Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-09587

Rule2023-09587

Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

May 9, 2023

Effective

May 9, 2023

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the new source performance standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations pursuant to the review required by the Clean Air Act. The EPA determined that revisions to the NSPS were needed to reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction (BSER). The EPA is therefore finalizing, as proposed, in a new NSPS subpart MMa, revised volatile organic compound (VOC) emission limits for prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat operations for affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after May 18, 2022. In addition, in the new NSPS subpart, the EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments: the addition of work practices to minimize VOC emissions; revision of the plastic parts provision; updates to the capture and control devices and the associated testing and monitoring requirements; revision of the transfer efficiency provisions; new test methods and alternative test methods; revision of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including the addition of electronic reporting; removing exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; and other amendments to harmonize the new NSPS subpart and Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements. The EPA is also finalizing the proposed electronic reporting requirements in the NSPS subpart MM, applicable to sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, and on or before May 18, 2022.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29978-30024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09587]

[[Page 29977]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 89

May 9, 2023

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 29978]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664; FRL-8511-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV30

Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the new source performance standards for Automobile and
Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations pursuant to the review
required by the Clean Air Act. The EPA determined that revisions to the
NSPS were needed to reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the best system of emission
reduction (BSER). The EPA is therefore finalizing, as proposed, in a
new NSPS subpart MMa, revised volatile organic compound (VOC) emission
limits for prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat operations for affected
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
after May 18, 2022. In addition, in the new NSPS subpart, the EPA is
finalizing the proposed amendments: the addition of work practices to
minimize VOC emissions; revision of the plastic parts provision;
updates to the capture and control devices and the associated testing
and monitoring requirements; revision of the transfer efficiency
provisions; new test methods and alternative test methods; revision of
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including the addition of
electronic reporting; removing exemptions for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction; and other amendments to harmonize the new
NSPS subpart and Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
requirements. The EPA is also finalizing the proposed electronic
reporting requirements in the NSPS subpart MM, applicable to sources
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after
October 5, 1979, and on or before May 18, 2022.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 9, 2023. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of May 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula Deselich Hirtz, 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) 541-2618;
and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afc7c6dddbd581dfcedac3ceefcadfce81c8c0d9">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble 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:

ALDT Automobile and Light Duty Truck
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BACT best available control technology
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
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CEPCI Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System
EDP electrodeposition
EIA economic impact analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FID flame ionization detector
FR Federal Register
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
LAER lowest available control technology
kg/lacs kilograms per liter of applied coating solids
km kilometer
kwh kilowatt hours
mtCO<INF>2</INF>e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant
NMOC nonmethane organic compound(s)
Non-EDP non-electrodeposition
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OMB Office of Management and Budget
lb/gal acs pounds per gallon of applied coating solids
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACT reasonably available control technology
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
scf standard cubic feet
TE transfer efficiency
THC total hydrocarbon
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
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?
C. What is the ALDT surface coating source category regulated in
this final action?
D. What changes did we propose for the ALDT surface coating
NSPS?
III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for
such decisions?
A. Emission Limits
B. Work Practice Standards
C. Plastic Parts Provision
D. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Provisions
E. Transfer Efficiency Provisions
F. NSPS Subpart MMa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
Exemptions
G. Electronic Reporting
H. Test Methods
I. Other Final Amendments
J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the energy 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?

[[Page 29979]]

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 of 1995 (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
automobile and light duty truck (ALDT) surface coating operations
regulated under CAA section 111 NSPS. The 2022 North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes for the ALDT manufacturing industry
are 336111 (automotive manufacturing), 336112 (light truck and utility
vehicle manufacturing), and 336211 (manufacturing of truck and bus
bodies and cabs and automobile bodies). The NAICS codes serve as a
guide for readers outlining the types of entities that this final
action is likely to affect. We estimate that 60 facilities engaged in
ALDT manufacturing will be affected by this final action. The NSPS
requirements finalized in this action and codified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa are directly applicable to affected facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022, which
is the date of publication of the proposed NSPS subpart MMa in the
Federal Register. The requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM are
applicable to affected facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, but that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification no later than May 18,
2022. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities will not be
affected by this final 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 MM and MMa, and consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state or local air
pollution control agency with delegated authority for the 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new</a>. 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 July 10, 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 Administrator 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 should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room
3000, WJC South 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 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

[[Page 29980]]

111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new sources that
reflect that level of stringency.
CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate
``a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof'' if in his or her judgment, ``it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under which prescribing or
enforcing a standard of performance is ``not feasible,'' such as, when
the pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit
or capture the pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement
methodology for the particular class of sources. Except as authorized
under CAA section 111(h), 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 to, at least every 8 years, 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
review and revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the
statutory factors, which may include consideration of the following
information:
<bullet> Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current
standards are achieved in practice.
<bullet> Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
<bullet> The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
<bullet> Any non-air 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 2 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 the ALDT surface coating source category regulated in this
final action?

Pursuant to the CAA section 111 authority described earlier in this
preamble, the EPA listed the ALDT surface coating source category under
CAA section 111(b)(1). 44 FR 49222, 49226 (August 21, 1979). The EPA
first promulgated NSPS for ALDT surface coating operations on December
24, 1980 (45 FR 85415; December 24, 1980). The 1980 ALDT NSPS are
codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM and are applicable to sources
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after
October 5, 1979 (ALDT NSPS MM). The ALDT NSPS MM regulate VOC emissions
from surface coating operations located at automobile and light duty
truck assembly plants. Subpart MM was amended in a series of actions
and the last amendment was promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 51383; October
11, 1994).
The ALDT surface coating source category consists of each prime
coat operation, each guide coat operation, and each topcoat operation
in an automobile or light duty truck assembly plant. Subpart MM
requires a monthly compliance demonstration with the VOC emission limit
established for each surface coating operation:

[[Page 29981]]

<bullet> For prime coat operations:
[cir] For electrodeposition (EDP) prime coat: 0.17 to 0.34
kilograms VOC/liter applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs) (1.42 to 2.84
lbs VOC/gallon (gal) acs) depending on the solids turnover ratio
(R<INF>T</INF>); for R<INF>T</INF> greater than 0.16, the limit is 0.17
kg VOC/l acs (1.42 lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios less than 0.04,
there is no emission limit.
[cir] For non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat: 0.17 kg VOC/l acs
(1.42 lb VOC/gal acs);
<bullet> For guide coat operations: 1.40 kg VOC/l acs (11.7 lb VOC/
gal acs); and
<bullet> For topcoat operations: 1.47 kg VOC/l acs (12.3 lb VOC/gal
acs).
Subpart MM provides default transfer efficiencies (TE) for various
surface coating application methods for the monthly compliance
calculation. The default TE values in subpart MM also account for the
recovery of purge solvent. The monthly compliance calculation also
includes control device VOC destruction efficiency as determined by the
initial or the most recent control device performance test. The control
devices identified in the ALDT NSPS MM include thermal and catalytic
oxidizers. In addition, subpart MM requires continuous monitoring of
thermal and catalytic oxidizer operating temperatures. Quarterly or
semiannual reporting is required to report emission limit exceedances
and negative reports are required for no exceedances. Surface coating
operations for plastic body components or all-plastic automobile or
light-duty truck bodies on separate coating lines are exempted from the
ALDT NSPS MM. However, the attachment of plastic body parts to a metal
body before the body is coated does not cause the metal body coating
operation to be exempted. Additional detail on the ALDT surface coating
source category and ALDT NSPS MM requirements are provided in the
proposal (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022).
The EPA estimates that the ALDT NSPS MM currently affects surface
coating operations at 44 ALDT assembly plants operating in the U.S.
ALDT NSPS MM sources and will be subject to the electronic reporting
amendments being finalized by this action. The EPA also expects that an
additional 16 ALDT assembly plants will commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the affected surface coating
operations over the next 8 years (after May 18, 2022). These new
sources will be subject to the new ALDT NSPS MMa being finalized in
this action.
The EPA proposed the current review of the ALDT NSPS MM on May 18,
2022 (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). We received 5 comment letters from
the affected industry, the industry association, environmental groups,
and a state environmental agency during the comment period. In
addition, we met with the affected industry and the industry
association on December 8 and 13, 2022. A summary of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and
our responses are provided in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the document titled, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule: New Source Performance
Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM) Best System of Emission
Reduction Review, Final Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664.
Additional information provided by the affected industry and the
industry association in meetings held on December 8 and 13, 2022, to
support their written comments and meeting minutes are provided in
separate memoranda available in the docket. A ``track changes'' version
of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this final
action for ALDT NSPS MM is also available in the docket. In this
action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions pursuant CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B) review for the ALDT surface coating source
category after our consideration of all the comments received.

D. What changes did we propose for the ALDT surface coating NSPS?

The EPA proposed the results of the CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review of the
ALDT NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM on May 18, 2022 (87 FR 30141; May
18, 2022). The EPA proposed to codify the revisions to the ALDT NSPS MM
in a new NSPS subpart, MMa. In the new subpart MMa, the EPA proposed
requirements that apply to sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022. The revisions
proposed to be codified in subpart MMa were: revised VOC emission
limits for the prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat operations; the
addition of work practices to minimize VOC emissions; revision of the
plastic parts provision; updates to the capture and control devices and
the associated testing and monitoring requirements; revision of the
transfer efficiency provisions; revision of the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements; the addition of electronic reporting;
clarification of the requirements for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM); new test methods and incorporation by reference
(IBR) of alternative methods; minor corrections and clarifications; and
other amendments to harmonize the new NSPS subpart requirements with
the Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII
(ALDT NESHAP) requirements.
The EPA also proposed electronic reporting requirements in subpart
MM, which applies to affected sources that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, and on or before
May 18, 2022.

III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such
decisions?

The EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for the ALDT surface
coating source category pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review.
The EPA is promulgating the NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart MMa. Subpart MMa is applicable to affected sources
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after May 18, 2022. This action
also finalizes revisions to ALDT NSPS subpart MM. Subpart MM is
applicable to affected sources that are constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after October 5, 1979, but on or before May 18, 2022.
The final requirements in subpart MMa include the following
revisions that the EPA proposed: VOC emission limits for the prime
coat, guide coat, and topcoat operations; work practices to minimize
VOC emissions; plastic parts provision; capture and control devices and
the associated testing and monitoring requirements; transfer efficiency
provisions; recordkeeping and reporting requirements; electronic
reporting; requirements for periods of SSM; test methods and IBR of
alternative methods; and other requirements to harmonize the new NSPS
subpart MMa requirements with the Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, 63 subpart IIII (ALDT NESHAP) requirements.
The final requirements also include the addition of electronic
reporting requirements in subpart MM, which applies to affected sources
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after
October 5, 1979, but on or before May 18, 2022.

A. Emission Limits

The EPA is finalizing VOC emission limits in new subpart MMa for
each

[[Page 29982]]

prime coat operation, each guide coat operation, and each topcoat
operation in an automobile or light duty truck assembly plant,
calculated monthly. For the prime coat operation, we are finalizing the
proposed numeric limit with the addition of a solids turnover ratio
(R<INF>T</INF>) in response to comments. For the guide coat and topcoat
operations we are finalizing the proposed numeric limits.
<bullet> For prime coat operations:
[cir] Electrodeposition (EDP) prime coat, 0.027 to 0.055 kilograms
VOC/liter applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs) (0.23 to 0.46 lbs VOC/
gal acs) depending on the solids turnover ratio (R<INF>T</INF>) when
R<INF>T</INF> is between 0.04 and 0.16; For R<INF>T</INF> greater than
0.16, the limit is 0.027 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for
turnover ratios less than 0.04, there is no emission limit.
[cir] Non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat, 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23
lb VOC/gal acs).
<bullet> For guide coat operations, 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/
gal acs); and
<bullet> For topcoat operations, 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal
acs).
For prime coat operations, the final VOC emission limit reflects
the EPA's determination that use of waterborne prime coat applied by
EDP with control of the curing oven emissions with thermal oxidation
that is capable of achieving 95 percent destruction or removal
efficiency (DRE) represents the updated BSER for this surface coating
operation. The final emission limit for EDP prime coat operations in
subpart MMa includes the R<INF>T</INF>, which is a factor in
determining compliance with the VOC emission limit for the prime coat
in the current subpart MM. EPA determined the final emission limit for
the prime coat operation was cost effective.
For guide coat operations, the final VOC limit reflects the EPA's
determination that use of waterborne or solvent borne guide coats
applied by spray application with control of the waterborne flash off
area or control of the solvent borne booth and oven with either a
carbon adsorber concentrator and an RTO or just an RTO, with the RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions represents the
updated BSER for this surface coating operation. The final emission
limit for guide coat operations in subpart MMa is based on facilities
that are subject to and achieve the emission limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l acs
(2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) by using either: (1) waterborne guide coat with
control of the flash off area with a carbon adsorber concentrator and
an RTO but no control of the booth; or (2) solvent borne guide coat and
control of the booth and oven with either a carbon adsorber
concentrator and an RTO or just an RTO, with the RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions. The EPA determined the final
emission limit for the guide coat operation was cost effective.
For topcoat operations, the final VOC limit reflects the EPA's
determination that the use of waterborne basecoats and solvent borne
clearcoats applied by spray application with control of the waterborne
basecoat booth and/or the flash off area and control of the solvent
borne clearcoat booth, flash off area, and topcoat oven with an RTO or
a combination of a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions represents the updated BSER for
this surface coating operation. The final emission limit for topcoat
operations in subpart MMa is based on facilities that are subject to
and achieve the emission limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal
acs) by using: (1) waterborne basecoat with control of the booth and/or
the flash off area with a combination of a concentrator and an RTO; and
(2) solvent borne clearcoat with control of the automated sections of
the clearcoat booth, the clearcoat flash off area and the topcoat oven
with an RTO or a combination of a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions. The EPA determined
the final emission limit for the topcoat operation was cost effective.
The EPA identified and considered more stringent emission limits in
its review that were not selected for the proposed and final actions.
The more stringent emission limits were not selected because the EPA
determined they were based on coating technology that was not
adequately demonstrated by the industry (i.e., powder coating for the
guide coat operation) or because the EPA determined they were not cost
effective (i.e., lower limits for the EDP prime coat and topcoat
operations).
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA conducted a BSER
review of the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM and presented
the results of this review, along with our proposed determinations, in
section IV.A of the proposed rule preamble (87 FR 30147; May 18, 2022).
A detailed discussion of our review and proposed determinations are
included in the memorandum titled, Final Rule Best System of Emission
Reduction Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck Source Category (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM),
available in the docket for this action. Based on our review, we
proposed revised VOC emission limits for each prime coat operation,
each guide coat operation, and each topcoat operation in an automobile
or light duty truck assembly plant. The final VOC emission limits are
based on the proposed VOC emission limits and the revisions made in
response to comments we received, as described here.
1. Prime Coat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
For the prime coat operation, at proposal, the EPA evaluated 2
regulatory options based on facilities using an EDP prime coat dip tank
system. Both options were more stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM limit
for prime coat operations. The options were based on 19 facilities with
28 EDP prime coat operations that are currently subject to more
stringent prime coat limits than the ALDT NSPS MM prime coat limit.
The first option was a numerical VOC emission limit of 0.028 kg
VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs) based on control of the curing oven
emissions only with thermal oxidation (e.g., an RTO) achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions. This VOC emission limit is
demonstrated by 13 of the 44 existing ALDT facilities and the EPA
determined the cost effectiveness for this option to be $6,800/ton of
VOC reduced. The EPA considered this option to be cost-effective over
the baseline level of control and to be consistent with one of the
compliance options for EDP prime coat systems in the ALDT NESHAP.
The second option was a numerical VOC emission limit of 0.005 kg/l
acs (0.040 lb VOC/gal acs) based on control of both the oven and the
tank emissions with an RTO capable of achieving 95 percent DRE. Four
plants control the emissions from the EDP prime coat dip tank in
addition to the oven emissions with some form of thermal oxidation. At
proposal, the EPA determined the second option to be not cost-effective
and not reflective of BSER because the cost effectiveness of
controlling the tank emissions was estimated to be $91,100 per ton of
VOC reduced. In addition, the EPA estimated the second option would
only achieve an additional 3 tpy of VOC reductions over the first
option and would have an estimated incremental cost effectiveness of
$46,000 per ton of VOC reduced compared to the first option. Due to the
poor cost-effectiveness of this option relative to the baseline level
of control and the likewise unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness
of this option when

