFI signals.
    Fog coating (also known as mist coating and uniforming) means a 
thin coating applied to plastic parts that have molded-in color or 
texture or both to improve color uniformity.
    Nominal 1-month period means either a calendar month, 30-day month, 
accounting month, or similar monthly time period that is established 
prior to the performance test (i.e., in a statement submitted with 
notification of anticipated actual startup pursuant to Sec.  60.7(2)).
    Plastic parts means panels, housings, bases, covers, and other 
business machine components formed of synthetic polymers.
    Prime coat means the initial coat applied to a part when more than 
one coating is applied, not including conductive sensitizers or 
electromagnetic interference/radio frequency interference shielding 
coatings.
    Spray booth means the structure housing automatic or manual spray 
application equipment where a coating is applied to plastic parts for 
business machines.
    Texture coat means the rough coat that is characterized by 
discrete, raised spots on the exterior surface of the part. This 
definition does not include conductive sensitizers or EMI/RFI shielding 
coatings.
    Touch-up coat means the coat applied to correct any imperfections 
in the finish after color or texture coats have been applied. This 
definition does not include conductive sensitizers or EMI/RFI shielding 
coatings.
    Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the amount of coating solids 
deposited onto the surface of a plastic business machine part to the 
total amount of coating solids used.
    VOC emissions means the mass of VOC's emitted from the surface 
coating of plastic parts for business machines expressed as kilograms 
of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied (i.e., deposited on the 
surface).
    (b) All symbols used in this subpart not defined in this paragraph 
(b) are given meaning in the Act or subpart A of this part.
    Dc = density of each coating as received (kilograms per 
liter).
    Dd = density of each diluent VOC (kilograms per liter).
    Lc = the volume of each coating consumed, as received 
(liters).
    Ld = the volume of each diluent VOC added to coatings 
(liters).
    Ls = the volume of coating solids consumed (liters).
    Md = the mass of diluent VOC's consumed (kilograms).
    Mo = the mass of VOC's in coatings consumed, as received 
(kilograms).
    N = the volume-weighted average mass of VOC emissions to the 
atmosphere per unit volume of coating solids applied (kilograms per 
liter).
    T = the transfer efficiency for each type of application equipment 
used at a coating operation (fraction).
    Tavg = the volume-weighted average transfer efficiency 
for a coating operation (fraction).
    Vs = the proportion of solids in each coating, as 
received (fraction by volume).
    Wo = the proportion of VOC's in each coating, as 
received (fraction by weight).

Sec.  60.722a  Standards for volatile organic compounds.

    (a) Each owner or operator of any affected facility which is 
subject to the requirements of this subpart shall comply at all times 
with the emission limitations set forth in this section on and after 
the date on which the initial performance test, required by Sec. Sec.  
60.8 and 60.723 is completed, but not later than 60 days after 
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility 
will be operated, or 180 days after the initial startup, whichever date 
comes first. No affected facility shall cause the discharge into the 
atmosphere in excess of:
    (1) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied from 
prime coating of plastic parts for business machines.
    (2) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied from 
color coating of plastic parts for business machines.
    (3) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coating solids applied from 
texture coating of plastic parts for business machines.
    (4) 1.4 kilograms of VOC's per liter of coatings solids applied 
from touch-up coating of plastic parts for business machines.
    (b) All VOC emissions that are caused by coatings applied in each 
affected facility, regardless of the actual point of discharge of 
emissions into the atmosphere, shall be included in determining 
compliance with the

[[Page 18069]]

emission limits in paragraph (a) of this section.

Sec.  60.723a  Performance tests and compliance provisions.

    (a) Section 60.8(c) through (i) do not apply to the performance 
test procedures required by this section.
    (b) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an 
initial performance test as required under Sec.  60.8(a) and thereafter 
a performance test each nominal 1-month period for each affected 
facility according to the procedures in this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall determine the composition of 
coatings by analysis of each coating, as received, using Method 24 of 
appendix A-7 to this part or an acceptable alternative method, from 
data that have been determined by the coating manufacturer using Method 
24 or an acceptable alternative method. Acceptable alternative methods 
to Method 24 include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 
(all incorporated by reference; see Sec.  60.17).
    (2) The owner or operator shall determine the volume of coating and 
the mass of VOC used for dilution of coatings from company records 
during each nominal 1-month period. If a common coating distribution 
system serves more than one affected facility or serves both affected 
and nonaffected spray booths, the owner or operator shall estimate the 
volume of coatings used at each facility by using procedures approved 
by the Administrator.
    (i) The owner or operator shall calculate the volume-weighted 
average mass of VOC's in coatings emitted per unit volume of coating 
solids applied (N) at each coating operation [i.e., for each type of 
coating (prime, color, texture, and touch-up) used] during each nominal 
1-month period for each affected facility. Each 1-month calculation is 
considered a performance test. Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii) of this section, N will be determined by the following 
procedures:
    (A) Calculate the mass of VOC's used (Mo + 
Md) for each coating operation during each nominal 1-month 
period for each affected facility by the following equation:

