Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations, 29978-30024 [2023-09587]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29978
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0664; FRL–8511–02–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AV30
Review of Standards of Performance
for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments
to the new source performance
standards for Automobile and Light
Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations
pursuant to the review required by the
Clean Air Act. The EPA determined that
revisions to the NSPS were needed to
reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of
the best system of emission reduction
(BSER). The EPA is therefore finalizing,
as proposed, in a new NSPS subpart
MMa, revised volatile organic
compound (VOC) emission limits for
prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat
operations for affected facilities that
commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction after May 18, 2022. In
addition, in the new NSPS subpart, the
EPA is finalizing the proposed
amendments: the addition of work
practices to minimize VOC emissions;
revision of the plastic parts provision;
updates to the capture and control
devices and the associated testing and
monitoring requirements; revision of the
transfer efficiency provisions; new test
methods and alternative test methods;
revision of the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, including the
addition of electronic reporting;
removing exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction;
and other amendments to harmonize the
new NSPS subpart and Automobile and
Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
requirements. The EPA is also finalizing
the proposed electronic reporting
requirements in the NSPS subpart MM,
applicable to sources that commence
construction, reconstruction, or
modification after October 5, 1979, and
on or before May 18, 2022.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 9, 2023. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of May 9,
2023.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0664. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov/
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Paula Deselich Hirtz, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D243–04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–2618; and email
address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and
abbreviations. Throughout this
preamble the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or
‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA.
We use multiple acronyms and terms in
this preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes,
the EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms here:
ADDRESSES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ALDT Automobile and Light Duty Truck
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
BACT best available control technology
BID background information document
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring
system
CEPCI Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
Index
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring
System
EDP electrodeposition
EIA economic impact analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FID flame ionization detector
FR Federal Register
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
LAER lowest available control technology
kg/lacs kilograms per liter of applied
coating solids
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
km kilometer
kwh kilowatt hours
mtCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NESHAP National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutant
NMOC nonmethane organic compound(s)
Non-EDP non-electrodeposition
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement
OMB Office of Management and Budget
lb/gal acs pounds per gallon of applied
coating solids
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACT reasonably available control
technology
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
scf standard cubic feet
TE transfer efficiency
THC total hydrocarbon
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Review
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
final action?
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS
review?
C. What is the ALDT surface coating source
category regulated in this final action?
D. What changes did we propose for the
ALDT surface coating NSPS?
III. What actions are we finalizing and what
is our rationale for such decisions?
A. Emission Limits
B. Work Practice Standards
C. Plastic Parts Provision
D. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping,
and Reporting Provisions
E. Transfer Efficiency Provisions
F. NSPS Subpart MMa Without Startup,
Shutdown, Malfunction Exemptions
G. Electronic Reporting
H. Test Methods
I. Other Final Amendments
J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the energy impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject
of this final action is automobile and
light duty truck (ALDT) surface coating
operations regulated under CAA section
111 NSPS. The 2022 North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes for the ALDT manufacturing
industry are 336111 (automotive
manufacturing), 336112 (light truck and
utility vehicle manufacturing), and
336211 (manufacturing of truck and bus
bodies and cabs and automobile bodies).
The NAICS codes serve as a guide for
readers outlining the types of entities
that this final action is likely to affect.
We estimate that 60 facilities engaged in
ALDT manufacturing will be affected by
this final action. The NSPS
requirements finalized in this action
and codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
MMa are directly applicable to affected
facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
May 18, 2022, which is the date of
publication of the proposed NSPS
subpart MMa in the Federal Register.
The requirements in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MM are applicable to affected
facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
October 5, 1979, but that begin
construction, reconstruction, or
modification no later than May 18,
2022. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities will not be affected
by this final action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in 40 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
part 60, subparts MM and MMa, and
consult the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble, your state or local air
pollution control agency with delegated
authority for the NSPS, or your EPA
Regional Office.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action is available on the internet at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/automobile-and-light-dutytruck-surface-coating-operations-new.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the final rule and
key technical documents at this same
website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Review
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by July 10, 2023.
Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final
rule may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review.’’ This
section also provides a mechanism for
the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after
the period for public comment (but
within the time specified for judicial
review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s)
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air
and Radiation Law Office, Office of
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29979
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this final action?
The EPA’s authority for this final rule
is CAA section 111, which governs the
establishment of standards of
performance for stationary sources.
Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires
the EPA Administrator to list categories
of stationary sources that in the
Administrator’s judgment cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
EPA must then issue performance
standards for new (and modified or
reconstructed) sources in each source
category pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B). These standards are
referred to as new source performance
standards or NSPS. The EPA has the
authority to define the scope of the
source categories, determine the
pollutants for which standards should
be developed, set the emission level of
the standards, and distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within
categories in establishing the standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the
EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 years review
and, if appropriate, revise’’ new source
performance standards. However, the
Administrator need not review any such
standard if the ‘‘Administrator
determines that such review is not
appropriate in light of readily available
information on the efficacy’’ of the
standard. When conducting a review of
an existing performance standard, the
EPA has the discretion and authority to
add emission limits for pollutants or
emission sources not currently regulated
for that source category.
In setting or revising a performance
standard, CAA section 111(a)(1)
provides that performance standards are
to reflect ‘‘the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such
reduction and any nonair quality health
and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated.’’ The term ‘‘standard of
performance’’ in CAA section 111(a)(1)
makes clear that the EPA is to determine
both the best system of emission
reduction (BSER) for the regulated
sources in the source category and the
degree of emission limitation achievable
through application of the BSER. The
EPA must then, under CAA section
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
29980
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of
performance for new sources that reflect
that level of stringency.
CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate ‘‘a design,
equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof’’ if in his or her judgment, ‘‘it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
standard of performance.’’ CAA section
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances
under which prescribing or enforcing a
standard of performance is ‘‘not
feasible,’’ such as, when the pollutant
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed to emit or capture the
pollutant, or when there is no
practicable measurement methodology
for the particular class of sources.
Except as authorized under CAA section
111(h), CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes
the EPA from prescribing a particular
technological system that must be used
to comply with a standard of
performance. Rather, sources can select
any measure or combination of
measures that will achieve the standard.
Pursuant to the definition of new
source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to
facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the
date of publication of the proposed
standards in the Federal Register.
Under CAA section 111(a)(4),
‘‘modification’’ means any physical
change in, or change in the method of
operation of, a stationary source which
increases the amount of any air
pollutant emitted by such source or
which results in the emission of any air
pollutant not previously emitted.
Changes to an existing facility that do
not result in an increase in emissions
are not considered modifications. Under
the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement
of components of an existing facility
such that: (1) the fixed capital cost of
the new components exceeds 50 percent
of the fixed capital cost that would be
required to construct a comparable
entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically
feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall
become effective upon promulgation.
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS
review?
As noted in section II.A of this
preamble, CAA section 111 requires the
EPA to, at least every 8 years, review
and, if appropriate, revise the standards
of performance applicable to new,
modified, and reconstructed sources. If
the EPA revises the standards of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
performance, they must reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable
through the application of the BSER
considering the cost of achieving such
reduction and any nonair quality health
and environmental impact and energy
requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
In reviewing an NSPS to determine
whether it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to review
and revise the standards of performance,
the EPA evaluates the statutory factors,
which may include consideration of the
following information:
• Expected growth for the source
category, including how many new
facilities, reconstructions, and
modifications may trigger NSPS in the
future.
• Pollution control measures,
including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design
or efficiency improvements, or other
systems of emission reduction, that are
‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ in the
regulated industry.
• Available information from the
implementation and enforcement of
current requirements indicating that
emission limitations and percent
reductions beyond those required by the
current standards are achieved in
practice.
• Costs (including capital and annual
costs) associated with implementation
of the available pollution control
measures.
• The amount of emission reductions
achievable through application of such
pollution control measures.
• Any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy
requirements associated with those
control measures.
In evaluating whether the cost of a
particular system of emission reduction
is reasonable, the EPA considers various
costs associated with the particular air
pollution control measure or a level of
control, including capital costs and
operating costs, and the emission
reductions that the control measure or
particular level of control can achieve.
The Agency considers these costs in the
context of the industry’s overall capital
expenditures and revenues. The Agency
also considers cost-effectiveness
analysis as a useful metric, and a means
of evaluating whether a given control
achieves emission reduction at a
reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness
analysis allows comparisons of relative
costs and outcomes (effects) of 2 or more
options. In general, cost effectiveness is
a measure of the outcomes produced by
resources spent. In the context of air
pollution control options, cost
effectiveness typically refers to the
annualized cost of implementing an air
pollution control option divided by the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
amount of pollutant reductions realized
annually.
After the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, the EPA compares the various
systems of emission reductions and
determines which system is ‘‘best,’’ and
therefore represents the BSER. The EPA
then establishes a standard of
performance that reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
the implementation of the BSER. In
doing this analysis, the EPA can
determine whether subcategorization is
appropriate based on classes, types, and
sizes of sources, and may identify a
different BSER and establish different
performance standards for each
subcategory. The result of the analysis
and BSER determination leads to
standards of performance that apply to
facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the
date of publication of the proposed
standards in the Federal Register.
Because the new source performance
standards reflect the best system of
emission reduction under conditions of
proper operation and maintenance, in
doing its review, the EPA also evaluates
and determines the proper testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements needed to ensure
compliance with the emission
standards.
C. What is the ALDT surface coating
source category regulated in this final
action?
Pursuant to the CAA section 111
authority described earlier in this
preamble, the EPA listed the ALDT
surface coating source category under
CAA section 111(b)(1). 44 FR 49222,
49226 (August 21, 1979). The EPA first
promulgated NSPS for ALDT surface
coating operations on December 24,
1980 (45 FR 85415; December 24, 1980).
The 1980 ALDT NSPS are codified in 40
CFR part 60, subpart MM and are
applicable to sources that commence
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after October 5, 1979
(ALDT NSPS MM). The ALDT NSPS
MM regulate VOC emissions from
surface coating operations located at
automobile and light duty truck
assembly plants. Subpart MM was
amended in a series of actions and the
last amendment was promulgated in
1994 (59 FR 51383; October 11, 1994).
The ALDT surface coating source
category consists of each prime coat
operation, each guide coat operation,
and each topcoat operation in an
automobile or light duty truck assembly
plant. Subpart MM requires a monthly
compliance demonstration with the
VOC emission limit established for each
surface coating operation:
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
• For prime coat operations:
Æ For electrodeposition (EDP) prime
coat: 0.17 to 0.34 kilograms VOC/liter
applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs)
(1.42 to 2.84 lbs VOC/gallon (gal) acs)
depending on the solids turnover ratio
(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).
Subpart MM provides default transfer
efficiencies (TE) for various surface
coating application methods for the
monthly compliance calculation. The
default TE values in subpart MM also
account for the recovery of purge
solvent. The monthly compliance
calculation also includes control device
VOC destruction efficiency as
determined by the initial or the most
recent control device performance test.
The control devices identified in the
ALDT NSPS MM include thermal and
catalytic oxidizers. In addition, subpart
MM requires continuous monitoring of
thermal and catalytic oxidizer operating
temperatures. Quarterly or semiannual
reporting is required to report emission
limit exceedances and negative reports
are required for no exceedances. Surface
coating operations for plastic body
components or all-plastic automobile or
light-duty truck bodies on separate
coating lines are exempted from the
ALDT NSPS MM. However, the
attachment of plastic body parts to a
metal body before the body is coated
does not cause the metal body coating
operation to be exempted. Additional
detail on the ALDT surface coating
source category and ALDT NSPS MM
requirements are provided in the
proposal (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022).
The EPA estimates that the ALDT
NSPS MM currently affects surface
coating operations at 44 ALDT assembly
plants operating in the U.S. ALDT NSPS
MM sources and will be subject to the
electronic reporting amendments being
finalized by this action. The EPA also
expects that an additional 16 ALDT
assembly plants will commence
construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the affected surface
coating operations over the next 8 years
(after May 18, 2022). These new sources
will be subject to the new ALDT NSPS
MMa being finalized in this action.
The EPA proposed the current review
of the ALDT NSPS MM on May 18, 2022
(87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). We
received 5 comment letters from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
affected industry, the industry
association, environmental groups, and
a state environmental agency during the
comment period. In addition, we met
with the affected industry and the
industry association on December 8 and
13, 2022. A summary of the more
significant comments we timely
received regarding the proposed rule
and our responses are provided in this
preamble. A summary of all other public
comments on the proposal and the
EPA’s responses to those comments is
available in the document titled,
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rule: New
Source Performance Standards for
Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR
part 60, subpart MM) Best System of
Emission Reduction Review, Final
Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2021–0664. Additional
information provided by the affected
industry and the industry association in
meetings held on December 8 and 13,
2022, to support their written comments
and meeting minutes are provided in
separate memoranda available in the
docket. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the
regulatory language that incorporates
the changes in this final action for
ALDT NSPS MM is also available in the
docket. In this action, the EPA is
finalizing decisions and revisions
pursuant CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
review for the ALDT surface coating
source category after our consideration
of all the comments received.
D. What changes did we propose for the
ALDT surface coating NSPS?
The EPA proposed the results of the
CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review of the ALDT
NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM on
May 18, 2022 (87 FR 30141; May 18,
2022). The EPA proposed to codify the
revisions to the ALDT NSPS MM in a
new NSPS subpart, MMa. In the new
subpart MMa, the EPA proposed
requirements that apply to sources that
commence construction, reconstruction,
or modification after May 18, 2022. The
revisions proposed to be codified in
subpart MMa were: revised VOC
emission limits for the prime coat, guide
coat, and topcoat operations; the
addition of work practices to minimize
VOC emissions; revision of the plastic
parts provision; updates to the capture
and control devices and the associated
testing and monitoring requirements;
revision of the transfer efficiency
provisions; revision of the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements; the addition of electronic
reporting; clarification of the
requirements for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); new
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29981
test methods and incorporation by
reference (IBR) of alternative methods;
minor corrections and clarifications;
and other amendments to harmonize the
new NSPS subpart requirements with
the Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (ALDT
NESHAP) requirements.
The EPA also proposed electronic
reporting requirements in subpart MM,
which applies to affected sources that
commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
October 5, 1979, and on or before May
18, 2022.
III. What actions are we finalizing and
what is our rationale for such
decisions?
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the
NSPS for the ALDT surface coating
source category pursuant to CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is
promulgating the NSPS revisions in a
new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart
MMa. Subpart MMa is applicable to
affected sources constructed, modified,
or reconstructed after May 18, 2022.
This action also finalizes revisions to
ALDT NSPS subpart MM. Subpart MM
is applicable to affected sources that are
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after October 5, 1979, but on or before
May 18, 2022.
The final requirements in subpart
MMa include the following revisions
that the EPA proposed: VOC emission
limits for the prime coat, guide coat, and
topcoat operations; work practices to
minimize VOC emissions; plastic parts
provision; capture and control devices
and the associated testing and
monitoring requirements; transfer
efficiency provisions; recordkeeping
and reporting requirements; electronic
reporting; requirements for periods of
SSM; test methods and IBR of
alternative methods; and other
requirements to harmonize the new
NSPS subpart MMa requirements with
the Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
63 subpart IIII (ALDT NESHAP)
requirements.
The final requirements also include
the addition of electronic reporting
requirements in subpart MM, which
applies to affected sources that
commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
October 5, 1979, but on or before May
18, 2022.
A. Emission Limits
The EPA is finalizing VOC emission
limits in new subpart MMa for each
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29982
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
prime coat operation, each guide coat
operation, and each topcoat operation in
an automobile or light duty truck
assembly plant, calculated monthly. For
the prime coat operation, we are
finalizing the proposed numeric limit
with the addition of a solids turnover
ratio (RT) in response to comments. For
the guide coat and topcoat operations
we are finalizing the proposed numeric
limits.
• For prime coat operations:
Æ Electrodeposition (EDP) prime coat,
0.027 to 0.055 kilograms VOC/liter
applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs)
(0.23 to 0.46 lbs VOC/gal acs) depending
on the solids turnover ratio (RT) when
RT is between 0.04 and 0.16; For RT
greater than 0.16, the limit is 0.027 kg
VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for
turnover ratios less than 0.04, there is
no emission limit.
Æ Non-EDP (spray applied) prime
coat, 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/
gal acs).
• For guide coat operations, 0.35 kg
VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs); and
• For topcoat operations, 0.42 kg
VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs).
For prime coat operations, the final
VOC emission limit reflects the EPA’s
determination that use of waterborne
prime coat applied by EDP with control
of the curing oven emissions with
thermal oxidation that is capable of
achieving 95 percent destruction or
removal efficiency (DRE) represents the
updated BSER for this surface coating
operation. The final emission limit for
EDP prime coat operations in subpart
MMa includes the RT, which is a factor
in determining compliance with the
VOC emission limit for the prime coat
in the current subpart MM. EPA
determined the final emission limit for
the prime coat operation was cost
effective.
For guide coat operations, the final
VOC limit reflects the EPA’s
determination that use of waterborne or
solvent borne guide coats applied by
spray application with control of the
waterborne flash off area or control of
the solvent borne booth and oven with
either a carbon adsorber concentrator
and an RTO or just an RTO, with the
RTO achieving 95 percent DRE of the
captured emissions represents the
updated BSER for this surface coating
operation. The final emission limit for
guide coat operations in subpart MMa is
based on facilities that are subject to and
achieve the emission limit of 0.35 kg
VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) by
using either: (1) waterborne guide coat
with control of the flash off area with a
carbon adsorber concentrator and an
RTO but no control of the booth; or (2)
solvent borne guide coat and control of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
the booth and oven with either a carbon
adsorber concentrator and an RTO or
just an RTO, with the RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions.
The EPA determined the final emission
limit for the guide coat operation was
cost effective.
For topcoat operations, the final VOC
limit reflects the EPA’s determination
that the use of waterborne basecoats and
solvent borne clearcoats applied by
spray application with control of the
waterborne basecoat booth and/or the
flash off area and control of the solvent
borne clearcoat booth, flash off area, and
topcoat oven with an RTO or a
combination of a concentrator and an
RTO, with the RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions
represents the updated BSER for this
surface coating operation. The final
emission limit for topcoat operations in
subpart MMa is based on facilities that
are subject to and achieve the emission
limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/
gal acs) by using: (1) waterborne
basecoat with control of the booth and/
or the flash off area with a combination
of a concentrator and an RTO; and (2)
solvent borne clearcoat with control of
the automated sections of the clearcoat
booth, the clearcoat flash off area and
the topcoat oven with an RTO or a
combination of a concentrator and an
RTO, with the RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions.
The EPA determined the final emission
limit for the topcoat operation was cost
effective.
The EPA identified and considered
more stringent emission limits in its
review that were not selected for the
proposed and final actions. The more
stringent emission limits were not
selected because the EPA determined
they were based on coating technology
that was not adequately demonstrated
by the industry (i.e., powder coating for
the guide coat operation) or because the
EPA determined they were not cost
effective (i.e., lower limits for the EDP
prime coat and topcoat operations).
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B),
the EPA conducted a BSER review of
the requirements in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MM and presented the results of
this review, along with our proposed
determinations, in section IV.A of the
proposed rule preamble (87 FR 30147;
May 18, 2022). A detailed discussion of
our review and proposed
determinations are included in the
memorandum titled, Final Rule Best
System of Emission Reduction Review
for Surface Coating Operations in the
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MM), available in the docket for
this action. Based on our review, we
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed revised VOC emission limits
for each prime coat operation, each
guide coat operation, and each topcoat
operation in an automobile or light duty
truck assembly plant. The final VOC
emission limits are based on the
proposed VOC emission limits and the
revisions made in response to comments
we received, as described here.
1. Prime Coat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
For the prime coat operation, at
proposal, the EPA evaluated 2
regulatory options based on facilities
using an EDP prime coat dip tank
system. Both options were more
stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM
limit for prime coat operations. The
options were based on 19 facilities with
28 EDP prime coat operations that are
currently subject to more stringent
prime coat limits than the ALDT NSPS
MM prime coat limit.
The first option was a numerical VOC
emission limit of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs
(0.23 lb VOC/gal acs) based on control
of the curing oven emissions only with
thermal oxidation (e.g., an RTO)
achieving 95 percent DRE of the
captured emissions. This VOC emission
limit is demonstrated by 13 of the 44
existing ALDT facilities and the EPA
determined the cost effectiveness for
this option to be $6,800/ton of VOC
reduced. The EPA considered this
option to be cost-effective over the
baseline level of control and to be
consistent with one of the compliance
options for EDP prime coat systems in
the ALDT NESHAP.
The second option was a numerical
VOC emission limit of 0.005 kg/l acs
(0.040 lb VOC/gal acs) based on control
of both the oven and the tank emissions
with an RTO capable of achieving 95
percent DRE. Four plants control the
emissions from the EDP prime coat dip
tank in addition to the oven emissions
with some form of thermal oxidation. At
proposal, the EPA determined the
second option to be not cost-effective
and not reflective of BSER because the
cost effectiveness of controlling the tank
emissions was estimated to be $91,100
per ton of VOC reduced. In addition, the
EPA estimated the second option would
only achieve an additional 3 tpy of VOC
reductions over the first option and
would have an estimated incremental
cost effectiveness of $46,000 per ton of
VOC reduced compared to the first
option. Due to the poor costeffectiveness of this option relative to
the baseline level of control and the
likewise unfavorable incremental costeffectiveness of this option when
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
compared to the first option, we rejected
the second option as the BSER.