[[Page 29983]]

compared to the first option, we rejected the second option as the
BSER.
The EPA proposed the first option of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb
VOC/gal acs) with a cost effectiveness of $6,800/ton of VOC reduced,
which reflects the EPA's determination that control of the curing oven
emissions with thermal oxidation that is capable of achieving 95
percent DRE represents the updated BSER for the prime coat operations.
The proposed emission limit for the EDP prime coat operation did not
include the solids turnover ratio (R<INF>T</INF>), which is a factor in
determining compliance with the VOC emission limit for the prime coat
dip tank in the subpart MM. This factor was not proposed because it is
not included in the facility permits with more stringent limits than
the current prime coat operation VOC limits, which were the basis of
our revised BSER determination (87 FR 30148, May 18, 2022). We also
proposed a non-EDP limit of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs)
for spray application of the prime coat based on industry input.
b. How the Final Revisions to Prime Coat Limits Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
As a result of comments received for the prime coat operation, in
subpart MMa the EPA is finalizing a revised prime coat operation limit
with the inclusion of the solids turnover ratio (R<INF>T</INF>). The
EPA is promulgating the following limits for the prime coat operation
in 40 CFR 60.392a depending on the solids turnover ratio
(R<INF>T</INF>); for R<INF>T</INF> greater than 0.16, the limit is
0.027 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios less than
0.04 (i.e., periods of non-production), there is no emission limit; and
when the solids turnover ratio is between 0.04 and 0.16 (inclusive),
the emission limit is determined using the following equation:
Limit = 0.027 x 350 (0.160-R<INF>T</INF>) kg of VOC per
liter of applied coating solids. The EPA is also including the
definition of solids turnover ratio in 40 CFR 60.391a.
c. Prime Coat Limits Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter stated that the subpart MMa prime coat
operation standards should reflect a modern E-coat system with VOC
controls on emissions from the curing oven. According to the commenter,
anything more would not be cost-effective and would only reduce
insignificant amounts of VOC.
Response: As a result of the BSER determination for the prime coat
operation, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, standards that reflect a
modern EDP prime coat (E-coat) system with control of VOC emissions
from the curing oven. The final prime coat operation standard reflects
a numeric limit of 0.23 lb VOC/gal acs with a cost effectiveness of
$6,800/ton VOC reduced, as proposed. The EPA estimates the VOC emission
reduction associated this final limit to be 40 tpy compared to the 1980
NSPS baseline level of control.
Comment: Two commenters asserted that the EPA must include the
solids turnover ratio factor in the emission limit for prime coat
operation. Regarding the decision to exclude the option of utilizing
the solids turnover for prime coat compliance demonstrations, one
commenter stated that the EPA needs to review the extensive data and
supporting comments that served as the basis for the 1994 final rule
that established the prime coat limits as a function of the solids
turnover ratio. The commenter stated that the rationale was compelling
then, and it is equally compelling now, and that the EPA has not
adequately explained how prime coat downtime or reduced throughput
would be accommodated under the newly proposed standard and why a
change is needed. The commenter stated that eliminating consideration
of the solids turnover ratio would be arbitrary and capricious. With
the solids turnover ratio, the commenter stated, the prime coat limit
of 0.23 lbs VOC/gal acs can be achieved when the solids turnover ratio
is greater than or equal to 0.16. One commenter asserted that without
the adjusted emission limit for low solid turnover ratios, the
commenter could not achieve the existing NSPS limit.
Response: In the proposal the EPA noted that ALDT prime coat
operation permit limits did not include a factor to account for the
solids turnover ratio, and the EPA understood that to mean that
facilities currently using the EDP prime coat process are now able to
consistently maintain the solids turnover ratio (R<INF>T</INF>) at a
value equal to or greater than 0.16 (87 FR 30148, May 18, 2022).
Therefore, we proposed a prime coat limit of 0.23 lbs VOC/gal acs based
on sources' control of the curing oven emissions with thermal oxidation
(e.g., an RTO) achieving 95 percent DRE without the R<INF>T</INF>
factor. After consideration of the 1994 final rule (59 FR 51383,
October 11, 1994) and in response to the commenters' argument, we are
retaining the R<INF>T</INF> factor to account for periods of non-
production and reduced throughput. Thus, the EPA is promulgating the
following limits in 40 CFR 60.392a depending on the solids turnover
ratio (R<INF>T</INF>); for R<INF>T</INF> greater than 0.16, the limit
is 0.027 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios less
than 0.04 (periods of non-production), there is no emission limit; and
when the solids turnover ratio is between 0.04 and 0.16 (inclusive),
the emission limit is determined using the following equation:

Limit = 0.027 x 350 (0.160-R<INF>T</INF>) kg of VOC per
liter of applied coating solids
2. Guide Coat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
For the guide coat operation, at proposal the EPA evaluated four
regulatory options. These regulatory options were more stringent than
the ALDT NSPS MM limit of 1.40 kg VOC/l acs (11.7 lb VOC/gal acs).
These options were based on 14 facilities with 31 guide coat operations
subject to more stringent guide coat limits than the current ALDT NSPS
MM guide coat limit (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). The guide coat
emission limits found in permits for facilities using liquid coatings
that were more stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM limit ranged from 0.060
to 1.21 kg VOC/l acs (0.050 to 10.11 lb VOC/gal acs) and 27 of the 31
guide coat operations were subject to limits less than or equal to 0.69
kg VOC/l acs (5.5 lb VOC/gal acs). Three of the 31 guide coat
operations with limits more stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM are meeting
a lower emission limit (less than 0.060 kg VOC/l acs (0.050 lb VOC/gal
acs)) or have no emission limit based on the use of powder guide coat
and no controls.
The first option evaluated at proposal for the guide coat operation
was a numerical VOC emission limit of 0.57 kg VOC/l acs (4.8 lb VOC/gal
acs) to reflect control of the guide coat oven with an RTO achieving 95
percent DRE and use of solvent borne or waterborne coating and no
control of the guide coat spray booth or heated flash off area
exhausts. The facilities using this system of emission reduction had
limits in the range of 0.41 to 0.66 kg VOC/l acs (3.46 to 5.5 lb VOC/
gal acs). This limit option was selected because it is the most common
numerical limit for these facilities and matches the operating permit
limit for 9 facilities with this control scenario. The EPA estimated
that this option would reduce emissions from a typical guide coat
operation by about 40 tpy of VOC at a cost of $4,400 per ton of VOC
reduced.
The second option evaluated was a VOC emission limit of 0.35 kg
VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect control of the guide coat
spray booth and oven with either a carbon adsorber and an

[[Page 29984]]

RTO or a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE
of the captured emissions and the use of solvent borne guide coat. This
VOC emission limit matches the 2020 presumptive best available control
technology (BACT) emission limit for the guide coat operation
identified by EPA Region 5, and 2 facilities are currently subject to
this limit. The EPA estimated that this option would reduce emissions
from a typical guide coat operation by about 50 tpy of VOC at a cost of
$4,900 per ton of VOC reduced.
The third option was a VOC emission limit of 0.036 kg VOC/l acs
(0.30 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect the use of a waterborne guide coat
demonstrated by 1 facility employing the use of a 3-wet coating
process. As described in the proposal, in a 3-wet process the guide
coat and topcoat operations are combined, and the guide coat oven is
replaced by a heated flash off area, resulting in lower emissions from
the guide coat operation and a more efficient process in terms of time
and energy savings for the facility. The process consists of a series
of 2 separate booths with heated flash off areas for partial cure (one
for the guide coat and one for the basecoat), followed by a clearcoat
booth, a flash off area, and a topcoat oven (where the guide coat, the
basecoat, and the topcoat are fully cured). Only one facility with 2
guide coat operations is subject to this VOC emission limit (0.036 kg
VOC/l acs (0.30 lb VOC/gal acs)) and uses the 3-wet process for the
guide coat operation. The costs associated with this option are for
controlling the guide coat heated flash off area emissions with an RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions. The EPA estimated
that this option would reduce emissions (from a typical guide coat
operation) by about 73 tpy of VOC at a cost of $3,250 per ton of VOC
reduced. As discussed in the proposal, although this option is cost-
effective when considering the cost of controls, the emission limit
would be achievable only for guide coat operations as part of a 3-wet
combined guide coat and topcoat operation. Further, it would be not
cost-effective for the purposes of this BSER analysis due to the major
capital investment associated with reconfiguring the guide coat
operation so that it could become part of a 3-wet combined guide coat
and topcoat operation.
The fourth option we considered was a numerical VOC limit of 0.016
kg VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect the use of a powder guide
coat, instead of a liquid coating. One facility is subject to an
emission limit of 0.016 kg VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs), and 3
facilities either are subject to a lower emission limit than 0.016 kg
VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) or have no emission limit based on the
use of powder guide coat and no controls. As discussed in the proposal,
operations using powder coatings are essentially non-emitting
operations because the dry powder coating has no solvent. Therefore,
guide coat operations using powder coatings emit virtually no VOCs from
the booth, flash off area(s), or curing oven. The use of powder for the
guide coat operation could eliminate all VOC emissions from a typical
guide coat operation with no additional control costs and could be the
best environmental outcome. However, the industry has experienced
difficulties (including appearance and finish quality) with the
application of powder coatings to ALDT vehicle bodies, so we considered
this option to be not adequately demonstrated. Further, it would not be
cost-effective for the purposes of this BSER analysis for a
reconstructed or modified operation due to the major capital investment
associated with switching the guide coat operation from a liquid
coating application to a powder coating application.
After consideration of all guide coat options, the EPA proposed a
revised VOC limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) for the
guide coat operation based on Option 2, being the use of solvent borne
guide coat and 95 percent control of the spray booth and oven with
either a carbon adsorber and an RTO or a concentrator and an RTO, with
the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions, as the
updated BSER for guide coat operation. This option also represents the
lower range of emission limits for facilities using solvent borne guide
coats and is demonstrated by 3 of 44 existing ALDT plants.
b. How the Final Revisions to Guide Coat Limits Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed revisions to the
guide coat emission limit, the EPA is finalizing the guide coat
operation VOC emission limit as proposed.
c. Guide Coat Comments and Responses
The EPA received comments on the guide coat operation that caused
us to further evaluate the use of waterborne and solvent borne coatings
and to investigate the controls used for each, as described in the EPA
response in this section.
Comment: One commenter asserted that reliance on New Source Review
(NSR) BACT and LAER determinations in setting subpart MMa emissions
standards would result in unreasonably constrained national standards.
For example, according to the commenter, the proposed guide coat
standard based on a BACT determination for solvent-based systems using
add-on booth controls does not reasonably or adequately accommodate
waterborne guide coat systems.
The commenter also provided determinations for 2 case studies for
guide coat operations with BACT limits in ALDT plants located in the
state of Indiana to support their claim that the proposed subpart MMa
emissions standards for the guide coat operations are not cost-
effective for sources using waterborne coatings. The commenter stated
the standards must be adjusted to avoid the need to install cost-
ineffective spray booth controls on waterborne guide coat lines.
Response: The EPA considered the VOC emission limits in ALDT plant
title V permits in its BSER analysis, including those that were derived
from BACT determinations. The EPA did not consider the limits that were
derived from LAER determinations in its BSER analysis, except for
limits that were determined to be both BACT and LAER. The EPA
considered these VOC emission limits in its BSER review because they
represented the best available control technology at the time, were
developed by the individual ALDT plants, are inherently cost-effective,
and were approved by state and local permitting authorities. However,
as required by CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA conducted its own
cost-effectiveness and other analyses to determine BSER, as described
in the proposal (87 FR 30141, May 18, 2022).
The EPA disagrees that the proposed guide coat standard is based on
a BACT determination for solvent-based systems using add-on booth
controls that does not reasonably or adequately accommodate waterborne
guide coat systems. In our review of guide coat operations, we
generally found that most operations use solvent borne coatings.
However, for guide coat operations with VOC emission limits lower than
the 1980 ALDT NSPS limit, we found 8 operations using a waterborne
coating (the rest use a solvent borne coating). For guide coat
operations, we are clarifying the description included in the proposal
for the 2 cost-effective options (Option 1 and Option 2) to distinguish
between the use of waterborne basecoat and solvent borne coatings, as
described here.