Equation 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.004

Where n is the number of coatings of each type used during each nominal 
1-month period and m is the number of different diluent VOC's used 
during each nominal 1-month period. ([Sigma] Ldj 
Ddj will be 0 if no VOC's are added to the coatings, as 
received.)

    (B) Calculate the total volume of coating solids consumed 
(Ls) in each nominal 1-month period for each coating 
operation for each affected facility by the following equation:

Equation 2 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.005

Where n is the number of coatings of each type used during each nominal 
1-month period.

    (C) Select the appropriate transfer efficiency (T) from table 1 to 
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section for each type of coating 
applications equipment used at each coating operation. If the owner or 
operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that 
transfer efficiencies other than those shown are appropriate, the 
Administrator will approve their use on a case-by-case basis. Transfer 
efficiency values for application methods not listed in table 1 to 
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) shall be approved by the Administrator on a 
case-by-case basis. An owner or operator must submit sufficient data 
for the Administrator to judge the validity of the transfer efficiency 
claims.
    (D) Where more than one application method is used within a single 
coating operation, the owner or operator shall determine the volume of 
each coating applied by each method through a means acceptable to the 
Administrator and compute the volume-weighted average transfer 
efficiency by the following equation:

Equation 3 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.006

Where n is the number of coatings of each type used and p is the number 
of application methods used.

[[Page 18070]]

        Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D)--Transfer Efficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Transfer
        Application methods           efficiency       Type of coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Air atomized spray............            0.25  Prime, color,
                                                     texture, touch-up,
                                                     and fog coats.
(2) Air-assisted airless spray....            0.40  Prime and color
                                                     coats.
(3) Electrostatic air spray.......            0.40  Prime and color
                                                     coats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (E) Calculate the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted per 
unit volume of coating solids applied (N) during each nominal 1-month 
period for each coating operation for each affected facility by the 
following equation:

Equation 4 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR23.007

Where Tavg = T when only one type of coating operation 
occurs.

    (ii) Where the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted to the 
atmosphere per unit volume of coating solids applied (N) is less than 
or equal to 1.5 kilograms per liter for prime coats, is less than or 
equal to 1.5 kilograms per liter for color coats, is less than or equal 
to 2.3 kilograms per liter for texture coats, and is less than or equal 
to 2.3 kilograms per liter for touch-up coats, the affected facility is 
in compliance.
    (iii) If each individual coating used by an affected facility has a 
VOC content (kg VOC/l of solids), as received, which when divided by 
the lowest transfer efficiency at which the coating is applied for each 
coating operation results in a value equal to or less than 1.5 
kilograms per liter for prime and color coats and equal to or less than 
2.3 kilograms per liter for texture and touch-up coats, the affected 
facility is in compliance provided that no VOC's are added to the 
coatings during distribution or application.
    (iv) If an affected facility uses add-on controls to control VOC 
emissions and if the owner or operator can demonstrate to the 
Administrator that the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted to 
the atmosphere during each nominal 1-month period per unit volume of 
coating solids applied (N) is within each of the applicable limits 
expressed in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section because of this 
equipment, the affected facility is in compliance. In such cases, 
compliance will be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case 
basis.
    (c) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator shall specify to the plant operator based on 
representative performance of the affected facility. The owner or 
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may 
be necessary to determine the conditions of the performance tests.