The EPA proposed the first option of
0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs)
with a cost effectiveness of $6,800/ton
of VOC reduced, which reflects the
EPA’s determination that control of the
curing oven emissions with thermal
oxidation that is capable of achieving 95
percent DRE represents the updated
BSER for the prime coat operations. The
proposed emission limit for the EDP
prime coat operation did not include the
solids turnover ratio (RT), which is a
factor in determining compliance with
the VOC emission limit for the prime
coat dip tank in the subpart MM. This
factor was not proposed because it is not
included in the facility permits with
more stringent limits than the current
prime coat operation VOC limits, which
were the basis of our revised BSER
determination (87 FR 30148, May 18,
2022). We also proposed a non-EDP
limit of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb
VOC/gal acs) for spray application of the
prime coat based on industry input.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
b. How the Final Revisions to Prime
Coat Limits Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
As a result of comments received for
the prime coat operation, in subpart
MMa the EPA is finalizing a revised
prime coat operation limit with the
inclusion of the solids turnover ratio
(RT). The EPA is promulgating the
following limits for the prime coat
operation in 40 CFR 60.392a depending
on the solids turnover ratio (RT); for RT
greater than 0.16, the limit is 0.027 kg
VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for
turnover ratios less than 0.04 (i.e.,
periods of non-production), there is no
emission limit; and when the solids
turnover ratio is between 0.04 and 0.16
(inclusive), the emission limit is
determined using the following
equation:
Limit = 0.027 × 350 (0.160¥RT) kg of
VOC per liter of applied coating solids.
The EPA is also including the definition
of solids turnover ratio in 40 CFR
60.391a.
c. Prime Coat Limits Comments and
Responses
Comment: One commenter stated that
the subpart MMa prime coat operation
standards should reflect a modern Ecoat system with VOC controls on
emissions from the curing oven.
According to the commenter, anything
more would not be cost-effective and
would only reduce insignificant
amounts of VOC.
Response: As a result of the BSER
determination for the prime coat
operation, the EPA is finalizing, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
proposed, standards that reflect a
modern EDP prime coat (E-coat) system
with control of VOC emissions from the
curing oven. The final prime coat
operation standard reflects a numeric
limit of 0.23 lb VOC/gal acs with a cost
effectiveness of $6,800/ton VOC
reduced, as proposed. The EPA
estimates the VOC emission reduction
associated this final limit to be 40 tpy
compared to the 1980 NSPS baseline
level of control.
Comment: Two commenters asserted
that the EPA must include the solids
turnover ratio factor in the emission
limit for prime coat operation.
Regarding the decision to exclude the
option of utilizing the solids turnover
for prime coat compliance
demonstrations, one commenter stated
that the EPA needs to review the
extensive data and supporting
comments that served as the basis for
the 1994 final rule that established the
prime coat limits as a function of the
solids turnover ratio. The commenter
stated that the rationale was compelling
then, and it is equally compelling now,
and that the EPA has not adequately
explained how prime coat downtime or
reduced throughput would be
accommodated under the newly
proposed standard and why a change is
needed. The commenter stated that
eliminating consideration of the solids
turnover ratio would be arbitrary and
capricious. With the solids turnover
ratio, the commenter stated, the prime
coat limit of 0.23 lbs VOC/gal acs can be
achieved when the solids turnover ratio
is greater than or equal to 0.16. One
commenter asserted that without the
adjusted emission limit for low solid
turnover ratios, the commenter could
not achieve the existing NSPS limit.
Response: In the proposal the EPA
noted that ALDT prime coat operation
permit limits did not include a factor to
account for the solids turnover ratio,
and the EPA understood that to mean
that facilities currently using the EDP
prime coat process are now able to
consistently maintain the solids
turnover ratio (RT) at a value equal to or
greater than 0.16 (87 FR 30148, May 18,
2022). Therefore, we proposed a prime
coat limit of 0.23 lbs VOC/gal acs based
on sources’ control of the curing oven
emissions with thermal oxidation (e.g.,
an RTO) achieving 95 percent DRE
without the RT factor. After
consideration of the 1994 final rule (59
FR 51383, October 11, 1994) and in
response to the commenters’ argument,
we are retaining the RT factor to account
for periods of non-production and
reduced throughput. Thus, the EPA is
promulgating the following limits in 40
CFR 60.392a depending on the solids
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29983
turnover ratio (RT); for RT greater than
0.16, the limit is 0.027 kg VOC/l acs
(0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios
less than 0.04 (periods of nonproduction), there is no emission limit;
and when the solids turnover ratio is
between 0.04 and 0.16 (inclusive), the
emission limit is determined using the
following equation:
Limit = 0.027 × 350 (0.160¥RT) kg of VOC
per liter of applied coating solids
2. Guide Coat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
For the guide coat operation, at
proposal the EPA evaluated four
regulatory options. These regulatory
options were more stringent than the
ALDT NSPS MM limit of 1.40 kg VOC/
l acs (11.7 lb VOC/gal acs). These
options were based on 14 facilities with
31 guide coat operations subject to more
stringent guide coat limits than the
current ALDT NSPS MM guide coat
limit (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). The
guide coat emission limits found in
permits for facilities using liquid
coatings that were more stringent than
the ALDT NSPS MM limit ranged from
0.060 to 1.21 kg VOC/l acs (0.050 to
10.11 lb VOC/gal acs) and 27 of the 31
guide coat operations were subject to
limits less than or equal to 0.69 kg VOC/
l acs (5.5 lb VOC/gal acs). Three of the
31 guide coat operations with limits
more stringent than the ALDT NSPS
MM are meeting a lower emission limit
(less than 0.060 kg VOC/l acs (0.050 lb
VOC/gal acs)) or have no emission limit
based on the use of powder guide coat
and no controls.
The first option evaluated at proposal
for the guide coat operation was a
numerical VOC emission limit of 0.57
kg VOC/l acs (4.8 lb VOC/gal acs) to
reflect control of the guide coat oven
with an RTO achieving 95 percent DRE
and use of solvent borne or waterborne
coating and no control of the guide coat
spray booth or heated flash off area
exhausts. The facilities using this
system of emission reduction had limits
in the range of 0.41 to 0.66 kg VOC/l acs
(3.46 to 5.5 lb VOC/gal acs). This limit
option was selected because it is the
most common numerical limit for these
facilities and matches the operating
permit limit for 9 facilities with this
control scenario. The EPA estimated
that this option would reduce emissions
from a typical guide coat operation by
about 40 tpy of VOC at a cost of $4,400
per ton of VOC reduced.
The second option evaluated was a
VOC emission limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l acs
(2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect control
of the guide coat spray booth and oven
with either a carbon adsorber and an
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29984
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
RTO or a concentrator and an RTO, with
the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE of
the captured emissions and the use of
solvent borne guide coat. This VOC
emission limit matches the 2020
presumptive best available control
technology (BACT) emission limit for
the guide coat operation identified by
EPA Region 5, and 2 facilities are
currently subject to this limit. The EPA
estimated that this option would reduce
emissions from a typical guide coat
operation by about 50 tpy of VOC at a
cost of $4,900 per ton of VOC reduced.
The third option was a VOC emission
limit of 0.036 kg VOC/l acs (0.30 lb
VOC/gal acs) to reflect the use of a
waterborne guide coat demonstrated by
1 facility employing the use of a 3-wet
coating process. As described in the
proposal, in a 3-wet process the guide
coat and topcoat operations are
combined, and the guide coat oven is
replaced by a heated flash off area,
resulting in lower emissions from the
guide coat operation and a more
efficient process in terms of time and
energy savings for the facility. The
process consists of a series of 2 separate
booths with heated flash off areas for
partial cure (one for the guide coat and
one for the basecoat), followed by a
clearcoat booth, a flash off area, and a
topcoat oven (where the guide coat, the
basecoat, and the topcoat are fully
cured). Only one facility with 2 guide
coat operations is subject to this VOC
emission limit (0.036 kg VOC/l acs (0.30
lb VOC/gal acs)) and uses the 3-wet
process for the guide coat operation.
The costs associated with this option are
for controlling the guide coat heated
flash off area emissions with an RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the
captured emissions. The EPA estimated
that this option would reduce emissions
(from a typical guide coat operation) by
about 73 tpy of VOC at a cost of $3,250
per ton of VOC reduced. As discussed
in the proposal, although this option is
cost-effective when considering the cost
of controls, the emission limit would be
achievable only for guide coat
operations as part of a 3-wet combined
guide coat and topcoat operation.
Further, it would be not cost-effective
for the purposes of this BSER analysis
due to the major capital investment
associated with reconfiguring the guide
coat operation so that it could become
part of a 3-wet combined guide coat and
topcoat operation.
The fourth option we considered was
a numerical VOC limit of 0.016 kg VOC/
l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect the
use of a powder guide coat, instead of
a liquid coating. One facility is subject
to an emission limit of 0.016 kg VOC/
l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs), and 3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
facilities either are subject to a lower
emission limit than 0.016 kg VOC/l acs
(0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) or have no
emission limit based on the use of
powder guide coat and no controls. As
discussed in the proposal, operations
using powder coatings are essentially
non-emitting operations because the dry
powder coating has no solvent.
Therefore, guide coat operations using
powder coatings emit virtually no VOCs
from the booth, flash off area(s), or
curing oven. The use of powder for the
guide coat operation could eliminate all
VOC emissions from a typical guide coat
operation with no additional control
costs and could be the best
environmental outcome. However, the
industry has experienced difficulties
(including appearance and finish
quality) with the application of powder
coatings to ALDT vehicle bodies, so we
considered this option to be not
adequately demonstrated. Further, it
would not be cost-effective for the
purposes of this BSER analysis for a
reconstructed or modified operation due
to the major capital investment
associated with switching the guide coat
operation from a liquid coating
application to a powder coating
application.
After consideration of all guide coat
options, the EPA proposed a revised
VOC limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 lb
VOC/gal acs) for the guide coat
operation based on Option 2, being the
use of solvent borne guide coat and 95
percent control of the spray booth and
oven with either a carbon adsorber and
an RTO or a concentrator and an RTO,
with the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE
of the captured emissions, as the
updated BSER for guide coat operation.
This option also represents the lower
range of emission limits for facilities
using solvent borne guide coats and is
demonstrated by 3 of 44 existing ALDT
plants.
b. How the Final Revisions to Guide
Coat Limits Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comments on
the proposed revisions to the guide coat
emission limit, the EPA is finalizing the
guide coat operation VOC emission
limit as proposed.
c. Guide Coat Comments and Responses
The EPA received comments on the
guide coat operation that caused us to
further evaluate the use of waterborne
and solvent borne coatings and to
investigate the controls used for each, as
described in the EPA response in this
section.
Comment: One commenter asserted
that reliance on New Source Review
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(NSR) BACT and LAER determinations
in setting subpart MMa emissions
standards would result in unreasonably
constrained national standards. For
example, according to the commenter,
the proposed guide coat standard based
on a BACT determination for solventbased systems using add-on booth
controls does not reasonably or
adequately accommodate waterborne
guide coat systems.
The commenter also provided
determinations for 2 case studies for
guide coat operations with BACT limits
in ALDT plants located in the state of
Indiana to support their claim that the
proposed subpart MMa emissions
standards for the guide coat operations
are not cost-effective for sources using
waterborne coatings. The commenter
stated the standards must be adjusted to
avoid the need to install cost-ineffective
spray booth controls on waterborne
guide coat lines.
Response: The EPA considered the
VOC emission limits in ALDT plant title
V permits in its BSER analysis,
including those that were derived from
BACT determinations. The EPA did not
consider the limits that were derived
from LAER determinations in its BSER
analysis, except for limits that were
determined to be both BACT and LAER.
The EPA considered these VOC
emission limits in its BSER review
because they represented the best
available control technology at the time,
were developed by the individual ALDT
plants, are inherently cost-effective, and
were approved by state and local
permitting authorities. However, as
required by CAA section 111(b)(1)(B),
the EPA conducted its own costeffectiveness and other analyses to
determine BSER, as described in the
proposal (87 FR 30141, May 18, 2022).
The EPA disagrees that the proposed
guide coat standard is based on a BACT
determination for solvent-based systems
using add-on booth controls that does
not reasonably or adequately
accommodate waterborne guide coat
systems. In our review of guide coat
operations, we generally found that
most operations use solvent borne
coatings. However, for guide coat
operations with VOC emission limits
lower than the 1980 ALDT NSPS limit,
we found 8 operations using a
waterborne coating (the rest use a
solvent borne coating). For guide coat
operations, we are clarifying the
description included in the proposal for
the 2 cost-effective options (Option 1
and Option 2) to distinguish between
the use of waterborne basecoat and
solvent borne coatings, as described
here.
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
The first option for guide coat
operations was represented by plants
using either waterborne or solvent borne
coatings achieving a numerical VOC
emission limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs
(0.57 kg VOC/l acs). We found that
plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs
limit using waterborne guide coat had
no control of the booth or flash off area
(for 3-wet operations) or controlled the
guide coat oven with an RTO achieving
95 percent DRE of the captured
emissions (if not a 3-wet operation).
Plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs
limit using solvent borne guide coat
generally control one of the following:
the guide coat spray booth, the guide
coat flash off area, or the guide coat
oven (if not a 3-wet operation).
The second proposed option for guide
coat operations was represented by
plants using either waterborne or
solvent borne coatings achieving a
numerical VOC emission limit of 2.92 lb
VOC/gal acs (0.35 kg VOC/l acs). We
found that plants subject to and
achieving the 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs limit
used either: (1) waterborne guide coat
and control of the flash off area with no
control of the booth; or (2) solvent borne
guide coat and control of the booth and
oven with either a carbon adsorber and
an RTO or a concentrator and an RTO,
with the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE
of the captured emissions.
During our review since proposal, we
updated the cost effectiveness
calculations for the guide coat operation
by increasing the interest rate to 7
percent and the Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) to the 2021
index, to estimate the incremental cost
effectiveness between two guide coat
options and found it to be reasonable at
$6,670/ton VOC reduced. We
determined this incremental cost
effectiveness has a lower cost per ton of
VOC reduced than the cost effectiveness
for the prime coat operation ($6,800/ton
VOC reduced) and results in greater
VOC emission reductions (147 tpy
compared to 40 tpy for prime coat)
when compared to the 1980 NSPS
baseline level of control.
The EPA also collected compliance
data from one ALDT plant cited by the
commenter, Subaru of Indiana, covering
the period from 2019 to 2021 and these
data show that the waterborne guide
coat operations are consistently
achieving a daily emission rate of 2.1 to
2.2 lb VOC/gal acs. These achieved
emission rates are about 75 percent of
the proposed monthly emission rate of
2.92 lb VOC/gal acs. The waterborne
guide coat operations at Subaru Indiana
Automotive are subject to a BACT
emission limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs,
and do not apply emission reductions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
from any add-on controls to achieve
compliance. These data support the
EPA’s proposed emission limit of 2.92
lb VOC/gal acs and the determination
that this emission limit is achievable in
a cost-effective manner for both
waterborne and solvent borne guide coat
systems.
Therefore, the EPA disagrees that the
proposed standard does not reasonably
or adequately accommodate waterborne
guide coat systems and is finalizing the
guide coat emission limit, as proposed.
Additional detail is provided in the
memorandum titled, Final Cost and
Environmental Impacts Memo for
Surface Coating Operations in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for
this action.
Comment: One commenter
recommended a guide coat standard of
4.8 lb VOC/gal acs for new and
reconstructed facilities. This standard
has been achieved in the ALDT sector
in cases where a waterborne guide coat
is used with VOC controls on the oven,
but no additional VOC controls on the
booth. For modifications, the
commenter recommended the EPA
maintain in subpart MMa the subpart
MM VOC emission limit for guide coat
operations. The commenter stated that
the EPA has not considered the costeffectiveness to implement a lower
standard in the event of a modification
of a guide coat affected facility.
Response: As a result of the BSER
review, the EPA has determined that a
guide coat standard of 2.92 lb VOC/gal
acs reflects BSER for new,
reconstructed, and modified sources.
We found this option to be achievable
for both waterborne and solvent borne
coating applications and the emission
limit is consistent with the 2020
presumptive BACT emission limit
identified by U.S. EPA Region 5.
Contrary to the commenter’s statement,
we found that plants achieving the 4.8
lb VOC/gal acs limit used waterborne
guide coat and no control of the booth
or flash off area. This numeric limit
would represent no change from the
1980 NSPS MM level of no control for
waterborne guide coat operations (i.e.,
the 1980 limit and the limit of 4.8 lb
VOC/gal acs could both be achieved by
plants with no add-control of the
waterborne guide coat operations). Our
analysis indicates that waterborne guide
coat operations can achieve a limit of
2.92 lb VOC/gal acs by controlling the
emissions from the waterborne guide
coat flash off area. The EPA identified
this as the difference between the 2
guide coat options with an incremental
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29985
cost effectiveness of $6,670 per ton of
VOC reduced.
During our review we identified no
modifications (consistent with part 60
definitions and proposed subpart MMa
exceptions) for guide coat operations.
Instead, we found that guide coat
systems are newly constructed or
reconstructed (and not modified) at
existing ALDT plants. Subpart MMa
would not be triggered if the changes to
an existing system do not meet either
the part 60 definition of modification or
the subpart MMa exceptions for
modifications. For these reasons subpart
MM did not include separate emission
limits for guide coat modifications, and
separate emission limits were not
proposed for the new subpart MMa. The
commenter also provided no data or
information to support a separate
emission limit for modifications.
Therefore, we are finalizing the
proposed standard for the guide coat
operation, including for modifications.
Additional detailed on modifications
for ALDT affected facilities is provided
in the document titled, Summary of
Public Comments and Responses on
Proposed Rule: New Source
Performance Standards for Automobile
and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart
MM) Best System of Emission Reduction
Review, Final Amendments, Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0664.
3. Topcoat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
The ALDT NSPS subpart MM topcoat
limit is based on the application of
topcoat in one booth. It is also based on
no control of waterborne topcoats (e.g.,
waterborne base coat and clearcoat) if
used, or based on 95-percent control of
the topcoat booth and oven VOC
emissions if solvent borne topcoats
(solvent borne base coat and clearcoat)
are used with a thermal or catalytic
oxidizer.
For the topcoat operation, at proposal,
the EPA evaluated 2 regulatory options.
These regulatory options were more
stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM
limit of 1.47 kg VOC/l acs (12.3 lb VOC/
gal acs). These options were based on 20
facilities operating approximately 25
topcoat lines that are subject to more
stringent topcoat limits than the topcoat
VOC limit in the ALDT NSPS MM (87
FR 30150; May 18, 2022). The topcoat
VOC emission limits more stringent
than the current ALDT NSPS MM range
from 0.28 to 1.44 kg VOC/l acs (2.32 to
12.0 lb VOC/gal acs). The regulatory
options include the use of add-on
controls for both waterborne and solvent
borne basecoats and the use of add-on
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29986
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
controls for solvent borne clearcoats (the
EPA is not aware of any facilities in the
U.S. using waterborne clearcoats).
The first option evaluated in the
ALDT NSPS review for the topcoat
operation is a numerical topcoat limit of
0.62 kg VOC/l acs (5.20 lb VOC/gal acs)
demonstrated by 6 facilities with 11
topcoat operations with control of the
clearcoat spray booth and the topcoat
oven with a concentrator, such as a
carbon adsorber or rotary carbon
adsorber, followed by a thermal
oxidizer, usually an RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions.
The EPA estimated this option would
reduce VOC emissions from a typical
topcoat operation by 110 tpy of VOC at
a cost of $5,200 per ton of VOC reduced.
The second option considered by the
EPA for the topcoat operation is a
numerical topcoat limit of 0.42 kg VOC/
l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs) demonstrated
by 2 facilities operating 3 coating lines
(corrected in this final action to reflect
3 facilities operating 4 coating lines)
with control of the basecoat spray booth
and/or the basecoat flash off area, as
well as the clearcoat spray booth and
topcoat oven. The add-on controls used
by facilities include a thermal oxidizer,
usually an RTO achieving 95 percent
control of the captured emissions and a
concentrator, such as a carbon adsorber
or rotary carbon adsorber before the
RTO (same as the first option). For this
option, the emissions from the basecoat
spray booth and/or the basecoat flash off
area would also be routed to the
concentrator before going to the RTO.
This option also represents the lower
range of emission limits for topcoat
operations using solvent borne basecoat
and clearcoats and it matches the 2020
presumptive BACT emission limit
identified by EPA Region 5. The EPA
estimated that this option would reduce
emissions from a typical topcoat
operation by 160 tpy of VOC at a cost
of $7,900 per ton of VOC reduced
(corrected in this final action). The EPA
proposed a revised VOC limit of 0.42 kg
VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs) for the
topcoat operation based on Option 2.