[[Page 29985]]

The first option for guide coat operations was represented by
plants using either waterborne or solvent borne coatings achieving a
numerical VOC emission limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs (0.57 kg VOC/l acs).
We found that plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs limit using
waterborne guide coat had no control of the booth or flash off area
(for 3-wet operations) or controlled the guide coat oven with an RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions (if not a 3-wet
operation). Plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs limit using solvent
borne guide coat generally control one of the following: the guide coat
spray booth, the guide coat flash off area, or the guide coat oven (if
not a 3-wet operation).
The second proposed option for guide coat operations was
represented by plants using either waterborne or solvent borne coatings
achieving a numerical VOC emission limit of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs (0.35
kg VOC/l acs). We found that plants subject to and achieving the 2.92
lb VOC/gal acs limit used either: (1) waterborne guide coat and control
of the flash off area with no control of the booth; or (2) solvent
borne guide coat and control of the booth and oven with either a carbon
adsorber and an RTO or a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions.
During our review since proposal, we updated the cost effectiveness
calculations for the guide coat operation by increasing the interest
rate to 7 percent and the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI)
to the 2021 index, to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness
between two guide coat options and found it to be reasonable at $6,670/
ton VOC reduced. We determined this incremental cost effectiveness has
a lower cost per ton of VOC reduced than the cost effectiveness for the
prime coat operation ($6,800/ton VOC reduced) and results in greater
VOC emission reductions (147 tpy compared to 40 tpy for prime coat)
when compared to the 1980 NSPS baseline level of control.
The EPA also collected compliance data from one ALDT plant cited by
the commenter, Subaru of Indiana, covering the period from 2019 to 2021
and these data show that the waterborne guide coat operations are
consistently achieving a daily emission rate of 2.1 to 2.2 lb VOC/gal
acs. These achieved emission rates are about 75 percent of the proposed
monthly emission rate of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs. The waterborne guide coat
operations at Subaru Indiana Automotive are subject to a BACT emission
limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs, and do not apply emission reductions from
any add-on controls to achieve compliance. These data support the EPA's
proposed emission limit of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs and the determination
that this emission limit is achievable in a cost-effective manner for
both waterborne and solvent borne guide coat systems.
Therefore, the EPA disagrees that the proposed standard does not
reasonably or adequately accommodate waterborne guide coat systems and
is finalizing the guide coat emission limit, as proposed. Additional
detail is provided in the memorandum titled, Final Cost and
Environmental Impacts Memo for Surface Coating Operations in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for this action.
Comment: One commenter recommended a guide coat standard of 4.8 lb
VOC/gal acs for new and reconstructed facilities. This standard has
been achieved in the ALDT sector in cases where a waterborne guide coat
is used with VOC controls on the oven, but no additional VOC controls
on the booth. For modifications, the commenter recommended the EPA
maintain in subpart MMa the subpart MM VOC emission limit for guide
coat operations. The commenter stated that the EPA has not considered
the cost-effectiveness to implement a lower standard in the event of a
modification of a guide coat affected facility.
Response: As a result of the BSER review, the EPA has determined
that a guide coat standard of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs reflects BSER for
new, reconstructed, and modified sources. We found this option to be
achievable for both waterborne and solvent borne coating applications
and the emission limit is consistent with the 2020 presumptive BACT
emission limit identified by U.S. EPA Region 5. Contrary to the
commenter's statement, we found that plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/
gal acs limit used waterborne guide coat and no control of the booth or
flash off area. This numeric limit would represent no change from the
1980 NSPS MM level of no control for waterborne guide coat operations
(i.e., the 1980 limit and the limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs could both be
achieved by plants with no add-control of the waterborne guide coat
operations). Our analysis indicates that waterborne guide coat
operations can achieve a limit of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs by controlling
the emissions from the waterborne guide coat flash off area. The EPA
identified this as the difference between the 2 guide coat options with
an incremental cost effectiveness of $6,670 per ton of VOC reduced.
During our review we identified no modifications (consistent with
part 60 definitions and proposed subpart MMa exceptions) for guide coat
operations. Instead, we found that guide coat systems are newly
constructed or reconstructed (and not modified) at existing ALDT
plants. Subpart MMa would not be triggered if the changes to an
existing system do not meet either the part 60 definition of
modification or the subpart MMa exceptions for modifications. For these
reasons subpart MM did not include separate emission limits for guide
coat modifications, and separate emission limits were not proposed for
the new subpart MMa. The commenter also provided no data or information
to support a separate emission limit for modifications. Therefore, we
are finalizing the proposed standard for the guide coat operation,
including for modifications.
Additional detailed on modifications for ALDT affected facilities
is provided in the document titled, Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rule: New Source Performance Standards for
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part
60, subpart MM) Best System of Emission Reduction Review, Final
Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664.
3. Topcoat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
The ALDT NSPS subpart MM topcoat limit is based on the application
of topcoat in one booth. It is also based on no control of waterborne
topcoats (e.g., waterborne base coat and clearcoat) if used, or based
on 95-percent control of the topcoat booth and oven VOC emissions if
solvent borne topcoats (solvent borne base coat and clearcoat) are used
with a thermal or catalytic oxidizer.
For the topcoat operation, at proposal, the EPA evaluated 2
regulatory options. These regulatory options were more stringent than
the ALDT NSPS MM limit of 1.47 kg VOC/l acs (12.3 lb VOC/gal acs).
These options were based on 20 facilities operating approximately 25
topcoat lines that are subject to more stringent topcoat limits than
the topcoat VOC limit in the ALDT NSPS MM (87 FR 30150; May 18, 2022).
The topcoat VOC emission limits more stringent than the current ALDT
NSPS MM range from 0.28 to 1.44 kg VOC/l acs (2.32 to 12.0 lb VOC/gal
acs). The regulatory options include the use of add-on controls for
both waterborne and solvent borne basecoats and the use of add-on

[[Page 29986]]

controls for solvent borne clearcoats (the EPA is not aware of any
facilities in the U.S. using waterborne clearcoats).
The first option evaluated in the ALDT NSPS review for the topcoat
operation is a numerical topcoat limit of 0.62 kg VOC/l acs (5.20 lb
VOC/gal acs) demonstrated by 6 facilities with 11 topcoat operations
with control of the clearcoat spray booth and the topcoat oven with a
concentrator, such as a carbon adsorber or rotary carbon adsorber,
followed by a thermal oxidizer, usually an RTO achieving 95 percent DRE
of the captured emissions. The EPA estimated this option would reduce
VOC emissions from a typical topcoat operation by 110 tpy of VOC at a
cost of $5,200 per ton of VOC reduced.
The second option considered by the EPA for the topcoat operation
is a numerical topcoat limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs)
demonstrated by 2 facilities operating 3 coating lines (corrected in
this final action to reflect 3 facilities operating 4 coating lines)
with control of the basecoat spray booth and/or the basecoat flash off
area, as well as the clearcoat spray booth and topcoat oven. The add-on
controls used by facilities include a thermal oxidizer, usually an RTO
achieving 95 percent control of the captured emissions and a
concentrator, such as a carbon adsorber or rotary carbon adsorber
before the RTO (same as the first option). For this option, the
emissions from the basecoat spray booth and/or the basecoat flash off
area would also be routed to the concentrator before going to the RTO.
This option also represents the lower range of emission limits for
topcoat operations using solvent borne basecoat and clearcoats and it
matches the 2020 presumptive BACT emission limit identified by EPA
Region 5. The EPA estimated that this option would reduce emissions
from a typical topcoat operation by 160 tpy of VOC at a cost of $7,900
per ton of VOC reduced (corrected in this final action). The EPA
proposed a revised VOC limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs)
for the topcoat operation based on Option 2.
After consideration of the 2 topcoat options, the EPA proposed
option 2, a revised VOC limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal
acs) for the topcoat operation based on control of the basecoat spray
booth and/or the basecoat heated flash off area, as well as the
clearcoat booth and the topcoat oven with an RTO or a combination of a
concentrator and RTO, with the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE of the
captured emissions.
b. How the Final Revisions to Topcoat Limits Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed revisions to the
topcoat emission limit, the EPA is finalizing the topcoat operation VOC
emission limit, as proposed.
c. Topcoat Comments and Responses
Similar to the guide coat operation, the EPA received comments on
the topcoat operation that caused us to further evaluate the use of
waterborne and solvent borne coatings and to further investigate the
controls used for each. This evaluation resulted in the finding that
topcoat operations using a waterborne basecoat and achieving the 3.53
lb VOC/gal acs limit are doing so by controlling the waterborne
basecoat booth and/or flash off area, as stated in the EPA response in
this section. During this evaluation we also updated the cost
effectiveness calculations for the topcoat operation by increasing the
interest rate to 7 percent and the CEPCI to the 2021 index, we made a
correction to the proposed topcoat cost effectiveness calculations, and
we estimated the incremental cost effectiveness between the two topcoat
options.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA cannot use Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits by themselves as a basis for
setting national emissions standards, but that PSD permits do provide
useful information as to what emissions control alternatives should be
rejected, since state permitting agencies routinely use incremental
cost-effectiveness analysis in assessing emissions control alternatives
in PSD permitting. The commenter provided determinations for 2 case
studies for topcoat operations with BACT limits in the state of Indiana
to support their claim that the proposed subpart MMa emissions
standards for the topcoat operations are not cost-effective for sources
using waterborne coatings. The commenter stated the standards must be
adjusted to avoid the need to install cost-ineffective spray booth
controls on waterborne topcoat lines.
Response: CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to conduct its
own cost effectiveness determination as part of the BSER analysis. As
part of that analysis, the EPA also considered these same topcoat
operations identified by the commenter in the 2 case studies cited by
the commenter in its BSER review. The BACT limits referred to by the
commenter, reflected in the ALDT plants' title V operating permits, are
lower than the 1980 subpart MM emissions limits for topcoat operations.
Thus, even the examples provided by the commenters indicate that ALDT
plants can achieve a greater level of emission reductions in topcoat
operations than the current standards. In addition, the EPA identified
topcoat operations achieving lower VOC emission limits than those
reflected in the 2 case studies and determined the proposed limit for
the topcoat operation is achievable and cost-effective.
In our review of topcoat operations, we found that more plants use
waterborne than solvent borne coatings for the basecoat and that all
plants use solvent borne clearcoats. For topcoat operations, we are
clarifying the description of the 2 cost-effective options included in
the proposal to better distinguish between the use of waterborne and
solvent borne coatings, as described here.
For topcoat operations, the first option was represented by plants
achieving a BACT limit of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs by controlling the solvent
borne clearcoat process only and no control of the waterborne basecoat
part of the topcoat operation. We found that plants achieving a limit
of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs used: (1) waterborne basecoat and no control of
the basecoat booth and no control of the heated flash off area; and (2)
solvent borne clearcoat with control of the automated sections of the
clearcoat booth and the clearcoat flash off area and the topcoat
(combined basecoat and clearcoat) oven. The automated sections of the
solvent borne clearcoat booth are controlled by either an RTO or a
combination of a concentrator and an RTO. The concentrators include a
carbon or zeolite adsorber (either a dual bed system or rotary wheel
system) before the RTO, and most RTOs achieve greater than 95 percent
DRE of the captured emissions. The topcoat oven is controlled with an
RTO that achieves 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions. For topcoat
operations using a waterborne basecoat, this numeric limit would
represent no change from the 1980 NSPS level of no add-on control of
the waterborne basecoat. For topcoat operations using a solvent borne
clearcoat, this numeric limit would represent an increase from the 1980
NSPS level of add-on control (control of the automated sections of the
clearcoat booth and flash off area). Therefore, the cost effectiveness
for this option reflects the emission reductions and costs associated
with controlling the solvent borne clearcoat process.
For topcoat operations, the proposed second option was represented
by plants achieving a BACT limit of 3.53 lb

[[Page 29987]]

VOC/gal acs by controlling both the waterborne basecoat and solvent
borne clearcoat parts of the topcoat operation. We found that plants
achieving a limit of 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs limit used: (1) waterborne
basecoat with control of the booth and/or the flash off area with an
RTO; and (2) solvent borne clearcoat with control of the automated
sections of the clearcoat booth, the clearcoat flash off area and the
topcoat (combined basecoat and clearcoat) oven, as described in the
first topcoat option. For waterborne basecoat operations, this numeric
limit represents an increase in the level of control (control of the
waterborne basecoat booth and/or flash off area) compared to the 1980
NSPS (no control). For solvent borne clearcoat operations, this numeric
limit represents the same increase in the level of control (compared to
the 1980 NSPS) as the first topcoat option (by adding control of the
automated sections of the clearcoat booth and flash off area), and no
change when compared to the first topcoat option. Therefore, the cost
effectiveness for the second topcoat option reflects the emission
reductions and costs associated with controlling the water borne
basecoat process.
As a result of the BSER analysis for the topcoat operation, the EPA
is clarifying that the difference between the 2 options is due to
control of VOC emissions from the waterborne base coat booth and/or
flash off area with an incremental cost effectiveness of $6,500 per ton
of VOC reduced. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the proposed
standard is achievable using either solvent borne or waterborne topcoat
systems and is finalizing the proposed limits for the topcoat operation
in subpart MMa. Additional detail is provided in the memorandum titled,
Final Cost and Environmental Impacts Memo for Surface Coating
Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category (40
CFR part 60, subpart MMa), located in the docket for this action.
Comment: One commenter claimed the proposed analysis is flawed
because it is not based on an incremental evaluation of regulatory
alternatives. The commenter stated that the subpart MMa proposal
contains analysis of 2 control options for topcoat lines and it does
not evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of option 2 as compared
to option 1. The commenter stated that option 1 was based on control of
the clearcoat spray booth and the topcoat oven and option 2 was based
on control of the basecoat spray booth/flash off area as well as
clearcoat booth and oven. According to the commenter, option 2 further
reduces VOC by 50 tons with an incremental cost-effectiveness of
$13,840/ton of VOC reduced, a value that is facially not cost-effective
using the EPA's usual cost effectiveness thresholds for VOCs. Moreover,
the commenter stated that this value exceeds levels that the EPA has
rejected in other rules as not being incrementally cost-effective.
According to the commenter, in a recently proposed NSPS for Bulk
Gasoline Terminals, the EPA determined that in setting emission limits
for loading operations the incremental cost effectiveness of $8,300/ton
of VOC reduced was not cost-effective.
Response: The EPA is clarifying the description of the options in
the proposal to distinguish between the use of waterborne and solvent
borne coatings for the topcoat operation and has estimated the
incremental cost-effectiveness of those options.
The 1980 subpart MM baseline level of control for topcoat
operations (including basecoats) was a limit of 12.3 lb VOC/gal acs and
required no control on waterborne coating operations. Our analysis
indicates topcoat operations using waterborne basecoats are now
achieving a limit of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs using no control and that a
lower limit of 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs is achieved by ALDT plants by
controlling the emissions from the waterborne basecoat booth and/or
flash off area. The cost effectiveness to control the waterborne
basecoat booth or flash off area is $6,010 per ton of VOC reduced,
which is the incremental cost effectiveness between the 2 topcoat
options.
In this final action, the EPA is correcting an error in the
proposal found while estimating the incremental cost effectiveness
between the topcoat options. In its proposal for the second topcoat
option, the EPA estimated an emission reduction of 160 tpy and a cost
effectiveness of $7,900/ton VOC reduced to achieve the lower FCA
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant limit of 2.32 lb VOC/gal acs (instead
of the proposed 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs). The final estimated emission
reduction and cost per ton for option 1 (5.2 lb VOC/gal acs) is 137
tons VOC reduced per year and $3,980/ton reduced. The revised emission
reduction and cost effectiveness for the second topcoat option of 3.53
lb VOC/gal acs is 169 tpy and $4,370 per ton of VOC reduced compared to
the 1980 baseline level of control, which the EPA determined to be
reasonable. As a result, the EPA estimated the incremental emission
reduction to be 32 tpy and estimated an incremental cost effectiveness
between the 2 topcoat options to be $6,010 per ton of VOC reduced when
compared to the cost and emission reduction estimated for option 1 at
5.2 lb VOC/gal asc.
The EPA determined the topcoat incremental cost effectiveness of
$6,010 per ton of VOC reduced to be reasonable as an incremental cost.
The topcoat incremental cost effectiveness of $6,010 per ton of VOC
reduced is lower than the cost per ton of VOC reduced for the prime
coat operation ($6,800/ton VOC reduced) and results in greater VOC
emission reductions (169 tpy compared to 40 tpy for prime coat) when
compared to the 1980 NSPS baseline level of control. This incremental
cost effectiveness ($6,010 per ton of VOC reduced) is also lower than
the incremental cost effectiveness value of $8,300/ton for modified and
reconstructed loading operations that was rejected in the Bulk Gasoline
Terminals NSPS cited by the commenter. The EPA also notes that, in any
event, the Bulk Gasoline Terminals source category is a very different
industry and emission source type and cannot be used to establish an
incremental cost effectiveness boundary or threshold for ALDT surface
coating operations. Revision of the standards of performance for each
source category 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)).
Therefore, we are finalizing the 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs emission limit for
the topcoat operation, as proposed. Additional detail on the topcoat
cost effectiveness analysis is provided in the memorandum titled, Final
Cost and Environmental Impacts Memo for Surface Coating Operations in
the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for this action.

