[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30141-30160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09590]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664; FRL-8511-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV30


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposal presents the preliminary results of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) review of the New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Automobile and Light Duty Truck 
Surface Coating Operations as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
EPA is proposing, in a new NSPS subpart, 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, the EPA 
is proposing amendments under the new NSPS subpart: Revision of the 
plastic parts provision; updates to the control devices and control 
device testing and monitoring requirements; revision of the transfer 
efficiency provisions; revision of the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, the addition of work practices to minimize VOC emissions; 
the addition of electronic reporting; clarification of the requirements 
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 proposing to amend 
NSPS subpart MM to apply to sources that commence construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, and on or before 
May 18, 2022 and to add electronic reporting requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2022. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before June 17, 2022.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before May 23, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering 
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0664, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0664 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0664.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be

[[Page 30142]]

posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any 
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending 
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance 
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket 
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to 
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also 
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and 
webform. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled 
appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket Center services 
and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Paula Deselich Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing 
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that because 
of current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social 
distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-
person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. If 
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on June 2, 2022. The 
hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude 
at 3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last 
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional 
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after 
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual 
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new or contact the public hearing team 
at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. The last 
day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be May 31, 2022. Prior 
to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list pre-
registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral 
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to 
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of 
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth 
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at 
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if 
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by May 25, 
2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without 
advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0664. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/ 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information

[[Page 30143]]

about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the Docket 
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our 
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service 
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be 
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and 
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information 
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners 
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must 
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media 
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage 
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID. 
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and 
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information 
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as 
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket 
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that 
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not 
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to 
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the 
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped 
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer 
envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice the use 
of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We use 
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not 
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

BACT Best Available Control Technology
BID Background Information Document
BSER Best System of Emissions Reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System
CTG Control Techniques Guidelines
EDP electrodeposition
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
LAER Lowest Available Control Technology
kg/l acs kilogram per liter of applied coating solids
mtCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
Non-EDP non-electrodeposition
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
lb/gal acs pounds per gallon of applied coating solids
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
SBA Small Business Administration
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions
scfh standard cubic feet per hour
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
tpy tons per year
TSD Technical Support Document
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?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the source category and how does the current standard 
regulate emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale
    A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our NSPS 
review and what is the rationale for those decisions?
    B. What other actions are we proposing and what is the rationale 
for those decisions?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, 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?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source category that is the subject of this proposal is 
automobile and light duty truck (ALDT) surface coating operations 
regulated under CAA section 111 New Source Performance Standards. The 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for the 
ALDT manufacturing

[[Page 30144]]

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). These NAICS codes provide a 
guide for readers regarding the entities this proposed action is likely 
to affect. We estimate that 15 facilities engaged in ALDT manufacturing 
will be affected by this proposal over the next 8 years. The proposed 
standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to affected 
facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the Federal 
Register. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would 
not be affected by this proposed action.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/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 proposal and key technical documents at this same website.
    The proposed changes to the CFR that would be necessary to 
incorporate the changes proposed in this action are presented in an 
attachment to the memorandum titled: Proposed Regulation Edits for 40 
CFR part 60, subparts MM and MMa: Standards of Performance for 
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations. This 
memorandum is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, 
the EPA will also post a copy of the memorandum and the attachments to 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The EPA's authority for this 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. 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 non-air quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1). 
This definition makes clear that the EPA is to determine both the best 
system of emission reduction (BSER) for the regulated sources in the 
source category and the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through application of the BSER. The EPA must then, under CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new sources that 
reflect that level of stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the 
EPA from prescribing a particular technological system that must be 
used to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources can 
select any measure or combination of measures that will achieve the 
standard.
    Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2), 
proposed standards of performance apply to facilities that commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of 
publication of such proposed standards in the Federal Register.

B. What is the source category and how does the current standard 
regulate emissions?

    Pursuant to the CAA section 111 authority described above, the EPA 
listed the ALDT surface coating source category as a source category 
under CAA section 111(b)(1). 44 FR 49222, 49226 (Aug. 21, 1979).).
    The NSPS for ALDT surface coating operations (ALDT NSPS) were 
promulgated at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM on December 24, 1980 (45 FR 
85415, December 24, 1980). Subpart MM applies to affected facilities 
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after 
October 5, 1979. The affected facility is defined as each prime coat 
operation, each guide coat operation, and each topcoat operation in an 
automobile or light duty truck assembly plant. The NSPS applies to 
these sources regardless of production capacity. The ALDT NSPS 
established VOC emission limits calculated on a monthly basis for each 
electrodeposition (EDP) prime coat operation, guide coat (primer-
surfacer) operation and topcoat operation. The emission limits and 
reporting requirements in the 1980 ALDT NSPS were amended in a series 
of actions from 1980 to 1994 (59 FR 51383, October 11, 1994) to include 
innovative technology review waivers to increase the topcoat operation 
VOC emission limitations for certain plants, to reduce the reporting 
frequency for deviations from the rule requirements from quarterly to 
semiannually, and to revise the VOC emission limitation for the EDP 
prime coat operation in response to an industry petition for 
reconsideration. The innovative technology waivers were issued under 
CAA sections 111(j) and 173 to nine auto assembly plants for topcoat 
operations based on their continued use of solvent borne topcoat (base 
coat/clear coat enamel) to achieve a high-quality finish instead of 
converting to a waterborne topcoat. The VOC emission limits for the EDP 
prime coat operation were revised in response to an industry 
reconsideration petition to base the emission limit on an equation that 
includes a term for the EDP prime coat dip tank solids turnover ratio 
(RT), which is the ratio of the total volume of coating 
solids that is added to the EDP prime coat system in a calendar month 
divided by the total volume design capacity of the EDP prime coat 
system.
    Subsequent to the ALDT NSPS, the EPA promulgated other regulatory 
actions pursuant to CAA sections 112 and CAA 183(e) that also regulate 
or otherwise address emissions from the same ALDT surface coating 
operations. These regulatory actions include: the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles 
and Light-Duty Trucks at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (ALDT NESHAP) 
promulgated on April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22623), the Control Techniques 
Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly

[[Page 30145]]