After consideration of the 2 topcoat
options, the EPA proposed option 2, a
revised VOC limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs
(3.53 lb VOC/gal acs) for the topcoat
operation based on control of the
basecoat spray booth and/or the
basecoat heated flash off area, as well as
the clearcoat booth and the topcoat oven
with an RTO or a combination of a
concentrator and RTO, with the RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the
captured emissions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
b. How the Final Revisions to Topcoat
Limits Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comments on
the proposed revisions to the topcoat
emission limit, the EPA is finalizing the
topcoat operation VOC emission limit,
as proposed.
c. Topcoat Comments and Responses
Similar to the guide coat operation,
the EPA received comments on the
topcoat operation that caused us to
further evaluate the use of waterborne
and solvent borne coatings and to
further investigate the controls used for
each. This evaluation resulted in the
finding that topcoat operations using a
waterborne basecoat and achieving the
3.53 lb VOC/gal acs limit are doing so
by controlling the waterborne basecoat
booth and/or flash off area, as stated in
the EPA response in this section. During
this evaluation we also updated the cost
effectiveness calculations for the topcoat
operation by increasing the interest rate
to 7 percent and the CEPCI to the 2021
index, we made a correction to the
proposed topcoat cost effectiveness
calculations, and we estimated the
incremental cost effectiveness between
the two topcoat options.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the EPA cannot use Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits
by themselves as a basis for setting
national emissions standards, but that
PSD permits do provide useful
information as to what emissions
control alternatives should be rejected,
since state permitting agencies routinely
use incremental cost-effectiveness
analysis in assessing emissions control
alternatives in PSD permitting. The
commenter provided determinations for
2 case studies for topcoat operations
with BACT limits in the state of Indiana
to support their claim that the proposed
subpart MMa emissions standards for
the topcoat operations are not costeffective for sources using waterborne
coatings. The commenter stated the
standards must be adjusted to avoid the
need to install cost-ineffective spray
booth controls on waterborne topcoat
lines.
Response: CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
requires the EPA to conduct its own cost
effectiveness determination as part of
the BSER analysis. As part of that
analysis, the EPA also considered these
same topcoat operations identified by
the commenter in the 2 case studies
cited by the commenter in its BSER
review. The BACT limits referred to by
the commenter, reflected in the ALDT
plants’ title V operating permits, are
lower than the 1980 subpart MM
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
emissions limits for topcoat operations.
Thus, even the examples provided by
the commenters indicate that ALDT
plants can achieve a greater level of
emission reductions in topcoat
operations than the current standards.
In addition, the EPA identified topcoat
operations achieving lower VOC
emission limits than those reflected in
the 2 case studies and determined the
proposed limit for the topcoat operation
is achievable and cost-effective.
In our review of topcoat operations,
we found that more plants use
waterborne than solvent borne coatings
for the basecoat and that all plants use
solvent borne clearcoats. For topcoat
operations, we are clarifying the
description of the 2 cost-effective
options included in the proposal to
better distinguish between the use of
waterborne and solvent borne coatings,
as described here.
For topcoat operations, the first
option was represented by plants
achieving a BACT limit of 5.2 lb VOC/
gal acs by controlling the solvent borne
clearcoat process only and no control of
the waterborne basecoat part of the
topcoat operation. We found that plants
achieving a limit of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs
used: (1) waterborne basecoat and no
control of the basecoat booth and no
control of the heated flash off area; and
(2) solvent borne clearcoat with control
of the automated sections of the
clearcoat booth and the clearcoat flash
off area and the topcoat (combined
basecoat and clearcoat) oven. The
automated sections of the solvent borne
clearcoat booth are controlled by either
an RTO or a combination of a
concentrator and an RTO. The
concentrators include a carbon or
zeolite adsorber (either a dual bed
system or rotary wheel system) before
the RTO, and most RTOs achieve greater
than 95 percent DRE of the captured
emissions. The topcoat oven is
controlled with an RTO that achieves 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions.
For topcoat operations using a
waterborne basecoat, this numeric limit
would represent no change from the
1980 NSPS level of no add-on control of
the waterborne basecoat. For topcoat
operations using a solvent borne
clearcoat, this numeric limit would
represent an increase from the 1980
NSPS level of add-on control (control of
the automated sections of the clearcoat
booth and flash off area). Therefore, the
cost effectiveness for this option reflects
the emission reductions and costs
associated with controlling the solvent
borne clearcoat process.
For topcoat operations, the proposed
second option was represented by
plants achieving a BACT limit of 3.53 lb
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
VOC/gal acs by controlling both the
waterborne basecoat and solvent borne
clearcoat parts of the topcoat operation.
We found that plants achieving a limit
of 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs limit used: (1)
waterborne basecoat with control of the
booth and/or the flash off area with an
RTO; and (2) solvent borne clearcoat
with control of the automated sections
of the clearcoat booth, the clearcoat
flash off area and the topcoat (combined
basecoat and clearcoat) oven, as
described in the first topcoat option. For
waterborne basecoat operations, this
numeric limit represents an increase in
the level of control (control of the
waterborne basecoat booth and/or flash
off area) compared to the 1980 NSPS (no
control). For solvent borne clearcoat
operations, this numeric limit
represents the same increase in the level
of control (compared to the 1980 NSPS)
as the first topcoat option (by adding
control of the automated sections of the
clearcoat booth and flash off area), and
no change when compared to the first
topcoat option. Therefore, the cost
effectiveness for the second topcoat
option reflects the emission reductions
and costs associated with controlling
the water borne basecoat process.
As a result of the BSER analysis for
the topcoat operation, the EPA is
clarifying that the difference between
the 2 options is due to control of VOC
emissions from the waterborne base coat
booth and/or flash off area with an
incremental cost effectiveness of $6,500
per ton of VOC reduced. Therefore, the
EPA has determined that the proposed
standard is achievable using either
solvent borne or waterborne topcoat
systems and is finalizing the proposed
limits for the topcoat operation in
subpart MMa. Additional detail is
provided in the memorandum titled,
Final Cost and Environmental Impacts
Memo for Surface Coating Operations in
the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for
this action.
Comment: One commenter claimed
the proposed analysis is flawed because
it is not based on an incremental
evaluation of regulatory alternatives.
The commenter stated that the subpart
MMa proposal contains analysis of 2
control options for topcoat lines and it
does not evaluate the incremental costeffectiveness of option 2 as compared to
option 1. The commenter stated that
option 1 was based on control of the
clearcoat spray booth and the topcoat
oven and option 2 was based on control
of the basecoat spray booth/flash off
area as well as clearcoat booth and oven.
According to the commenter, option 2
further reduces VOC by 50 tons with an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
incremental cost-effectiveness of
$13,840/ton of VOC reduced, a value
that is facially not cost-effective using
the EPA’s usual cost effectiveness
thresholds for VOCs. Moreover, the
commenter stated that this value
exceeds levels that the EPA has rejected
in other rules as not being incrementally
cost-effective. According to the
commenter, in a recently proposed
NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals, the
EPA determined that in setting emission
limits for loading operations the
incremental cost effectiveness of $8,300/
ton of VOC reduced was not costeffective.
Response: The EPA is clarifying the
description of the options in the
proposal to distinguish between the use
of waterborne and solvent borne
coatings for the topcoat operation and
has estimated the incremental costeffectiveness of those options.
The 1980 subpart MM baseline level
of control for topcoat operations
(including basecoats) was a limit of 12.3
lb VOC/gal acs and required no control
on waterborne coating operations. Our
analysis indicates topcoat operations
using waterborne basecoats are now
achieving a limit of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs
using no control and that a lower limit
of 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs is achieved by
ALDT plants by controlling the
emissions from the waterborne basecoat
booth and/or flash off area. The cost
effectiveness to control the waterborne
basecoat booth or flash off area is $6,010
per ton of VOC reduced, which is the
incremental cost effectiveness between
the 2 topcoat options.
In this final action, the EPA is
correcting an error in the proposal
found while estimating the incremental
cost effectiveness between the topcoat
options. In its proposal for the second
topcoat option, the EPA estimated an
emission reduction of 160 tpy and a cost
effectiveness of $7,900/ton VOC
reduced to achieve the lower FCA
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant limit of
2.32 lb VOC/gal acs (instead of the
proposed 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs). The final
estimated emission reduction and cost
per ton for option 1 (5.2 lb VOC/gal acs)
is 137 tons VOC reduced per year and
$3,980/ton reduced. The revised
emission reduction and cost
effectiveness for the second topcoat
option of 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs is 169 tpy
and $4,370 per ton of VOC reduced
compared to the 1980 baseline level of
control, which the EPA determined to
be reasonable. As a result, the EPA
estimated the incremental emission
reduction to be 32 tpy and estimated an
incremental cost effectiveness between
the 2 topcoat options to be $6,010 per
ton of VOC reduced when compared to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29987
the cost and emission reduction
estimated for option 1 at 5.2 lb VOC/gal
asc.
The EPA determined the topcoat
incremental cost effectiveness of $6,010
per ton of VOC reduced to be reasonable
as an incremental cost. The topcoat
incremental cost effectiveness of $6,010
per ton of VOC reduced is lower than
the cost per ton of VOC reduced for the
prime coat operation ($6,800/ton VOC
reduced) and results in greater VOC
emission reductions (169 tpy compared
to 40 tpy for prime coat) when
compared to the 1980 NSPS baseline
level of control. This incremental cost
effectiveness ($6,010 per ton of VOC
reduced) is also lower than the
incremental cost effectiveness value of
$8,300/ton for modified and
reconstructed loading operations that
was rejected in the Bulk Gasoline
Terminals NSPS cited by the
commenter. The EPA also notes that, in
any event, the Bulk Gasoline Terminals
source category is a very different
industry and emission source type and
cannot be used to establish an
incremental cost effectiveness boundary
or threshold for ALDT surface coating
operations. Revision of the standards of
performance for each source category
must reflect the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the
application of the BSER considering the
cost of achieving such reduction and
any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy
requirements (CAA section 111(a)(1)).
Therefore, we are finalizing the 3.53 lb
VOC/gal acs emission limit for the
topcoat operation, as proposed.
Additional detail on the topcoat cost
effectiveness analysis is provided in the
memorandum titled, Final Cost and
Environmental Impacts Memo for
Surface Coating Operations in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for
this action.
B. Work Practice Standards
1. Proposed Work Practice Standards
The EPA proposed work practice
standards in the new subpart MMa to
minimize fugitive VOC emissions from:
(1) the storage, mixing, and conveying of
coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials
generated by, the prime coat, guide coat
and topcoat operations; and (2) the
cleaning and purging of equipment
associated with the prime coat, guide
coat and topcoat operations. Subpart
MMa affected sources are also required
to develop and implement work practice
plans consistent with the ALDT
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29988
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
NESHAP provisions, which we have
determined to be BSER. The work
practices include: the use of low-VOC
and no-VOC alternatives; controlled
access to VOC-containing cleaning
materials; capture and recovery of VOCcontaining materials; use of highpressure water systems to clean
equipment in the place of VOCcontaining materials; masking of spray
booth interior walls, floors, and spray
equipment to protect from over spray;
and use of tack wipes or solvent
moistened wipes.
For fugitive emissions of VOC, the
EPA evaluated work practices
demonstrated by 43 of 44 existing ALDT
plants currently subject to ALDT
NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.3094 as
discussed in the proposal (87 FR 30151;
May 18, 2022). The EPA proposed these
work practices and the development
and implementation of work practice
plans for the ALDT NSPS MMa to
minimize fugitive VOC emissions from
the storage, mixing, and conveying of
VOC-containing materials that include
the coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials
generated by, the prime coat, guide coat
and topcoat operations. The EPA also
proposed work practices and the
development and implementation of
work practice plans for the ALDT NSPS
MMa to minimize fugitive VOC
emissions from the cleaning and
purging of equipment. The EPA
proposed VOC minimizing practices
including: the use of low-VOC and noVOC alternatives; controlled access to
VOC-containing cleaning materials;
capture and recovery of VOC-containing
materials; use of high-pressure water
systems to clean equipment in the place
of VOC-containing materials; masking of
spray booth interior walls, floors, and
spray equipment to protect from over
spray; and use of tack wipes or solvent
moistened wipes. The EPA considers
these work practices to reflect BSER for
controlling fugitive emissions of VOC.
As discussed in the proposal, CAA
section 111(h)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate ‘‘a design,
equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof’’ if in his or her judgment, ‘‘it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
standard of performance.’’ CAA section
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances
under which prescribing or enforcing a
standard of performance is ‘‘not
feasible,’’ such as when the pollutant
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed to emit or capture the
pollutant, or when there is no
practicable measurement methodology
for the particular class of sources.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
The results of our BSER review did
not identify any ALDT facilities
demonstrating add-on controls for these
fugitive VOC emissions, and because
these emissions are from various
sources and activities located
throughout the ALDT facility and are
generally released into the ambient air
from various locations throughout the
facility, the EPA determined that it
would not be feasible to route these
fugitive VOC emissions to capture and
control systems. The sources of fugitive
VOC emissions include: containers for
VOC-containing materials used for
wipe-down operations and cleaning;
spills of VOC-containing materials; the
cleaning of spray booth interior walls,
floors, grates and spray equipment; the
cleaning of spray booth exterior
surfaces; and the cleaning of equipment
used to convey the vehicle body through
the surface coating operations.
2. How the Final Revisions to Work
Practice Standards Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on
the proposed work practice standards,
the EPA is finalizing the work practice
standards, as proposed.
3. Work Practice Standards Comments
and Responses
Comment: Three commenters
requested that the EPA provide a
compliance alternative such that
compliance with the elements of the
ALDT NESHAP work practice plan that
incorporate subpart MMa requirements
for VOC represent compliance with
subpart MMa. The commenter refers to
the subpart MMa proposal where the
EPA stated that ‘‘[f]acilities
demonstrating compliance with the
ALDT NESHAP Subpart IIII work
practice provisions will be in
compliance with these same
requirements in the revised ALDT NSPS
Subpart MMa’’ and requests that this
condition be added to the subpart MMa
rule text to streamline the permitting
process and to avoid the use of
repetitive permit terms in site
compliance systems. The commenters
provided suggestions for subpart MMa
regulatory text in their comments.
Response: In subpart MMa, 40 CFR
60.392a provides the work practices to
minimize fugitive emissions of VOC
from materials and equipment
associated with coating operations for
which emission limits are established
under 40 CFR 60.392a(a). These coating
operations are the prime coat, guide coat
and topcoat operations that are subject
to MMa due to construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
May 18, 2022. Subpart MMa, 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
60.392a(b) provides the work practices
for storage, mixing, and conveying of
coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials
generated by, all coating operations for
which emission limits are established
under 40 CFR 60.392a(a). In subpart
MMa, 40 CFR 60.392a(c) provides the
work practices for cleaning and purging
of equipment associated with all coating
operations for which emission limits are
established under 40 CFR 60.392a(a).
These same work practices are
required by the ALDT NESHAP to
minimize fugitive emissions of organic
HAP. However, the ALDT NESHAP
applies to the subpart MMa sources as
well as additional ALDT surface coating
operations including operations for
paint repair, underbody coating, sealers,
etc. (i.e., the NESHAP has broader
applicability than subpart MMa). In
addition, low-HAP-containing materials
are not necessarily low-VOC-containing
materials. For example, methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK) was delisted as a HAP but
is still considered to be a VOC. In
addition, due to the potential for
changes to the work practice standards
in future ALDT NSPS and ALDT
NESHAP rulemakings, the EPA is not
providing a compliance alternative in
subpart MMa to say that compliance
with elements of the ALDT NESHAP
work practice plans represents
compliance with subpart MMa. After
considering the comments on the
proposed work practice standards, the
EPA is finalizing the work practice
standards, as proposed.
C. Plastic Parts Provision
1. Proposed Plastic Parts Provision
The EPA is also finalizing, as
proposed, revision of the plastic parts
provision so that subpart MMa applies
to the surface coating of all vehicle
bodies, including all-plastic vehicle
bodies, to reflect changes in coating
technology since the original ALDT
NSPS MM and to make the
requirements consistent for all ALDT
surface coating facilities subject to
subpart MMa (87 FR 30151–30152, May
18, 2022).
Based on the BSER review required by
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA
proposed to remove the all-plastic
vehicle body exemption from subpart
MM in subpart MMa. One affected
ALDT plant that uses waterborne (and
solvent borne) coatings on all-plastic
bodies is not subject to the ALDT NSPS
subpart MM due to this exemption. The
exemption was based on an industry
comment the EPA received during
development of the 1980 ALDT NSPS
stating that compliance with subpart
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
MM was not possible due to the
significant problems associated with the
use of waterborne topcoats on plastic
substrates due to the high temperature
required to cure the waterborne
coatings 1 (87 FR 30152; May 18, 2022).
The EPA is finalizing that subpart MMa
applies to the surface coating of all
vehicle bodies, including all-plastic
vehicle bodies. This requirement that
includes all-plastic vehicle bodies in
subpart MMa reflects BSER because the
coating of the vehicle bodies using
waterborne coatings has been
demonstrated and it is expected that
new all-plastic vehicle body surface
coating operations can use the same
technology as other facilities to meet the
emission limits that reflect the
application of BSER.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Plastic
Parts Provision Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comment on the
proposed plastic parts provisions, the
EPA is finalizing the plastic parts
provisions in subpart MMa, as
proposed.
3. Plastic Parts Provision Comment and
Response
Comment: One commenter supported
the EPA’s decision to exclude the
coating of plastic parts from regulation
under the proposed 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the
commenters support of the proposed
amendment to the rule.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
D. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping,
and Reporting Provisions
1. Proposed Testing, Monitoring,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Provisions
The NSPS developed under CAA
section 111 are required to reflect the
best system of emission reduction under
conditions of proper operation and
maintenance. For the NSPS review, the
EPA also evaluates and determines the
proper testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements needed to ensure
compliance with the performance
standards.
As a result of our review, we
evaluated the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for 43 of 44 ALDT plants
currently subject to the ALDT NESHAP
as discussed in the proposal (87 FR
30152; May 18, 2022) and proposed
1 Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface
Coating Operations, Background Information for
Promulgated Standards, EPA–450/3–79–030b,
September 1980, Comment 2.1.9, page 2–8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
revisions to the ALDT NSPS MMa
requirements. The EPA considers these
to be appropriate means of ensuring
compliance with the standards that
reflect BSER. These requirements will
provide for more robust testing,
monitoring, and reporting than is
required by the current ALDT NSPS
MM and will align the new ALDT NSPS
MMa and the ALDT NESHAP
requirements. Facilities demonstrating
compliance with the ALDT NESHAP
requirements will have no additional
burden complying with these same
requirements in the new NSPS subpart
MMa.
a. Capture and Control Devices
In addition to the thermal and
catalytic incineration in the current
ALDT NSPS MM, we proposed to add
the control devices listed in Table 1 to
subpart IIII of part 63—Operating Limits
for Capture Systems and Add-On
Control Devices (ALDT NESHAP Table
1) to the new ALDT NSPS subpart MMa.
The additional control devices include
regenerative carbon adsorbers,
condensers, and concentrators
(including zeolite wheels and rotary
carbon adsorbers). We also proposed
requirements for capture systems that
are permanent total enclosures and
capture systems that are not permanent
total enclosures for the new NSPS
subpart MMa to match the ALDT
NESHAP requirements.
b. Operating Limits and Monitoring
Provisions for Capture and Control
Devices
In addition to updating the capture
and control devices in the new ALDT
NSPS subpart MMa, the EPA proposed
operating limits and monitoring
provisions for the capture and control
devices to match the ALDT NESHAP
requirements. These requirements
include matching: (a) 40 CFR 63.3093
and the ALDT NESHAP Table 1; (b) the
provisions for establishing control
device operating limits in 40 CFR
63.3167; and (c) the provisions for the
continuous monitoring system
installation, operation, and maintenance
of control devices in 40 CFR 63.3168.
c. Performance Testing of Capture and
Control Devices
In addition to updating the capture
and control devices in the new ALDT
NSPS MMa, the EPA proposed initial
capture performance testing and initial
and periodic control device
performance testing requirements in
NSPS subpart MMa to match the ALDT
NESHAP provisions in 40 CFR 63.3160
and 63.3160(c)(3). Periodic performance
tests are used to establish or evaluate
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29989
the ongoing destruction efficiency of the
control device and establish the
corresponding operating parameters,
such as temperature, which can vary as
processes change or as control devices
age. The EPA also proposed control
device destruction efficiency
requirements to match the ALDT
NESHAP provisions in 40 CFR 63.3166
for the new NSPS subpart MMa.
d. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Provisions
The recordkeeping and reporting
provisions proposed in the new ALDT
NSPS MMa reflect the part 60 general
provisions and are included in 40 CFR
60.395a. Subpart MMa requires
quarterly or semiannual compliance
reports, similar to subpart MM. Subpart
MMa sources must identify, record, and
submit a report every calendar quarter
for each instance a deviation occurred
from the emission limits, operating
limits, or work practices. If no such
instances have occurred during a
particular quarter, a report stating such
is required to be submitted
semiannually.
2. How the Final Revisions to the
Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting Provisions Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on
the proposed testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting provisions,
the EPA is finalizing these provisions,
as proposed.
3. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping
and Reporting Comments and
Responses
Comment: One commenter explained
that during performance tests RTOs may
experience a rise in combustion
chamber temperature above the chamber
temperature setpoint due to the high
thermal efficiency of modern RTOs and
the release of heat from materials
contained in the incoming gases from
various consolidated and concentrated
VOC sources. The commenter requested
that the EPA allow the performance test
chamber temperature setpoint to be the
minimum combustion temperature
operating limit and revise 40 CFR
60.394a(a)(2) to either (a) allow the
permit holder to establish the operating
limit as equal to the combustion
chamber temperature setpoint that has
been established for the oxidizer based
on previous source measurements that
demonstrated compliance, or (b) allow
the permit holder of the thermal
oxidizer to apply to the Administrator
for approval of an alternate operating
limit under 40 CFR 60.13(i).
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29990
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Response: Subpart MMa requires
initial and periodic performance testing
of RTOs to demonstrate compliance
with the required emission limits and to
establish and demonstrate compliance
with the operating limits for control
devices. Subpart MMa at 40 CFR
60.392a(a) and 40 CFR 60.392a(g)
require that the emission limits and the
operating limits must be met at all
times, including periods of SSM.
The commenter stated that RTOs
‘‘may’’ experience a higher combustion
chamber temperature than indicated by
the setpoint during performance testing
and provided examples of RTOs
operating at higher temperatures than
the operating limit. However, the
examples provided show that the
sources have not demonstrated the RTO
destruction or removal efficiency (DRE)
at the setpoint, but instead
demonstrated the capability of the RTO
to meet the required DRE at whatever
temperature the RTO was actually
operating. The EPA agrees that the effect
of solvent loading depends on the
degree to which the various sources of
VOC are consolidated and concentrated
within the facility, as well as the
thermal and destruction efficiency of
the RTO. However, the commenter does
not provide any data on the number of
sources routed to the RTOs or any
information about the RTOs such as the
age or date of installation. The
commenter also does not provide data
related to the materials in the exhaust
gases or the BTU content of these
materials, or data related to the fuel
used for the RTO. These data could be
used to predict the combustion
temperatures expected during
performance testing. In addition to the
subpart MMa and the part 60 general
provision performance testing
requirements, performance testing could
also include the retest of various
materials/fuel mixtures used, in order to
identify the minimum operating
temperature corresponding to the DRE
needed demonstrate compliance.
Therefore, the EPA considers this to be
a site-specific issue that should be
addressed on a case-by-case basis in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(i).
The EPA bases its stack testing
requirements on the Clean Air Act
National Stack Testing Guidance dated
April 27, 2009.2 In this guidance the
EPA recommends that performance tests
for a facility operating under an
emission rate standard or concentration
standard, normal process operating
conditions producing the highest
emissions or loading to a control device
2 See https://www.epa.gov/compliance/clean-airact-national-stack-testing-guidance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
would generally constitute the most
challenging conditions for meeting the
emissions standard. In these cases, the
EPA recommends that the facility
conduct a stack test at maximum
capacity or the allowable/permitted
capacity.
For both ALDT subparts MM and
MMa, in which sources are subject to
rate limits (mass VOC per volume of
applied coating solids), testing should
be conducted at maximum capacity or
allowable/permitted capacity, and this
could be expected to lead to the most
challenging test conditions. Facility
operators have several options if they
expect that temperatures may rise above
the set point during a compliance test.
These include the following:
• If temperature rise is expected to
occur when a facility is operating at
maximum production, the facility
operator may be able to adjust the set
point prior to the test to prevent a
temperature rise and achieve an average
temperature operating limit more in line
with the set point and representative
minimum operating temperatures.
• The facility operator may request
approval to use a VOC continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) to
continuously measure actual VOC
emissions after the control device and
use these direct VOC emission
measurements in demonstrating
compliance with the VOC emission rate
limits.
• The facility operator may test at a
lower average RTO temperature and use
the DRE from that test in their
compliance calculations and as the
operating limit.
The temperature and thermal oxidizer
DRE data in the stack tests collected by
the EPA for this rulemaking show that
DRE values are more variable at lower
temperatures (e.g., 92 to 98 percent DRE
at 1400 degrees F) than at higher
temperatures (e.g., 96 to 99 percent DRE
at 1500 degrees F) in the range between
1400 to 1550 degrees F. Because RTO
temperature is an important
determinant of DRE and DRE is used in
the compliance calculations, it is
important that the EPA ensure that
RTOs are complying with an operating
limit based on the actual temperature
that corresponds to the DRE used in a
facility’s compliance calculations.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the
proposed monitoring and operating
limit provisions for subpart MMa that
rely on the actual measured combustion
temperature rather than the set point.
To request approval of alternatives to
any monitoring procedures or
requirements of part 60, including the
operating limits, subpart MMa refers to
the part 60 general provisions at 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
60.13(i). Specifically, subpart MMa at 40
CFR 60.394a provides performance test
requirements for RTOs and refers to 40
CFR 60.13(i) for alternative monitoring.
Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.394a also
refers to 40 CFR 60.392a(h) which states
that if a source uses an add-on control
device other than those listed in Table
1 to subpart MMa or wishes to monitor
an alternative parameter and comply
with a different operating limit, the
source must apply to the Administrator
for approval according to 40 CFR
60.13(i). The part 60 general provisions
also provide an alternative to the
monitoring requirements for VOC
emissions in subpart MMa with a CEMS
in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(i).
Comment: One commenter agreed that
the time periods of bypass on an air
pollution control device must be
recorded and factored into the monthly
compliance calculation by assuming
that during bypass periods, the control
efficiency for that portion of the
operation(s) is zero. However, the
commenter believes the bypass should
not be characterized as a deviation from
the standard unless the emission limit is
exceeded.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter. Subpart MMa at 40 CFR
60.392a(a) and 60.392a(g) require that
the emission limits and the operating
limits for capture and control devices
must be met at all times after they are
established during the initial
performance test. This includes periods
of SSM. The ALDT NESHAP also
includes these same requirements.
Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.392a(g)
also refers to Table 1 to subpart MMa,
Operating Limits for Capture Systems
and Add-On Control Devices, and
requires sources to establish operating
limits during performance tests
according to the requirements in 40 CFR
60.394a. Sources are required to comply
with the applicable operating limits in
Table 1; for example, for thermal
oxidizers the average combustion
temperature in any 3-hour period must
not fall below the operating limit
(combustion temperature limit)
established according to 40 CFR
60.394a(a). The average combustion
temperature maintained during the
performance test establishes the
operating limit (the minimum 3-hour
average operating limit) for the thermal
oxidizer. In addition, subpart MMa at 40
CFR 60.393a(c)(2) and (3) requires
sources to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable
operating limit, and if an operating
parameter is out of the allowed range, as
specified in Table 1, it is a deviation
from the operating limit that must be
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
reported as specified by 40 CFR
60.395a(h).
As the commenter states, subpart
MMa in 40 CFR 60.393a(c)(4) requires
that if an operating parameter deviates
from the operating limit specified in
Table 1, sources must assume that the
emission capture system and add-on
control device were achieving zero
efficiency during the time period of the
deviation except as provided in 40 CFR
60.393a(m). For the purposes of
completing the compliance calculations
specified in 40 CFR 60.393a(j), the rule
text reiterates that sources must assume
that both the emission capture system
and the add-on control device were
achieving zero efficiency during the
time period of the deviation.
Specifically for bypasses, subpart
MMa in 40 CFR 60.393a(c)(6) requires
sources to meet the requirements for
bypass lines in 40 CFR 60.394a(h) for
control devices (other than solvent
recovery systems for which liquidliquid material balances are conducted).
If any bypass line is opened and
emissions are diverted to the
atmosphere when the coating operation
is running, this is a deviation that must
be reported as specified in 40 CFR
60.395a(h). Subpart MMa in 40 CFR
60.395a(h)(1) also requires sources to
monitor or secure the valve or closure
mechanism controlling the bypass line
in a non-diverting position in such a
way that the valve or closure
mechanism cannot be opened without
creating a record that the valve was
opened. If any bypass line is opened,
sources must include a description of
why the bypass line was opened and the
length of time it remained open in the
semiannual compliance report required
by 40 CFR 60.395a. For the purposes of
completing the compliance calculations
specified in 40 CFR 60.393a(j), the rule
text reiterates that sources must assume
that both the emission capture system
and the add-on control device were
achieving zero efficiency during the
time period of the deviation.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA modify the regulatory
language in subparts MM and MMa to
eliminate any quarterly reporting to
align with the semiannual reporting
frequency in the ALDT NESHAP and
title V. The submittal of deviations
should be addressed in a semiannual
report as already required under the
ALDT NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.3120(a)
and under the title V requirements.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter and provides the basis for
the quarterly reporting requirement in
the 1979 subpart MM proposal (44 FR
57801; October 5, 1979). We consider
this basis to still be valid today. As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
discussed in the selection of monitoring
requirements section, the EPA
explained that monitoring requirements
are generally included in the standards
of performance to provide a means for
enforcement personnel to ensure that
the emission control measures adopted
by a facility to comply with standards
are properly operated and maintained.
Each surface coating operation that has
achieved compliance without the use of
an add-on VOC emission control device
would be required to monitor the
average VOC content of the coating
materials used in that operation.
Generally, increases in the VOC content
of the coating materials would cause
VOC emissions to increase. These
increases could be caused by the use of
new coatings or by changes in the
composition of existing coatings.
Therefore, following the initial
performance test, increases in the
average VOC content of the coating
materials used in each surface coating
operation are required to be reported on
a quarterly basis. For surface coating
operations using add-on control devices,
the monitoring of combustion
temperatures is required. Following the
initial performance test, decreases in the
incinerator combustion temperature are
required to be reported on a quarterly
basis.
Less frequent reporting is provided for
affected facilities demonstrating
compliance with subpart MMa
requirements after 1 year. The part 60
General Provision at 40 CFR 60.7
provides that reporting on a quarterly
(or more frequent) basis may be reduced
if the following conditions are met: (i)
for 1 full year (e.g., 4 quarterly or 12
monthly reporting periods) the affected
facility’s excess emissions and
monitoring systems reports submitted to
comply with a part 60 standard
continually demonstrate that the facility
is in compliance with the applicable
standard; (ii) the owner or operator
continues to comply with all
recordkeeping and monitoring
requirements specified in this subpart
and the applicable standard; and (iii)
the Administrator does not object to a
reduced frequency of reporting for the
affected facility. Therefore, we are
finalizing the proposed requirement for
quarterly reporting in subpart MMa at
40 CFR 60.395a(d).
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA provide flexibility in the
NSPS MMa to submit compliance
reports according to dates incorporated
in title V operating permits, consistent
with the provisions in the ALDT
NESHAP. The commenter also
recommended that the EPA allow NSPS
reporting to align with any reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29991
date provisions in a title V operating
permit.
Response: The EPA has revised the
reporting requirements in subpart MMa
at 40 CFR 60.395a (d) for compliance
reports according to dates incorporated
in title V operating permits, consistent
with the provisions in the ALDT
NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.3120.
E. Transfer Efficiency Provisions
1. Proposed Transfer Efficiency
Provisions
The EPA proposed provisions to
require the measurement of transfer
efficiency (TE) and a separate
calculation to account for the recovery
of purge solvent in subpart MMa, to be
consistent with the ALDT NESHAP. In
addition, we proposed provisions that
sources determine the TE for each guide
coat and topcoat coating operation using
either ASTM D5066–91 (Reapproved
2017) or the guidelines presented in the
‘‘Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA–453/
R–08–002, September 2008 (2008 ALDT
Protocol). The EPA also proposed
amendments for TE testing on
representative coatings and for
representative spray booths as described
in the 2008 ALDT Protocol. In addition,
the EPA proposed that sources can
assume 100 percent TE for prime coat
EDP operations.
2. How the Final Revisions to the
Transfer Efficiency Provisions Differ
From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on
the proposed transfer efficiency
provisions for subpart MMa, the EPA is
finalizing the transfer efficiency
provisions, as proposed.
3. Transfer Efficiency Comment and
Response
Comment: One commenter stated that
subpart MMa emissions standards must
provide the operational flexibility to
employ a variety of coating application
technologies and they must not be based
on the assumption that all new,
reconstructed, and modified facilities
can achieve the highest levels of TE,
because all facilities cannot do so.
Response: The EPA is finalizing in
subpart MMa, as proposed, the
measurement of the overall TE, which
comprises all methods of spray
application, for each guide coat and
each topcoat operation subject to
subpart MMa. These requirements are in
accordance with the ‘‘Protocol for
Determining the Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
29992
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Topcoat Operations’’ (2008 Auto
Protocol), contrary to the comment that
the EPA is requiring the highest levels
of TE (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). The
EPA is not prescribing any specific
application methods or requirements for
a minimum allowable TE in subpart
MMa.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
F. NSPS Subpart MMa Without Startup,
Shutdown, Malfunction Exemptions
1. Proposed SSM Provisions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA
has established standards in this rule
that apply at all times. The NSPS
general provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(c)
currently exempt non-opacity emission
standards during periods of SSM. We
are finalizing in subpart MMa in section
40 CFR 60.392a specific requirements
that override these general provisions
for SSM requirements and match the
SSM provisions in the ALDT NESHAP.
In finalizing the standards in this rule,
the EPA has taken into account startup
and shutdown periods and, for the
reasons explained in this section of the
preamble, has not finalized alternate
standards for those periods. We
discussed the potential need for
alternative standards with industry
representatives during the recent
development of amendments to the
ALDT NESHAP and during the proposal
of this ALDT NSPS action. No issues
were identified, and there are no data
indicating problems with complying
with these provisions during periods of
startup and shutdown. Therefore, the
EPA determined that no additional
standards are needed to address
emissions during these periods. The
legal rationale and explanation of the
changes for SSM periods are set forth in
the proposed rule (see 87 FR 30153–
30154, May 18, 2022). Further, the EPA
did not propose and is not promulgating
standards for malfunctions in this final
action.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither
predictable nor routine. Instead, they
are, by definition, sudden, infrequent,
and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or
monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as
not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA
section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA
section 111 or in case law requires that
the EPA consider malfunctions when
determining what standards of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
performance reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
‘‘the application of the best system of
emission reduction’’ that the EPA
determines is adequately demonstrated.
While the EPA accounts for variability
in setting emissions standards, nothing
in CAA section 111 requires the Agency
to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to
treat a malfunction in the same manner
as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of
a source. A malfunction is a failure of
the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or
usual manner’’ and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting section 111
standards of performance. The EPA’s
approach to malfunctions in the
analogous circumstances (setting
‘‘achievable’’ standards under CAA
section 112) has been upheld as
reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S.
Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–
610 (2016).]
2. How the Final Revisions to the SSM
Provisions Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comment on the
proposed revisions to the SSM
provisions for subpart MMa, the EPA is
finalizing the SSM provisions, as
proposed.
3. SSM Provision Comment and
Response
Comment: One commenter supported
the EPA’s proposal to remove startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
regulatory loopholes, and additionally
would like the EPA to also remove the
SSM exemption from the NSPS general
provisions.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the
commenter’s support of the proposed
amendment to the rule and the
commenter’s suggestion to make a
similar amendment to the 40 CFR part
60 general provisions. However,
changes to the general provisions are
outside the scope of this rulemaking
action.
G. Electronic Reporting
1. Proposed Electronic Reporting
Requirement
The EPA is finalizing the proposed
requirement that owners and operators
of affected facilities in the ALDT surface
coating source category subject to the
current and new NSPS at 40 CFR part
60, subparts MM and MMa submit
electronic copies of required
performance test reports and
compliance reports through the EPA’s
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). We also are
finalizing, as proposed, provisions that
allow affected facility owners and
operators the ability to seek extensions
for submitting electronic reports for
circumstances beyond the control of the
ALDT plant, i.e., for a possible outage in
the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure
event in the time just prior to a report’s
due date, as well as the process to assert
such a claim (87 FR 30154; May 18,
2022). The final subpart MM and MMa
electronic reporting provisions require
performance test results and compliance
reports to be submitted to the
Administrator as required by 40 CFR
60.395(f) and 60.395a(f). These final
electronic reporting provisions would
not affect submittals required by state
air agencies.
Current subpart MM and new subpart
MMa affected sources are required to
comply with the electronic reporting
requirements for performance test
results on the effective date of the
standard or upon startup, whichever is
later. Current subpart MM and new
subpart MMa affected sources are
required to use the appropriate ereporting template to comply with the
electronic reporting requirements for
compliance reports beginning 180 days
after the EPA posts the final compliance
reporting templates to CEDRI.
2. How the Final Revisions to the
Electronic Reporting Requirement Differ
From the Proposed Revisions
The EPA revised the proposed
electronic reporting provisions for
compliance reports in subparts MM and
MMa due to the comments received.
Sources are required to use the
appropriate e-reporting template to
comply with the electronic reporting
requirements for compliance reports
beginning 180 days instead of the
proposed 90 days after the EPA posts
the final compliance reporting templates
to CEDRI. The electronic reporting
templates were also revised according to
the comments we received during the
comment period and are available in the
docket for this action.
3. Electronic Reporting Requirement
Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA allow facilities that become
subject to electronic reporting to submit
the compliance report for both subpart
MM and subpart MMa at least 180 days
after the effective date of the rule, or
once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1year, whichever date is later. According
to the commenter the proposal stated
that the EPA would require use of the
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
NSPS template once the template has
been available on the CEDRI website for
90 days, but this language was not
included in the proposed regulatory
text.
Response: The EPA has revised the
subpart MM and subpart MMa rule
language to state that the reporting
template must be used beginning 180
days after the effective date of the rule
or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1year, whichever date is later.
Comment: One commenter asserted
that the use of electronic reporting is
reasonable as a general matter, but that
the proposed compliance templates, and
regulatory language contain errors that
must be corrected in the final rule. The
EPA must correct the errors identified in
the two proposed compliance templates
and implement recommendations to
make the templates more user-friendly.
Response: The EPA requested review
and comment on the proposed
templates and regulatory language,
revised them according to the
comments, and is providing the final
versions in this rulemaking docket.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
H. Test Methods
1. Proposed Test Methods
We are finalizing the proposed
additional EPA test methods, voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), alternative
methods, and a guidance document in
subpart MMa (87 FR 30157; May 18,
2022).
In addition to the EPA test methods
listed in subpart MM (EPA Methods 1,
2, 3, 4, 24, and 25 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A), we are finalizing the
following EPA test methods in subpart
MMa, as proposed:
• EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 60;
• EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B,
204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and
• EPA Method 311 of appendix A to
40 CFR part 63.
In accordance with requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by
reference (IBR) the following VCS and a
guidance document described in the
amendments to 40 CFR 60.17:
• ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10–1981,
‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus]’’ issued
August 31, 1981, IBR approved for 40
CFR 60.396a(a)(3).
• ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved
2016), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in
Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a
Helium Gas Pycnometer,’’ Approved
December 1, 2016, IBR approved for 40
CFR 60.393a(g)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
• ASTM D2369–20, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings,’’ (Approved June 1, 2020), IBR
approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(f)(1)(i).
• ASTM D2697–22, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter
in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,’’
(Approved July 1, 2022), IBR approved
for 40 CFR 60.393a(g)(1).
• EPA–453/R–08–002, ‘‘Protocol for
Determining the Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer Surfacer and Topcoat
Operations,’’ September 2008, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), IBR approved for 40 CFR
60.393a(e), 60.393a(h), 60.395a(k)(3)(iii),
60.397a(e) introductory text, 60.397a
(e)(2)–(4), and Appendix A to subpart
MMa of Part 60 sections 2.1 and 2.2, 4.1
and 4.2.
We are also incorporating by reference
the following alternative methods
specific to automotive coatings
described in the amendments to 40 CFR
60.17:
• ASTM D1475–13, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Density of Liquid Coatings,
Inks, and Related Products,’’ Approved
November 1, 2013, IBR approved for 40
CFR 60.393a(f)(2).
• ASTM D5965–02 (Reapproved
2013), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,’’
Approved June 1, 2013, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 60.393a(f)(2).
• ASTM D5066–91 (Reapproved
2017), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency
Under Production Conditions for Spray
Application of Automotive PaintsWeight Basis,’’ Approved June 1, 2017,
IBR approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(h).
• ASTM D5087–02 (Reapproved
2021), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Solvent-borne Automotive
Coatings and Available for Removal in
a VOC Control Device (Abatement),’’
Approved February 1, 2021, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 60.397a(e) and
appendix A to subpart MMa, section
2.1.
• ASTM D6266–00a (Reapproved
2017), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determining the Amount of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Waterborne Automotive Coatings
and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement),’’ Approved
July 1, 2017, IBR approved for
60.397a(e).
In addition, the EPA is finalizing the
addition of the ALDT panel testing
procedure titled ‘‘Determination of
Capture Efficiency of Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck Spray Booth
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29993
Emissions From Solvent-borne Coatings
Using Panel Testing’’ as appendix A to
subpart MMa of 40 CFR part 60.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Test
Methods Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comments on
the proposed revisions to the test
methods, the EPA is finalizing the test
methods, as proposed. However, based
on ASTM revisions to 2 proposed test
methods we are updating Methods
ASTM D2369–20, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings,’’ (Approved June 1, 2020) and
ASTM D2697–22, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter
in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,’’
(Approved July 1, 2022) in the final
rule.