B. Work Practice Standards

1. Proposed Work Practice Standards
The EPA proposed work practice standards in the new subpart MMa to
minimize fugitive VOC emissions from: (1) the storage, mixing, and
conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and
waste materials generated by, the prime coat, guide coat and topcoat
operations; and (2) the cleaning and purging of equipment associated
with the prime coat, guide coat and topcoat operations. Subpart MMa
affected sources are also required to develop and implement work
practice plans consistent with the ALDT

[[Page 29988]]

NESHAP provisions, which we have determined to be BSER. The work
practices include: the use of low-VOC and no-VOC alternatives;
controlled access to VOC-containing cleaning materials; capture and
recovery of VOC-containing materials; use of high-pressure water
systems to clean equipment in the place of VOC-containing materials;
masking of spray booth interior walls, floors, and spray equipment to
protect from over spray; and use of tack wipes or solvent moistened
wipes.
For fugitive emissions of VOC, the EPA evaluated work practices
demonstrated by 43 of 44 existing ALDT plants currently subject to ALDT
NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.3094 as discussed in the proposal (87 FR 30151; May
18, 2022). The EPA proposed these work practices and the development
and implementation of work practice plans for the ALDT NSPS MMa to
minimize fugitive VOC emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying
of VOC-containing materials that include the coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the prime
coat, guide coat and topcoat operations. The EPA also proposed work
practices and the development and implementation of work practice plans
for the ALDT NSPS MMa to minimize fugitive VOC emissions from the
cleaning and purging of equipment. The EPA proposed VOC minimizing
practices including: the use of low-VOC and no-VOC alternatives;
controlled access to VOC-containing cleaning materials; capture and
recovery of VOC-containing materials; use of high-pressure water
systems to clean equipment in the place of VOC-containing materials;
masking of spray booth interior walls, floors, and spray equipment to
protect from over spray; and use of tack wipes or solvent moistened
wipes. The EPA considers these work practices to reflect BSER for
controlling fugitive emissions of VOC.
As discussed in the proposal, CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate ``a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination thereof'' if in his or her
judgment, ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of
performance.'' CAA section 111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under
which prescribing or enforcing a standard of performance is ``not
feasible,'' such as when the pollutant cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant, or when there is
no practicable measurement methodology for the particular class of
sources.
The results of our BSER review did not identify any ALDT facilities
demonstrating add-on controls for these fugitive VOC emissions, and
because these emissions are from various sources and activities located
throughout the ALDT facility and are generally released into the
ambient air from various locations throughout the facility, the EPA
determined that it would not be feasible to route these fugitive VOC
emissions to capture and control systems. The sources of fugitive VOC
emissions include: containers for VOC-containing materials used for
wipe-down operations and cleaning; spills of VOC-containing materials;
the cleaning of spray booth interior walls, floors, grates and spray
equipment; the cleaning of spray booth exterior surfaces; and the
cleaning of equipment used to convey the vehicle body through the
surface coating operations.
2. How the Final Revisions to Work Practice Standards Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed work practice
standards, the EPA is finalizing the work practice standards, as
proposed.
3. Work Practice Standards Comments and Responses
Comment: Three commenters requested that the EPA provide a
compliance alternative such that compliance with the elements of the
ALDT NESHAP work practice plan that incorporate subpart MMa
requirements for VOC represent compliance with subpart MMa. The
commenter refers to the subpart MMa proposal where the EPA stated that
``[f]acilities demonstrating compliance with the ALDT NESHAP Subpart
IIII work practice provisions will be in compliance with these same
requirements in the revised ALDT NSPS Subpart MMa'' and requests that
this condition be added to the subpart MMa rule text to streamline the
permitting process and to avoid the use of repetitive permit terms in
site compliance systems. The commenters provided suggestions for
subpart MMa regulatory text in their comments.
Response: In subpart MMa, 40 CFR 60.392a provides the work
practices to minimize fugitive emissions of VOC from materials and
equipment associated with coating operations for which emission limits
are established under 40 CFR 60.392a(a). These coating operations are
the prime coat, guide coat and topcoat operations that are subject to
MMa due to construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18,
2022. Subpart MMa, 40 CFR 60.392a(b) provides the work practices for
storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials generated by, all coating
operations for which emission limits are established under 40 CFR
60.392a(a). In subpart MMa, 40 CFR 60.392a(c) provides the work
practices for cleaning and purging of equipment associated with all
coating operations for which emission limits are established under 40
CFR 60.392a(a).
These same work practices are required by the ALDT NESHAP to
minimize fugitive emissions of organic HAP. However, the ALDT NESHAP
applies to the subpart MMa sources as well as additional ALDT surface
coating operations including operations for paint repair, underbody
coating, sealers, etc. (i.e., the NESHAP has broader applicability than
subpart MMa). In addition, low-HAP-containing materials are not
necessarily low-VOC-containing materials. For example, methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK) was delisted as a HAP but is still considered to be a VOC.
In addition, due to the potential for changes to the work practice
standards in future ALDT NSPS and ALDT NESHAP rulemakings, the EPA is
not providing a compliance alternative in subpart MMa to say that
compliance with elements of the ALDT NESHAP work practice plans
represents compliance with subpart MMa. After considering the comments
on the proposed work practice standards, the EPA is finalizing the work
practice standards, as proposed.

C. Plastic Parts Provision

1. Proposed Plastic Parts Provision
The EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, revision of the plastic
parts provision so that subpart MMa applies to the surface coating of
all vehicle bodies, including all-plastic vehicle bodies, to reflect
changes in coating technology since the original ALDT NSPS MM and to
make the requirements consistent for all ALDT surface coating
facilities subject to subpart MMa (87 FR 30151-30152, May 18, 2022).
Based on the BSER review required by CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the
EPA proposed to remove the all-plastic vehicle body exemption from
subpart MM in subpart MMa. One affected ALDT plant that uses waterborne
(and solvent borne) coatings on all-plastic bodies is not subject to
the ALDT NSPS subpart MM due to this exemption. The exemption was based
on an industry comment the EPA received during development of the 1980
ALDT NSPS stating that compliance with subpart

[[Page 29989]]

MM was not possible due to the significant problems associated with the
use of waterborne topcoats on plastic substrates due to the high
temperature required to cure the waterborne coatings \1\ (87 FR 30152;
May 18, 2022). The EPA is finalizing that subpart MMa applies to the
surface coating of all vehicle bodies, including all-plastic vehicle
bodies. This requirement that includes all-plastic vehicle bodies in
subpart MMa reflects BSER because the coating of the vehicle bodies
using waterborne coatings has been demonstrated and it is expected that
new all-plastic vehicle body surface coating operations can use the
same technology as other facilities to meet the emission limits that
reflect the application of BSER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations,
Background Information for Promulgated Standards, EPA-450/3-79-030b,
September 1980, Comment 2.1.9, page 2-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. How the Final Revisions to the Plastic Parts Provision Differ From
the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comment on the proposed plastic parts
provisions, the EPA is finalizing the plastic parts provisions in
subpart MMa, as proposed.
3. Plastic Parts Provision Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's decision to exclude the
coating of plastic parts from regulation under the proposed 40 CFR part
60, subpart MMa.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters support of the
proposed amendment to the rule.

D. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Provisions

1. Proposed Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Provisions
The NSPS developed under CAA section 111 are required to reflect
the best system of emission reduction under conditions of proper
operation and maintenance. For the NSPS review, the EPA also evaluates
and determines the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance with the performance
standards.
As a result of our review, we evaluated the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for 43 of 44 ALDT plants
currently subject to the ALDT NESHAP as discussed in the proposal (87
FR 30152; May 18, 2022) and proposed revisions to the ALDT NSPS MMa
requirements. The EPA considers these to be appropriate means of
ensuring compliance with the standards that reflect BSER. These
requirements will provide for more robust testing, monitoring, and
reporting than is required by the current ALDT NSPS MM and will align
the new ALDT NSPS MMa and the ALDT NESHAP requirements. Facilities
demonstrating compliance with the ALDT NESHAP requirements will have no
additional burden complying with these same requirements in the new
NSPS subpart MMa.
a. Capture and Control Devices
In addition to the thermal and catalytic incineration in the
current ALDT NSPS MM, we proposed to add the control devices listed in
Table 1 to subpart IIII of part 63--Operating Limits for Capture
Systems and Add-On Control Devices (ALDT NESHAP Table 1) to the new
ALDT NSPS subpart MMa. The additional control devices include
regenerative carbon adsorbers, condensers, and concentrators (including
zeolite wheels and rotary carbon adsorbers). We also proposed
requirements for capture systems that are permanent total enclosures
and capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures for the new
NSPS subpart MMa to match the ALDT NESHAP requirements.
b. Operating Limits and Monitoring Provisions for Capture and Control
Devices
In addition to updating the capture and control devices in the new
ALDT NSPS subpart MMa, the EPA proposed operating limits and monitoring
provisions for the capture and control devices to match the ALDT NESHAP
requirements. These requirements include matching: (a) 40 CFR 63.3093
and the ALDT NESHAP Table 1; (b) the provisions for establishing
control device operating limits in 40 CFR 63.3167; and (c) the
provisions for the continuous monitoring system installation,
operation, and maintenance of control devices in 40 CFR 63.3168.
c. Performance Testing of Capture and Control Devices
In addition to updating the capture and control devices in the new
ALDT NSPS MMa, the EPA proposed initial capture performance testing and
initial and periodic control device performance testing requirements in
NSPS subpart MMa to match the ALDT NESHAP provisions in 40 CFR 63.3160
and 63.3160(c)(3). Periodic performance tests are used to establish or
evaluate the ongoing destruction efficiency of the control device and
establish the corresponding operating parameters, such as temperature,
which can vary as processes change or as control devices age. The EPA
also proposed control device destruction efficiency requirements to
match the ALDT NESHAP provisions in 40 CFR 63.3166 for the new NSPS
subpart MMa.
d. Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
The recordkeeping and reporting provisions proposed in the new ALDT
NSPS MMa reflect the part 60 general provisions and are included in 40
CFR 60.395a. Subpart MMa requires quarterly or semiannual compliance
reports, similar to subpart MM. Subpart MMa sources must identify,
record, and submit a report every calendar quarter for each instance a
deviation occurred from the emission limits, operating limits, or work
practices. If no such instances have occurred during a particular
quarter, a report stating such is required to be submitted
semiannually.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping
and Reporting Provisions Differ From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting provisions, the EPA is finalizing these
provisions, as proposed.
3. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Comments and
Responses
Comment: One commenter explained that during performance tests RTOs
may experience a rise in combustion chamber temperature above the
chamber temperature setpoint due to the high thermal efficiency of
modern RTOs and the release of heat from materials contained in the
incoming gases from various consolidated and concentrated VOC sources.
The commenter requested that the EPA allow the performance test chamber
temperature setpoint to be the minimum combustion temperature operating
limit and revise 40 CFR 60.394a(a)(2) to either (a) allow the permit
holder to establish the operating limit as equal to the combustion
chamber temperature setpoint that has been established for the oxidizer
based on previous source measurements that demonstrated compliance, or
(b) allow the permit holder of the thermal oxidizer to apply to the
Administrator for approval of an alternate operating limit under 40 CFR
60.13(i).