Coatings, EPA-453/R-08-006, September 2008 (2008 ALDT CTG) and the ALDT 
NESHAP risk and technology review (RTR) promulgated on July 8, 2020 (85 
FR 41100).
    Although the resulting ALDT NESHAP requirements and ALDT CTG 
recommendations cannot be compared directly to the ALDT NSPS due to the 
differences in CAA authorities, pollutants, emission limits and format, 
they apply to the same coating materials and operations and were 
therefore considered in our review.
    The affected surface coating operations at an assembly plant 
described in the 1980 ALDT NSPS included the prime coat operation, the 
guide coat operation, and the topcoat operation. The prime coat 
operation employed the use of a waterborne coating and included the 
prime coat spray booth or dip tank, a series of rinses, and a bake oven 
to apply and cure the prime coat on automobile and light-duty truck 
bodies. The guide coat operation followed the prime coat operation and 
included the guide coat spray booth, flash-off area and bake oven(s) 
which were used to apply and dry or cure a surface coating between the 
prime coat and topcoat operations on the components of automobile and 
light-duty truck bodies. The topcoat operation followed the guide coat 
operation and included the topcoat spray booth, flash-off area, and 
bake oven(s) which were used to apply and dry or cure the final 
coating(s) on components of automobile and light-duty truck bodies. The 
topcoat operation included both single stage topcoats (lacquers) and 
topcoats applied in two stages (enamels) consisting of a pigmented 
basecoat applied prior to an overlying clearcoat.
    As discussed in the 1979 ALDT NSPS proposal preamble, most ALDT 
facilities had non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat systems and planned 
to switch to an EDP (dip tank) prime coat system to reduce VOC 
emissions to comply with state implementation plans (SIPs) (44 FR 
57795). No control devices were used to control prime coat operation 
emissions at that time. For guide coat and topcoat operations, only two 
ALDT facilities used waterborne coatings and the remaining facilities 
used solvent borne coatings. Topcoat operations employed the use of 
solvent borne coatings and VOC control devices such as regenerative 
thermal oxidizers (RTO) and catalytic oxidizers.
    The 1979 ALDT NSPS proposal evaluated two regulatory options to 
control VOC emissions from ALDT surface coating operations. (44 FR 
57795) The first option was determined to be the standard that 
reflected the level of emission reduction achievable by the BSER and 
was based on two equivalent control alternatives. Alternative A was 
based on the use of EDP waterborne prime coat, waterborne guide coats 
and topcoats, and no controls; and Alternative B was based on the use 
of EDP waterborne prime coat and solvent borne guide coats and 
topcoats, with control of the topcoat booth and oven. The second 
regulatory option was determined to be not cost-effective and consisted 
of Alternative B with control of the guide coat booth and oven. The 
evaluation also took into account the differences between ALDT surface 
coating operations using lacquer coatings versus enamel coatings as the 
industry was in the process of converting to enamel coatings at the 
time. The associated energy and economic impacts of the options were 
also assessed using growth projections for the industry. Additional 
details on the development of the ALDT NSPS can be found in the 
document titled Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating 
Operations, Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-
79-030, September 1979, available in the docket for this action.
    The ALDT NSPS, as promulgated in 1980 and amended in 1994, 
established separate volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission 
limitations for each surface coating operation:
     For prime coat operations
    [cir] For EDP (dip tank) prime coat, 0.17 to 0.34 kilograms VOC/
liter applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs) (1.42 to 2.84 lbs VOC/gal 
acs) depending on the solids turnover ratio (RT); For 
RT greater than 0.16, the limit is 0.17 kg VOC/l acs (1.42 
lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios less than 0.04, there is no 
emission limit.
    [cir] For Non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat, 0.17 kg VOC/l acs 
(1.42 lb VOC/gal acs);
     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).
    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; 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.
    The ALDT NSPS requires a monthly compliance demonstration for each 
operation which is the calculation of mass of VOC emitted per volume of 
applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs or lbs VOC/gal acs) each calendar 
month. The ALDT NSPS provides default transfer efficiencies (TE) for 
the various surface coating application methods that were in practice 
at the time for the monthly compliance calculation. TE is the ratio of 
the amount of coating solids transferred onto the surface of a part or 
product to the total amount of coating solids used. Higher TEs indicate 
a higher fraction of coatings solids are deposited onto the part or 
product and a lower fraction of coating solids become overspray that is 
captured by the spray booth filters or is deposited onto the spray 
booth grates, walls and floor, or to the water collection system below 
the grates. The default TE values in the NSPS also account for the 
recovery of purge solvent. The monthly compliance calculation also 
takes into consideration the VOC destruction efficiency (as determined 
by the initial or the most recent performance testing of control 
devices) needed to meet the VOC emission limitations. The control 
devices identified in the ALDT NSPS include thermal and catalytic 
oxidizers. In addition, the NSPS requires continuous monitoring of 
temperature for the thermal and catalytic oxidizers. Quarterly 
reporting is required to report emission limit exceedances and negative 
reports are required for no exceedances.
    Today, all prime coat operations at ALDT facilities use waterborne 
coatings and cathodic EDP systems. The guide coat operations use a 
variety of coatings, including waterborne, solvent borne and powder 
coatings using automatic (including robotic) and manual high efficiency 
spray application technologies. The topcoat operations use waterborne 
and solvent borne coatings and are applied using a ``2-wet'' 
application process using automatic (including robotic) and manual and 
high efficiency spray application technologies. The guide coat and 
topcoat processes have also been combined by some facilities in an 
application referred to as ``3-wet'' process in which the guide coat 
booth is followed by a heated flash zone (instead of an oven) and the 
topcoat (base coat and clearcoat) is subsequently applied before the 
vehicle body proceeds to the topcoat flash zone and oven. Additional 
details on the developments and current industry practices can be found 
in the document titled 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), located in the docket for 
this action.

[[Page 30146]]

    The EPA estimates that there are 45 ALDT assembly plants located in 
14 states and owned by 16 different parent companies. Of the 45 ALDT 
assembly plants, one parent company owning a single plant will no 
longer be considered a small entity by the end of this year (2022) due 
to the anticipated sale of the affected portions of the plant to a 
company that is not a small entity. One other plant plans to start 
construction in May 2022 and is not a small entity. We did not include 
this plant in our NSPS review due to lack of data for the plant, but we 
did include its location in our demographic analysis and tribal 
proximity analysis.
    Based on our review, we have determined that 44 of the 45 assembly 
plants are currently subject to the ALDT NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart MM, all of which have affected surface coating operations that 
were constructed, reconstructed, or modified after October 5, 1979. One 
plant is not subject to the ALDT NSPS due to an exemption for the 
coating of all plastic bodies, which we address in this action. Based 
on our review of best achievable control technology (BACT) and lowest 
achievable emission rate (LAER) limits for new, modified, or 
reconstructed ALDT surface coating operations, we determined that about 
one-third of the assembly plants are subject to limits that are more 
stringent than the limits in the ALDT NSPS subpart MM. We also 
determined that 44 of the 45 ALDT assembly plants are also currently 
subject to the ALDT NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. One plant 
is not subject to the ALDT NESHAP because it is considered to be an 
area source and not a major source under CAA section 112. The number of 
employees and annual revenues are expected to increase for this plant 
as it increases production and is expected to become a CAA 112 major 
source in 2022. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, it was 
considered to be a CAA 112 major source.

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

    During our review of the current ALDT NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
MM) and the development of the proposed new ALDT NSPS subpart MMa 
(i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa) we used emissions and supporting 
data from the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). A variety of 
sources were used to compile a list of facilities subject to subpart 
MM. The list was based on information provided by the industry 
association, the Auto Industry Forum, and confirmed with information 
downloaded from the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online 
(ECHO) database and the EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) 
database. The ECHO system contains compliance and permit data for 
stationary sources regulated by the EPA. The ECHO database was queried 
by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and NAICS code as well as 
by subpart.
    We also reviewed EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse database to 
identify BACT and LAER determinations for ALDT surface coating 
operations, including more stringent emission limitations than the ALDT 
NSPS as well as potential new control technologies. The terms ``RACT,'' 
``BACT,'' and ``LAER'' are acronyms for different program requirements 
relevant to the NSR program. RACT, or Reasonably Available Control 
Technology, is required on existing sources in areas that are not 
meeting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (non-attainment 
areas). BACT, or Best Available Control Technology, is required on new 
or modified major sources in areas meeting NAAQS (attainment areas). 
LAER, or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, is required on new or 
modified major sources in non-attainment areas.

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

    In addition to the NEI, ECHO and EIS databases, the EPA reviewed 
the additional information sources listed below for advances in 
technologies, changes in cost, and other factors to review the 
standards for ALDT affected sources. These include the following:
     Operating permits for 40 of 44 of the ALDT assembly 
plants.
     Compliance demonstration reports including control device 
performance data for one-fourth of the plants.
     Publicly available facility inspection reports and other 
information on state websites.
     Construction permits and BACT determinations from EPA 
Region 5 and state agencies.
     Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating 
Operations, Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-
79-030, September 1979.
     Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating 
Operations, Background Information for Promulgated Standards, EPA-450/
3-79-030b, September 1980.
     Background documents and industry supplied data for 
supporting regulatory actions promulgated subsequent to the 1980 ALDT 
NSPS, including the 2004 ALDT NESHAP, the 2020 RTR amendments to the 
2004 ALDT NESHAP, and the 2008 CTG for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 
Assembly Coatings.

III. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

    As noted in section II.A., CAA section 111 requires the EPA, at 
least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise the standards 
of performance applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources. 
If the EPA revises the standards of performance, they must reflect the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
BSER taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any 
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. 
CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to 
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory 
factors, including the following information:
     Expected growth for the source category, including how 
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger 
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control 
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or 
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately 
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and 
enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations 
and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards 
are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with 
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through 
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any 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

[[Page 30147]]

analysis as a useful metric, and a means of evaluating whether a given 
control achieves emission reduction at a reasonable cost. A cost-
effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of relative costs and 
outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In general, cost-
effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by resources spent. 
In the context of air pollution control options, cost-effectiveness 
typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing an air 
pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant reductions 
realized annually.
    After the EPA evaluates the factors described above, the EPA then 
compares the various systems of emission reductions and determines 
which system is ``best.'' The EPA then establishes a standard of 
performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this analysis, the EPA 
can determine whether subcategorization is appropriate based on 
classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may identify a different BSER 
and establish different performance standards for each subcategory. The 
result of the analysis and BSER determination leads to standards of 
performance that apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the 
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because the new source 
performance standards reflect the best system of emission reduction 
under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in doing its 
review, the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure 
compliance with the emission standards.
    See sections II.C. and D. of this preamble for information on the 
specific data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