3. Test Method Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA allow the use of
Conditional Test Method 042 (CTM–
042), Use of Flame Ionization DetectorMethane Cutter Analysis Systems for
VOC Compliance Testing of Bakeries, to
identify the methane content, rather
than EPA Method 18 during
performance tests. The commenter
noted that although CTM–042 was
originally approved for VOC testing in
bakeries, many state agencies allow it
for other processes, as it allows
evaluation in real time so that the
company and agency can identify issues
during the test. The commenter argued
that recognizing a measurement issue
during the test benefits both the
permittee and the agency, as costly and
time-consuming re-testing can often be
avoided. The commenter also noted that
the use of CTM–042 reduces the risk of
damaged sample bags or lab error that
would require additional test runs after
the tests have been completed and the
test crews have left the site.
Response: The EPA is not revising the
proposed test methods to allow the use
of CTM–042 for measuring methane in
ALDT surface coating emissions and
does not support the use of CTM–042
for ALDT sources. The EPA
acknowledges that although measuring
VOC using EPA Method 25A and then
subtracting EPA Method 18 methane
results to measure nonmethane organic
compounds (NMOC) is viewed by some
as difficult, we are making this decision
because use of CTM–042 is limited to
bakery emissions in which ethanol is
the predominant non-methane organic
species in those emissions. CTM–042
calibrates the non-methane channel
with ethanol, so it is simple to do a
direct subtraction of the instrument
calibrated for just methane and ethanol.
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29994
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
For application to the ALDT emission
sources and many other emission source
types in general, choosing the right
calibration gas to measure methane and
non-methane compounds will be an
issue, because NMOC can be composed
of a variety of compounds with different
combustion temperatures depending on
the emission source. It is also important
to note that source owners and operators
are not limited to the use of bags for
EPA Method 18 samples. EPA Method
18 can be performed on site by direct
real-time gas chromatography (GC)
analysis to determine the methane
concentration rather than by choosing
the EPA Method 18 bag sample option.
The real-time GC analysis of methane
emissions using EPA Method 18 would
address issues of timely feedback on
emissions and the risks of bag damage
or lab error raised by the commenters.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA allow performance testing
to continue to be reported ‘‘as propane’’
or ‘‘as methane’’ as the basis for
compliance. The commenter stated that
a potential concern is that most historic
test reports are not conducted for NSPS
purposes, but for BACT or RACT
purposes, and would be presented as
VOC ‘‘as propane,’’ while the new
reports performed for NSPS would be
‘‘as carbon.’’ The commenter stated that
permit limits or other items based on
the VOC concentration on a propane
basis would not necessarily be the same
as on a carbon basis, and that this
difference would require duplicative
tests or calculations to demonstrate
compliance with VOC concentration
limits. Additionally, the commenter
stated, test results as carbon would be
inconsistent from previous tests and
would not allow the company or agency
to observe testing in real time to review
results to identify concerns.
Response: Subpart MM requires
compliance calculations to include the
concentration of VOC (as carbon) in
units of parts per million by volume
(ppmv). Similarly, the new subpart
MMa requires compliance calculations
to include the concentration of VOC (as
carbon) in units of ppmv as the basis for
compliance, so the NSPS performance
testing requirements have not changed
as a result of this rulemaking, contrary
to the comment received. Subpart MMa
requires VOC concentrations to be
measured by following the procedures
in EPA Method 25A.3 Review of RTO
destruction efficiency performance tests
included in the docket for this
rulemaking show that ALDT plants are
measuring VOC concentrations using
3 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2017-08/documents/method_25a.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
the procedures found in EPA Method
25A using on-line (real time) total
hydrocarbon (THC) gas analyzers. The
THC gas analyzer directs the sample to
a flame ionization detector (FID) where
the hydrocarbons present in the sample
are ionized into carbon. The
concentration determined by the
analyzer is based on the calibration gas
used, typically either methane or
propane. Section 12.1 of EPA Method
25A explicitly outlines the procedures
for calculating the concentration as
carbon, which is as simple as a 1:1 ratio
for methane and a 3:1 ratio for propane.
No duplicative tests are required, and
the conversion to units of carbon does
not inhibit real-time assessment of
compliance. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the compliance calculations,
as proposed.
I. Other Final Amendments
The EPA is promulgating a final
amendment in response to a comment to
modify the definition of ‘‘flash-off area’’
in subparts MM and MMa to include the
flash-off areas located between spray
booths. The ‘‘flash-off area’’ in subpart
MM and proposed subpart MMa are
defined as ‘‘the structure on automobile
and light-duty truck assembly lines
between the coating application system
(dip tank or spray booth) and the bake
oven.’’ The EPA is revising this
definition in the final rules to include:
‘‘Flash off area also means the structure
between spray booths in a wet-on-wet
coating process in which some of the
solvent evaporates before the next spray
booth; the flash off area may be ambient
temperature or heated to accelerate
evaporation.’’ Additional detail on the
EPA response to this comment is
provided in the document titled,
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rule: New
Source Performance Standards for
Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR
part 60, subpart MM) Best System of
Emission Reduction Review, Final
Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2021–0664.
In addition, the EPA is finalizing
minor corrections and edits to the
subpart MM and MMa equations and
rule text to provide clarity as described
in the summary of public comments and
responses document identified above.
J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B),
the effective date of the final rule
requirements in subpart MM and
subpart MMa will be the promulgation
date. Affected sources that commence
construction, reconstruction, or
modification after May 18, 2022, must
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comply with all requirements of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart MMa no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later, except for
the electronic reporting of compliance
reports. For electronic reporting of
quarterly and semiannual compliance
reports, subpart MM and MMa affected
sources are required to use the
appropriate electronic template to
submit information to CEDRI. The
electronic templates are available in the
docket for this final action. Both
templates were revised according to
comments the EPA received during the
comment period. Subpart MM and MMa
affected sources are required to use the
templates to electronically submit
compliance reports 180 days after the
EPA posts the final templates to CEDRI.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The final ALDT NSPS subpart MMa
would achieve an annual average VOC
emission reduction of 331 tpy reduction
of allowable VOC emissions per facility
compared to that of the current NSPS
subpart MM. Over the first 8 years after
the rule is final, we expect an average
of 2 new, reconstructed, or modified
facilities per year, or 16 new affected
facilities. We estimate a total VOC
emission reduction of 4,160 tpy in the
eighth year after the rule is final,
compared to the current NSPS subpart
MM.
We estimate the increased usage of
electricity and natural gas would result
in an increase in the average production
of 4,474 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (mtCO2e) per year per
facility. We estimate a total GHG
emission production of 71,584 mtCO2e
in the eighth year after the rule is final.
In this action, we are not evaluating
the environmental impacts of other
pollutants such as hydrocarbons (other
than VOC), GHG, nitrogen oxides, and
carbon monoxide emitted by control
devices due to the combustion of
natural gas as fuel or from the
generation of electricity.
B. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with
the electricity and natural gas
consumption associated with the
operation of control devices to meet the
final NSPS subpart MMa include an
estimated average electricity
consumption of 2.54 million kilowatt
hours (kwh) per year per facility and an
estimated average natural gas
consumption of 48.8 million standard
cubic feet (scf) per year per facility
compared to that of the current NSPS
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
subpart MM. Over the first 8 years after
the rule is final, we expect an average
of 2 new, reconstructed, or modified
facilities per year, or 16 new affected
facilities. We estimate a total electricity
consumption of 40.6 million kwh and a
total natural gas consumption of 780.8
million scf in the eighth year after the
rule is final, compared to the current
NSPS subpart MM.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate that the average capital
cost of controls to comply with the
NSPS subpart MMa will be $7.44
million per new facility, or $14.9
million per year for 2 new facilities in
each year in the 8-year period after the
rule is final.
We estimate that the average annual
cost of controls to comply with the
NSPS subpart MMa will be $1.97
million per year per facility, or $3.93
million for 2 new facilities in each year
in the 8-year period after the rule is
final. The total cumulative annual costs
(including annualized capital costs and
O&M costs) of complying with the rule
in the eighth year after the rule is final
would be $31.5 million.
We estimate that the average cost of
the periodic testing of control devices
once every 5 years to comply with
subpart MMa will be $57,000 per
facility, or $114,000 for 2 facilities in
the fifth year after the rule is final.
For further information on the cost
impacts for this action see the
memorandum titled, Final Cost and
Environmental Impacts Memo for
Surface Coating Operations in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for
this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted an economic
impact analysis (EIA) and small
business screening assessment for this
final action, as discussed in the
proposal for this action and detailed in
the memorandum, Economic Impact
Analysis and Small Business Screening
Assessment for Final Revisions and
Amendments to the New Source
Performance Standards for Automobile
and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations, which is available in the
docket for this action. The economic
impacts of this final action were
estimated by comparing total
annualized compliance costs to
revenues at the ultimate parent
company level. This is known as the
cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales test. This
ratio provides a measure of the direct
economic impact to ultimate parent
owners of facilities while presuming no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
impact on consumers. As discussed in
the proposal for this action, we estimate
that none of the ultimate parent owners
potentially affected by this final action
will incur total annualized costs of
greater than 1 percent of their revenues
if they modify or reconstruct the
relevant portions of their facility and
become subject to the requirements of
this final rule (87 FR 30155, May 18,
2022).
Since proposal, the 1 existing facility
that was owned by a small entity was
sold to a company in May 2022 that is
not a small entity. Because the coatings
processes are large operations at
automobile and light duty truck
manufacturing facilities, it is not
anticipated that any affected facilities
that have completed their initial startup
phase would be classified as small
entities. Therefore, no economic
impacts are expected for small entities.
Furthermore, it was assumed that any
new entrant into the industry would
have sales similar to at least the smallest
current ultimate owner, so it is not
anticipated that any new ultimate owner
would face costs of greater than 1
percent of sales.
Therefore, the economic impacts are
anticipated to be low for affected
companies and the industries impacted
by this final action, and there will not
be substantial impacts on the markets
for affected products. The costs of this
final action are not expected to result in
a significant market impact, regardless
of whether they are passed on to the
purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
As described earlier in this preamble,
the final NSPS subpart MMa would
result in lower VOC emissions
compared to the existing NSPS subpart
MM. The new NSPS subpart MMa
would also require that the standards
apply at all times, which includes SSM
periods. We are also promulgating
several compliance assurance
requirements which will ensure
compliance with the new NSPS subpart
MMa and help prevent noncompliant
emissions of VOC. Furthermore, the
final requirements in the new NSPS
subpart MMa to submit reports and test
results electronically will improve
monitoring, compliance, and
implementation of the rule.
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
Consistent with the EPA’s
commitment to integrating
environmental justice in the Agency’s
actions, and following the directives set
forth in multiple Executive Orders as
well as CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29995
Agency has carefully evaluated the
impacts of this action on communities
with environmental justice concerns.
This action finalizes standards of
performance for new, modified, and
reconstructed ALDT surface coating
sources that commence construction
after May 18, 2022. In general, the
locations of the new, modified, and
reconstructed ALDT surface coating
facilities are not known. However, since
proposal, we became aware of 3 ALDT
surface coating facilities for which
construction permits were recently
issued or were about to be issued. We
have evaluated the demographics of the
populations living within 5 kilometers
(km) and 50 km of these 3 new facilities
as examples of new facility locations.
We also evaluated the demographics of
the populations living within 5 km and
50 km of 46 ALDT plants. The 46 ALDT
plants include the 44 existing ALDT
plants and two additional ALDT plants
for which we had locational data.
Executive Order 12898 directs the
EPA to identify the populations of
concern who are most likely to
experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms—specifically,
minority populations, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples
(59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is
intended to advance racial equity and
support underserved communities
through Federal government actions (86
FR 7009; January 20, 2021). The EPA
defines EJ as ‘‘the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ 4 The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’ In recognizing that minority
and low-income populations often bear
an unequal burden of environmental
harms and risks, the EPA continues to
consider ways of protecting them from
adverse public health and
environmental effects of air pollution.
A demographic analysis was
conducted for 3 new ALDT plants,
which we identified after proposal and
anticipate will be subject to the
requirements of subpart MMa once in
operation. The demographic analysis
shows that within 5 km of these new
4 See
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29996
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
facilities, the percent of the population
that is African American is significantly
higher than the national average (17
percent versus 12 percent). The percent
of the population within 5 km that is
Hispanic/Latino is significantly higher
than the national average (51 percent
versus 19 percent). The percent of
people within 5 km that are over 25
without a high school diploma is also
higher than the national average (28
percent versus 12 percent).
A demographic analysis was
conducted for 46 existing ALDT plants
to characterize the demographics in
areas where the plants are currently
located. These represent ALDT plants
that might modify or reconstruct in the
future and become subject to the NSPS
MMa requirements. This analysis was
presented in the proposal and remains
unchanged. The demographic analysis
shows that, within 5 km of the ALDT
facilities, the percent of the population
that is African American is significantly
higher than the national average (27
percent versus 12 percent). The percent
of people within 5 km living below the
poverty level is significantly higher than
the national average (22 percent versus
13 percent). The percent of people
living within 5 km that are over 25
without a high school diploma is also
higher than the national average (15
percent versus 12 percent).
The EPA particularly noted
community impacts and concerns in
some areas of the country that have a
larger percentage of sources. A large
percentage of the sources in the Auto
and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
source category are in EPA Region 5
states and, of those states, most sources
are in the state of Michigan. Most if not
all the counties where these sources are
located are designated as ozone
nonattainment areas. For this reason, we
engaged with EPA Region 5 and the
state of Michigan as part of this
rulemaking.
The EPA expects that this ALDT
NSPS review will result in significant
reductions of VOC emissions from the
affected sources. The new emission
limits finalized for this action reflect the
best system of emission reduction
demonstrated and establish new more
stringent standards of performance for
the primary sources of VOC emissions
from the source category. The EPA
expects that the finalized requirements
in subpart MMa will result in significant
reductions of VOC emissions for
communities surrounding new,
modified, and reconstructed affected
sources compared to the existing rule in
subpart MM and will result in lower
VOC emissions for communities located
in areas designated as ozone non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
attainment areas. These areas are
already overburdened by pollution and
are often minority, low-income, and
indigenous communities. The
methodology and the results (including
facility-specific results and the 50 km
proximity results) of the demographic
analysis are presented in a technical
report titled, Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating NSPS Source Category
Operations—Final Rule, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0664).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This final action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this action have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the PRA.
The Information Collection Request
(ICR) document that the EPA prepared
for subpart MM has been assigned EPA
ICR number 1064.20 and OMB control
number 2060–0034. The ICR document
that the EPA prepared for subpart MMa
has been assigned EPA ICR number
2714.01 and OMB control number
2060–0034. You can find a copy of the
final ICR documents in the ALDT NSPS
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0664,
and they are briefly summarized here.
The final ICR documents were updated
to reflect 2021 labor costs. The
information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves
them.
Each ICR is specific to information
collection associated with the ALDT
surface coating source category, in
accordance with the requirements in the
revised 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM or
the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa.
For the revised 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MM, as part of the ALDT NSPS
review, the EPA is finalizing the
proposed requirement for the electronic
submittal of reports.
Respondents/affected entities: The
respondents to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are owners and
operators of ALDT surface coating
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
operations subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MM.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart
MM).
Estimated number of respondents: In
the 3 years after the amendments are
final, approximately 44 respondents per
year will be subject to the NSPS and no
new respondents will be subject to the
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM).
Frequency of response: The frequency
of responses varies depending on the
burden item. Responses include a 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 44 responding facilities
to comply with the requirements in
subpart MM over the 3 years after the
rule is final is estimated to be 506 hours
(per year). The average annual burden to
the Agency over the 3 years after the
rule is final is estimated to be 152 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average
annual cost to the ALDT facilities is
$47,200 in labor costs in the first 3 years
after the rule is final. The total average
annual Agency cost over the first 3 years
after the amendments are final is
estimated to be $7,800.
For the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart
MMa, as part of the ALDT NSPS review,
the EPA is finalizing the proposed
emission limits and other requirements
as described in this preamble for
affected sources that commence
construction, reconstruction, or
modification after May 18, 2022. We are
also finalizing the proposed testing,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa, including the
performance testing of control devices
once every 5 years and electronic
submittal of performance test results
and compliance reports. This
information is being collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa.
Respondents/affected entities: The
respondents to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are owners and
operators of ALDT surface coating
operations subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart
MMa).
Estimated number of respondents: In
the 3 years after the amendments are
final, approximately 6 respondents per
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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 the requirements in the
new NSPS subpart MMa over the 3
years after the rule is final is estimated
to be 1,663 hours (per year). The average
annual burden to the Agency over the 3
years after the rule is final is estimated
to be 207 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average
annual cost to the ALDT facilities is
$155,000 in labor costs in the first 3
years after the rule is final. The average
annual capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost is $151,000 in
the first 3 years after the rule is final.
The total average annual cost is
$306,000 in the first 3 years after the
rule is final. The total average annual
Agency cost over the first 3 years after
the amendments are final is estimated to
be $10,600.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will
announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law, and it does not
have substantial direct effects on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249; November 9, 2000). No tribal
facilities are known to be engaged in the
industry that would be affected by this
action nor are there any adverse health
or environmental effects from this
action. However, the EPA conducted a
proximity analysis for this source
category and found that 6 ALDT plants
are located within 50 miles of tribal
lands. Consistent with the EPA Policy
on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes, the EPA offered
consultation with tribal officials during
the development of this action.
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities because there are no regulated
facilities owned by small entities.
Details of the analysis in support of this
determination are presented in the
memorandum titled, Economic Impact
Analysis and Small Business Screening
Assessment for Final Revisions and
Amendments to the New Source
Performance Standards for Automobile
and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations, which is available in the
docket for this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not anticipate the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. No
health or risk assessments were
performed for this action. As described
in section IV.E of this preamble, the
EPA estimates a reduction in VOC
emissions from the ALDT NSPS subpart
MMa for sources affected by this action
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29997
because the subpart MMa requirements
are more stringent than the existing
ALDT NSPS subpart MM requirements.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. This action is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the
Enhanced National Standards System
Network Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) to determine if there are VCS
that are relevant to this action. The
Agency also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and
searched their databases.
During the search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to
the EPA’s reference method, the EPA
considered it as a potential equivalent
method. All potential standards were
reviewed to determine the practicality
of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation
data which meets the requirements of
the EPA Method 301 for accepting
alternative methods or scientific,
engineering and policy equivalence to
procedures in the EPA reference
methods. The EPA may reconsider
determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for
particular VCS. As a result, the EPA is
amending 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate
by reference (IBR) the following
proposed VCS for subpart MMa:
• ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10–1981,
‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.’’ This
method determines quantitatively the
gaseous constituents of exhausts
resulting from stationary combustion
sources. The manual procedures (but
not instrumental procedures) of ASME/
ANSI PTC 19.10–1981–Part 10 may be
used as an alternative to EPA Method
3B for measuring the oxygen or carbon
dioxide content of the exhaust gas. The
gases covered in ASME/ANSI PTC
19.10–1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur
dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and
hydrocarbons. However, the use in this
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
29998
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
rule is only applicable to oxygen and
carbon dioxide and is an acceptable
alternative to the manual portion only
and not the instrumental portion.
• ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved
2016), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in
Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a
Helium Gas Pycnometer.’’ This test
method can be used to determine the
percent volume of nonvolatile matter in
clear and pigmented coatings and is an
alternative to EPA Method 24.
• ASTM D2369–20 (Approved June 1,
2020), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings.’’ This test
method allows for more accurate results
for multi-component chemical resistant
coatings and is an alternative to EPA
Method 24.
• ASTM D2697–22 (Approved July 1,
2022), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings.’’ This test method
can be used to determine the volume of
nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings and is an alternative
to EPA Method 24.
• EPA–453/R–08–002, ‘‘Protocol for
Determining the Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Topcoat Operations,’’ September 2008.
This protocol provides guidelines for
combining analytical VOC content and
formulation solvent content as an
alternative to EPA Method 24.
In addition to the VCS identified here,
we are amending 40 CFR 60.17 to IBR
the following ASTM methods that are
specific to automotive coatings:
• ASTM D1475–13, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Density of Liquid Coatings,
Inks, and Related Products,’’ Approved
November 1, 2013. This test method can
be used to determine the density of
coatings and the updated version of the
test method clarifies units of measure
and reduces the number of
determinations required.
• ASTM D5965–02 (Reapproved
2013), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders.’’
These test methods include Test
Methods A and B that can be used to
determine the specific gravity of coating
powders. Test Method A can be used to
test coating powders except for
metallics. Test Method B provides
greater precision than Test Method A,
includes the use of helium pycnometry,
and can be used for metallics.
• ASTM D5066–91 (Reapproved
2017) ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency
Under Production Conditions for Spray
Application of Automotive PaintsWeight Basis.’’ This test method
includes procedures to determine the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
transfer efficiency under production
conditions for in-plant sprayapplication of automotive coatings using
a weight method. The transfer efficiency
is calculated from the weight of the
paint solids sprayed and the paint solids
that are deposited on the painted part.
An alternative approach is also included
in the method.
• ASTM D5087–02 (Reapproved
2021), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Solvent-borne Automotive
Coatings and Available for Removal in
a VOC Control Device (Abatement).’’