[[Page 29990]]

Response: Subpart MMa requires initial and periodic performance
testing of RTOs to demonstrate compliance with the required emission
limits and to establish and demonstrate compliance with the operating
limits for control devices. Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.392a(a) and 40 CFR
60.392a(g) require that the emission limits and the operating limits
must be met at all times, including periods of SSM.
The commenter stated that RTOs ``may'' experience a higher
combustion chamber temperature than indicated by the setpoint during
performance testing and provided examples of RTOs operating at higher
temperatures than the operating limit. However, the examples provided
show that the sources have not demonstrated the RTO destruction or
removal efficiency (DRE) at the setpoint, but instead demonstrated the
capability of the RTO to meet the required DRE at whatever temperature
the RTO was actually operating. The EPA agrees that the effect of
solvent loading depends on the degree to which the various sources of
VOC are consolidated and concentrated within the facility, as well as
the thermal and destruction efficiency of the RTO. However, the
commenter does not provide any data on the number of sources routed to
the RTOs or any information about the RTOs such as the age or date of
installation. The commenter also does not provide data related to the
materials in the exhaust gases or the BTU content of these materials,
or data related to the fuel used for the RTO. These data could be used
to predict the combustion temperatures expected during performance
testing. In addition to the subpart MMa and the part 60 general
provision performance testing requirements, performance testing could
also include the retest of various materials/fuel mixtures used, in
order to identify the minimum operating temperature corresponding to
the DRE needed demonstrate compliance. Therefore, the EPA considers
this to be a site-specific issue that should be addressed on a case-by-
case basis in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(i).
The EPA bases its stack testing requirements on the Clean Air Act
National Stack Testing Guidance dated April 27, 2009.\2\ In this
guidance the EPA recommends that performance tests for a facility
operating under an emission rate standard or concentration standard,
normal process operating conditions producing the highest emissions or
loading to a control device would generally constitute the most
challenging conditions for meeting the emissions standard. In these
cases, the EPA recommends that the facility conduct a stack test at
maximum capacity or the allowable/permitted capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/compliance/clean-air-act-national-stack-testing-guidance">https://www.epa.gov/compliance/clean-air-act-national-stack-testing-guidance</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For both ALDT subparts MM and MMa, in which sources are subject to
rate limits (mass VOC per volume of applied coating solids), testing
should be conducted at maximum capacity or allowable/permitted
capacity, and this could be expected to lead to the most challenging
test conditions. Facility operators have several options if they expect
that temperatures may rise above the set point during a compliance
test. These include the following:
<bullet> If temperature rise is expected to occur when a facility
is operating at maximum production, the facility operator may be able
to adjust the set point prior to the test to prevent a temperature rise
and achieve an average temperature operating limit more in line with
the set point and representative minimum operating temperatures.
<bullet> The facility operator may request approval to use a VOC
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to continuously measure
actual VOC emissions after the control device and use these direct VOC
emission measurements in demonstrating compliance with the VOC emission
rate limits.
<bullet> The facility operator may test at a lower average RTO
temperature and use the DRE from that test in their compliance
calculations and as the operating limit.
The temperature and thermal oxidizer DRE data in the stack tests
collected by the EPA for this rulemaking show that DRE values are more
variable at lower temperatures (e.g., 92 to 98 percent DRE at 1400
degrees F) than at higher temperatures (e.g., 96 to 99 percent DRE at
1500 degrees F) in the range between 1400 to 1550 degrees F. Because
RTO temperature is an important determinant of DRE and DRE is used in
the compliance calculations, it is important that the EPA ensure that
RTOs are complying with an operating limit based on the actual
temperature that corresponds to the DRE used in a facility's compliance
calculations. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed monitoring
and operating limit provisions for subpart MMa that rely on the actual
measured combustion temperature rather than the set point.
To request approval of alternatives to any monitoring procedures or
requirements of part 60, including the operating limits, subpart MMa
refers to the part 60 general provisions at 40 CFR 60.13(i).
Specifically, subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.394a provides performance test
requirements for RTOs and refers to 40 CFR 60.13(i) for alternative
monitoring. Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.394a also refers to 40 CFR
60.392a(h) which states that if a source uses an add-on control device
other than those listed in Table 1 to subpart MMa or wishes to monitor
an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating limit,
the source must apply to the Administrator for approval according to 40
CFR 60.13(i). The part 60 general provisions also provide an
alternative to the monitoring requirements for VOC emissions in subpart
MMa with a CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(i).
Comment: One commenter agreed that the time periods of bypass on an
air pollution control device must be recorded and factored into the
monthly compliance calculation by assuming that during bypass periods,
the control efficiency for that portion of the operation(s) is zero.
However, the commenter believes the bypass should not be characterized
as a deviation from the standard unless the emission limit is exceeded.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Subpart MMa at 40
CFR 60.392a(a) and 60.392a(g) require that the emission limits and the
operating limits for capture and control devices must be met at all
times after they are established during the initial performance test.
This includes periods of SSM. The ALDT NESHAP also includes these same
requirements.
Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.392a(g) also refers to Table 1 to subpart
MMa, Operating Limits for Capture Systems and Add-On Control Devices,
and requires sources to establish operating limits during performance
tests according to the requirements in 40 CFR 60.394a. Sources are
required to comply with the applicable operating limits in Table 1; for
example, for thermal oxidizers the average combustion temperature in
any 3-hour period must not fall below the operating limit (combustion
temperature limit) established according to 40 CFR 60.394a(a). The
average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test
establishes the operating limit (the minimum 3-hour average operating
limit) for the thermal oxidizer. In addition, subpart MMa at 40 CFR
60.393a(c)(2) and (3) requires sources to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable operating limit, and if an operating
parameter is out of the allowed range, as specified in Table 1, it is a
deviation from the operating limit that must be

[[Page 29991]]

reported as specified by 40 CFR 60.395a(h).
As the commenter states, subpart MMa in 40 CFR 60.393a(c)(4)
requires that if an operating parameter deviates from the operating
limit specified in Table 1, sources must assume that the emission
capture system and add-on control device were achieving zero efficiency
during the time period of the deviation except as provided in 40 CFR
60.393a(m). For the purposes of completing the compliance calculations
specified in 40 CFR 60.393a(j), the rule text reiterates that sources
must assume that both the emission capture system and the add-on
control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of
the deviation.
Specifically for bypasses, subpart MMa in 40 CFR 60.393a(c)(6)
requires sources to meet the requirements for bypass lines in 40 CFR
60.394a(h) for control devices (other than solvent recovery systems for
which liquid-liquid material balances are conducted). If any bypass
line is opened and emissions are diverted to the atmosphere when the
coating operation is running, this is a deviation that must be reported
as specified in 40 CFR 60.395a(h). Subpart MMa in 40 CFR 60.395a(h)(1)
also requires sources to monitor or secure the valve or closure
mechanism controlling the bypass line in a non-diverting position in
such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without
creating a record that the valve was opened. If any bypass line is
opened, sources must include a description of why the bypass line was
opened and the length of time it remained open in the semiannual
compliance report required by 40 CFR 60.395a. For the purposes of
completing the compliance calculations specified in 40 CFR 60.393a(j),
the rule text reiterates that sources must assume that both the
emission capture system and the add-on control device were achieving
zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation.
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA modify the regulatory
language in subparts MM and MMa to eliminate any quarterly reporting to
align with the semiannual reporting frequency in the ALDT NESHAP and
title V. The submittal of deviations should be addressed in a
semiannual report as already required under the ALDT NESHAP in 40 CFR
63.3120(a) and under the title V requirements.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter and provides the
basis for the quarterly reporting requirement in the 1979 subpart MM
proposal (44 FR 57801; October 5, 1979). We consider this basis to
still be valid today. As discussed in the selection of monitoring
requirements section, the EPA explained that monitoring requirements
are generally included in the standards of performance to provide a
means for enforcement personnel to ensure that the emission control
measures adopted by a facility to comply with standards are properly
operated and maintained. Each surface coating operation that has
achieved compliance without the use of an add-on VOC emission control
device would be required to monitor the average VOC content of the
coating materials used in that operation. Generally, increases in the
VOC content of the coating materials would cause VOC emissions to
increase. These increases could be caused by the use of new coatings or
by changes in the composition of existing coatings. Therefore,
following the initial performance test, increases in the average VOC
content of the coating materials used in each surface coating operation
are required to be reported on a quarterly basis. For surface coating
operations using add-on control devices, the monitoring of combustion
temperatures is required. Following the initial performance test,
decreases in the incinerator combustion temperature are required to be
reported on a quarterly basis.
Less frequent reporting is provided for affected facilities
demonstrating compliance with subpart MMa requirements after 1 year.
The part 60 General Provision at 40 CFR 60.7 provides that reporting on
a quarterly (or more frequent) basis may be reduced if the following
conditions are met: (i) for 1 full year (e.g., 4 quarterly or 12
monthly reporting periods) the affected facility's excess emissions and
monitoring systems reports submitted to comply with a part 60 standard
continually demonstrate that the facility is in compliance with the
applicable standard; (ii) the owner or operator continues to comply
with all recordkeeping and monitoring requirements specified in this
subpart and the applicable standard; and (iii) the Administrator does
not object to a reduced frequency of reporting for the affected
facility. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed requirement for
quarterly reporting in subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.395a(d).
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA provide flexibility
in the NSPS MMa to submit compliance reports according to dates
incorporated in title V operating permits, consistent with the
provisions in the ALDT NESHAP. The commenter also recommended that the
EPA allow NSPS reporting to align with any reporting date provisions in
a title V operating permit.
Response: The EPA has revised the reporting requirements in subpart
MMa at 40 CFR 60.395a (d) for compliance reports according to dates
incorporated in title V operating permits, consistent with the
provisions in the ALDT NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.3120.

E. Transfer Efficiency Provisions

1. Proposed Transfer Efficiency Provisions
The EPA proposed provisions to require the measurement of transfer
efficiency (TE) and a separate calculation to account for the recovery
of purge solvent in subpart MMa, to be consistent with the ALDT NESHAP.
In addition, we proposed provisions that sources determine the TE for
each guide coat and topcoat coating operation using either ASTM D5066-
91 (Reapproved 2017) or the guidelines presented in the ``Protocol for
Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-453/R-08-002,
September 2008 (2008 ALDT Protocol). The EPA also proposed amendments
for TE testing on representative coatings and for representative spray
booths as described in the 2008 ALDT Protocol. In addition, the EPA
proposed that sources can assume 100 percent TE for prime coat EDP
operations.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Transfer Efficiency Provisions Differ
From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed transfer efficiency
provisions for subpart MMa, the EPA is finalizing the transfer
efficiency provisions, as proposed.
3. Transfer Efficiency Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter stated that subpart MMa emissions standards
must provide the operational flexibility to employ a variety of coating
application technologies and they must not be based on the assumption
that all new, reconstructed, and modified facilities can achieve the
highest levels of TE, because all facilities cannot do so.
Response: The EPA is finalizing in subpart MMa, as proposed, the
measurement of the overall TE, which comprises all methods of spray
application, for each guide coat and each topcoat operation subject to
subpart MMa. These requirements are in accordance with the ``Protocol
for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of

[[Page 29992]]

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations'' (2008 Auto
Protocol), contrary to the comment that the EPA is requiring the
highest levels of TE (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). The EPA is not
prescribing any specific application methods or requirements for a
minimum allowable TE in subpart MMa.

F. NSPS Subpart MMa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Exemptions

1. Proposed SSM Provisions
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.
The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(c) currently exempt non-
opacity emission standards during periods of SSM. We are finalizing in
subpart MMa in section 40 CFR 60.392a specific requirements that
override these general provisions for SSM requirements and match the
SSM provisions in the ALDT NESHAP. 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. We discussed the
potential need for alternative standards with industry representatives
during the recent development of amendments to the ALDT NESHAP and
during the proposal of this ALDT NSPS action. No issues were
identified, and there are no data indicating problems with complying
with these provisions during periods of startup and shutdown.
Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed
to address emissions during these periods. The legal rationale and
explanation of the changes for SSM periods are set forth in the
proposed rule (see 87 FR 30153-30154, May 18, 2022). Further, the EPA
did not propose and is not promulgating standards for malfunctions in
this final action.
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 the 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).]
2. How the Final Revisions to the SSM Provisions Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comment on the proposed revisions to the SSM
provisions for subpart MMa, the EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions,
as proposed.
3. SSM Provision Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to remove
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) regulatory loopholes, and
additionally would like the EPA to also remove the SSM exemption from
the NSPS general provisions.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the
proposed amendment to the rule and the commenter's suggestion to make a
similar amendment to the 40 CFR part 60 general provisions. However,
changes to the general provisions are outside the scope of this
rulemaking action.

G. Electronic Reporting

1. Proposed Electronic Reporting Requirement
The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that owners and
operators of affected facilities in the ALDT surface coating source
category subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60,
subparts MM and MMa submit electronic copies of required performance
test reports and compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that
allow affected facility owners and operators the ability to seek
extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond
the control of the ALDT plant, i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX
or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a
report's due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim (87 FR
30154; May 18, 2022). The final subpart MM and MMa electronic reporting
provisions require performance test results and compliance reports to
be submitted to the Administrator as required by 40 CFR 60.395(f) and
60.395a(f). These final electronic reporting provisions would not
affect submittals required by state air agencies.
Current subpart MM and new subpart MMa affected sources are
required to comply with the electronic reporting requirements for
performance test results on the effective date of the standard or upon
startup, whichever is later. Current subpart MM and new subpart MMa
affected sources are required to use the appropriate e-reporting
template to comply with the electronic reporting requirements for
compliance reports beginning 180 days after the EPA posts the final
compliance reporting templates to CEDRI.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Electronic Reporting Requirement
Differ From the Proposed Revisions
The EPA revised the proposed electronic reporting provisions for
compliance reports in subparts MM and MMa due to the comments received.
Sources are required to use the appropriate e-reporting template to
comply with the electronic reporting requirements for compliance
reports beginning 180 days instead of the proposed 90 days after the
EPA posts the final compliance reporting templates to CEDRI. The
electronic reporting templates were also revised according to the
comments we received during the comment period and are available in the
docket for this action.
3. Electronic Reporting Requirement Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA allow facilities that
become subject to electronic reporting to submit the compliance report
for both subpart MM and subpart MMa at least 180 days after the
effective date of the rule, or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever date is later.
According to the commenter the proposal stated that the EPA would
require use of the

[[Page 29993]]

NSPS template once the template has been available on the CEDRI website
for 90 days, but this language was not included in the proposed
regulatory text.
Response: The EPA has revised the subpart MM and subpart MMa rule
language to state that the reporting template must be used beginning
180 days after the effective date of the rule or once the reporting
template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever
date is later.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the use of electronic
reporting is reasonable as a general matter, but that the proposed
compliance templates, and regulatory language contain errors that must
be corrected in the final rule. The EPA must correct the errors
identified in the two proposed compliance templates and implement
recommendations to make the templates more user-friendly.
Response: The EPA requested review and comment on the proposed
templates and regulatory language, revised them according to the
comments, and is providing the final versions in this rulemaking
docket.