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

    This action presents the EPA's review of the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart MM pursuant to CAA 111(b)(1)(B). As described in 
section III of this preamble, the statutory review of NSPS subpart MM 
for ALDT surface coating operations focused on whether there are any 
emission reduction techniques that are used in practice that achieve 
greater emission reductions than those currently required by NSPS 
subpart MM for ALDT surface coating operations and whether any of these 
developments in practices have become the ``best system of emissions 
reduction.'' Based on this review, we have determined that there are 
techniques used in practice that achieve greater emission reductions 
than those currently required by NSPS subpart MM for ALDT surface 
coating operations. The results and proposed decisions based on the 
analyses performed pursuant to CAA section 111(b) are presented in more 
detail below. Pursuant to CAA section 111(a), the proposed standards 
included in this action would apply to facilities that begin 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022.
    To develop the costs and emission reductions for this review we 
used data obtained from readily available stack test reports and 
operating permits for eight ALDT facilities. Although the prime coat, 
guide coat, and topcoat operations are separate affected facilities 
with separate emission limitations, the operations are considered to be 
a surface coating system and as such, we found during our review they 
are often controlled as a system and share common control devices. 
These control devices also control other operations that are not 
affected facilities and are not subject to the ALDT NSPS (i.e., sealer/
deadener ovens subject to more stringent requirements than ALDT CTG 
presumptive RACT are vented to a shared RTO). Few surface coating 
operations have dedicated control devices, so it was challenging to 
estimate the cost and emission reduction associated with controlling 
each individual affected facility (i.e., the prime coat, guide coat, 
and topcoat affected facility) for each option. We are soliciting 
comments (including data, information, analysis and other input) with 
respect to the emission reductions and cost-effectiveness identified 
for each option presented below. Additional detailed information on 
control devices used by the industry and the methodology used to 
estimate the emission reductions and cost-effectiveness are provided in 
the memorandum titled 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.
    As required by CAA section 111, the EPA's BSER analysis for ALDT 
NSPS affected surface coating operations (prime coat, guide coat, and 
topcoat) considered the air quality impacts of the VOC-reducing control 
measures and the secondary impacts of these control measures. Indirect 
or secondary impacts are impacts that would result from the increased 
electricity usage and natural gas consumption associated with the 
operation of control devices to meet the revised VOC emission limits 
proposed for subpart MMa. These impacts were calculated on a per 
facility basis and were based on the ALDT facilities for which we had 
data. Based on the data for these ALDT facilities all three surface 
coating operations were affected and the entire coating line was 
considered to be new, reconstructed or modified. The annual average VOC 
emission reduction associated with the BSER analysis for the three ALDT 
affected surface coating operations is estimated to be 331 tpy per 
facility. The energy impact estimates associated with these VOC 
emission reductions include an increase in the average electricity 
consumption per facility of 2.54 million kwh per year and an increase 
in the average natural gas consumption per facility of 48.8 million scf 
per year. Based on these results, the EPA concluded there are no 
meaningful secondary impacts associated with this proposed action.
    The EPA also evaluated other air quality impacts of the control 
measures including greenhouse gas (GHG) production. 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 (mtCO2e) of GHG emissions per facility per year. We 
did not evaluate the impacts of the control measures on other 
pollutants such as hydrocarbons (other than VOC), NOX, and 
CO. We found these pollutants to be regulated by the states for this 
source category. Based on these results, the EPA concluded there are no 
meaningful impacts associated with other criteria pollutants as a 
result of this proposed action.
    We are soliciting comments (including data, information, analysis 
and other input) with respect to the results of our analysis of the air 
emissions impacts, including the secondary impacts of the control 
measures presented here. Additional detailed information is provided in 
the memorandum titled 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.

[[Page 30148]]

a. What are the proposed requirements for new ALDT prime coat 
operations?
    The ALDT surface coating process begins with a bare metal vehicle 
body. The body first goes through a zinc phosphate process. This 
process removes particulates from surface of the vehicle body. It also 
provides corrosion resistance and promotes adhesion between the metal 
and paint. The vehicle body is then submerged in the EDP prime coat dip 
tank. The EDP prime coat tank contains a mixture of water, particles of 
resin and pigment, and solvent. An electric current in the bath causes 
prime coat particles to deposit onto the body, including into enclosed 
areas that would not be coated in a conventional spray coating 
operation. After a predetermined amount of prime coat has been 
deposited, the body is removed from the bath, rinsed of excess coating, 
and then goes to a heated oven to cure the primer. Inside the curing 
oven, solvent that is contained in the primer particles is released. 
The VOC emissions from ALDT prime coat operations are generated from 
the evaporation of solvent in the EDP prime coat curing oven and, to a 
much lesser extent, from evaporation of the solvent included in the 
aqueous solution in the dip tank.
    The current ALDT NSPS prime coat limit in 40 CFR 60.392(a) is 0.17 
kg VOC/l acs (1.42 lb VOC/gal acs) and is based on the use of 
waterborne EDP prime coat operation without the use of add-on controls. 
According to facility operating permits reviewed for this action, 19 
facilities with 28 EDP prime coat operations are currently subject to 
more stringent prime coat limits than the current ALDT NSPS prime coat 
limit. All but two of these 28 EDP prime coat operations with more 
stringent limits are controlled with a thermal oxidizer, catalytic 
oxidizer, or RTO on the curing oven exhaust. Four of these facilities 
also control the emissions from the EDP prime coat dip tank (in 
addition to the oven emissions) with some form of thermal oxidation. 
The prime coat limits for these facilities that are more stringent than 
the NSPS range from 0.005 kg/l acs (0.04 lb VOC/gal acs) to 0.16 kg 
VOC/l acs (1.34 lb VOC/gal acs); the average is 0.040 kg VOC/l acs 
(0.33 lb VOC/gal acs) and the median is 0.024 kg VOC/l acs (0.20 lb 
VOC/gal acs). As a result of the information and findings described 
above, we evaluated two regulatory options that are more stringent than 
the current NSPS for prime coat operation, that are demonstrated by 
facilities using an EDP prime coat dip tank system to apply the prime 
coat.
    The first option evaluated in the ALDT NSPS review is a numerical 
VOC emission limit of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs) based 
only on control of the curing oven emissions with thermal oxidation 
(e.g., an RTO) that is capable of achieving 95-percent destruction and 
removal efficiency (DRE). The estimated annual cost of control per 
facility would be $356,000/year and the annual VOC emission reductions 
per facility would be 52 tpy, for a cost-effectiveness of $6,800/ton of 
VOC reduced. The EPA considers this option to be cost-effective over 
the baseline level of control. This regulatory option is also 
consistent with a compliance option for EDP primer systems in the ALDT 
NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart IIII). At 40 CFR 63.3092(b), affected 
sources may exclude the EDP prime coat emissions from their compliance 
calculations if the emissions from the oven used to cure EDP primers 
are captured and controlled by a control device having a destruction or 
removal efficiency of at least 95 percent. This compliance option is 
one of the reasons why many EDP prime coat affected sources are already 
fitted with a control device on the EDP prime coat ovens. Another 
option under 40 CFR 63.3092(a) allows source owners to exclude the EDP 
prime coat emissions from their compliance calculations is to ensure 
that each individual material added to the EDP primer system contains 
no more than a prescribed level of HAP; however, this option is less 
feasible for most facilities because certain materials commonly used in 
the EDP prime coat process cannot meet these criteria.
    The second option we evaluated is a numerical VOC emission limit of 
0.005 kg/l acs (0.040 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect control of both the 
oven and the tank emissions with an RTO capable of achieving 95 percent 
DRE. Based on data from emissions testing at a facility with this 
control option, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of controlling the 
tank emissions to be $91,061 per ton of VOC reduced. In addition, we 
estimated this option would achieve (only) 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. Because this option is significantly less 
cost-effective than the baseline level of control, and has a high 
incremental cost per ton compared to the first option, we have 
determined the second option does not reflect BSER.
    Based on the analysis described above, we are proposing to revise 
the VOC emission limit for the prime coat operation. The proposed VOC 
emission limit 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 prime coat 
operation. The proposed revised standard would limit VOC emissions from 
prime coat operations to 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs) based 
on the control of the curing oven emissions only. This proposed VOC 
emission limit also matches the operating permit limit for 13 of the 44 
plants for which we have data, therefore we consider this limit to be 
adequately demonstrated.
    If finalized, the revised emission limit for prime coat operations 
will appear as the new limit in the new ALDT NSPS subpart MMa. It will 
not include the solids turnover ratio (RT) which is a factor 
in determining VOC emission limit for the prime coat dip tank in the 
current subpart MM, because this factor is not included in the facility 
permits that are more stringent than the NSPS and that were the basis 
of our revised BSER determination.
    In the current subpart MM, the VOC emission limit for the dip tank 
varies according to the solids turnover ratio. As the RT 
varies (ranging from 0.040 (or less) to 0.16 (or greater)), the 
emission limit varies (ranging from 0 to 0.17 kg VOC/l acs). In the 
current subpart MM, the non-EDP (spray-applied) prime coat emission 
limit matches the maximum EDP prime coat limit of 0.17 kg VOC/l acs and 
does not include the RT because the coating solids are not 
depleted in a spray application as they are in a dip tank.
    Because the permit limits do not include factors to account for the 
solids turnover ratio, we understand that to mean that facilities 
currently using the EDP prime coat process are able to consistently 
maintain the solids turnover ratio at a value equal to or greater than 
0.16, and we are proposing that the RT factor is no longer 
needed. Similar to the current subpart MM, we are also proposing the 
same emission limit of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs) for 
non-EDP (spray-applied) prime coat operations in subpart MMa.
    In conclusion, based on our review, the EPA is proposing in a new 
subpart (subpart MMa) a VOC emission limit of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 
lb VOC/gal acs) for the prime coat operation based on the control of 
the curing oven emissions with thermal oxidation (e.g., an RTO) that is 
capable of achieving 95 percent DRE for prime coat operations that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 
2022.