This test method can be used to measure
solvent loading for the heated flash off
areas and bake ovens for waterborne
coatings.
• ASTM D6266–00a (Reapproved
2017) ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determining the Amount of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Waterborne Automotive Coatings
and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement).’’ This test
method can be used to measure solvent
loading for heated flash off areas and
bake ovens for waterborne coatings.
In addition, we are adding the ALDT
panel testing procedure titled
‘‘Determination of Capture Efficiency of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Spray
Booth Emissions from Solvent-borne
Coatings Using Panel Testing’’ as
appendix A to subpart MMa of 40 CFR
part 60, as proposed.
In addition to the EPA test methods
listed in subpart MM (EPA Methods 1,
2, 3, 4, 24, and 25 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A), we are finalizing the
following EPA methods in subpart
MMa, as proposed:
• EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 60;
• EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B,
204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and
• EPA Method 311 of appendix A to
40 CFR part 63.
EPA–453/R–08–002 is available
online at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cleanair-act-guidelines-and-standardssolvent-use-and-surface (see
Automobile and Light Duty Truck CTG)
or through https://www.regulations.gov
under EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0413–0080.
ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10–1981 is
available from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–
5990, Telephone (800) 843–2763. See
https://www.asme.org.
The ASTM standards are available
from the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Drive, Post Office Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See
https://www.astm.org.
Additional information for the VCS
search and determinations can be found
in the memorandum titled, Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for Review
of Standards of Performance for
Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating, which is dated January
24, 2023, and is available in the docket
for this action.
Under the general provisions at 40
CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of subpart A,
a source may apply to the EPA to use
alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures in the final
rule or any amendments.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629;
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations (people of color and/or
indigenous peoples) and low-income
populations.
The EPA anticipates that the human
health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or
have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human
health or environmental effects on
people of color, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples.
The EPA anticipates that this action is
likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on
people of color, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples. As
discussed in section IV.F of this
preamble, we performed a demographic
analysis for the ALDT surface coating
source category, which is an assessment
of the proximity of individual
demographic groups living close to the
facilities (within 50 km and within 5
km). We performed demographic
analyses during proposal for 46 existing
ALDT plants and after proposal for three
new ALDT plants. The methodology
and the results of the demographic
analyses are presented in a technical
report titled, Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating NSPS Source Category
Operations—Final Rule, available in the
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
docket for this action. The results of the
demographic analysis for existing ALDT
plants indicate that the following groups
are above the national average: African
Americans, People Living Below the
Poverty Level, and People without a
High School Diploma. For the new
ALDT plants, the results of the
demographic analysis indicate that the
following groups are above the national
average: African Americans, Hispanic/
Latino, and People without a High
School Diploma. We anticipate that the
lower VOC emission limits finalized in
this action for new, modified, or
reconstructed ALDT surface coating
sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
May 18, 2022, will result in lower
ambient concentrations of ground level
ozone and increase compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
60 as follows:
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Amend § 60.17 by:
a. Revising paragraph (g)(14);
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(186)
through (218) as paragraphs (h)(191)
through (223);
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(183)
through (185) as paragraphs (h)(187)
through (189);
■ d. Redesignating paragraph (h)(182) as
paragraph (h)(184) and paragraph
(h)(181) as paragraph (h)(186),
respectively;
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
■
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
e. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(172)
through (180) as paragraphs (h)(175)
through (183);
■ f. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(60)
through (171) as paragraphs (h)(61)
through (172)
■ g. Adding new paragraph (h)(60);
■ h. Revising newly-designated
paragraphs (h)(97) and (h)(110);
■ i. Adding new paragraphs (h)(173),
(174), and (185);
■ j. Revising newly-designated
paragraph (h)(186);
■ k. Adding new paragraph (h)(190);
■ l. Redesignating paragraphs (j)(1)
through (4) as (j)(2) through (5); and
■ m. Adding a new paragraph (j)(1).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 60.17
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10–1981,
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus], Issued
August 31, 1981; IBR approved for
§§ 60.56c(b); 60.63(f); 60.106(e);
60.104a(d), (h), (i), and (j); 60.105a(b),
(d), (f), and (g); 60.106a(a); 60.107a(a),
(c), and (d); tables 1 and 3 to subpart
EEEE; tables 2 and 4 to subpart FFFF;
table 2 to subpart JJJJ; §§ 60.285a(f);
60.396a(a); 60.2145(s) and (t); 60.2710(s)
and (t); 60.2730(q); 60.4415(a);
60.4900(b); 60.5220(b); tables 1 and 2 to
subpart LLLL; tables 2 and 3 to subpart
MMMM; §§ 60.5406(c); 60.5406a(c);
60.5407a(g); 60.5413(b); 60.5413a(b);
60.5413a(d).
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(60) ASTM D1475–13, Standard Test
Method for Density of Liquid Coatings,
Inks, and Related Products, Approved
November 1, 2013; IBR approved for
§ 60.393a(f).
*
*
*
*
*
(97) ASTM D2369–20, Standard Test
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings,
Approved June 1, 2020; IBR approved
for §§ 60.393a(f); 60.723(b); 60.724(a);
60.725(b); 60.723a(b); 60.724a(a);
60.725a(b).
*
*
*
*
*
(110) ASTM D2697–22, Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter
in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,
Approved July 1, 2022; IBR approved
for §§ 60.393a(g); 60.723(b); 60.724(a);
60.725(b); 60.723a(b); 60.724a(a);
60.725a(b).
*
*
*
*
*
(173) ASTM D5066–91, Standard Test
Method for Determination of the
Transfer Efficiency Under Production
Conditions for Spray Application of
Automotive Paints—Weight Basis,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29999
Approved June 1, 2017; IBR approved
for § 60.393a(h).
(174) ASTM D5087–02 (Reapproved
2021), Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Solventborne Automotive Coatings
and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement), Approved
February 1, 2021; IBR approved for
§ 60.397a(e); appendix A to subpart
MMa.
*
*
*
*
*
(185) ASTM D5965–02 (Reapproved
2013), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,
Approved June 1, 2013; IBR approved
for § 60.393a(f).
(186) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved
2016), Standard Test Method for Percent
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas
Pycnometer, Approved December 1,
2016; IBR approved for §§ 60.393a(g);
60.723(b); 60.724(a); 60.725(b);
60.723a(b); 60.724a(a); 60.725a(b).
*
*
*
*
*
(190) ASTM D6266–00a (Reapproved
2017), Standard Test Method for
Determining the Amount of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Released
From Waterborne Automotive Coatings
and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement), Approved
July 1, 2017; IBR approved for
§ 60.397a(e).
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(1) EPA–453/R–08–002, Protocol for
Determining the Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat
Operations, September 2008, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS); IBR approved for
§§ 60.393a(e) and (h); 60.395a(k);
60.397a(e); appendix A to subpart MMa.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart MM—Standards of
Performance for Automobile and Light
Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction
Commenced After October 5, 1979, and
On or Before May 18, 2022
3. Revise the heading for subpart MM
of part 60 to read as set forth above.
■
4. Amend § 60.390 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 60.390 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The provisions of this subpart
apply to any affected facility identified
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
30000
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
§ 60.391
Definitions.
(a) * * *
Flash-off area means the structure on
automobile and light-duty truck
assembly lines between the coating
application system (dip tank or spray
booth) and the bake oven. Flash-off area
also means the structure between spray
booths in a wet-on-wet coating process
in which some of the solvent evaporates
before the next spray booth; the flash off
area may be ambient temperature or
heated to accelerate evaporation.
*
*
*
*
*
(1) In subsequent months, the owner
or operator shall use the most recently
determined capture fraction for the
performance test.
(2) If the owner can justify to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that another
method will give comparable results,
the Administrator will approve its use
on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Amend § 60.395 by revising
paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c)
introductory text and adding paragraphs
(e) and (f) to read as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
§ 60.395 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Where compliance is achieved
through the use of incineration, the
owner or operator shall include the
following additional data in the control
device initial performance test required
by § 60.8(a) or subsequent performance
tests at which destruction efficiency is
determined: the combustion
temperature (or the gas temperature
upstream and downstream of the
catalyst bed), the total mass of VOC per
volume of applied coating solids before
and after the incinerator, capture
efficiency, the destruction efficiency of
the incinerator used to attain
compliance with the applicable
emission limit specified in § 60.392 and
a description of the method used to
establish the fraction of VOC captured
and sent to the control device.
(b) Following the initial performance
test, the owner or operator of an affected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
6. Amend § 60.392 by revising the
introductory text to read as follows:
■
§ 60.392 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
On and after the date on which the
initial performance test required by
§ 60.8 is completed, no owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from any
affected facility VOC emissions in
excess of the limitations listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
The emission limitations listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall apply at
all times, including periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction. As
provided in § 60.11(f), this provision
supersedes the exemptions for periods
of startup, shutdown and malfunction in
facility shall identify, record, and
submit a report to the Administrator
every calendar quarter of each instance
in which the volume-weighted average
of the total mass of VOC’s emitted to the
atmosphere per volume of applied
coating solids (N) is greater than the
limit specified under § 60.392. If no
such instances have occurred during a
particular quarter, a report stating this
shall be submitted to the Administrator
semiannually. Where compliance is
achieved through the use of a capture
system and control device, the volumeweighted average after the control
device should be reported.
(c) Where compliance with § 60.392 is
achieved through the use of
incineration, the owner or operator shall
continuously record the incinerator
combustion temperature during coating
operations for thermal incineration or
the gas temperature upstream and
downstream of the incinerator catalyst
bed during coating operations for
catalytic incineration. The owner or
operator shall submit a report at the
frequency specified in § 60.7(c) and
paragraph (e) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The owner or operator shall submit
the reports listed in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section following the
procedures specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (3) of this section. In
addition to the information required in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
owners or operators are required to
report excess emissions and a
monitoring systems performance report
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the general provisions in subpart A of
this part.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Amend § 60.393 by revising
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
■
§ 60.393 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Determine the fraction of total
VOC which is emitted by an affected
facility that enters the control device by
using the following equation where ‘‘n’’
is the total number of stacks entering the
control device and ‘‘p’’ is the total
number of stacks not connected to the
control device:
and a summary report to the
Administrator according to § 60.7(c) and
(d). Owners or operators are required by
§ 60.7(c) and (d) to report the date, time,
cause, and duration of each exceedance
of the applicable emission limit
specified in § 60.392, any malfunction
of the air pollution control equipment,
and any periods during which the CMS
or monitoring device is inoperative. For
each failure, the report must include a
list of the affected sources or equipment
and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(1) Effective date. On and after
November 6, 2023, or once the reporting
template has been available on the
CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever
date is later, owners or operators must
use the appropriate spreadsheet
template on the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) website (https://www.epa.gov/
electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri)
for this subpart. The date the reporting
template for this subpart becomes
available will be listed on the CEDRI
website. The report must be submitted
by the deadline specified in this
subpart, regardless of the method by
which the report is submitted. Submit
all reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which
can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will
make all the information submitted
through CEDRI available to the public
without further notice to the owner or
operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit
information you claim as CBI. Any
information submitted using CEDRI
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.000</GPH>
in paragraph (a) of this section that
begins construction, reconstruction, or
modification after October 5, 1979, and
on or before May 18, 2022.
■ 5. Amend § 60.391 in paragraph (a) by
revising the definition of ‘‘Flash-off
area’’ to read as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
cannot later be claimed CBI. If you
claim CBI, submit the report following
the procedure described in paragraph
(f)(3) of this section. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
CEDRI as described in paragraph (f)(3)
of this section.
(2) System outage. Owner or operators
that are required to submit a report
electronically through CEDRI in the
EPA’s CDX, may assert a claim of EPA
system outage for failure to timely
comply with that reporting requirement.
To assert a claim of EPA system outage,
owners or operators must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must have been or will be
precluded from accessing CEDRI and
submitting a required report within the
time prescribed due to an outage of
either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems.
(ii) The outage must have occurred
within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date that the
submission is due.
(iii) The outage may be planned or
unplanned.
(iv) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(v) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description
identifying:
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX
or CEDRI was accessed, and the system
was unavailable;
(B) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) A description of measures taken or
to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(vi) The decision to accept the claim
of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(vii) In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as
soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(3) Force majeure. Owner or operators
that are required to submit a report
electronically through CEDRI in the
EPA’s CDX, may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply
with that reporting requirement. To
assert a claim of force majeure, Owner
or operators must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5)
of this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
(i) You may submit a claim if a force
majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the
period of time beginning five business
days prior to the date the submission is
due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an
event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility
that prevents you from complying with
the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are
acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power
outage).
(ii) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(iii) You must provide to the
Administrator:
(A) A written description of the force
majeure event;
(B) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event;
(C) A description of measures taken or
to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim
of force majeure and allow an extension
to the reporting deadline is solely
within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(f) Where compliance is achieved
through the use of incineration, the
owner or operator shall submit control
device performance test results at which
destruction efficiency is determined for
initial and subsequent performance tests
according to paragraph (a) of this
section within 60 days of completing
each performance test following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods
supported by the EPA’s Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
EPA’s ERT website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert)
at the time of the test.
(i) Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the
CEDRI, which can be accessed through
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30001
the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov/).
(ii) The data must be submitted in a
file format generated using the EPA’s
ERT. Alternatively, the owner or
operator may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the
EPA’s ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods
that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT
as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at
the time of the test.
(i) The results of the performance test
must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA’s ERT website.
(ii) Submit the ERT generated package
or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information
(CBI). Do not use CEDRI to submit
information you claim as CBI. Any
information submitted using CEDRI
cannot later be claimed CBI. Under CAA
section 114(c), emissions data is not
entitled to confidential treatment, and
the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as
CBI and will be made publicly available.
Owners or operators that assert a CBI
claim for any information submitted
under paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this
section, must submit a complete file,
including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be
generated using the EPA’s ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA’s
ERT website. Owners or operators can
submit CBI according to one of the two
procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (ii)
of this section. All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission.
(i) If sending CBI through the postal
service, submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly
used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI.
Owners or operators are required to mail
the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention:
Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations Sector Lead,
MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described
in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(ii) The EPA preferred method for CBI
submittal is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments,
File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other
online file sharing services (e.g.,
Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive).
Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
30002
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Office at the email address oaqpscbi@
epa.gov, Attention: Automobile and
Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations Sector Lead, and as
described above, should be clearly
identified as CBI. If assistance is needed
with submitting large electronic files
that exceed the file size limit for email
attachments, and if you do not have
your own file sharing service, you may
email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file
transfer link.
9. Add subpart MMa to part 60 to read
as follows:
■
Subpart MMa—Standards of
Performance for Automobile and Light
Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction
Commenced After May 18, 2022
Sec.
60.390a Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.391a Definitions.
60.392a Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
60.393a Performance test and compliance
provisions.
60.394a Add-on control device operating
limits and monitoring requirements.
60.395a Notifications, reports, and records.
60.396a Add-on control device destruction
efficiency.
60.397a Emission capture system efficiency.
Table 1 to Subpart MMa of Part 60—
Operating limits for capture systems and
add-on control devices.
Appendix A to Subpart MMa of Part 60—
Determination of capture efficiency of
automobile and light-duty truck spray
booth emissions from solvent-borne
coatings using panel testing.
Subpart MMa—Standards of
Performance for Automobile and Light
Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction
Commenced After May 18, 2022
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
§ 60.390a Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the following affected facilities
in an automobile or light-duty truck
assembly plant specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) Each prime coat operation, each
guide coat operation, and each topcoat
operation.
(2) All storage containers and mixing
vessels in which coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials are stored or mixed.
(3) All manual and automated
equipment and containers used for
conveying coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials.
(4) All storage containers and all
manual and automated equipment and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
containers used for conveying waste
materials generated by a coating
operation.
(b) Exempted from the provisions of
this subpart are operations used to coat
plastic body components on separate
coating lines. The attachment of plastic
body parts to a metal body before the
body is coated does not cause the metal
body coating operation to be exempted.
(c) The provisions of this subpart
apply to any affected facility identified
in paragraph (a) of this section that
begins construction, reconstruction, or
modification after May 18, 2022.
(d) The following physical or
operational changes are not, by
themselves, considered modifications of
existing facilities:
(1) Changes as a result of model year
changeovers or switches to larger
vehicles.
(2) Changes in the application of the
coatings to increase coating film
thickness.
§ 60.391a
Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart that are
not defined below have the meaning
given to them in the Act and in subpart
A of this part.
Applied coating solids means the
volume of dried or cured coating solids
which is deposited and remains on the
surface of the automobile or light-duty
truck body.
Automobile means a motor vehicle
capable of carrying no more than 12
passengers.
Automobile and light-duty truck
assembly plant means a facility that
assembles automobiles or light-duty
trucks, including coating facilities and
processes.
Automobile and light-duty truck body
means the exterior surface of an
automobile or light-duty truck including
hoods, fenders, cargo boxes, doors, and
grill opening panels.
Bake oven means a device that uses
heat to dry or cure coatings.
Electrodeposition (EDP) means a
method of applying a prime coat by
which the automobile or light-duty
truck body is submerged in a tank filled
with coating material and an electrical
field is used to affect the deposition of
the coating material on the body.
Electrostatic spray application means
a spray application method that uses an
electrical potential to increase the
transfer efficiency of the coating solids.
Electrostatic spray application can be
used for prime coat, guide coat, or
topcoat operations.
Flash-off area means the structure on
automobile and light-duty truck
assembly lines between the coating
application system (dip tank or spray
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
booth) and the bake oven. Flash off area
also means the structure between spray
booths in a wet-on-wet coating process
in which some of the solvent evaporates
before the next spray booth; the flash off
area may be ambient temperature or
heated to accelerate evaporation.
Guide coat operation means the guide
coat spray booth, flash-off area, and
bake oven(s) which are used to apply
and dry or cure a surface coating
between the prime coat and topcoat
operation on the components of
automobile and light-duty truck bodies.
Light-duty truck means any motor
vehicle rated at 3,850 kilograms gross
vehicle weight or less, designed mainly
to transport property.
Plastic body means an automobile or
light-duty truck body constructed of
synthetic organic material.
Plastic body component means any
component of an automobile or lightduty truck exterior surface constructed
of synthetic organic material.
Prime coat operation means the prime
coat spray booth or dip tank, flash-off
area, and bake oven(s) which are used
to apply and dry or cure the initial
coating on components of automobile or
light-duty truck bodies.
Purge or line purge means the coating
material expelled from the spray system
when clearing it.
Solvent-borne means a coating which
contains five percent or less water by
weight in its volatile fraction.
Spray application means a method of
applying coatings by atomizing the
coating material and directing the
atomized material toward the part to be
coated. Spray applications can be used
for prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat
operations.
Spray booth means a structure
housing automatic or manual spray
application equipment where prime
coat, guide coat, or topcoat is applied to
components of automobile or light-duty
truck bodies.
Surface coating operation means any
prime coat, guide coat, or topcoat
operation on an automobile or lightduty truck surface coating line.
Topcoat operation means the topcoat
spray booth(s), heated flash-off area,
flash-off area, and bake oven(s) which
are used to apply and dry or cure the
final coating(s) on components of
automobile and light-duty truck bodies.
Transfer efficiency means the ratio of
the amount of coating solids transferred
onto the surface of a part or product to
the total amount of coating solids used.
VOC content means all volatile
organic compounds that are in a coating
expressed as kilograms of VOC per liter
of coating solids.
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Waterborne or water reducible means
a coating which contains more than five
weight percent water in its volatile
fraction.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
§ 60.392a Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
You must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section.
(a) Emission limitations. On and after
the date on which the initial
performance test required by § 60.8 is
completed, you must not discharge or
cause the discharge into the atmosphere
from any affected facility VOC
emissions in excess of the limits in
paragraph (a)(1) through (4) of this
section. The emission limitations listed
in this paragraph (a) of this section shall
apply at all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction. As
provided in § 60.11(f), this provision
supersedes the exemptions for periods
of startup, shutdown and malfunction in
the part 60 general provisions in subpart
A to this part.
(1) For each EDP prime coat
operation:
(i) 0.027 kilogram of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids when RT is 0.16
or greater.
(ii) 0.027 × 350(0.160¥RT) kg of VOC per
liter of applied coating solids when RT
is greater than or equal to 0.040 and less
than 0.160.
(iii) When RT is less than 0.040, there
is no emission limit.
(2) 0.027 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids (0.23 pounds per
gallon of applied coating solids) from
each non-EDP prime coat operation.
(3) 0.35 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids (2.92 pounds per
gallon of applied coating solids) from
each guide coat operation.
(4) 0.42 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids (3.53 pounds per
gallon of applied coating solids) from
each topcoat operation.
(b) Work practices for storage, mixing,
and conveying. You must develop and
implement a work practice plan to
minimize VOC emissions from the
storage, mixing, and conveying of
coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials
generated by, all coating operations for
which emission limits are established
under § 60.392a(a). The plan must
specify practices and procedures to
ensure that, at a minimum, the elements
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section are implemented.
(1) All VOC-containing coatings,
thinners, cleaning materials, and waste
materials must be stored in closed
containers.