H. Test Methods

1. Proposed Test Methods
We are finalizing the proposed additional EPA test methods,
voluntary consensus standards (VCS), alternative methods, and a
guidance document in subpart MMa (87 FR 30157; May 18, 2022).
In addition to the EPA test methods listed in subpart MM (EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, and 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), we are
finalizing the following EPA test methods in subpart MMa, as proposed:
<bullet> EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60;
<bullet> EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and
<bullet> EPA Method 311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
incorporating by reference (IBR) the following VCS and a guidance
document described in the amendments to 40 CFR 60.17:
<bullet> ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]'' issued August 31, 1981, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 60.396a(a)(3).
<bullet> 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 40 CFR 60.393a(g)(1).
<bullet> ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile Content
of Coatings,'' (Approved June 1, 2020), IBR approved for 40 CFR
60.393a(f)(1)(i).
<bullet> ASTM D2697-22, ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' (Approved July 1,
2022), IBR approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(g)(1).
<bullet> EPA-453/R-08-002, ``Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Primer Surfacer and Topcoat Operations,'' September 2008, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), IBR approved for 40 CFR
60.393a(e), 60.393a(h), 60.395a(k)(3)(iii), 60.397a(e) introductory
text, 60.397a (e)(2)-(4), and Appendix A to subpart MMa of Part 60
sections 2.1 and 2.2, 4.1 and 4.2.
We are also incorporating by reference the following alternative
methods specific to automotive coatings described in the amendments to
40 CFR 60.17:
<bullet> ASTM D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' Approved November 1,
2013, IBR approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(f)(2).
<bullet> ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), ``Standard Test Methods
for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,'' Approved June 1, 2013, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(f)(2).
<bullet> ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), ``Standard Test Method
for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production
Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis,''
Approved June 1, 2017, IBR approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(h).
<bullet> ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), ``Standard Test Method
for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solvent-borne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement),'' Approved February 1, 2021, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 60.397a(e) and appendix A to subpart MMa, section 2.1.
<bullet> ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), ``Standard Test Method
for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement),'' Approved July 1, 2017, IBR approved for
60.397a(e).
In addition, the EPA is finalizing the addition of the ALDT panel
testing procedure titled ``Determination of Capture Efficiency of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Spray Booth Emissions From Solvent-
borne Coatings Using Panel Testing'' as appendix A to subpart MMa of 40
CFR part 60.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Test Methods Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed revisions to the
test methods, the EPA is finalizing the test methods, as proposed.
However, based on ASTM revisions to 2 proposed test methods we are
updating Methods ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile
Content of Coatings,'' (Approved June 1, 2020) and ASTM D2697-22,
``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings,'' (Approved July 1, 2022) in the final rule.
3. Test Method Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA allow the use of
Conditional Test Method 042 (CTM-042), Use of Flame Ionization
Detector-Methane Cutter Analysis Systems for VOC Compliance Testing of
Bakeries, to identify the methane content, rather than EPA Method 18
during performance tests. The commenter noted that although CTM-042 was
originally approved for VOC testing in bakeries, many state agencies
allow it for other processes, as it allows evaluation in real time so
that the company and agency can identify issues during the test. The
commenter argued that recognizing a measurement issue during the test
benefits both the permittee and the agency, as costly and time-
consuming re-testing can often be avoided. The commenter also noted
that the use of CTM-042 reduces the risk of damaged sample bags or lab
error that would require additional test runs after the tests have been
completed and the test crews have left the site.
Response: The EPA is not revising the proposed test methods to
allow the use of CTM-042 for measuring methane in ALDT surface coating
emissions and does not support the use of CTM-042 for ALDT sources. The
EPA acknowledges that although measuring VOC using EPA Method 25A and
then subtracting EPA Method 18 methane results to measure nonmethane
organic compounds (NMOC) is viewed by some as difficult, we are making
this decision because use of CTM-042 is limited to bakery emissions in
which ethanol is the predominant non-methane organic species in those
emissions. CTM-042 calibrates the non-methane channel with ethanol, so
it is simple to do a direct subtraction of the instrument calibrated
for just methane and ethanol.

[[Page 29994]]

For application to the ALDT emission sources and many other
emission source types in general, choosing the right calibration gas to
measure methane and non-methane compounds will be an issue, because
NMOC can be composed of a variety of compounds with different
combustion temperatures depending on the emission source. It is also
important to note that source owners and operators are not limited to
the use of bags for EPA Method 18 samples. EPA Method 18 can be
performed on site by direct real-time gas chromatography (GC) analysis
to determine the methane concentration rather than by choosing the EPA
Method 18 bag sample option. The real-time GC analysis of methane
emissions using EPA Method 18 would address issues of timely feedback
on emissions and the risks of bag damage or lab error raised by the
commenters.
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA allow performance
testing to continue to be reported ``as propane'' or ``as methane'' as
the basis for compliance. The commenter stated that a potential concern
is that most historic test reports are not conducted for NSPS purposes,
but for BACT or RACT purposes, and would be presented as VOC ``as
propane,'' while the new reports performed for NSPS would be ``as
carbon.'' The commenter stated that permit limits or other items based
on the VOC concentration on a propane basis would not necessarily be
the same as on a carbon basis, and that this difference would require
duplicative tests or calculations to demonstrate compliance with VOC
concentration limits. Additionally, the commenter stated, test results
as carbon would be inconsistent from previous tests and would not allow
the company or agency to observe testing in real time to review results
to identify concerns.
Response: Subpart MM requires compliance calculations to include
the concentration of VOC (as carbon) in units of parts per million by
volume (ppmv). Similarly, the new subpart MMa requires compliance
calculations to include the concentration of VOC (as carbon) in units
of ppmv as the basis for compliance, so the NSPS performance testing
requirements have not changed as a result of this rulemaking, contrary
to the comment received. Subpart MMa requires VOC concentrations to be
measured by following the procedures in EPA Method 25A.\3\ Review of
RTO destruction efficiency performance tests included in the docket for
this rulemaking show that ALDT plants are measuring VOC concentrations
using the procedures found in EPA Method 25A using on-line (real time)
total hydrocarbon (THC) gas analyzers. The THC gas analyzer directs the
sample to a flame ionization detector (FID) where the hydrocarbons
present in the sample are ionized into carbon. The concentration
determined by the analyzer is based on the calibration gas used,
typically either methane or propane. Section 12.1 of EPA Method 25A
explicitly outlines the procedures for calculating the concentration as
carbon, which is as simple as a 1:1 ratio for methane and a 3:1 ratio
for propane. No duplicative tests are required, and the conversion to
units of carbon does not inhibit real-time assessment of compliance.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the compliance calculations, as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/method_25a.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/method_25a.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Other Final Amendments

The EPA is promulgating a final amendment in response to a comment
to modify the definition of ``flash-off area'' in subparts MM and MMa
to include the flash-off areas located between spray booths. The
``flash-off area'' in subpart MM and proposed subpart MMa are defined
as ``the structure on automobile and light-duty truck assembly lines
between the coating application system (dip tank or spray booth) and
the bake oven.'' The EPA is revising this definition in the final rules
to include: ``Flash off area also means the structure between spray
booths in a wet-on-wet coating process in which some of the solvent
evaporates before the next spray booth; the flash off area may be
ambient temperature or heated to accelerate evaporation.'' Additional
detail on the EPA response to this comment is provided in the document
titled, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule: New
Source Performance Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM) Best System of
Emission Reduction Review, Final Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0664.
In addition, the EPA is finalizing minor corrections and edits to
the subpart MM and MMa equations and rule text to provide clarity as
described in the summary of public comments and responses document
identified above.

J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in subpart MM and subpart MMa will be the
promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022, must comply with
all requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later,
except for the electronic reporting of compliance reports. For
electronic reporting of quarterly and semiannual compliance reports,
subpart MM and MMa affected sources are required to use the appropriate
electronic template to submit information to CEDRI. The electronic
templates are available in the docket for this final action. Both
templates were revised according to comments the EPA received during
the comment period. Subpart MM and MMa affected sources are required to
use the templates to electronically submit compliance reports 180 days
after the EPA posts the final templates to CEDRI.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

The final ALDT NSPS subpart MMa would achieve an annual average VOC
emission reduction of 331 tpy reduction of allowable VOC emissions per
facility compared to that of the current NSPS subpart MM. Over the
first 8 years after the rule is final, we expect an average of 2 new,
reconstructed, or modified facilities per year, or 16 new affected
facilities. We estimate a total VOC emission reduction of 4,160 tpy in
the eighth year after the rule is final, compared to the current NSPS
subpart MM.
We estimate the increased usage of electricity and natural gas
would result in an increase in the average production of 4,474 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (mtCO<INF>2</INF>e) per year per
facility. We estimate a total GHG emission production of 71,584
mtCO<INF>2</INF>e in the eighth year after the rule is final.
In this action, we are not evaluating the environmental impacts of
other pollutants such as hydrocarbons (other than VOC), GHG, nitrogen
oxides, and carbon monoxide emitted by control devices due to the
combustion of natural gas as fuel or from the generation of
electricity.

B. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with the electricity and natural gas
consumption associated with the operation of control devices to meet
the final NSPS subpart MMa include an estimated average electricity
consumption of 2.54 million kilowatt hours (kwh) per year per facility
and an estimated average natural gas consumption of 48.8 million
standard cubic feet (scf) per year per facility compared to that of the
current NSPS

[[Page 29995]]

subpart MM. Over the first 8 years after the rule is final, we expect
an average of 2 new, reconstructed, or modified facilities per year, or
16 new affected facilities. We estimate a total electricity consumption
of 40.6 million kwh and a total natural gas consumption of 780.8
million scf in the eighth year after the rule is final, compared to the
current NSPS subpart MM.

C. What are the cost impacts?

We estimate that the average capital cost of controls to comply
with the NSPS subpart MMa will be $7.44 million per new facility, or
$14.9 million per year for 2 new facilities in each year in the 8-year
period after the rule is final.
We estimate that the average annual cost of controls to comply with
the NSPS subpart MMa will be $1.97 million per year per facility, or
$3.93 million for 2 new facilities in each year in the 8-year period
after the rule is final. The total cumulative annual costs (including
annualized capital costs and O&M costs) of complying with the rule in
the eighth year after the rule is final would be $31.5 million.
We estimate that the average cost of the periodic testing of
control devices once every 5 years to comply with subpart MMa will be
$57,000 per facility, or $114,000 for 2 facilities in the fifth year
after the rule is final.
For further information on the cost impacts for this action see the
memorandum titled, Final Cost and Environmental Impacts Memo for
Surface Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Source Category (40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa), located in the docket
for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis (EIA) and small
business screening assessment for this final action, as discussed in
the proposal for this action and detailed in the memorandum, Economic
Impact Analysis and Small Business Screening Assessment for Final
Revisions and Amendments to the New Source Performance Standards for
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations, which is
available in the docket for this action. The economic impacts of this
final action were estimated by comparing total annualized compliance
costs to revenues at the ultimate parent company level. This is known
as the cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales test. This ratio provides a
measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of
facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. As discussed in the
proposal for this action, we estimate that none of the ultimate parent
owners potentially affected by this final action will incur total
annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of their revenues if they
modify or reconstruct the relevant portions of their facility and
become subject to the requirements of this final rule (87 FR 30155, May
18, 2022).
Since proposal, the 1 existing facility that was owned by a small
entity was sold to a company in May 2022 that is not a small entity.
Because the coatings processes are large operations at automobile and
light duty truck manufacturing facilities, it is not anticipated that
any affected facilities that have completed their initial startup phase
would be classified as small entities. Therefore, no economic impacts
are expected for small entities. Furthermore, it was assumed that any
new entrant into the industry would have sales similar to at least the
smallest current ultimate owner, so it is not anticipated that any new
ultimate owner would face costs of greater than 1 percent of sales.
Therefore, the economic impacts are anticipated to be low for
affected companies and the industries impacted by this final action,
and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets for affected
products. The costs of this final action are not expected to result in
a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on
to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

As described earlier in this preamble, the final NSPS subpart MMa
would result in lower VOC emissions compared to the existing NSPS
subpart MM. The new NSPS subpart MMa would also require that the
standards apply at all times, which includes SSM periods. We are also
promulgating several compliance assurance requirements which will
ensure compliance with the new NSPS subpart MMa and help prevent
noncompliant emissions of VOC. Furthermore, the final requirements in
the new NSPS subpart MMa to submit reports and test results
electronically will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation
of the rule.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth
in multiple Executive Orders as well as CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the
Agency has carefully evaluated the impacts of this action on
communities with environmental justice concerns. This action finalizes
standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed ALDT
surface coating sources that commence construction after May 18, 2022.
In general, the locations of the new, modified, and reconstructed ALDT
surface coating facilities are not known. However, since proposal, we
became aware of 3 ALDT surface coating facilities for which
construction permits were recently issued or were about to be issued.
We have evaluated the demographics of the populations living within 5
kilometers (km) and 50 km of these 3 new facilities as examples of new
facility locations. We also evaluated the demographics of the
populations living within 5 km and 50 km of 46 ALDT plants. The 46 ALDT
plants include the 44 existing ALDT plants and two additional ALDT
plants for which we had locational data.
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, 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.'' \4\ 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 minority and low-income populations
often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA
continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A demographic analysis was conducted for 3 new ALDT plants, which
we identified after proposal and anticipate will be subject to the
requirements of subpart MMa once in operation. The demographic analysis
shows that within 5 km of these new

[[Page 29996]]

facilities, the percent of the population that is African American is
significantly higher than the national average (17 percent versus 12
percent). The percent of the population within 5 km that is Hispanic/
Latino is significantly higher than the national average (51 percent
versus 19 percent). The percent of people within 5 km that are over 25
without a high school diploma is also higher than the national average
(28 percent versus 12 percent).
A demographic analysis was conducted for 46 existing ALDT plants to
characterize the demographics in areas where the plants are currently
located. These represent ALDT plants that might modify or reconstruct
in the future and become subject to the NSPS MMa requirements. This
analysis was presented in the proposal and remains unchanged. The
demographic analysis shows that, within 5 km of the ALDT facilities,
the percent of the population that is African American is significantly
higher than the national average (27 percent versus 12 percent). The
percent of people within 5 km living below the poverty level is
significantly higher than the national average (22 percent versus 13
percent). The percent of people living within 5 km that are over 25
without a high school diploma is also higher than the national average
(15 percent versus 12 percent).
The EPA particularly noted community impacts and concerns in some
areas of the country that have a larger percentage of sources. A large
percentage of the sources in the Auto and Light Duty Truck Surface
Coating source category are in EPA Region 5 states and, of those
states, most sources are in the state of Michigan. Most if not all the
counties where these sources are located are designated as ozone
nonattainment areas. For this reason, we engaged with EPA Region 5 and
the state of Michigan as part of this rulemaking.
The EPA expects that this ALDT NSPS review will result in
significant reductions of VOC emissions from the affected sources. The
new emission limits finalized for this action reflect the best system
of emission reduction demonstrated and establish new more stringent
standards of performance for the primary sources of VOC emissions from
the source category. The EPA expects that the finalized requirements in
subpart MMa will result in significant reductions of VOC emissions for
communities surrounding new, modified, and reconstructed affected
sources compared to the existing rule in subpart MM 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 and are often minority, low-income, and indigenous
communities. The methodology and the results (including facility-
specific results and the 50 km proximity results) of the demographic
analysis are presented in a technical report titled, Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Surface Coating NSPS Source Category Operations--Final Rule,
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0664).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