[[Page 30149]]

b. What are the proposed requirements for new ALDT guide coat 
operations?
    After the prime coat operation, sealer and other materials are 
applied to the vehicle body. The vehicle body is then routed to a 
series of spray booths and ovens in which a guide coat is applied 
followed by application of the topcoat which consists of a base coat 
and a clear coat. Review of the facility operating permits show that 
current guide coat operations use either a waterborne or solvent borne 
coating with a small number of facilities using a powder guide coat. 
The guide coat operation may have heated flash off zones, in addition 
to, or replacing the guide coat oven. The guide coat can be applied in 
either a 2-wet coating process or a 3-wet coating process. In a 2-wet 
coating process, the guide coat is fully cured in an oven before the 
following topcoat operation. In a 3-wet coating process, the guide coat 
is partially cured in a heated flash off area before the following 
topcoat operation. The VOC emissions from the guide coat curing ovens 
are almost always controlled by a thermal oxidizer. The VOC emissions 
from the guide coat booths and flash off areas may be controlled by 
either a thermal oxidizer or by a combination of a concentrator 
followed by a thermal oxidizer. The concentrator may be either a carbon 
adsorber or zeolite-based system. The VOC emissions from ALDT guide 
coat operations are generated from the evaporation of solvent in the 
guide coat spray booth, flash off zone, and curing oven.
    The current ALDT NSPS guide coat limit in 40 CFR 60.392 is 1.40 kg 
VOC/l acs (11.7 lb VOC/gal acs) and was based on the use of waterborne 
or solvent borne guide coats without the use of add-on controls. 
According to facility operating permits, 14 facilities with 31 guide 
coat lines (including some anti-chip coatings that are used in addition 
to the guide coat) are subject to more stringent guide coat limits than 
the current ALDT NSPS limit. Three facilities with guide coating limits 
more stringent than the ALDT NSPS are using powder coating for the 
guide coating operation, according to the operating permits collected 
and reviewed by the EPA. The guide coat emission limits more stringent 
than the current ALDT NSPS guide coat limits range 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 lines were subject to limits less than or equal to 0.69 kg VOC/l 
acs (5.5 lb VOC/gal acs). As a result of the information and findings 
described above, we evaluated four regulatory options that are more 
stringent than the current ALDT NSPS for guide coat operations. The 
regulatory options include the use of add-on controls for waterborne or 
solvent borne guide coat operations or using a powder coating system 
instead of a liquid coating system.
    The first option evaluated in the ALDT NSPS review is a numerical 
VOC emission limit of 0.57 kg VOC/l acs (4.8 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect 
use of solvent borne or waterborne guide coat and an RTO with 95 
percent DRE on the guide coat oven only and no add-on controls for the 
guide coat spray booth or heated flash off zone exhausts. The limit of 
0.57 kg VOC/l acs (4.8 lb VOC/gal acs) was selected to represent this 
option because it is the most common numerical permit limit in the 
range of 0.41 to 0.66 kg VOC/l acs (3.46 to 5.5 lb VOC/gal acs) 
matching the operating permit limit for 9 facilities with this control 
scenario. We estimate 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 is a numerical VOC emission limit of 0.35 kg VOC/
l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect 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. The carbon 
adsorber/concentrator is used to control the spray booth emissions and 
routes the concentrated exhaust stream to the RTO, which also controls 
the oven emissions. One facility meeting this limit, in addition to 
using a concentrator, recirculates 85 percent of the exhaust air in the 
spray booth back to the booth and 15 percent of the exhaust is sent to 
concentrator and then to the RTO, which also controls the oven 
emissions. This second option matches the presumptive BACT emission 
limit for 2020 identified by the EPA Region 5.\1\ Two facilities are 
subject to this numerical emission limit. We estimated 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See email correspondence between the U.S. EPA OAQPS and 
Region 5 regarding 2020 BACT values in the RBLC database for ALDT 
surface coating operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third option is a numerical 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 applied in a 3-wet process for one facility. In a 3-wet process 
the guide coat operation and the topcoat operation are combined, and 
the guide coat oven is basically eliminated. The 3-wet process consists 
of a series of two separate booths with heated flash off zones for 
partial cure (one for the guide coat and one for the basecoat), 
followed by a clearcoat booth, a flash zone, and a topcoat oven (where 
the guide coat, the basecoat, and the topcoat are fully cured). The 3-
wet process uses a heated flash off zone in place of the guide coat 
oven resulting in less emissions from the guide coat operation, and a 
more efficient process in terms of time and energy savings for the 
facility. A 3-wet process reportedly can lower a plant's energy 
consumption by 30 percent and reduce the total amount of process time 
per vehicle by 80 minutes for a 40 percent increase in productivity.
    Only one facility (with two lines) uses this 3-wet process for the 
guide coat operation and is subject to this numerical permit limit 
(0.036 kg VOC/l acs (0.30 lb VOC/gal acs)). We estimate this 
configuration would reduce emissions from a typical guide coat 
operation by about 73 tpy of VOC at a cost of $3,252 per ton of VOC 
reduced. The costs associated with this option are for controlling the 
heated flash zone emissions with an RTO with 95 percent DRE. Although 
this third option is cost-effective when considering the cost of 
controls, the emission limit cannot be achieved without reconfiguring 
the guide coat operation to eliminate a major component (the guide coat 
oven), which would be a major capital investment and not cost effective 
for the purposes of this analysis. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing 
this option.
    The fourth option we considered is a numerical VOC limit of 0.016 
kg VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect the use of powder guide 
coat, instead of a liquid coating. One facility is meeting an emission 
limit of 0.016 kg VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) and three facilities 
are meeting a lower emission limit (no emission limit (0 kg VOC/l acs) 
or 0.006 kg VOC/l acs; no emission limit (0 lb VOC/gal acs) or 0.05 lb 
VOC/gal acs) based on the use of powder guide coat and no controls. The 
powder coating is applied electrostatically and is essentially a non-
emitting process because the dry powder coating has no solvent. Guide 
coat operations using powder coatings emit virtually no VOCs from the 
booth, flash off zone(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 on-going control costs and could be the 
best environmental outcome. However, as discussed in the memorandum 
titled 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), the

[[Page 30150]]

