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

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

https://www.regulations.gov/

website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,

e.g.,

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through

https://www.regulations.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. 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:

hirtz.paula@epa.gov.

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

2

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?

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

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new.

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

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:

• Expected growth for the source category, including how many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger NSPS in the future.

• Pollution control measures, including advances in control technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or other systems of emission reduction, that are “adequately demonstrated” in the regulated industry.

• Available information from the implementation and enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards are achieved in practice.

• Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with implementation of the available pollution control measures.

• The amount of emission reductions achievable through application of such pollution control measures.

• Any 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:

• For prime coat operations:

○ 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

T

); for R

T

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.

○ For non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat: 0.17 kg VOC/l acs (1.42 lb VOC/gal acs);

• For guide coat operations: 1.40 kg VOC/l acs (11.7 lb VOC/gal acs); and

• 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

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

T

) in response to comments. For the guide coat and topcoat operations we are finalizing the proposed numeric limits.

• For prime coat operations:

○ 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

T

) when R

T

is between 0.04 and 0.16; For R

T

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.

○ Non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat, 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs).

• For guide coat operations, 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs); and

• 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

T

, 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

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

T

), 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

T

). The EPA is promulgating the following limits for the prime coat operation in 40 CFR 60.392a depending on the solids turnover ratio (R

T

); for R

T

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 × 350 (

0.160−R

T

) 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

T

) 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

T

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

T

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

T

); for R

T

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 × 350 (

0.160−R

T

) 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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).

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

https://www.epa.gov/compliance/clean-air-act-national-stack-testing-guidance.

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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

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

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:

• EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60;

• EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and

• 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:

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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:

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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.

• 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.

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

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/method_25a.pdf.

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

2

e) per year per facility. We estimate a total GHG emission production of 71,584 mtCO

2

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

This 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

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:

• 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

rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide and is an acceptable alternative to the manual portion only and not the instrumental portion.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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:

• EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60;

• EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and

• EPA Method 311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.

EPA-453/R-08-002 is available online at

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-guidelines-and-standards-solvent-use-and-surface

(see Automobile and Light Duty Truck CTG) or through

https://www.regulations.gov

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

https://www.asme.org.

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

https://www.astm.org.

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

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

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

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A—General Provisions

2. Amend § 60.17 by:

a. Revising paragraph (g)(14);

b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(186) through (218) as paragraphs (h)(191) through (223);

c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(183) through (185) as paragraphs (h)(187) through (189);

d. Redesignating paragraph (h)(182) as paragraph (h)(184) and paragraph (h)(181) as paragraph (h)(186), respectively;

e. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(172) through (180) as paragraphs (h)(175) through (183);

f. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(60) through (171) as paragraphs (h)(61) through (172)

g. Adding new paragraph (h)(60);

h. Revising newly-designated paragraphs (h)(97) and (h)(110);

i. Adding new paragraphs (h)(173), (174), and (185);

j. Revising newly-designated paragraph (h)(186);

k. Adding new paragraph (h)(190);

l. Redesignating paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) as (j)(2) through (5); and

m. Adding a new paragraph (j)(1).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 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 §§ 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; §§ 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; §§ 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 § 60.393a(f).

(97) ASTM D2369-20, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, Approved June 1, 2020; IBR approved for §§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 §§ 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

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

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

§ 60.390

Applicability and designation of affected facility.

(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 October 5, 1979, and on or before May 18, 2022.

5. Amend § 60.391 in paragraph (a) by revising the definition of “Flash-off area” to read as follows:

§ 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.

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

§ 60.392

Standards for volatile organic compounds.

On and after the date on which the initial performance test required by § 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 § 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.

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

§ 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:

ER09MY23.000

(

1

) In subsequent months, the owner or operator shall use the most recently determin

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.