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

This final 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 action have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA.
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared for subpart MM has been assigned EPA ICR number 1064.20 and
OMB control number 2060-0034. The ICR document that the EPA prepared
for subpart MMa has been assigned EPA ICR number 2714.01 and OMB
control number 2060-0034. You can find a copy of the final ICR
documents in the ALDT NSPS Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664, and they
are briefly summarized here. The final ICR documents were updated to
reflect 2021 labor costs. The information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
Each ICR is specific to information collection associated with the
ALDT surface coating source category, in accordance with the
requirements in the revised 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM or the new 40
CFR part 60, subpart MMa.
For the revised 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM, as part of the ALDT
NSPS review, the EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for the
electronic submittal of reports.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of ALDT surface
coating operations subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MM).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 44 respondents per year will be
subject to the NSPS and no new respondents will be subject to the NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart MM).
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include a one-time review of rule
requirements, reports of performance tests, and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports.
Total estimated burden: The average annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for the 44 responding facilities to comply with the
requirements in subpart MM over the 3 years after the rule is final is
estimated to be 506 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the
Agency over the 3 years after the rule is final is estimated to be 152
hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the ALDT
facilities is $47,200 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the
rule is final. The total average annual Agency cost over the first 3
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $7,800.
For the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa, as part of the ALDT NSPS
review, the EPA is finalizing the proposed emission limits and other
requirements as described in this preamble for affected sources that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18,
2022. We are also finalizing the proposed testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa, including the
performance testing of control devices once every 5 years and
electronic submittal of performance test results and compliance
reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with
40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of ALDT surface
coating operations subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 6 respondents per

[[Page 29997]]

year will be subject to the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa).
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, and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports.
Total estimated burden: The average annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for the 6 responding facilities to comply with all the
requirements in the new NSPS subpart MMa over the 3 years after the
rule is final is estimated to be 1,663 hours (per year). The average
annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the rule is final is
estimated to be 207 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the ALDT
facilities is $155,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the
rule is final. The average annual capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) cost is $151,000 in the first 3 years after the rule is final.
The total average annual cost is $306,000 in the first 3 years after
the rule is final. The total average annual Agency cost over the first
3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $10,600.
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 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. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities because there
are no regulated facilities owned by small entities. Details of the
analysis in support of this determination are presented in the
memorandum titled, Economic Impact Analysis and Small Business
Screening Assessment for Final Revisions and Amendments to the New
Source Performance Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations, which is available in the docket for this
action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 6 ALDT plants are 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 anticipate 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 a
reduction in VOC emissions from the ALDT NSPS subpart MMa for sources
affected by this action because the subpart MMa requirements are more
stringent than the existing ALDT NSPS subpart MM requirements.

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.

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

This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the Enhanced National Standards System
Network 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.
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 (IBR) the following proposed VCS for subpart MMa:
<bullet> ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses.'' This method determines quantitatively the gaseous
constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources.
The manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of ASME/ANSI
PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10 may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B
for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas.
The gases covered in ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide,
nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons.
However, the use in this

[[Page 29998]]

rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide and is an
acceptable alternative to the manual portion only and not the
instrumental portion.
<bullet> ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method can be used to
determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.
<bullet> ASTM D2369-20 (Approved June 1, 2020), ``Standard Test
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method allows for
more accurate results for multi-component chemical resistant coatings
and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.
<bullet> ASTM D2697-22 (Approved July 1, 2022), ``Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.''
This test method can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile
matter in clear and pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA
Method 24.
<bullet> EPA-453/R-08-002, ``Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' September 2008. This protocol provides
guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation solvent
content as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
In addition to the VCS identified here, we are amending 40 CFR
60.17 to IBR the following ASTM methods that are specific to automotive
coatings:
<bullet> ASTM D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' Approved November 1,
2013. This test method can be used to determine the density of coatings
and the updated version of the test method clarifies units of measure
and reduces the number of determinations required.
<bullet> ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), ``Standard Test Methods
for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders.'' These test methods include
Test Methods A and B that can be used to determine the specific gravity
of coating powders. Test Method A can be used to test coating powders
except for metallics. Test Method B provides greater precision than
Test Method A, includes the use of helium pycnometry, and can be used
for metallics.
<bullet> ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017) ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis.'' This test
method includes procedures to determine the transfer efficiency under
production conditions for in-plant spray-application of automotive
coatings using a weight method. The transfer efficiency is calculated
from the weight of the paint solids sprayed and the paint solids that
are deposited on the painted part. An alternative approach is also
included in the method.
<bullet> ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), ``Standard Test Method
for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solvent-borne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement).'' This test method can be used to measure
solvent loading for the heated flash off areas and bake ovens for
waterborne coatings.
<bullet> ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017) ``Standard Test Method
for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement).'' This test method can be used to measure
solvent loading for heated flash off areas and bake ovens for
waterborne coatings.
In addition, we are adding the ALDT panel testing procedure titled
``Determination of Capture Efficiency of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Spray Booth Emissions from Solvent-borne Coatings Using Panel
Testing'' as appendix A to subpart MMa of 40 CFR part 60, as proposed.
In addition to the EPA test methods listed in subpart MM (EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, and 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), we are
finalizing the following EPA methods in subpart MMa, as proposed:
<bullet> EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60;
<bullet> EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and
<bullet> EPA Method 311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
EPA-453/R-08-002 is available online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-guidelines-and-standards-solvent-use-and-surface">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-guidelines-and-standards-solvent-use-and-surface</a> (see Automobile and Light Duty Truck
CTG) or through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413-
0080.
ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981 is available from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990,
Telephone (800) 843-2763. See <a href="https://www.asme.org">https://www.asme.org</a>.
The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See <a href="https://www.astm.org">https://www.astm.org</a>.
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found in the memorandum titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating, which is dated January 24, 2023, and is
available in the docket for this action.
Under the general provisions at 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of
subpart A, 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 anticipates that the human health or environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the
potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or
environmental effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or
indigenous peoples.
The EPA anticipates that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples. As discussed in section IV.F of
this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis for the ALDT surface
coating source category, which is an assessment of the proximity of
individual demographic groups living close to the facilities (within 50
km and within 5 km). We performed demographic analyses during proposal
for 46 existing ALDT plants and after proposal for three new ALDT
plants. The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are
presented in a technical report titled, Analysis of Demographic Factors
for Populations Living Near Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface
Coating NSPS Source Category Operations--Final Rule, available in the

[[Page 29999]]

docket for this action. The results of the demographic analysis for
existing ALDT plants indicate that the following groups are above the
national average: African Americans, People Living Below the Poverty
Level, and People without a High School Diploma. For the new ALDT
plants, the results of the demographic analysis indicate that the
following groups are above the national average: African Americans,
Hispanic/Latino, and People without a High School Diploma. We
anticipate that the lower VOC emission limits finalized in this action
for new, modified, or reconstructed ALDT surface coating sources that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18,
2022, will result in lower ambient concentrations of ground level ozone
and increase compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone.

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, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 60 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. Revising paragraph (g)(14);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(186) through (218) as paragraphs
(h)(191) through (223);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(183) through (185) as paragraphs
(h)(187) through (189);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (h)(182) as paragraph (h)(184) and paragraph
(h)(181) as paragraph (h)(186), respectively;
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(172) through (180) as paragraphs
(h)(175) through (183);
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(60) through (171) as paragraphs (h)(61)
through (172)
0
g. Adding new paragraph (h)(60);
0
h. Revising newly-designated paragraphs (h)(97) and (h)(110);
0
i. Adding new paragraphs (h)(173), (174), and (185);
0
j. Revising newly-designated paragraph (h)(186);
0
k. Adding new paragraph (h)(190);
0
l. Redesignating paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) as (j)(2) through (5);
and
0
m. Adding a new paragraph (j)(1).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
(g) * * *
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], Issued August 31, 1981; IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 60.56c(b); 60.63(f); 60.106(e); 60.104a(d), (h), (i),
and (j); 60.105a(b), (d), (f), and (g); 60.106a(a); 60.107a(a), (c),
and (d); tables 1 and 3 to subpart EEEE; tables 2 and 4 to subpart
FFFF; table 2 to subpart JJJJ; Sec. Sec. 60.285a(f); 60.396a(a);
60.2145(s) and (t); 60.2710(s) and (t); 60.2730(q); 60.4415(a);
60.4900(b); 60.5220(b); tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL; tables 2 and 3
to subpart MMMM; Sec. Sec. 60.5406(c); 60.5406a(c); 60.5407a(g);
60.5413(b); 60.5413a(b); 60.5413a(d).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(60) ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, Approved November 1, 2013; IBR
approved for Sec. 60.393a(f).
* * * * *
(97) ASTM D2369-20, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, Approved June 1, 2020; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.393a(f); 60.723(b); 60.724(a); 60.725(b); 60.723a(b); 60.724a(a);
60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(110) ASTM D2697-22, Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, Approved July 1, 2022; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 60.393a(g); 60.723(b); 60.724(a); 60.725(b);
60.723a(b); 60.724a(a); 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(173) ASTM D5066-91, Standard Test Method for Determination of the
Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application
of Automotive Paints--Weight Basis, Approved June 1, 2017; IBR approved
for Sec. 60.393a(h).
(174) ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement), Approved February 1, 2021; IBR approved for
Sec. 60.397a(e); appendix A to subpart MMa.
* * * * *
(185) ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, Approved June 1, 2013; IBR
approved for Sec. 60.393a(f).
(186) 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. 60.393a(g); 60.723(b); 60.724(a); 60.725(b); 60.723a(b);
60.724a(a); 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(190) ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for
Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released From
Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement), Approved July 1, 2017; IBR approved for
Sec. 60.397a(e).
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) EPA-453/R-08-002, Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations, September 2008, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS); IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.393a(e) and (h); 60.395a(k); 60.397a(e); appendix A to subpart MMa.
* * * * *

Subpart MM--Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After October 5, 1979, and
On or Before May 18, 2022

0
3. Revise the heading for subpart MM of part 60 to read as set forth
above.

0
4. Amend Sec. 60.390 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 60.390 Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
(c) The provisions of this subpart apply to any affected facility
identified

[[Page 30000]]

in paragraph (a) of this section that begins construction,
reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, and on or before
May 18, 2022.

0
5. Amend Sec. 60.391 in paragraph (a) by revising the definition of
``Flash-off area'' to read as follows:

Sec. 60.391 Definitions.

(a) * * *
Flash-off area means the structure on automobile and light-duty
truck assembly lines between the coating application system (dip tank
or spray booth) and the bake oven. Flash-off area also means the
structure between spray booths in a wet-on-wet coating process in which
some of the solvent evaporates before the next spray booth; the flash
off area may be ambient temperature or heated to accelerate
evaporation.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec. 60.392 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

Sec. 60.392 Standards for volatile organic compounds.

On and after the date on which the initial performance test
required by Sec. 60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall discharge or cause the discharge
into the atmosphere from any affected facility VOC emissions in excess
of the limitations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
The emission limitations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall
apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction. As provided in Sec. 60.11(f), this provision supersedes
the exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in the
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec. 60.393 by revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) to read as
follows:

Sec. 60.393 Performance test and compliance provisions.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Determine the fraction of total VOC which is emitted by an
affected facility that enters the control device by using the following
equation where ``n'' is the total number of stacks entering the control
device and ``p'' is the total number of stacks not connected to the
control device:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.000

(1) In subsequent months, the owner or operator shall use the most
recently determined capture fraction for the performance test.
(2) If the owner can justify to the Administrator's satisfaction
that another method will give comparable results, the Administrator
will approve its use on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec. 60.395 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c)
introductory text and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

Sec. 60.395 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

(a) * * *
(2) Where compliance is achieved through the use of incineration,
the owner or operator shall include the following additional data in
the control device initial performance test required by Sec. 60.8(a)
or subsequent performance tests at which destruction efficiency is
determined: the combustion temperature (or the gas temperature upstream
and downstream of the catalyst bed), the total mass of VOC per volume
of applied coating solids before and after the incinerator, capture
efficiency, the destruction efficiency of the incinerator used to
attain compliance with the applicable emission limit specified in Sec.
60.392 and a description of the method used to establish the fraction
of VOC captured and sent to the control device.
(b) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator
of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit a report to
the Administrator every calendar quarter of each instance in which the
volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOC's emitted to the
atmosphere per volume of applied coating solids (N) is greater than the
limit specified under Sec. 60.392. If no such instances have occurred
during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted
to the Administrator semiannually. Where compliance is achieved through
the use of a capture system and control device, the volume-weighted
average after the control device should be reported.
(c) Where compliance with Sec. 60.392 is achieved through the use
of incineration, the owner or operator shall continuously record the
incinerator combustion temperature during coating operations for
thermal incineration or the gas temperature upstream and downstream of
the incinerator catalyst bed during coating operations for catalytic
incineration. The owner or operator shall submit a report at the
frequency specified in Sec. 60.7(c) and paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) The owner or operator shall submit the reports listed in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. In addition
to the information required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
owners or operators are required to report excess emissions and a
monitoring systems performance report and a summary report to the
Administrator according to Sec. 60.7(c) and (d). Owners or operators
are required by Sec. 60.7(c) and (d) to report the date, time, cause,
and duration of each exceedance of the applicable emission limit
specified in Sec. 60.392, any malfunction of the air pollution control
equipment, and any periods during which the CMS or monitoring device is
inoperative. For each failure, the report must include a list of the
affected sources or equipment and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(1) Effective date. On and after November 6, 2023, or once the
reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year,
whichever date is later, owners or operators must use the appropriate
spreadsheet template on the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI) website (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri</a>) for this subpart. The date the reporting template
for this subpart becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method by which the report is submitted. Submit all
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's
CDX (<a href="https://cdx.epa.gov/">https://cdx.epa.gov/</a>). The EPA will make all the information
submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice
to the owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you
claim as CBI. Any information submitted using CEDRI

[[Page 30001]]

cannot later be claimed CBI. If you claim CBI, submit the report
following the procedure described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to CEDRI as
described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(2) System outage. Owner or operators that are required to submit a
report electronically through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, owners
or operators must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required 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 five business days prior to the date that the submission 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 reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date
you reported.
(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 report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(3) Force majeure. Owner or operators that are required to submit a
report electronically through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, Owner or operators
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) 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 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 reporting.
(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) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date
you reported.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(f) Where compliance is achieved through the use of incineration,
the owner or operator shall submit control device performance test
results at which destruction efficiency is determined for initial and
subsequent performance tests according to paragraph (a) of this section
within 60 days of completing each performance test following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(<a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert</a>) at the time of the test.
(i) Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (<a href="https://cdx.epa.gov/">https://cdx.epa.gov/</a>).
(ii) The data must be submitted in a file format generated using
the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit an
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
(i) The results of the performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(ii) Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). Do not use CEDRI to
submit information you claim as CBI. Any information submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Under CAA section 114(c), 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.
Owners or operators that assert a CBI claim for any information
submitted under paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section, must submit a
complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The
file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic
file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
Owners or operators can submit CBI according to one of the two
procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section. All CBI
claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
(i) If sending CBI through the postal service, submit the file on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Owners or operators are
required to mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations Sector Lead, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(ii) The EPA preferred method for CBI submittal is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox,
OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted
directly to the OAQPS CBI

[[Page 30002]]

Office at the email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdd2dccccdcededfd4fdd8cddc93dad2cb">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Attention: Automobile and
Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations Sector Lead, and as
described above, should be clearly identified as CBI. 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, you may email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#442b2535343727262d042134256a232b32">[email&#160;protected]</a> to request a file
transfer link.