process for assessing a new exterior coating system for an ALDT 
manufacturer can take from 3 to 5 years to determine how it performs 
with respect to application, quality, performance, and durability. In a 
meeting with the industry, the difficulties associated with using 
powder coatings were discussed and included both process and quality 
issues. These difficulties are included in the memorandum titled 
Meeting with The Auto Industry Forum and Industry Representatives, 
located in the docket for this rule. Also, some manufacturers have been 
unable to meet their quality requirements using powder coatings. During 
our review we noted one facility with two powder guide coat lines 
switched back to liquid coatings due to the difficulties associated 
with applying powder coatings to ALDT vehicle bodies. Although we 
intend to monitor developments in the use of powder coatings due to its 
potential advantages (low emissions achieved without the use of 
controls), we are not proposing this option at this time because it is 
not adequately demonstrated. Further, it would be not cost effective 
for the purposes of this analysis 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 is proposing 
to revise the VOC limit for the guide coat operation. The proposed VOC 
limit reflects the EPA's determination that Option 2, 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, represents the updated BSER for guide coat operation. The proposed 
revised standard would limit VOC emissions from guide coat operations 
to 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs). Option 2 provides higher 
emission reductions than Option 1 and the same range of cost-
effectiveness. This option also represents the lower range of emission 
limits for facilities using solvent borne guide coats. Current facility 
permits and industry supplied data collected by the EPA for the 2008 
ALDT CTG show that solvent borne guide coats are used by three-quarters 
of the facilities using liquid coatings. The proposed emission limit 
corresponding to Option 2 is adequately demonstrated by three of 44 
plants. The EPA is not proposing limits based on the third and fourth 
options because they are cost prohibitive.
    In conclusion, based on our review, we are proposing in a new 
subpart (subpart MMa) a VOC emission limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 
lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect 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 for guide coat 
operations that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after May 18, 2022.
c. What are the proposed requirements for new ALDT topcoat operations?
    Topcoat operations use two different coatings, a pigmented basecoat 
followed by a clearcoat (which can be tinted). For the basecoat, 
facility operating permits show that facilities use either a waterborne 
or solvent borne coatings. For the clearcoat, solvent borne coatings 
are preferred and are used by all ALDT facilities in the U.S. According 
to data collected for the 2008 ALDT CTG, about half the facilities were 
using waterborne base coats and about half were using solvent borne 
base coats, and all facilities were using solvent borne clear coats.\2\ 
Powder coatings are not used for topcoat applications in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. EPA Summary of 2006-2007 Volatile Organic Compound 
(VOC) Data. EPA Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413-0041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's topcoat operations have several configurations. Some 
facilities have traditional topcoat operations similar to the guide 
coat operation and consist of a single spray booth, followed by a flash 
off zone and a topcoat oven. Topcoat operations using solvent borne 
basecoat and solvent borne clearcoat use this configuration to apply 
the coatings ``wet-on wet'' (2-wet) in the same spray booth.
    Other topcoat operation configurations use separate booths to apply 
the basecoat and the clearcoat before the vehicle body travels thru a 
flash off zone and the topcoat oven. Topcoat operations using separate 
booths also include a heated flash off zone after the basecoat booth 
for a partial cure of the basecoat, in which some of the solvent is 
evaporated, before the clearcoat is applied in the clearcoat booth. 
After the clearcoat is applied, the vehicle body travels thru a flash 
off zone and a topcoat oven where the basecoat and the topcoat are 
fully cured. This configuration divides the traditional topcoat 
operation into separate emission sources and introduces an additional 
emission source (basecoat flash off zone). Today most facilities use 
separate booths to apply the basecoat and clearcoat.
    The third topcoat configuration is the 3-wet process, which is a 
combination of the guide coat (or functional basecoat) and the topcoat 
operations. As discussed above in the guide coat option section, the 3-
wet process consists of a series of two separate booths with heated 
flash off zones for partial cure of the guide coat and basecoat, 
followed by a clearcoat booth, a flash zone, and a topcoat oven (where 
the guide coat, the basecoat, and the topcoat are fully cured). This 
configuration also divides the traditional topcoat operation into two 
separate booths and introduces an additional emission source (basecoat 
flash off zone). In addition, the resulting VOC emissions in the 
topcoat oven are greater and are comprised of emissions from the 
partially cured guide coat and base coat and uncured topcoat.
    The VOC emissions from ALDT topcoat operations are emitted from the 
spray booths, the flash off zones and the ovens from the evaporation of 
solvent from the basecoat and the clear coat. Most ALDT facilities 
control the VOC emissions from the topcoat spray booths and flash off 
areas with either a thermal oxidizer or a combination of a concentrator 
followed by a thermal oxidizer. The concentrator may be either carbon 
adsorber or zeolite-based system. Most ALDT facilities control the VOC 
emissions from the topcoat oven with a thermal oxidizer.
    The current ALDT NSPS topcoat limit is based on the application of 
topcoat in one booth and either on the use of waterborne topcoats 
(waterborne base coat and clearcoat) with no control of the VOC 
emissions or the use of solvent borne topcoats (solvent borne basecoat 
and clearcoat) with control of the topcoat booth and oven with a 
thermal or catalytic oxidizer.
    According to facility operating permits, 20 facilities are 
operating about 25 topcoat lines that are subject to more stringent 
topcoat limits than the current ALDT NSPS limit of 1.47 kg VOC/l acs 
(12.3 lb VOC/gal acs). The limits more stringent than the current ALDT 
NSPS range from 0.28 to 1.44 kg VOC/l acs (2.32 to 12.0 lb VOC/gal 
acs). As a result of the information and findings described above, we 
evaluated two regulatory options that are more stringent than the 
current ALDT NSPS for topcoat operations. 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 clear 
coats.
    The first option evaluated in the ALDT NSPS review for topcoat 
operations is based on facilities demonstrating control of the clear 
coat spray booth and the topcoat oven to meet a topcoat limit of 0.62 
kg VOC/l acs (5.20 lb VOC/gal acs). The add-on controls used by 
facilities demonstrating these emission limits include a thermal

[[Page 30151]]

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. The concentrator is typically used on 
relatively high volume, low VOC concentration exhaust streams, such as 
those from the spray booth. Six facilities with 11 top coating 
operations have demonstrated control of the clear coat spray booth and 
the topcoat curing oven to meet a topcoat limit of 0.62 kg VOC/l acs 
(5.20 lb VOC/gal acs). We estimated that 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 is based on facilities 
demonstrating control of the basecoat spray booth and/or the basecoat 
flash zone, as well as the clearcoat spray booth and topcoat oven to 
meet a topcoat operation limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal 
acs). The add-on controls used by facilities demonstrating these 
emission limits (are the same as in the first option) include an 
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. For this second option, the 
emissions from the basecoat spray booth and/or the basecoat flash zone 
would be sent to a concentrator before going to the RTO. This option is 
based on two facilities operating three coating lines and demonstrating 
control of the basecoat spray booth and/or flash zone, as well as the 
clearcoat booth and topcoat oven to meet a topcoat operation limit of 
0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs). We 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.
    After consideration of the two topcoat options, the EPA is 
proposing to revise the VOC limit for the topcoat operation. The 
proposed VOC limit reflects the EPA's determination that, Option 2, the 
control the basecoat spray booth and/or the basecoat heated flash zone, 
as well as the clear coat booth and the topcoat oven with an RTO or a 
combination of a concentrator and RTO with the RTO achieving 95 percent 
control of the captured emissions represents the updated BSER for 
topcoat operations. The proposed revised standard will limit VOC 
emissions from topcoat operations to 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal 
acs). Option 2 would provide greater emission reductions than Option 1 
and is cost-effective. This option also represents the lower range of 
emission limits for facilities using solvent borne basecoat and 
clearcoats and this emission limit matches the presumptive BACT 
emission limit for 2020 identified by EPA Region 5.
    In conclusion, based on our review, we are proposing in a new 
subpart (subpart MMa) a VOC emission limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 
lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect control of the basecoat booth and/or the 
basecoat flash off zone, as well as the clear coat booth and the 
topcoat oven with an RTO or a combination of a concentrator/RTO, with 
the RTO achieving 95 percent control of the captured emissions for 
topcoat operations that commence construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after May 18, 2022.
d. What are the proposed requirements for fugitive emissions of VOC?
    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 ALDT NSPS does not currently regulate 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. It also does not regulate fugitive VOC emissions from the 
cleaning and purging of equipment. The results of our review did not 
identify any ALDT facilities demonstrating control of these fugitive 
VOC emissions. The fugitive VOC emissions are from various sources and 
activities located throughout the ALDT facility and are generally 
released into the ambient air inside the facility. Further, it would 
not be cost effective for the purposes of this analysis due to the 
major capital investment associated with routing these VOC emissions 
from various locations throughout the ALDT facility 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. The ALDT NESHAP 
lists work practices to minimize fugitive organic HAP emissions in 
Sec.  63.3094. The work practices include VOC minimizing practices for 
these sources 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 ALDT NESHAP work practice provisions require sources to 
develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize VOC emissions 
from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by the prime 
coat, guide coat and topcoat operations. They also require sources to 
develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP 
emissions from cleaning and from purging of equipment associated with 
the prime coat, guide coat and topcoat operations.
    The EPA considers the ALDT NESHAP work practices to reflect the 
best technological system of continuous emission reduction for 
controlling fugitive emissions of VOC from these sources. We are 
therefore proposing to include in ALDT NSPS subpart MMa work practices 
that are consistent with the work practice provisions in the ALDT 
NESHAP subpart IIII to limit fugitive VOC emissions. We anticipate that 
adding these work practice requirements to the ALDT NSPS would cause 
minimal impacts to the industry because we expect all 44 ALDT 
facilities identified in this action will be subject to the ALDT NESHAP 
subpart IIII by 2022. Facilities 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.
e. What are the proposed requirements for new guide coat and topcoat 
operations for plastic bodies?
    Operations for surface coating of plastic body components or all-
plastic automobile or light-duty truck bodies on separate coating lines 
are exempt from the current ALDT NSPS, subpart MM. See 40 CFR 
60.390(b). This exemption was added to subpart MM as a result of two 
public comments and data documenting the significant problems