(2) The risk of spills of VOCcontaining coatings, thinners, cleaning
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
materials, and waste materials must be
minimized.
(3) VOC-containing coatings, thinners,
cleaning materials, and waste materials
must be conveyed from one location to
another in closed containers or pipes.
(4) Mixing vessels, other than day
tanks equipped with continuous
agitation systems, which contain VOCcontaining coatings and other materials
must be closed except when adding to,
removing, or mixing the contents.
(5) Emissions of VOC must be
minimized during cleaning of storage,
mixing, and conveying equipment.
(c) Work practices for cleaning and
purging. You must develop and
implement a work practice plan to
minimize VOC emissions from cleaning
and from purging of equipment
associated with all coating operations
for which emission limits are
established under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(1) The plan shall, at a minimum,
address each of the operations listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this
section in which you use VOCcontaining materials or in which there
is a potential for emission of VOC.
(i) The plan must address vehicle
body wipe emissions through one or
more of the techniques listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of
this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of solvent-moistened wipes.
(B) Keeping solvent containers closed
when not in use.
(C) Keeping wipe disposal/recovery
containers closed when not in use.
(D) Use of tack-wipes.
(ii) The plan must address coating
line purging emissions through one or
more of the techniques listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of
this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Air/solvent push-out.
(B) Capture and reclaim or recovery of
purge materials (excluding applicator
nozzles/tips).
(C) Block painting to the maximum
extent feasible.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC
solvents for purge.
(iii) The plan must address emissions
from flushing of coating systems
through one or more of the techniques
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A)
through (D) of this section, or an
approved alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent tanks closed.
(B) Recovering and recycling solvents.
(C) Keeping recovered/recycled
solvent tanks closed.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC
solvents.
(iv) The plan must address emissions
from cleaning of spray booth grates
through one or more of the techniques
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30003
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(A) through
(E) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Controlled burn-off.
(B) Rinsing with high-pressure water
(in place).
(C) Rinsing with high-pressure water
(off line).
(D) Use of spray-on masking or other
type of liquid masking.
(E) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC
content cleaners.
(v) The plan must address emissions
from cleaning of spray booth walls
through one or more of the techniques
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(v)(A) through
(E) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Use of masking materials (contact
paper, plastic sheet, or other similar
type of material).
(B) Use of spray-on masking.
(C) Use of rags and manual wipes
instead of spray application when
cleaning walls.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC
content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning
solvents.
(vi) The plan must address emissions
from cleaning of spray booth equipment
through one or more of the techniques
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A) through
(E) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Use of covers on equipment
(disposable or reusable).
(B) Use of parts cleaners (off-line
submersion cleaning).
(C) Use of spray-on masking or other
protective coatings.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC
content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning
solvents.
(vii) The plan must address emissions
from cleaning of external spray booth
areas through one or more of the
techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(vii)(A) through (F) of this section,
or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of removable floor coverings
(paper, foil, plastic, or similar type of
material).
(B) Use of manual and/or mechanical
scrubbers, rags, or wipes instead of
spray application.
(C) Use of shoe cleaners to eliminate
coating track-out from spray booths.
(D) Use of booties or shoe wraps.
(E) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC
content cleaners.
(F) Controlled access to cleaning
solvents.
(viii) The plan must address
emissions from housekeeping measures
not addressed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (vii) of this section through one
or more of the techniques listed in
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
30004
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
paragraphs (c)(1)(viii)(A) through (C) of
this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent-laden articles
(cloths, paper, plastic, rags, wipes, and
similar items) in covered containers
when not in use.
(B) Storing new and used solvents in
closed containers.
(C) Transferring of solvents in a
manner to minimize the risk of spills.
(2) Notwithstanding the requirements
of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of
this section, if the type of coatings used
in any facility with surface coating
operations subject to the requirements
of this section are of such a nature that
the need for one or more of the practices
specified under paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (viii) of this section is
eliminated, then the plan may include
approved alternative or equivalent
measures that are applicable or
necessary during cleaning of storage,
conveying, and application equipment.
(d) Work practice plan revisions. The
work practice plans developed in
accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section are not required to be
incorporated in your title V permit. Any
revisions to the work practice plans
developed in accordance with
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section do
not constitute revisions to your title V
permit.
(e) Work practice plan retention time.
Copies of the current work practice
plans developed in accordance with
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, as
well as plans developed within the
preceding 5 years must be available onsite for inspection and copying by the
permitting authority.
(f) Operating limits. You are not
required to meet any operating limits for
any coating operation(s) without add-on
controls, nor are you required to meet
operating limits for any coating
operation(s) that do not utilize emission
capture systems and add-on controls to
comply with the emission limits in
§ 60.392a(a).
(g) Operating limits for operations
with add-on controls. Except as
provided in paragraph (h) of this
section, for any controlled coating
operation(s), you must meet the
operating limits specified in table 1 to
this subpart. These operating limits
apply to the emission capture and addon control systems for affected sources
in § 60.390a(a)(1), and you must
establish the operating limits during
performance tests according to the
requirements in § 60.394a. You must
meet the operating limits at all times
after you establish them.
(h) Alternative operating limits. If you
use an add-on control device other than
those listed in table 1 to this subpart or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
wish to monitor an alternative
parameter and comply with a different
operating limit, you must apply to the
Administrator for approval of
alternative monitoring under § 60.13(i).
§ 60.393a Performance test and
compliance provisions.
(a) Representative conditions. You
must conduct performance tests under
representative conditions for the
affected coating operation according to
§ 60.8(c) and under the conditions in
this section unless you obtain a waiver
of the performance test according to the
provisions in § 60.8(b)(4).
(1) Operations during periods of
startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do
not constitute conditions representative
of normal operation for purposes of
conducting a performance test. You may
not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. Emissions in
excess of the applicable emission limit
during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction will be considered a
violation of the applicable emission
limit.
(2) You must record the process
information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during
the performance test and explain why
the conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, you must make
available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(3) Section 60.8(d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test
procedures required by this section.
(b) Initial and continuous compliance
requirements. You must conduct an
initial performance test in accordance
with § 60.8(a) and thereafter for each
calendar month for each affected facility
according to the procedures in this
section. You must also conduct periodic
performance tests of add-on controls,
except for solvent recovery systems for
which liquid-liquid material balances
are conducted according to paragraph (l)
of this section, to reestablish the
operating limits required by § 60.392a
within 5 years following the previous
performance test. You must meet all the
requirements of this section to
demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance.
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance,
the VOC emissions from affected source
must meet the applicable emission
limitation in § 60.392a and the work
practice standards in § 60.392a and the
applicable operating limits in § 60.392a
established during the initial
performance test using the procedures
in § 60.394a and table 1 to this subpart.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(i) You must complete the initial
compliance demonstration for the initial
compliance period according to the
requirements of this section. The initial
compliance period begins on the
applicable compliance date specified in
§ 60.8 and ends on the last day of the
month following the compliance date. If
the compliance date occurs on any day
other than the first day of a month, then
the initial compliance period extends
through the end of that month plus the
next month.
(ii) You must determine the mass of
VOC emissions and volume of coating
solids deposited in the initial
compliance period. The initial
compliance demonstration includes the
results of emission capture system and
add-on control device performance tests
conducted according to §§ 60.396a and
60.397a; supporting documentation
showing that during the initial
compliance period the VOC emission
rate was equal to or less than the
emission limit in § 60.392a; the
operating limits established during the
performance tests and the results of the
continuous parameter monitoring
required by § 60.394a; and
documentation of whether you
developed and implemented the work
practice plans required by § 60.392(b)
and (c).
(2) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable
emission limit in § 60.392a, the VOC
emission rate for each compliance
period, determined according to the
procedures in this section, must be
equal to or less than the applicable
emission limit in § 60.392a. A
compliance period consists of 1 month.
Each month after the end of the initial
compliance period described in
§ 60.393a(b)(1)(i) is a compliance period
consisting of that month. You must
perform the calculations in this section
on a monthly basis.
(3) If the VOC emission rate for any
1-month compliance period exceeded
the applicable emission limit in
§ 60.392a, this is a deviation from the
emission limitation for that compliance
period and must be reported as
specified in § 60.395a(h).
(c) Compliance with operating limits.
Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section, you must establish and
demonstrate continuous compliance
during the initial compliance period
with the operating limits required by
§ 60.392a, using the procedures
specified in § 60.394a.
(1) You do not need to comply with
the operating limits for the emission
capture system and add-on control
device required by § 60.394a until after
you have completed the initial
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
performance test specified in paragraph
(b) of this section. During the period
between the startup date of the affected
source and the initial performance test
required by § 60.8 you must maintain a
log detailing the operation and
maintenance of the emission capture
system, the add-on control device, and
the continuous monitoring system
(CMS).
(2) You must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each operating limit
required by § 60.392a that applies to
you, as specified in Table 1 to this
subpart, and you must conduct
performance tests as specified in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(3) If an operating parameter is out of
the allowed range specified in table 1 to
this subpart, this is a deviation from the
operating limit that must be reported as
specified in § 60.395a(h).
(4) If an operating parameter deviates
from the operating limit specified in
table 1 to this subpart, then you must
assume that the emission capture
system and add-on control device were
achieving zero efficiency during the
time period of the deviation except as
provided in § 60.393a (m).
(5) Except for solvent recovery
systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to
paragraph (l) of this section for
controlled coating operations, you must
conduct periodic performance tests of
add-on controls and reestablish the
operating limits required by § 60.392a
within 5 years following the previous
performance test. You must conduct the
first periodic performance test within 5
years following the initial performance
test required by § 60.8. Thereafter, you
must conduct a performance test no
later than 5 years following the previous
performance test. Operating limits must
be confirmed or reestablished during
each performance test. If you are using
the alternative monitoring option for a
catalytic oxidizer according to
§ 60.394a(b)(3) and following the
catalyst maintenance procedures in
§ 60.394a(b)(4), you are not required to
conduct periodic control device
performance testing as specified by this
paragraph (c). For any control device for
which instruments are used to
continuously measure organic
compound emissions, you are not
required to conduct periodic control
device performance testing as specified
by this paragraph. The requirements of
this paragraph do not apply to
measuring emission capture system
efficiency.
(6) You must meet the requirements
for bypass lines in § 60.394a(h) for
control devices other than solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
liquid-liquid material balances. If any
bypass line is opened and emissions are
diverted to the atmosphere when the
coating operation is running, this is a
deviation that must be reported as
specified in § 60.395a(h). For the
purposes of completing the compliance
calculations specified in paragraph (j) of
this section, you must assume that the
emission capture system and add-on
control device were achieving zero
efficiency during the time period of the
deviation.
(d) Compliance with work practice
requirements. You must develop,
implement, and document
implementation of the work practice
plans required by § 60.392a(b) and (c)
during the initial compliance period, as
specified in § 60.395a.
(1) You must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the work practice
standards in § 60.392a (b) and (c). If you
did not develop a work practice plan, if
you did not implement the plan, or if
you did not keep the records required
by § 60.395a (k)(11), this is a deviation
from the work practice standards that
must be reported as specified in
§ 60.395a (k)(4).
(e) Compliance with emission limits.
You must use the following procedures
in paragraphs (f) through (m) of this
section to determine the monthly
volume weighted average mass of VOC
emitted per volume of applied coating
solids for each affected facility to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitation in
§ 60.392a. You may also use the
guidelines presented in ‘‘Protocol for
Determining the Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat’’ EPA–
453/R–08–002 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17) in making this
demonstration.
(f) Determine the mass fraction of
VOC, density, and volume for each
material used. You must follow the
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (3) of this section to determine
the mass fraction of VOC, the density,
and volume for each coating and thinner
used during each month. For the
electrodeposition primer operation, the
mass fraction of VOC, density, and
volume used must be determined for
each material added to the tank or
system during each month.
(1) Determine the mass fraction of
VOC for each material used. You must
determine the mass fraction of VOC for
each material used during the
compliance period by using one of the
options in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30005
(i) EPA Method 24 (appendix A–7 to
40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may
use EPA Method 24 to determine the
mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter and use that value as a substitute
for the mass fraction of VOC. As an
alternative to using EPA Method 24, you
may use ASTM D2369–20 (incorporated
by reference, see § 60.17). For Method
24, the coating sample must be a 1-liter
sample taken in a 1-liter container.
(ii) Alternative method. You may use
an alternative test method for
determining the mass fraction of VOC
once the Administrator has approved it.
You must follow the procedure in
§ 60.8(b)(3) to submit an alternative test
method for approval.
(iii) Information from the supplier or
manufacturer of the material. You may
rely on information other than that
generated by the test methods specified
in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of
this section, such as manufacturer’s
formulation data. If there is a
disagreement between such information
and results of a test conducted
according to paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section, then the test method
results will take precedence, unless after
consultation, you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the enforcement authority
that the facility’s data are correct.
(2) Determine the density of each
material used. Determine the density of
each material used during the
compliance period from test results
using ASTM D1475–13 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17) or for powder
coatings, test method A or test method
B of ASTM D5965–02 (Reapproved
2013) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17), or information from the
supplier or manufacturer of the
material. If there is disagreement
between ASTM D1475–13 test results or
ASTM D5965–02 (Reapproved 2013),
Test Method A or Test Method B test
results and the supplier’s or
manufacturer’s information, the test
results will take precedence unless after
consultation, the facility demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the enforcement
authority that the supplier’s or
manufacturer’s data are correct.
(3) Determine the volume of each
material used. You must determine from
company records on a monthly basis the
volume of coating consumed, as
received, and the mass of solvent used
for thinning purposes.
(g) Determine the volume fraction of
coating solids for each coating. You
must determine the volume fraction of
coating solids for each coating used
during the compliance period by a test
or by information provided by the
supplier or the manufacturer of the
material, as specified in paragraphs
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(g)(1) and (2) of this section. For
electrodeposition primer operations, the
volume fraction of solids must be
determined for each material added to
the tank or system during each month.
If test results obtained according to
paragraph (g)(1) of this section do not
agree with the information obtained
under paragraph (g)(2) of this section,
the test results will take precedence
unless, after consultation, the facility
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
enforcement authority that the facility’s
data are correct.
(1) ASTM Method D2697–22 or ASTM
Method D6093–97. You may use ASTM
D2697–22 (incorporated by reference,
see § 60.17), or ASTM D6093–97
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17),
to determine the volume fraction of
coating solids for each coating. Divide
the nonvolatile volume percent obtained
with the methods by 100 to calculate
volume fraction of coating solids.
(2) Information from the supplier or
manufacturer of the material. You may
obtain the volume fraction of coating
solids for each coating from the supplier
or manufacturer.
(h) Determine the transfer efficiency
for each coating. You must determine
the transfer efficiency for each nonelectrodeposition prime coat coating,
each guide coat coating and each
topcoat coating using ASTM Method
D5066–91 (Reapproved 2017),
‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency
Under Production Conditions for Spray
Application of Automotive Paints—
Weight Basis’’ (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17), or the guidelines
presented in ‘‘Protocol for Determining
the Daily Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Rate of Automobile and LightDuty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat’’ EPA–453/R–08–002
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
You may conduct 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 LightDuty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat’’ EPA–453/R–08–002
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
You may assume 100 percent transfer
efficiency for electrodeposition primer
coatings.
(i) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC emitted per
volume of applied coating solids before
add-on controls. (1) Calculate the mass
of VOC used in each calendar month for
each affected facility using Equation 1 of
this section, where ‘‘n’’ is the total
number of coatings used and ‘‘m’’ is the
total number of VOC solvents used:
Where:
Mo = total mass of VOC in coatings as
received (kilograms).
Md = total mass of VOC in dilution solvent
(kilograms).
Lci = volume of each coating (i) consumed,
as received (liters).
Dci = density of each coating (i) as received
(kilograms per liter).
Woi = proportion of VOC by weight in each
coating (i), as received.
Ldj = volume of each type VOC dilution
solvent (j) added to the coatings, as
received (liters).
Ddj = density of each type VOC dilution
solvent (j) added to the coatings, as
received (kilograms per liter).
[SLdjDdj will be zero if no VOC solvent is
added to the coatings, as received.]
Where:
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed
(liters).
Lci = volume of each coating (i) consumed,
as received (liters).
Vsi = proportion of solids by volume in each
coating (i) as received.
(3) Calculate the transfer efficiency (T)
for each surface coating operation
according to paragraph (h) of this
section.
(i) When more than one application
method (l) is used on an individual
surface coating operation, you must
perform an analysis to determine an
average transfer efficiency using
Equation 3 of this section, where ‘‘n’’ is
the total number of coatings used and
‘‘p’’ is the total number of application
methods:
Where:
T = overall transfer efficiency.
Tl = transfer efficiency for application
method (l).
Vsi = proportion of solids by volume in each
coating (i) as received
Lcil = Volume of each coating (i) consumed
by each application method (l), as
received (liters).
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed
(liters).
calendar month for each affected facility
using Equation 4 of this section:
(2) Calculate the total volume of
coating solids used in each calendar
month for each affected facility using
Equation 2 of this section, where ‘‘n’’ is
the total number of coatings used:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Where:
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.002</GPH> ER09MY23.003</GPH>
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids (G) during each
ER09MY23.001</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
ER09MY23.004</GPH>
ER09MY23.005</GPH>
30006
G = volume weighted average mass of VOC
per volume of applied solids (kilograms
per liter).
Mo = total mass of VOC in coatings as
received (kilograms).
Md = total mass of VOC in dilution solvent
(kilograms).
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed
(liters).
T = overall transfer efficiency.
(5) Select the appropriate limit
according to § 60.392a. If the volume
weighted average mass of VOC per
volume of applied coating solids (G),
calculated on a calendar month basis, is
less than or equal to the applicable
emission limit specified in § 60.392a,
the affected facility is in compliance.
Each monthly calculation is a
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Where:
N = volume weighted average mass of VOC
per volume of applied coating solids
after the control device in units of
kilograms of VOC per liter of applied
coating solids.
G = volume weighted average mass of VOC
per volume of applied coating solids
(kilograms per liter).
CE = fraction of total VOC that is emitted by
an affected facility that enters the control
device.
DRE = VOC destruction or removal efficiency
of the control device.
(3) You must use the procedures and
test methods in section 60.397a to
determine the emission capture system
efficiency (CE) as part of the initial
performance test.
(i) If you can justify to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that another
method will give comparable results,
the Administrator will approve its use
on a case-by-case basis.
(ii) In subsequent months, you must
use the most recently determined
capture efficiency for the performance
test.
(4) You must use the procedures and
test methods in section 60.396a to
determine the add-on control device
emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the initial
performance test.
(i) In subsequent months, you must
use the most recently determined VOC
destruction efficiency for the
performance test.
(ii) If two or more add-on control
devices are used for the same emission
stream, you must measure emissions at
the outlet of each device in accordance
with § 60.396a(c). If there is more than
one inlet or outlet to the add-on control
device, you must calculate the total
gaseous organic mass flow rate for each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
30007
performance test for the purpose of this
subpart.
(j) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC emitted per
volume of applied coating solids after
add-on controls. You use the following
procedures for each affected facility
which uses a capture system and a
control device that destroys VOC (e.g.,
incinerator) to comply with the
applicable emission limit specified
under § 60.392a. Use the procedures in
paragraph (j)(1) through (5) of this
section to calculate volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids for each
controlled coating operation using an
emission capture system and add-on
control device other than a solvent
recovery system for which you conduct
liquid-liquid material balances. For each
controlled coating operation using a
solvent recovery system for which you
conduct a liquid-liquid material
balance, you must use the procedures in
paragraph (l) of this section.
(1) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids (G) during each
calendar month for each affected facility
as described under § 60.393a(i)(4).
(2) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids (N) emitted after
the control device using Equation 5 of
this section:
inlet and each outlet and then total all
of the inlet emissions and total all of the
outlet emissions in accordance with
§ 60.396a(d). The emission destruction
or removal efficiency of the add-on
control device is the average of the
efficiencies determined in the three test
runs. The destruction or removal
efficiency determined using these data
shall be applied to each affected facility
served by the control device.
(5) Calculate the mass of VOC for each
affected facility each calendar month for
each period of time in which a
deviation, including a deviation during
a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, from an emission
limitation, an operating limit or any
CMS requirement for the capture system
or control device serving the controlled
coating operation occurred. Except as
provided in paragraph (m) of this
section, for any period of time in which
a deviation, including a deviation
during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, from an emission
limitation or operating limit or from any
CMS requirement of the capture system
or control device serving the controlled
coating operation occurred, you must
assume zero efficiency for the emission
capture system and add-on control
device. During such a deviation you
must assume the affected source was
uncontrolled for the duration of the
deviation using the equation in
paragraph (i)(4) of this section.
(6) Adjust the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids emitted after the
control device for each affected facility
(N) during a calendar month for periods
of deviation by adding the mass of VOC
for the uncontrolled period of time
according to paragraph (i)(5) of this
section.
(7) If the adjusted volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied solids emitted after the control
device (N) calculated on a calendar
month basis is less than or equal to the
applicable emission limit specified in
§ 60.392a, the affected facility is in
compliance. Each monthly calculation
is a performance test for the purposes of
this subpart.
