[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