[[Page 30152]]

associated with the use of waterborne topcoats on plastic substrates 
due to the high temperature required to cure the waterborne coatings 
(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). Although the ALDT NSPS did not specify 
the use of waterborne coatings (facilities could use any coating as 
long as they met the standard), the exemption was added. The intent of 
the original ALDT NSPS was to regulate VOC emissions from the primary 
ALDT surface coating operations (prime coat, guide coat and topcoat 
operations) in an assembly plant regardless of the vehicle body 
substrate.
    During our review of facility operating permits, we found that one 
facility uses waterborne and solvent borne coatings on all-plastic 
bodies and is not subject to the ALDT NSPS due to this exemption. The 
surface coating operations for all-plastic bodies for this facility are 
instead subject to state VOC RACT rules for the surface coating of 
plastic parts (discussed below). At all other ALDT facilities the state 
VOC RACT rules apply to the coating of plastic components coated 
separately from the vehicle body. Therefore, we are proposing a 
revision of the plastic parts exemption so that ALDT NSPS subpart MMa 
applies to the coating of all vehicle bodies, including all-plastic 
vehicle bodies to be consistent with the original intent of the ALDT 
NSPS and the requirements for other ALDT facilities.
    One facility has adequately demonstrated the surface coating of 
all-plastic bodies with waterborne coatings, so the exemption for 
coating all-plastic bodies is no longer justified. Therefore, we are 
proposing in a new subpart (subpart MMa) removal of the exemption for 
surface coating of all-plastic vehicle bodies for operations that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 
2022. The EPA is aware of only one plant that currently coats all-
plastic vehicle bodies and does not expect this facility to become 
subject to the revised ALDT NSPS over the next 8 years due to recent 
upgrades made to the plant's surface coating operations.
    In this proposal, we are not proposing to remove the exemption with 
respect to the coating of plastic components coated separately from the 
vehicle body. Plastic components coated separately from the vehicle 
body are subject to state VOC RACT rules in accordance with 
recommendations in the 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 
Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008) and to the Plastic 
Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR, subpart PPPP) which 
regulates the organic HAP.
f. What are the proposed testing, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements for new ALDT surface coating operations?
    The new source performance standards 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 discussed above, other regulatory 
actions pursuant to CAA sections 112 and CAA 183(e) were promulgated 
subsequent to the ALDT NSPS that also regulate or otherwise address 
emissions from ALDT surface coating operations. These regulatory 
actions include: The 2004 ALDT NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (69 
FR 2262, April 26, 2004), the 2008 ALDT CTG (EPA-453/R-08-006, 
September 2008) and the 2020 RTR amendments to the ALDT NESHAP (85 FR 
41100, July 8, 2020). Although the resulting ALDT NESHAP and ALDT CTG 
requirements cannot be compared directly to the ALDT NSPS due to the 
differences in CAA authorities, pollutants, emission limits and format, 
they apply to the same coating materials and operations and were 
therefore considered in our review. All ALDT facilities are currently 
subject to and demonstrating compliance with the ALDT NESHAP 
requirements.
    As a result of our review, we are proposing to revise the ALDT NSPS 
to match the ALDT NESHAP capture and control devices and the associated 
testing, monitoring, and reporting requirements. We anticipate that 
adding these requirements to the ALDT NSPS will cause minimal impacts 
to the industry because all ALDT facilities are currently subject to 
and demonstrating compliance with the ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII. These 
requirements will provide for more robust testing, monitoring and 
reporting than is required in the current ALDT NSPS, and will align the 
ALDT NSPS and the ALDT NESHAP testing, monitoring and reporting 
requirements. Facilities that are in compliance with the ALDT NESHAP 
requirements will also be in compliance with the revised ALDT NSPS MMa 
requirements, as discussed in the sections below. The proposed updates 
are described briefly below.
Capture and Control Devices
    The ALDT NSPS subpart MM lists thermal incineration and catalytic 
incineration as the technologies used to meet to the VOC emission 
limits. In addition, subpart MM requires temperature measurement 
devices to be installed, calibrated and maintained according to 
accepted practice and manufacturer's specifications. To make the 
revised NSPS subpart MMa consistent with the ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII, 
we are proposing to update the list of control devices and the 
corresponding control device compliance requirements so that the 
revised NSPS MMa would contain the same list of control devices and 
corresponding requirements as the ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII. In addition 
to thermal and catalytic oxidizers, we are proposing to add the control 
devices and operating limits 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 revised NSPS MMa. The additional control 
devices include regenerative carbon adsorbers, condensers, and 
concentrators (including zeolite wheels and rotary carbon adsorbers). 
We are also proposing the addition of requirements for capture systems 
that are permanent total enclosures and that are not permanent total 
enclosures to the revised NSPS MMa to match the ALDT NESHAP 
requirements.
Operating Limits and Monitoring Provisions
    The ADLT NSPS subpart MM requires affected sources using control 
devices to meet the VOC limits to install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate temperature measurement devices. It also specifies the accuracy 
of the temperature and requires each temperature measurement device be 
equipped with a recording device so that a permanent record is 
produced. We are proposing to revise the provisions for establishing 
the operating limits for the existing control devices and to add these 
provisions for new control devices in the revised NSPS subpart MMa to 
match the ALDT NESHAP requirements at (a) Sec.  63.3093 and NESHAP 
Subpart IIII Table 1, (b) the provisions for establishing control 
device operating limits in Sec.  63.3167, and (c) the provisions for 
the continuous monitoring system installation, operation and 
maintenance of control devices in Sec.  63.3168. Facilities 
demonstrating compliance with these ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII 
requirements will be in compliance

[[Page 30153]]

with these same requirements in the revised NSPS subpart MMa.
Performance Testing
    The ADLT NSPS requires an initial performance test to be conducted 
in accordance with Sec.  60.8(a) and thereafter for each calendar month 
for each prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat operation to demonstrate 
compliance with the ALDT NSPS subpart MM. Each monthly calculation is 
considered to be a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
ALDT NSPS emission limits. The ALDT NSPS also requires the reporting of 
additional data for the initial performance test or in subsequent 
performance tests at which destruction efficiency is determined. The 
ALDT NSPS does not, however, require subsequent performance tests in 
addition to the initial performance test to determine destruction 
efficiency. We are proposing to add the periodic testing provisions for 
control devices to determine destruction efficiency once every five 
years to match the ALDT NESHAP requirements. 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. We are proposing to align the revised NSPS 
subpart MMa performance testing requirements with requirements that 
match the provisions for initial performance testing under the ALDT 
NESHAP subpart IIII in Sec.  63.3160 and periodic performance testing 
in Sec.  63.3160(c)(3) to apply to the control devices used for 
compliance with the emission limits in the revised subpart MMa. We are 
also proposing to add the control device efficiency requirements to the 
revised NSPS subpart MMa to match the ALDT NESHAP requirements at 
section Sec.  63.3166. ALDT facilities demonstrating compliance with 
these ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII requirements will be in compliance with 
these same requirements in the revised NSPS subpart MMa.
Transfer Efficiency
    The NSPS subpart MM provides default transfer efficiency (TE) 
values representing the overall transfer system efficiency according to 
the method of coating application and the capture and collection of 
purge solvent used during color changes. We are proposing to revise 
these requirements in revised subpart MMa to provide a more accurate 
measure of transfer efficiency and to make these requirements 
consistent with the ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII requirements. We are 
proposing that sources determine the transfer efficiency for each guide 
coat and topcoat coating using ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017) or the 
guidelines presented in ``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. We are also 
proposing the requirements for transfer efficiency testing on 
representative coatings and for representative spray booths as 
described in ``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. We are also proposing 
that sources can assume 100-percent transfer efficiency for prime coat 
EDP operations. ALDT facilities demonstrating compliance with these 
ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII requirements will be in compliance with these 
same requirements in the revised NSPS subpart MMa.
Reference Methods and Procedures
    The ALDT NSPS subpart MM lists EPA methods used in compliance 
calculations as EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, and 25 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A and ``any equivalent or alternative methods.'' In order to 
meet the new testing, monitoring, and reporting provisions described 
above, additional the EPA reference methods and alternative methods 
(for IBR) are proposed for the revised NSPS MMa to be consistent with 
the ALDT NESHAP compliance calculations. In addition to these EPA 
methods and alternative methods we are proposing to add other methods 
specific to automotive coatings and the panel testing procedure in 
Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Determination of Capture 
Efficiency of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Spray Booth Emissions 
From Solvent-borne Coatings Using Panel Testing to the ALDT NSPS. The 
complete list of EPA methods is listed in section VIII. I. of this 
preamble and the VCS we propose to IBR are listed in Section VII of 
this preamble.