Sec.  60.724a  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) The reporting requirements of Sec.  60.8(a) apply only to the 
initial performance test. Each owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall include the following data in the 
report of the initial performance test required under Sec.  60.8(a):
    (1) Except as provided for in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the 
volume-weighted average mass of VOC's emitted to the atmosphere per 
volume of applied coating solids (N) for the initial nominal 1-month 
period for each coating operation from each affected facility.
    (2) For each affected facility where compliance is determined under 
the provisions of Sec.  60.723(b)(2)(iii), a list of the coatings used 
during the initial nominal 1-month period, the VOC content of each 
coating calculated from data determined using Method 24 of appendix A-7 
to this part or an acceptable alternative method, and the lowest 
transfer efficiency at which each coating is applied during the initial 
nominal 1-month period. Acceptable alternative methods to Method 24 
include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; and ASTM D6093-97 (all 
incorporated by reference; see Sec.  60.17).
    (b) Following the initial report, each owner or operator shall:
    (1) Report the volume-weighted average mass of VOC's per unit 
volume of coating solids applied for each coating operation for each 
affected facility during each nominal 1-month period in which the 
facility is not in compliance with the applicable emission limits 
specified in Sec.  60.722. Reports of noncompliance shall be submitted 
on a quarterly basis, occurring every 3 months following the initial 
report; and
    (2) Submit statements that each affected facility has been in 
compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Sec.  
60.722 during each nominal 1-month period. Statements of compliance 
shall be submitted on a semiannual basis.
    (c) Performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, 
and semiannual statements of compliance shall be submitted as a 
portable document format (PDF) upload not later than 10 days after the 
end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section, according to paragraph (f) of this section.
    (d) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall maintain at the source, for a period of at least 2 years, 
records of all data and calculations used to determine monthly VOC 
emissions from each coating operation for each affected facility as 
specified in Sec.  60.7(d).
    (e) Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 
facilities using add-on controls will be determined by the 
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
    (f) The owner or operator must submit all performance test reports, 
quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements in PDF 
format to the EPA viathe Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the 
information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without 
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim 
as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Although we do not expect 
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for 
some of the information in the report, you must submit a complete file, 
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the 
procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark 
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. 
Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release 
without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All 
CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything 
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under 
CAA section 114(c),

[[Page 18071]]

emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA 
is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, 
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly 
available. You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office 
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier 
in this paragraph (f).
    (1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address 
[email protected], and as described in this paragraph (f), should 
include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the 
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector Lead. If 
assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed 
the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your 
own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a 
file transfer link.
    (2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Sector 
Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly 
marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    (3) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or 
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with 
the electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system 
outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) 
through (vii) of this section.
    (i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required notification or report within the time 
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the notification or 
report is due.
    (iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing 
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in submitting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
submitting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to submit, or if you have already 
met the electronic submittal requirement in this paragraph (f) at the 
time of the notification, the date you submitted the notification or 
report.
    (vi) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    (vii) In any circumstance, the notification or report must be 
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is 
resolved.
    (4) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or 
report by this paragraph (f) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the 
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, 
you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through 
(v) of this section.
    (i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a 
notification or report electronically within the time period 
prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., 
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected 
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing 
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in submitting through CEDRI.
    (iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (A) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to submit the notification or 
report, or if you have already met the electronic submittal requirement 
in this paragraph (f) at the time of the notification, the date you 
submitted the notification or report.
    (iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the submittal deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (g) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

Sec.  60.725a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) The reference methods in appendix A to this part except as 
provided under Sec.  60.8(b) shall be used to determine compliance with 
Sec.  60.722 as follows:
    (1) Method 24 of appendix A-7 to this part for determination of VOC 
content of each coating as received.
    (2) For Method 24, the sample must be at least a 1-liter sample in 
a 1-liter container.
    (b) Other methods may be used to determine the VOC content of each 
coating if approved by the Administrator before testing. Acceptable 
alternative methods to Method 24 include: ASTM D2369-20; ASTM D2697-22; 
and ASTM D6093-97 (all incorporated by reference; see Sec.  60.17).

Sec.  60.726a  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 111(c) of the Act, the authorities contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator 
and not transferred to a State.
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to the States:

[[Page 18072]]

    (1) Section 60.723a(b)(1).
    (2) Section 60.723a(b)(2)(i)(C).
    (3) Section 60.723a(b)(2)(iv).
    (4) Section 60.724a(b).
    (5) Section 60.724a(e).
    (6) Section 60.724a(f).
    (7) Section 60.725a(b).

[FR Doc. 2023-04966 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P