Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 30141 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, the proposed 

actions to approve Indiana’s SIP 

submissions merely approves state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that these reasons, this 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 11, 2022. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10556 Filed 5–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30142 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. 

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 inperson public meetings at this time. 

To request a virtual public hearing, 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. 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-trucksurface-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-trucksurface-coating-operations-new or 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. 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-sourcesair-pollution/automobile-and-light-dutytruck-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 hirtz.paula@epa.gov. 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-trucksurface-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 SPPDpublichearing@

epa.gov 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 preregister 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov, 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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30144 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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-trucksurface-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-sourcesair-pollution/automobile-and-light-dutytruck-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 nonair 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 lightduty 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 costeffective 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 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 LightDuty Truck Source Category (40 CFR 

part 60, subpart MM), located in the 

docket for this action. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30146 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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) (nonattainment 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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, costeffectiveness 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 costeffectiveness 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30148 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 costeffective 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 (sprayapplied) 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 30149 

1See email correspondence between the U.S. EPA 

OAQPS and Region 5 regarding 2020 BACT values 

in the RBLC database for ALDT surface coating 

operations. 

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. 

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 costeffective 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30150 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

2U.S. EPA Summary of 2006–2007 Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC) Data. EPA Docket Item 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0413–0041. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 VOCcontaining 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 § 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 VOCcontaining 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30152 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 allplastic 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 allplastic 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) § 63.3093 

and NESHAP Subpart IIII Table 1, (b) 

the provisions for establishing control 

device operating limits in § 63.3167, and 

(c) the provisions for the continuous 

monitoring system installation, 

operation and maintenance of control 

devices in § 63.3168. Facilities 

demonstrating compliance with these 

ALDT NESHAP subpart IIII 

requirements will be in compliance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 63.3160 

and periodic performance testing in 

§ 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30154 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 

4See the EPA form number 5900–581, ALDT_

Surface_Coating_Subpart_MM_Excess_Emissions_

CMS_Performance_Report_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. 

5EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 

6E-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/digitalgovernment/digital-government.html. 

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). 

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 Agencywide 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30156 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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

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 nonattainment areas. For this reason, we 

engaged with EPA Region 5 and the 

state of Michigan as part of this 

rulemaking. 

The EPA expects that this ALDT 

NSPS review will result in significant 

reductions of VOC emissions from the 

affected sources. The new emission 

limits 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 nonattainment 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 **** 

Demographic group Nationwide * 

Population within 

50 km of 46 

existing facilities 

Population within 

5 km of 46 

existing 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 fiveyear 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 costeffectiveness 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30158 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 LightDuty 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 PaintsWeight 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/cleanair-act-guidelines-and-standardssolvent-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/lawsregulations/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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, 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 ICRrelated 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30160 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 PaintsWeight 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 62, and 70 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2021–0732; FRL–9829–01– 

R8] 

Approval of Clean Air Act Operating 

Permit Program Revisions; Negative 

Declaration of Existing Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators 

and Administrative Updates; South 

Dakota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the ‘‘Agency’’) is 

proposing full approval of revisions to 

the South Dakota operating permit 

program for stationary sources under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), title V (the ‘‘title 

V program’’) and a Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 111(d)/129 negative declaration 

for incinerators subject to the Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators 

(HMIWI) Emissions Guidelines. EPA is 

proposing this action in accordance 

with the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1