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

a. Proposal of NSPS Subpart MMa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 
Exemptions
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 
2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this 
rule that apply at all times. The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR 
60.8(c) currently exempt non-opacity emission standards during periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. We are proposing in subpart MMa 
in section 40 CFR 60.392a specific requirements that override the 
general provisions for SSM. We are also proposing that the standards in 
subpart MMa apply at all times, and more specifically during periods of 
SSM, to match the SSM provisions in the ALDT NESHAP 40 CFR 63 subpart 
IIII.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the general provisions we are 
proposing to override are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We specifically seek comment on 
whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. We 
discussed the need for alternative standards with industry 
representatives during the recent development of amendments to ALDT 
NESHAP 40 CFR 63 subpart IIII and no issues were identified and there 
are no data indicating problems during periods of startup and shutdown. 
The primary control devices used to control VOC emissions for the ALDT 
surface coating operations are carbon adsorbers, concentrators and 
thermal oxidizers, which are effective control devices for controlling 
emissions during startup and shutdown events. With regard to 
malfunctions, these events are described in the following paragraph.
    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

[[Page 30154]]

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 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 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 (DC Cir. 2016).
b. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of ALDT surface 
coating operations 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 the excess emissions and continuous 
monitoring system performance and summary reports, through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data 
submission process is provided in the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in the docket for this action. The proposed rule requires 
that performance test results collected using test methods that are 
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 
ERT website \3\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format 
generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent 
with the xml schema on the ERT website, and other performance test 
results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the 
WebFIRE Template and Test Quality Rating Tool, also available at the 
ERT website or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the 
ERT website. In addition, an electronic copy (PDF) copy of the entire 
report documenting the source test must be attached to the ERT. For the 
excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance and 
summary reports, the proposed rules require that owners and operators 
use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI 
once the spreadsheet template is uploaded and forms for the reports 
have been available in CEDRI for 90 days. A draft version of the 
templates for the semiannual reports is under development, and we are 
working to complete them by proposal. Revisions to the template may be 
needed to reflect revisions to the proposed NSPS subpart MMa rule text 
in response to public comments. A draft version of the revised template 
will be included in the final rule docket for this action.\4\ Similar 
to the template development efforts for the ALDT NESHAP 40 CFR 63 
subpart IIII, the EPA will consider clarifying the draft template, as 
needed. The EPA specifically requests comments on the content, layout, 
and overall design of the template(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \4\ See the EPA form number 5900-581, 
ALDT_Surface_Coating_Subpart_MM_Excess_Emissions_CMS_Performance_Repo
rt_Template.xlsx, and EPA form number 5900-582, 
ALDT_Surface_Coating_Subpart 
MMa_Excess_Emissions_CMS_Performance_Report_Template.xlsx, available 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These 
circumstances are (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude 
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that 
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the 
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with 
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force 
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. 
The EPA is providing these potential extensions to enable owners and 
operators to remain in compliance in cases where they cannot 
successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons 
outside of their control. In both circumstances, the decision to accept 
the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion 
of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \5\ to implement 
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide 
policy \6\ developed in response to the White House's Digital 
Government Strategy.\7\ For more information on the benefits of 
electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \6\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \7\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale 
for the proposed compliance dates?
    The effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date, 
as specified in CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)). 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.
    Affected facilities for which construction, modification, or 
reconstruction began on or before May 18, 2022 must comply with all

[[Page 30155]]

requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart MM no later than the effective 
date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    The new NSPS subpart MMa, would achieve an estimated average 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 two new, reconstructed, or modified 
facilities per year, or sixteen 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 an average GHG emissions production of 4,474 mtCO2e per 
year per facility. Over the first 8 years after the rule is final, we 
expect an average of two new, reconstructed, or modified facilities per 
year, or sixteen new affected facilities. We estimate a total GHG 
emission production of 71,584 mtCO2e in the eighth year after the rule 
is final.
    We did not evaluate the environmental impacts of other pollutants 
such as hydrocarbons (other than VOC), NOX, and CO 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 
proposed NSPS subpart MMa include an estimated average electricity 
consumption of 2.54 million kwh per year per facility and an estimated 
average natural gas consumption of 48.8 million 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 two new, 
reconstructed, or modified facilities per year, or sixteen 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 annual capital cost of controls to comply with 
the NSPS subpart MMa will be $6.3 million per year per new facility, or 
$12.6 million per year for two 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 $1.71 million per year per facility, or 
$3.42 million for two 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 $27.34 million.
    We estimate that the average cost of the periodic testing of 
control devices once every 5 years to comply with the NSPS MMa will be 
$57,000 per facility, or $114,000 for two facilities in the fifth year 
after the rule is final.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis and small business 
screening assessment for this proposal, as detailed in the memorandum, 
Economic Impact Analysis and Small Business Screening Assessment for 
Proposed 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 the proposal are 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. We 
estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners potentially affected 
by this proposal will incur total annualized costs of greater than one 
percent of their revenues if they modify or reconstruct the relevant 
portions of their facility and become subject to the requirements of 
this proposed rule.
    While one existing facility is currently owned by a small entity, 
that facility is in the process of being sold to a company that is not 
a small entity. Furthermore, that facility is already in compliance 
with the requirements in this proposed rule, so even if it were to 
modify or reconstruct and become subject to the proposed subpart MMa, 
it is not anticipated that it would incur any additional costs as a 
result. 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 exited their initial 
startup phase would be classified as small entities. Therefore, no 
economic impacts are expected for small entities. Furthermore, it is 
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 one percent of sales.
    Therefore, the economic impacts are anticipated to be low for 
affected companies and the industries impacted by this proposal, and 
there will not be substantial impacts on the markets for affected 
products. The costs of the proposal 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 above, the proposed 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 proposing several 
compliance assurance requirements which will ensure compliance with the 
new NSPS subpart MMa and help prevent noncompliant emissions of VOC. 
Furthermore, the proposed requirements in the new NSPS subpart MMa to 
submit reports and test results electronically will improve monitoring, 
compliance, and implementation of the rule.
    Reducing emissions of VOC is expected to help reduce ambient 
concentrations of ground level ozone and increase compliance with the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. A 
quantitative analysis of the impacts on the NAAQS in the areas located 
near ALDT plants would be technically complicated, resource intensive 
and infeasible to perform in the time available and would not represent 
the impacts for future new ALDT sources because the locations of new 
sources are currently unknown. For these reasons, we did not perform a 
quantitative analysis. However, currently available health effects 
evidence supporting the December 23, 2020, final decision for the ozone 
NAAQS continues to support the conclusion that ozone can cause 
difficulty breathing and other respiratory system effects. For people 
with asthma, these effects can lead to emergency room visits and 
hospital admissions. Exposure over the long term may lead to the 
development of asthma. People most at risk from breathing air 
containing ozone include people with asthma, children, the elderly, and 
outdoor workers. For children, ozone in

[[Page 30156]]

outdoor air increases their risk of asthma attacks while playing, 
exercising, or engaging in strenuous work activities outdoors.

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 considered the impacts of this action on 
communities with environmental justice concerns. This action proposes 
standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources 
that commence construction after the rule is proposed. Therefore, the 
locations of the new, modified, and reconstructed sources at ALDT 
surface coating facilities are not known. In addition, it is not known 
which of the existing ALDT surface coating facilities will modify or 
reconstruct the affected sources in the future. Therefore, the 
demographic analysis was conducted for 46 existing facilities (45 
operating and one is due to start construction in May 2022) to 
characterize the demographics in areas where the facilities are 
currently located. The demographic analysis shows that the percent 
minority population in close proximity to these facilities is higher 
than the national average (49 percent versus 40 percent). Within 
minorities, the percent of the population that is African American is 
significantly higher than the national average (27 percent versus 12 
percent). All other minority demographics are similar to or below the 
corresponding national averages. The percent of people living below the 
poverty level is significantly higher than the national average (22 
percent versus 13 percent). The percent of people over 25 without a 
high school diploma is also higher than the national average (15 
percent versus 12 percent). The percentage of the population living in 
linguistic isolation is similar to the national average (6 percent 
versus 5 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 located in EPA Region 5 
states and of those states, most sources are located in the state of 
Michigan. Most, if not all the counties where these sources are located 
are designated as ozone non-attainment 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 proposed for this action reflects the best system 
of emission reduction demonstrated and establishes a new more stringent 
standard of performance for the primary sources of VOC emissions from 
the source category. The EPA expects the proposed 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 
less 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. Following is a more detailed description of how the Agency 
considers environmental justice (EJ) in the context of regulatory 
development, and specific actions taken to address EJ concerns for this 
action.
    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.'' \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When practicable, the EPA begins its environmental justice analysis 
by first identifying stakeholders who may be disproportionately 
impacted by the pending regulatory action. An assessment of populations 
in close proximity to sources helps the EPA in considering outreach and 
engagement strategies. For this action, we performed a demographic 
analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of 
the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the 
facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the 
national average for each of the demographic groups.
    As stated above, this action proposes standards of performance for 
new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence construction 
after the rule is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the 
construction of new Auto and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating affected 
sources are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the 
existing Auto and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating affected sources 
will be modified or reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the 
demographic analysis was conducted for all 46 existing facilities as a 
characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities 
are now located.
    The results of the demographic analysis (Table 1) indicate that, 
for populations within 5 km of the 46 facilities in the source 
category, the percent minority population (being the total population 
minus the white population) is higher than the national average (49 
percent versus 40 percent). Within minorities, the percent of the 
population that is African American is significantly higher than the 
national average (27 percent versus 12 percent). All other minority 
demographics are at or below the corresponding national averages. The 
percent of people living below the poverty level is significantly 
higher than the national average (22 percent versus 13 percent). The 
percent of people over 25 without a high school diploma is also higher 
than the national average (15 percent versus 12 percent). The 
percentage of the population living in linguistic isolation is similar 
to the national average (6 percent versus 5 percent).
    At a 50 km radius of sources, the results of the demographic 
analysis (Table 1) indicate that the percent minority population is 
similar to the national average (41 percent versus 40 percent). Within 
minorities, the percent African American (17 percent) and the percent 
Other/Multiracial (9 percent) populations are higher than the national 
averages (12 percent and 8 percent, respectively). All other minority 
demographics are below the

[[Page 30157]]

corresponding national averages. The percent of people living below the 
poverty level, the percent of people over 25 without a high school 
diploma, and the percent living in linguistic isolation are similar to 
or below the national average.
    A summary of the demographic assessment performed for facilities 
affected by the NSPS for ALDT surface coating operations is included as 
Table 1. The methodology and the 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, available in the 
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664).