0
9. Add subpart MMa to part 60 to read as follows:

Subpart MMa--Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After May 18, 2022

Sec.
60.390a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.391a Definitions.
60.392a Standards for volatile organic compounds.
60.393a Performance test and compliance provisions.
60.394a Add-on control device operating limits and monitoring
requirements.
60.395a Notifications, reports, and records.
60.396a Add-on control device destruction efficiency.
60.397a Emission capture system efficiency.
Table 1 to Subpart MMa of Part 60--Operating limits for capture
systems and add-on control devices.
Appendix A to Subpart MMa of Part 60--Determination of capture
efficiency of automobile and light-duty truck spray booth emissions
from solvent-borne coatings using panel testing.

Subpart MMa--Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After May 18, 2022

Sec. 60.390a Applicability and designation of affected facility.

(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following affected
facilities in an automobile or light-duty truck assembly plant
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) Each prime coat operation, each guide coat operation, and each
topcoat operation.
(2) All storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed.
(3) All manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials.
(4) All storage containers and all manual and automated equipment
and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a
coating operation.
(b) Exempted from the provisions of this subpart are operations
used to coat plastic body components on separate coating lines. The
attachment of plastic body parts to a metal body before the body is
coated does not cause the metal body coating operation to be exempted.
(c) The provisions of this subpart apply to any affected facility
identified in paragraph (a) of this section that begins construction,
reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022.
(d) The following physical or operational changes are not, by
themselves, considered modifications of existing facilities:
(1) Changes as a result of model year changeovers or switches to
larger vehicles.
(2) Changes in the application of the coatings to increase coating
film thickness.

Sec. 60.391a Definitions.

All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have the
meaning given to them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
Applied coating solids means the volume of dried or cured coating
solids which is deposited and remains on the surface of the automobile
or light-duty truck body.
Automobile means a motor vehicle capable of carrying no more than
12 passengers.
Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plant means a facility
that assembles automobiles or light-duty trucks, including coating
facilities and processes.
Automobile and light-duty truck body means the exterior surface of
an automobile or light-duty truck including hoods, fenders, cargo
boxes, doors, and grill opening panels.
Bake oven means a device that uses heat to dry or cure coatings.
Electrodeposition (EDP) means a method of applying a prime coat by
which the automobile or light-duty truck body is submerged in a tank
filled with coating material and an electrical field is used to affect
the deposition of the coating material on the body.
Electrostatic spray application means a spray application method
that uses an electrical potential to increase the transfer efficiency
of the coating solids. Electrostatic spray application can be used for
prime coat, guide coat, or topcoat operations.
Flash-off area means the structure on automobile and light-duty
truck assembly lines between the coating application system (dip tank
or spray booth) and the bake oven. Flash off area also means the
structure between spray booths in a wet-on-wet coating process in which
some of the solvent evaporates before the next spray booth; the flash
off area may be ambient temperature or heated to accelerate
evaporation.
Guide coat operation means the guide coat spray booth, flash-off
area, and bake oven(s) which are used to apply and dry or cure a
surface coating between the prime coat and topcoat operation on the
components of automobile and light-duty truck bodies.
Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at 3,850 kilograms
gross vehicle weight or less, designed mainly to transport property.
Plastic body means an automobile or light-duty truck body
constructed of synthetic organic material.
Plastic body component means any component of an automobile or
light-duty truck exterior surface constructed of synthetic organic
material.
Prime coat operation means the prime coat spray booth or dip tank,
flash-off area, and bake oven(s) which are used to apply and dry or
cure the initial coating on components of automobile or light-duty
truck bodies.
Purge or line purge means the coating material expelled from the
spray system when clearing it.
Solvent-borne means a coating which contains five percent or less
water by weight in its volatile fraction.
Spray application means a method of applying coatings by atomizing
the coating material and directing the atomized material toward the
part to be coated. Spray applications can be used for prime coat, guide
coat, and topcoat operations.
Spray booth means a structure housing automatic or manual spray
application equipment where prime coat, guide coat, or topcoat is
applied to components of automobile or light-duty truck bodies.
Surface coating operation means any prime coat, guide coat, or
topcoat operation on an automobile or light-duty truck surface coating
line.
Topcoat operation means the topcoat spray booth(s), heated flash-
off area, flash-off area, and bake oven(s) which are used to apply and
dry or cure the final coating(s) on components of automobile and light-
duty truck bodies.
Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the amount of coating solids
transferred onto the surface of a part or product to the total amount
of coating solids used.
VOC content means all volatile organic compounds that are in a
coating expressed as kilograms of VOC per liter of coating solids.

[[Page 30003]]

Waterborne or water reducible means a coating which contains more
than five weight percent water in its volatile fraction.

Sec. 60.392a Standards for volatile organic compounds.

You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (h)
of this section.
(a) Emission limitations. On and after the date on which the
initial performance test required by Sec. 60.8 is completed, you must
not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from any
affected facility VOC emissions in excess of the limits in paragraph
(a)(1) through (4) of this section. The emission limitations listed in
this paragraph (a) of this section shall apply at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As provided in Sec.
60.11(f), this provision supersedes the exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction in the part 60 general provisions in
subpart A to this part.
(1) For each EDP prime coat operation:
(i) 0.027 kilogram of VOC per liter of applied coating solids when
R<INF>T</INF> is 0.16 or greater.
(ii) 0.027 x 350(0.160-RT) kg of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids when RT is greater than or equal to 0.040 and
less than 0.160.
(iii) When R<INF>T</INF> is less than 0.040, there is no emission
limit.
(2) 0.027 kilograms of VOC per liter of applied coating solids
(0.23 pounds per gallon of applied coating solids) from each non-EDP
prime coat operation.
(3) 0.35 kilograms of VOC per liter of applied coating solids (2.92
pounds per gallon of applied coating solids) from each guide coat
operation.
(4) 0.42 kilograms of VOC per liter of applied coating solids (3.53
pounds per gallon of applied coating solids) from each topcoat
operation.
(b) Work practices for storage, mixing, and conveying. You must
develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize VOC emissions
from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, all
coating operations for which emission limits are established under
Sec. 60.392a(a). The plan must specify practices and procedures to
ensure that, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section are implemented.
(1) All VOC-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and
waste materials must be stored in closed containers.
(2) The risk of spills of VOC-containing coatings, thinners,
cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
(3) VOC-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and
waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed
containers or pipes.
(4) Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with continuous
agitation systems, which contain VOC-containing coatings and other
materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the
contents.
(5) Emissions of VOC must be minimized during cleaning of storage,
mixing, and conveying equipment.
(c) Work practices for cleaning and purging. You must develop and
implement a work practice plan to minimize VOC emissions from cleaning
and from purging of equipment associated with all coating operations
for which emission limits are established under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(1) The plan shall, at a minimum, address each of the operations
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section in which
you use VOC-containing materials or in which there is a potential for
emission of VOC.
(i) The plan must address vehicle body wipe emissions through one
or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (D)
of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of solvent-moistened wipes.
(B) Keeping solvent containers closed when not in use.
(C) Keeping wipe disposal/recovery containers closed when not in
use.
(D) Use of tack-wipes.
(ii) The plan must address coating line purging emissions through
one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A)
through (D) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Air/solvent push-out.
(B) Capture and reclaim or recovery of purge materials (excluding
applicator nozzles/tips).
(C) Block painting to the maximum extent feasible.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC solvents for purge.
(iii) The plan must address emissions from flushing of coating
systems through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent tanks closed.
(B) Recovering and recycling solvents.
(C) Keeping recovered/recycled solvent tanks closed.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC solvents.
(iv) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
grates through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Controlled burn-off.
(B) Rinsing with high-pressure water (in place).
(C) Rinsing with high-pressure water (off line).
(D) Use of spray-on masking or other type of liquid masking.
(E) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(v) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
walls through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(v)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of masking materials (contact paper, plastic sheet, or
other similar type of material).
(B) Use of spray-on masking.
(C) Use of rags and manual wipes instead of spray application when
cleaning walls.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(vi) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
equipment through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(vi)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of covers on equipment (disposable or reusable).
(B) Use of parts cleaners (off-line submersion cleaning).
(C) Use of spray-on masking or other protective coatings.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(vii) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of external
spray booth areas through one or more of the techniques listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(vii)(A) through (F) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Use of removable floor coverings (paper, foil, plastic, or
similar type of material).
(B) Use of manual and/or mechanical scrubbers, rags, or wipes
instead of spray application.
(C) Use of shoe cleaners to eliminate coating track-out from spray
booths.
(D) Use of booties or shoe wraps.
(E) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(F) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(viii) The plan must address emissions from housekeeping measures
not addressed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section
through one or more of the techniques listed in

[[Page 30004]]

paragraphs (c)(1)(viii)(A) through (C) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent-laden articles (cloths, paper, plastic, rags,
wipes, and similar items) in covered containers when not in use.
(B) Storing new and used solvents in closed containers.
(C) Transferring of solvents in a manner to minimize the risk of
spills.
(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (viii) of this section, if the type of coatings used in any
facility with surface coating operations subject to the requirements of
this section are of such a nature that the need for one or more of the
practices specified under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this
section is eliminated, then the plan may include approved alternative
or equivalent measures that are applicable or necessary during cleaning
of storage, conveying, and application equipment.
(d) Work practice plan revisions. The work practice plans developed
in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are not
required to be incorporated in your title V permit. Any revisions to
the work practice plans developed in accordance with paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section do not constitute revisions to your title V permit.
(e) Work practice plan retention time. Copies of the current work
practice plans developed in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, as well as plans developed within the preceding 5 years
must be available on-site for inspection and copying by the permitting
authority.
(f) Operating limits. You are not required to meet any operating
limits for any coating operation(s) without add-on controls, nor are
you required to meet operating limits for any coating operation(s) that
do not utilize emission capture systems and add-on controls to comply
with the emission limits in Sec. 60.392a(a).
(g) Operating limits for operations with add-on controls. Except as
provided in paragraph (h) of this section, for any controlled coating
operation(s), you must meet the operating limits specified in table 1
to this subpart. These operating limits apply to the emission capture
and add-on control systems for affected sources in Sec. 60.390a(a)(1),
and you must establish the operating limits during performance tests
according to the requirements in Sec. 60.394a. You must meet the
operating limits at all times after you establish them.
(h) Alternative operating limits. If you use an add-on control
device other than those listed in table 1 to this subpart or wish to
monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating
limit, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of alternative
monitoring under Sec. 60.13(i).

Sec. 60.393a Performance test and compliance provisions.

(a) Representative conditions. You must conduct performance tests
under representative conditions for the affected coating operation
according to Sec. 60.8(c) and under the conditions in this section
unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the
provisions in Sec. 60.8(b)(4).
(1) Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or nonoperation
do not constitute conditions representative of normal operation for
purposes of conducting a performance test. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. Emissions in excess of
the applicable emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction will be considered a violation of the applicable emission
limit.
(2) You must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the performance test and explain
why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
(3) Section 60.8(d) and (f) do not apply to the performance test
procedures required by this section.
(b) Initial and continuous compliance requirements. You must
conduct an initial performance test in accordance with Sec. 60.8(a)
and thereafter for each calendar month for each affected facility
according to the procedures in this section. You must also conduct
periodic performance tests of add-on controls, except for solvent
recovery systems for which liquid-liquid material balances are
conducted according to paragraph (l) of this section, to reestablish
the operating limits required by Sec. 60.392a within 5 years following
the previous performance test. You must meet all the requirements of
this section to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance.
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance, the VOC emissions from
affected source must meet the applicable emission limitation in Sec.
60.392a and the work practice standards in Sec. 60.392a and the
applicable operating limits in Sec. 60.392a established during the
initial performance test using the procedures in Sec. 60.394a and
table 1 to this subpart.
(i) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the
initial compliance period according to the requirements of this
section. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable
compliance date specified in Sec. 60.8 and ends on the last day of the
month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on
any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial
compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next
month.
(ii) You must determine the mass of VOC emissions and volume of
coating solids deposited in the initial compliance period. The initial
compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture
system and add-on control device performance tests conducted according
to Sec. Sec. 60.396a and 60.397a; supporting documentation showing
that during the initial compliance period the VOC emission rate was
equal to or less than the emission limit in Sec. 60.392a; the
operating limits established during the performance tests and the
results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by Sec.
60.394a; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the
work practice plans required by Sec. 60.392(b) and (c).
(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 60.392a, the VOC emission rate for each
compliance period, determined according to the procedures in this
section, must be equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in
Sec. 60.392a. A compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month
after the end of the initial compliance period described in Sec.
60.393a(b)(1)(i) is a compliance period consisting of that month. You
must perform the calculations in this section on a monthly basis.
(3) If the VOC emission rate for any 1-month compliance period
exceeded the applicable emission limit in Sec. 60.392a, this is a
deviation from the emission limitation for that compliance period and
must be reported as specified in Sec. 60.395a(h).
(c) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, you must establish and demonstrate
continuous compliance during the initial compliance period with the
operating limits required by Sec. 60.392a, using the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.394a.
(1) You do not need to comply with the operating limits for the
emission capture system and add-on control device required by Sec.
60.394a until after you have completed the initial

[[Page 30005]]

performance test specified in paragraph (b) of this section. Durin

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 9, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.