   Table 1--Demographic Assessment Results for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating NSPS Source
                                            Category Operations ****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Population within  Population within
                                                                               50 km of 46         5 km of 46
                   Demographic group                        Nationwide *         existing           existing
                                                                                facilities         facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        328,016,242         42,618,391          1,696,179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                60%                59%                51%
Minority **............................................                40%                41%                49%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.......................................                12%                17%                27%
Native American........................................               0.7%               0.2%               0.2%
Hispanic or Latino *** (includes white and nonwhite)...                19%                15%                13%
Other and Multiracial..................................                 8%                 9%                 9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                13%                13%                22%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above Poverty Level....................................                87%                87%                78%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma..............                12%                12%                15%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                88%                88%                85%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                 5%                 4%                 6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American
  Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on
  different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based
  on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
** Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
*** To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
  for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African
  American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or
  Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also
  identified as in the Census.
**** This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence
  construction after the rule is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new Auto and Light
  Duty Truck Surface Coating facilities are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing Auto
  and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating facilities will be modified or reconstructed in the future. Therefore,
  the demographic analysis was conducted for the 46 existing facilities as a characterization of the
  demographics in areas where these facilities are now located.

    The EPA expects that this action will result in significant 
reductions of VOC emissions from the affected sources for all 
communities, including communities potentially overburdened by 
pollution, which are often minority, low-income and indigenous. The 
proposed new NSPS will have beneficial effects on air quality and 
public health both locally and regionally. Further, this rulemaking 
complements other actions already taken by the EPA to reduce emissions 
and improve health outcomes for overburdened and underserved 
communities.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action, 
especially the proposed emission limits, the cost-effectiveness 
estimates, and other impacts. We also encourage commenters to include 
data to support their comments. We invite comments on the benefits 
summary and welcome any data on these or other impacts associated with 
VOCs from ALDT sources. We are also interested in comments and 
information related to the practices, processes, and control 
technologies to reduce VOC emissions from surface coating operations at 
ALDT facilities.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    The EPA proposes to amend the 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by 
reference the following VCS:
     ANSI/ASME, PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]'' is a manual method for measuring 
the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas 
and is proposed as an alternative to EPA Method 3B manual portion only 
and not the instrumental portion.

[[Page 30158]]

     ASTM D6420-18, ``Test Method for Determination of Gaseous 
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass 
Spectrometry'' is a test method that can be used to determine the mass 
concentration of VOC and is proposed as an alternative to EPA Method 18 
only when the target compounds are all known, and the target compounds 
are all listed in ASTM D6420-18 as measurable. This method should not 
be used for methane and ethane (because atomic mass is less than 35) 
and it should never be specified as a total VOC method.
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) ``Standard Test 
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented 
Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' is a test method that can be 
used to determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and 
pigmented coatings and is proposed as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)e1, ``Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings'' is a test method that allows for more 
accurate results for multi-component chemical resistant coatings and is 
proposed as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test 
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' 
is a test method that can be used to determine the volume of 
nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings and is proposed as 
an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     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, are procedures for 
combining analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content and 
are proposed as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM D1475-13 ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid 
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products'' is a test method that 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) test method A or test 
method B ``Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating 
Powders'' are test methods that can be used to determine the specific 
gravity of powder coatings.
     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'' is a 
procedure to measure the transfer efficiency of spray coatings.
     ASTM D5087-02 ``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)'' is a procedure to measure solvent loading for the heated 
flash zones and bake ovens for waterborne coatings.
     ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017) ``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)'' is also a procedure to measure solvent 
loading for heated flash zones and bake ovens for waterborne coatings.
    ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017) is cited in the proposed rule as an 
acceptable procedure to measure the transfer efficiency of spray 
coatings. ASTM D5087-02 and ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017) are cited 
in the proposed rule as acceptable procedures to measure solvent 
loading (similar to capture efficiency) for the heated flash zone for 
waterborne basecoats and for bake ovens. Currently, no EPA methods are 
available to measure transfer efficiency or solvent release potential 
from automobile and light-duty truck coatings in order to determine the 
potential solvent loading from the coatings used.
    We also identified VCS ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test 
Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24. This ASTM 
standard can be used to determine the density for the specific coatings 
(halogenated organic solvents) cited using Method B (pycnometer) only 
(as in ASTM 1217). We are not proposing this VCS because ALDT surface 
coating operations do not use halogenated organic solvents, based on 
our knowledge of the industry.
    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 www.regulations.gov under EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413-0080.
    ANSI/ASME, 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 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 www.astm.org.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Although this action is not economically significant, it was 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. An 
economic impact analysis (EIA) was prepared for this action and is 
available in the docket. Any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have also been documented in the docket.

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 for MM has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1064.20 and the ICR document for MMa has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2714.01. You can find a copy of both ICR in the 
ALDT NSPS Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664, and they are briefly 
summarized here. Each ICR is specific to information collection 
associated with the ALDT surface coating source category, either 
through the revised 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM or through 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 proposing to include the requirement for 
electronic submittal of reports.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or 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 onetime review of rule 
requirements, reports of performance tests, and semiannual excess 
emissions and

[[Page 30159]]

continuous monitoring system performance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual recordkeeping and 
reporting burden for the 44 responding facilities to comply with all of 
the requirements in the new NSPS subpart MMa 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 $46,000 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 proposing to revise the emission limit requirements 
and is adding new work practices for new, modified and reconstructed 
sources. We are proposing changes to the testing, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa, in 
the form of requiring performance tests every 5 years and including the 
requirement for electronic submittal of 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 or 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 onetime 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 of 
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 $151,600 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 $302,600 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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than June 17, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Details 
of this analysis are presented in the Economic Impact and Small 
Business Analysis for the Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface 
Coating NSPS Review, which is available in the docket for this action. 
The annualized costs associated with the requirements in this action 
for the affected small entities is described in section IV.C. above.

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 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 E.O. 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 six auto and light duty truck assembly plants are located within 
50 miles of Tribal lands. Consistent with the EPA Policy on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer 
consultation with Tribal officials during the development of this 
action.

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

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

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it 
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy.

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are

[[Page 30160]]

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) that are relevant to this action. 
The Agency also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched 
their databases. Searches were conducted for the EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 
2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 24, 25, 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. As a result of this search, no applicable voluntary 
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E and 204F.
    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 proposes to amend 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate 
by reference (IBR) the following VCS:
     ANSI/ASME, PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]'' as an alternative to EPA Method 
3B manual portion only and not the instrumental portion.
     ASTM D6420-18, ``Test Method for Determination of Gaseous 
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass 
Spectrometry'' as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only when the target 
compounds are all known, and the target compounds are all listed in 
ASTM D6420-18 as measurable. This method should not be used for methane 
and ethane (because atomic mass is less than 35) and it should never be 
specified as a total VOC method.
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) ``Standard Test 
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented 
Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' as an alternative to EPA 
Method 24.
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015) e1, ``Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings'' as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     ASTM Method D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test 
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' 
as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
     Guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and 
formulation solvent content presented in ``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, as 
an alternative to EPA Method 24.
    In addition to the VCS identified for EPA reference methods, we 
propose to amend 40 CFR 60.17 to IBR the following ASTM methods for 
ALDT coatings:
     ASTM D1475-13 ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid 
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products.''
     ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013) test method A or test 
method B ``Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating 
Powders.''
     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.''
     ASTM D5087-02 ``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).''
     ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017) ``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).''
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be 
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 
Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty Truck 
Surface Coating Operations, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
    Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test 
methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required 
testing methods, performance specifications or procedures in the final 
rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the 
proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be 
used in this regulation.

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

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section V.C and 
V.E of this preamble. As discussed in section V.E of this preamble, we 
performed a demographic analysis for the automobile and light duty 
truck 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). Results of the demographic 
analysis indicate that the following groups above the national average: 
African Americans, People Living Below the Poverty Level, and People 
without a High School Diploma.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-09590 Filed 5-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P