(k) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC emitted per
volume of applied coating solids after
add-on recovery devices. You must use
the following procedures for each
affected facility which uses a capture
system and a control device that
recovers the VOC (e.g., carbon adsorber)
other than a solvent recovery system for
which you conduct a liquid-liquid
material balance to comply with the
applicable emission limit specified
under § 60.392a.
(1) Calculate the mass of VOC (Mo +
Md) used during each calendar month
for each affected facility as described
under paragraph (i) of this section.
(2) Calculate the total volume of
coating solids (Ls) used in each calendar
month for each affected facility as
described under paragraph (i) of this
section.
(3) Calculate the mass of VOC
recovered (Mr) each calendar month for
each affected facility by the following
equation:
Mr = Lr * Dr
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Where:
Mr = total mass of VOC recovered from an
affected facility (kilograms).
Lr = volume of VOC recovered from an
affected facility (liters).
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Dr = density of VOC recovered from an
affected facility (kilograms per liter).
(4) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids emitted after the
control device (N) during a calendar
month using Equation 6 of this section:
Where:
N = volume weighted average mass of VOC
per volume of applied coating solids
after the control device in units of
kilograms of VOC per liter of applied
coating solids.
Mo = total mass of VOC in coatings as
received (kilograms).
Md = total mass of VOC in dilution solvent
(kilograms).
Mr = total mass of VOC recovered from an
affected facility (kilograms).
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed
(liters).
T = overall transfer efficiency.
§ 60.392a, the affected facility is in
compliance. Each monthly calculation
is a performance test for the purposes of
this subpart.
(l) Calculate the collection and
recovery efficiency for solvent recovery
systems using liquid-liquid material
balances. You must use the following
procedures for each affected facility
which uses a solvent recovery system
for which you conduct liquid-liquid
material balances to comply with the
applicable emission limit specified
under § 60.392a.
(1) Calculate the mass of VOC
emission reduction for the coating
operation controlled by the solvent
recovery system using a liquid-liquid
material balance for each affected
facility by applying the volatile organic
matter collection and recovery
efficiency to the mass of VOC contained
in the coatings and thinners used in the
coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during each
month. Perform a liquid-liquid material
balance for each month as specified in
paragraphs (l)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(2) For each solvent recovery system,
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
according to the manufacturer’s
specifications, a device that indicates
the cumulative amount of volatile
organic matter recovered by the solvent
recovery system each month. The device
must be initially certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate to within
±2.0 percent of the mass of volatile
organic matter recovered.
(3) For each solvent recovery system,
determine the mass of volatile organic
matter recovered for the month based on
measurement with the device required
in paragraphs (l)(l) and (2) of this
section.
(4) For each affected facility,
determine the mass of VOC (Mo + Md)
of each coating and thinner controlled
by the solvent recovery system for each
calendar month using the equation in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(5) Calculate the solvent recovery
system’s volatile organic matter
collection and recovery efficiency (RV)
for each affected facility using Equation
7 of this section:
m = Number of different coatings used in the
coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during the
month.
n = Number of different thinners used in the
coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during the
month.
an emission limitation, operating limit
or any CMS requirement for the capture
system or add-on control device serving
a controlled coating operation occurred.
(1) If you have manually collected
parameter data indicating that a capture
system or add-on control device was
operating normally during a CMS
malfunction, a CMS out-of-control
period, or associated repair, then these
data may be used to support and
document your request to use the
normal capture efficiency or add-on
control device efficiency for that period
of deviation.
(2) If you have data indicating the
actual performance of a capture system
or add-on control device (e.g., capture
efficiency measured at a reduced flow
rate or add-on control device efficiency
measured at a reduced thermal oxidizer
temperature) during a deviation,
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
(5) Adjust the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids emitted after the
recovery device for each affected facility
(N) during a calendar month for periods
of deviation by adding the mass of VOC
for the uncontrolled periods of time
according to paragraph (i)(6) of this
section.
(6) If the adjusted volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied solids emitted after the control
device (N) calculated on a calendar
month basis is less than or equal to the
applicable emission limit specified in
Where:
RV = Volatile organic matter collection and
recovery efficiency of the solvent
recovery system during the month,
percent.
MVR = Mass of volatile organic matter
recovered by the solvent recovery system
during the month, kg.
Voli = Volume of coating, i, used in the
coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during the
month, liters.
Di = Density of coating, i, kg per liter.
WVc, i = Mass fraction of volatile organic
matter for coating, i, kg volatile organic
matter per kg coating.
Volj = Volume of thinner, j, used in the
coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during the
month, liters.
Dj = Density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
WVt, j = Mass fraction of volatile organic
matter for thinner, j, kg volatile organic
matter per kg thinner.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
(6) For each affected facility, you may
apply the solvent recovery system’s
volatile organic matter collection and
recovery efficiency to the mass of VOC
for the coating operation controlled by
the solvent recovery system for each
calendar month.
(m) Deviations. You may request
approval from the Administrator to use
non-zero capture efficiencies and addon control device efficiencies for any
period of time in which a deviation,
including a deviation during a period of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, from
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ER09MY23.007</GPH>
30008
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
including a deviation during a period of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, from
an emission limitation or operating limit
or from any CMS requirement for the
capture system or add-on control device
serving a controlled coating operation,
then these data may be used to support
and document your request to use these
values for that period of deviation.
(3) You may recalculate the adjusted
volume weighted average mass of VOC
emitted per volume of applied coating
solids after add-on controls in paragraph
(j)(6) of this section, and the adjusted
volume weighted average mass of VOC
per volume of applied coating solids
emitted after the recovery device in
paragraph (k)(4) of this section, based on
Administrator approval of the non-zero
capture efficiency and add-on control
device efficiency values based on data
provided in accordance with paragraphs
(m)(1) and (2) of this section.
(n) No deviations. If there were no
deviations from the emission
limitations, submit a statement as part
of the compliance report that you were
in compliance with the emission
limitations during the reporting period
because the VOC emission rate for each
compliance period was less than or
equal to the applicable emission limit in
§ 60.392a, you achieved the operating
limits required by § 60.394a, and you
achieved the work practice standards
required by § 60.392a during each
compliance period.
(o) Recordkeeping. You must
maintain records as specified in
§ 60.395a.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
§ 60.394a Add-on control device operating
limits and monitoring requirements.
During the performance tests required
by § 60.393a, if you use an add-on
control device(s) to comply with the
emission limits specified under
§ 60.392a(a) through (c), you must
establish add-on control device
operating limits required by § 60.392a(h)
according to this section, unless
approval has been received for
alternative monitoring under § 60.13(i)
as specified in § 60.392a(h).
(a) Thermal oxidizers. If your add-on
control device is a thermal oxidizer,
establish the operating limit according
to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) During the performance test, you
must monitor and record the
combustion temperature at least once
every 15 minutes during each of the
three test runs. You must monitor the
temperature in the firebox of the
thermal oxidizer or immediately
downstream of the firebox before any
substantial heat exchange occurs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
(2) Use all valid data collected during
the performance test to calculate and
record the average combustion
temperature maintained during the
performance test. This average
combustion temperature is the
minimum 3-hour average operating
limit for your thermal oxidizer.
(b) Catalytic oxidizers. If your add-on
control device is a catalytic oxidizer,
establish the operating limits according
to either paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) or
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you
must monitor and record the
temperature just before the catalyst bed
and the temperature difference across
the catalyst bed at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three test
runs.
(2) Use all valid data collected during
the performance test to calculate and
record the average temperature just
before the catalyst bed and the average
temperature difference across the
catalyst bed maintained during the
performance test. The minimum 3-hour
average operating limits for your
catalytic oxidizer are the average
temperature just before the catalyst bed
maintained during the performance test
of that catalytic oxidizer and 80 percent
of the average temperature difference
across the catalyst bed maintained
during the performance test of that
catalytic oxidizer, except during periods
of low production, the latter minimum
operating limit is to maintain a positive
temperature gradient across the catalyst
bed. A low production period is when
production is less than 80 percent of
production rate during the performance
test of that catalytic oxidizer.
(3) As an alternative to monitoring the
temperature difference across the
catalyst bed, you may monitor the
temperature at the inlet to the catalyst
bed and implement a site-specific
inspection and maintenance plan for
your catalytic oxidizer as specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. During
the performance test, you must monitor
and record the temperature just before
the catalyst bed at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three test
runs. Use all valid data collected during
the performance test to calculate and
record the average temperature just
before the catalyst bed during the
performance test. This is the minimum
operating limit for your catalytic
oxidizer.
(4) You must develop and implement
an inspection and maintenance plan for
your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you
elect to monitor according to paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. The plan must
address, at a minimum, the elements
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30009
specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Annual sampling and analysis of
the catalyst activity (i.e., conversion
efficiency) following the manufacturer’s
or catalyst supplier’s recommended
procedures. If problems are found
during the catalyst activity test, you
must replace the catalyst bed or take
other corrective action consistent with
the manufacturer’s recommendations.
(ii) Monthly external inspection of the
catalytic oxidizer system, including the
burner assembly and fuel supply lines
for problems and, as necessary, adjust
the equipment to assure proper air-tofuel mixtures.
(iii) Annual internal inspection of the
catalyst bed to check for channeling,
abrasion, and settling. If problems are
found during the annual internal
inspection of the catalyst, you must
replace the catalyst bed or take other
corrective action consistent with the
manufacturer’s recommendations. If the
catalyst bed is replaced and is not of
like or better kind and quality as the old
catalyst, and is not consistent with the
manufacturer’s recommendations, then
you must conduct a new performance
test to determine destruction efficiency
according to § 60.396a. If a catalyst bed
is replaced and the replacement catalyst
is of like or better kind and quality as
the old catalyst, and is consistent with
the manufacturer’s recommendations,
then a new performance test to
determine destruction efficiency is not
required and you may continue to use
the previously established operating
limits for that catalytic oxidizer.
(c) Regenerative carbon adsorbers. If
your add-on control device is a
regenerative carbon adsorber, establish
the operating limits according to
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must monitor and record the
total regeneration desorbing gas (e.g.,
steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each
regeneration cycle and the carbon bed
temperature after each carbon bed
regeneration and cooling cycle for the
regeneration cycle either immediately
preceding or immediately following the
performance test.
(2) The operating limits for your
carbon adsorber are the minimum total
desorbing gas mass flow recorded
during the regeneration cycle and the
maximum carbon bed temperature
recorded after the cooling cycle.
(d) Condensers. If your add-on control
device is a condenser, establish the
operating limits according to paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you
must monitor and record the condenser
outlet (product side) gas temperature at
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
30010
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
least once every 15 minutes during each
of the three test runs.
(2) Use all valid data collected during
the performance test to calculate and
record the average condenser outlet
(product side) gas temperature
maintained during the performance test.
This average condenser outlet gas
temperature is the maximum 3-hour
average operating limit for your
condenser.
(e) Concentrators. If your add-on
control device includes a concentrator,
you must establish operating limits for
the concentrator according to
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you
must monitor and record the desorption
gas inlet temperature at least once every
15 minutes during each of the three runs
of the performance test.
(2) Use all valid data collected during
the performance test to calculate and
record the average desorption gas inlet
temperature. The minimum operating
limit for the concentrator is 8 degrees
Celsius (15 degrees Fahrenheit) below
the average desorption gas inlet
temperature maintained during the
performance test for that concentrator.
You must keep the set point for the
desorption gas inlet temperature no
lower than 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees
Fahrenheit) below the lower of that set
point during the performance test for
that concentrator and the average
desorption gas inlet temperature
maintained during the performance test
for that concentrator.
(f) Emission capture systems. For each
capture device that is not part of a
permanent total enclosure (PTE) that
meets the criteria of § 60.397a and that
is not capturing emissions from a
downdraft spray booth or from a flashoff area or bake oven associated with a
downdraft spray booth, establish an
operating limit for either the gas
volumetric flow rate or duct static
pressure, as specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this section. The
operating limit for a PTE is specified in
table 1 to this subpart.
(1) During the capture efficiency
determination required by § 60.393a and
described in § 60.397a, you must
monitor and record either the gas
volumetric flow rate or the duct static
pressure for each separate capture
device in your emission capture system
at least once every 15 minutes during
each of the test runs at a point in the
duct between the capture device and the
add-on control device inlet.
(2) Calculate and record the average
gas volumetric flow rate or duct static
pressure for the three test runs for each
capture device, using all valid data. This
average gas volumetric flow rate or duct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
static pressure is the minimum
operating limit for that specific capture
device.
(g) Monitoring requirements. If you
use an add-on control device(s) to
comply with the emission limits
specified under § 60.392a(a) through (c),
you must install, operate, and maintain
each CMS specified in paragraphs (c),
(e), (f), and (g) of this section according
to paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this
section. You must install, operate, and
maintain each CMS specified in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section
according to paragraphs (g)(3) through
(5) of this section.
(1) The CMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You
must have a minimum of four equally
spaced successive cycles of CMS
operation in 1 hour.
(2) You must determine the average of
all recorded readings for each
successive 3-hour period of the
emission capture system and add-on
control device operation.
(3) You must record the results of
each inspection, calibration, and
validation check of the CMS.
(4) You must maintain the CMS at all
times in accordance with § 60.11(d) and
have readily available necessary parts
for routine repairs of the monitoring
equipment.
(5) You must operate the CMS and
collect emission capture system and
add-on control device parameter data at
all times that a controlled coating
operation is operating in accordance
with § 60.11(d).
(6) Startups and shutdowns are
normal operation for this source
category. Emissions from these activities
are to be included when determining if
the standards specified in § 60.392a(a)
through (c) are being attained. You must
not use emission capture system or addon control device parameter data
recorded during monitoring
malfunctions, associated repairs, out-ofcontrol periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities when
calculating data averages. You must use
all the data collected during all other
periods in calculating the data averages
for determining compliance with the
emission capture system and add-on
control device operating limits.
(7) A monitoring malfunction is any
sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the CMS to
provide valid data. Monitoring failures
that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are
not malfunctions. Except for periods of
required quality assurance or control
activities, any period during which the
CMS fails to operate and record data
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
continuously as required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this section or generates data
that cannot be included in calculating
averages as specified in this paragraph
(g)(7) constitutes a deviation from the
monitoring requirements.
(h) Capture system bypass line. You
must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section
for each emission capture system that
contains bypass lines that could divert
emissions away from the add-on control
device to the atmosphere.
(1) You must monitor or secure the
valve or closure mechanism controlling
the bypass line in a nondiverting
position in such a way that the valve or
closure mechanism cannot be opened
without creating a record that the valve
was opened. The method used to
monitor or secure the valve or closure
mechanism must meet one of the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Flow control position indicator.
Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
according to the manufacturer’s
specifications a flow control position
indicator that takes a reading at least
once every 15 minutes and provides a
record indicating whether the emissions
are directed to the add-on control device
or diverted from the add-on control
device. The time of occurrence and flow
control position must be recorded, as
well as every time the flow direction is
changed. The flow control position
indicator must be installed at the
entrance to any bypass line that could
divert the emissions away from the addon control device to the atmosphere.
(ii) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve
closures. Secure any bypass line valve
in the closed position with a car-seal or
a lock-and-key type configuration. You
must visually inspect the seal or closure
mechanism at least once every month to
ensure that the valve is maintained in
the closed position, and the emissions
are not diverted away from the add-on
control device to the atmosphere.
(iii) Valve closure monitoring. Ensure
that any bypass line valve is in the
closed (nondiverting) position through
monitoring of valve position at least
once every 15 minutes. You must
inspect the monitoring system at least
once every month to verify that the
monitor will indicate valve position.
(iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use
an automatic shutdown system in which
the coating operation is stopped when
flow is diverted by the bypass line away
from the add-on control device to the
atmosphere when the coating operation
is running. You must inspect the
automatic shutdown system at least
once every month to verify that it will
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
detect diversions of flow and shut down
the coating operation.
(2) If any bypass line is opened, you
must include a description of why the
bypass line was opened and the length
of time it remained open in the
semiannual compliance reports required
in § 60.395a.
(i) Thermal oxidizers and catalytic
oxidizers. If you are using a thermal
oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer as an addon control device (including those used
to treat desorbed concentrate streams
from concentrators or carbon adsorbers),
you must comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this
section:
(1) For a thermal oxidizer, install a gas
temperature monitor in the firebox of
the thermal oxidizer or in the duct
immediately downstream of the firebox
before any substantial heat exchange
occurs.
(2) For a catalytic oxidizer, install a
gas temperature monitor upstream of the
catalyst bed. If you establish the
operating parameters for a catalytic
oxidizer under paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section, you must
also install a gas temperature monitor
downstream of the catalyst bed. The
temperature monitors must be in the gas
stream immediately before and after the
catalyst bed to measure the temperature
difference across the bed. If you
establish the operating parameters for a
catalytic oxidizer under paragraphs
(b)(4) through (6) of this section, you
need not install a gas temperature
monitor downstream of the catalyst bed.
(3) For all thermal oxidizers and
catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (6) and (i)(3)(i) through (vii) of
this section for each gas temperature
monitoring device, unless approval has
been received for alternative monitoring
under § 60.13(i) as specified in
§ 60.392a(h). For the purposes of this
paragraph (i)(3), a thermocouple is part
of the temperature sensor.
(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a
position that provides a representative
temperature.
(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a
measurement sensitivity of 4 degrees
Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(iii) Shield the temperature sensor
system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical
contaminants.
(iv) The gas temperature sensor must
be capable of recording the temperature
continuously. If a gas temperature chart
recorder is used, it must have a
measurement sensitivity in the minor
division of at least 20 degrees
Fahrenheit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
(v) Perform an electronic calibration
at least semiannually according to the
procedures in the manufacturer’s
owner’s manual. Following the
electronic calibration, you must conduct
a temperature sensor validation check in
which a second or redundant
temperature sensor placed nearby the
process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of
the process temperature sensor reading.
(vi) Conduct calibration and
validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer’s specified
maximum operating temperature range
or install a new temperature sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect
components for integrity and electrical
connections for continuity, oxidation,
and galvanic corrosion.
(j) Regenerative carbon adsorbers. If
you are using a regenerative carbon
adsorber as an add-on control device,
you must monitor the total regeneration
desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen)
mass flow for each regeneration cycle,
the carbon bed temperature after each
regeneration and cooling cycle and
comply with paragraphs (g)(3) through
(5) and (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The regeneration desorbing gas
mass flow monitor must be an
integrating device having a
measurement sensitivity of plus or
minus 10 percent, capable of recording
the total regeneration desorbing gas
mass flow for each regeneration cycle.
(2) The carbon bed temperature
monitor must have a measurement
sensitivity of 1 percent of the
temperature (as expressed in degrees
Fahrenheit) recorded or 1 degree
Fahrenheit, whichever is greater, and
must be capable of recording the
temperature within 15 minutes of
completing any carbon bed cooling
cycle.
(k) Condensers. If you are using a
condenser, you must monitor the
condenser outlet (product side) gas
temperature and comply with
paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) and (k)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) The gas temperature monitor must
have a measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the temperature (expressed in
degrees Fahrenheit) recorded or 1
degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater.
(2) The temperature monitor must
provide a gas temperature record at least
once every 15 minutes.
(l) Concentrators. If you are using a
concentrator, such as a zeolite wheel or
rotary carbon bed concentrator, you
must install a temperature monitor in
the desorption gas stream. The
temperature monitor must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (6) and (i)(3) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30011
(m) Emission capture systems. The
capture system monitoring system must
comply with the applicable
requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) For each flow measurement
device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) and
(m)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Locate a flow sensor in a position
that provides a representative flow
measurement in the duct from each
capture device in the emission capture
system to the add-on control device.
(ii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal
velocity distributions due to upstream
and downstream disturbances.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration
check at least semiannually.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect
components for integrity, electrical
connections for continuity, and
mechanical connections for leakage.
(2) For each pressure drop
measurement device, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (6) and (m)(2)(i) through
(vi) of this section.
(i) Locate the pressure tap(s) in a
position that provides a representative
measurement of the pressure drop
across each opening you are monitoring.
(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating
pressure, vibration, and internal and
external corrosion.
(iii) Using an inclined manometer
with a measurement sensitivity of
0.0002 inches of water, check gauge
calibration quarterly and transducer
calibration monthly.
(iv) Conduct calibration checks any
time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer’s specified maximum
operating pressure range or install a new
pressure sensor.
(v) At least monthly, inspect
components for integrity, electrical
connections for continuity, pressure
taps for plugging and mechanical
connections for leakage.
§ 60.395a
records.
Notifications, reports, and
(a) Notifications. You must submit all
notifications in §§ 60.7, 60.8, and 60.13
that apply to you by the dates specified
in those sections and in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) A notification of the date
construction (or reconstruction as
defined under § 60.15) of an affected
facility is commenced no later than 30
days after such date.
(2) A notification of the actual date of
initial startup of an affected facility
within 15 days after such date.
(3) A notification of any physical or
operational change to an existing facility
which may increase the VOC emission
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
30012
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
rate within 60 days or as soon as
practicable before the change is
commenced.
(4) A notification of the date upon
which demonstration of the CMS
performance commences in accordance
with § 60.13(c) not less than 30 days
prior to such date.
(5) A notification of any performance
test at least 30 days prior to afford the
Administrator (or delegated State or
local agency) the opportunity to have an
observer present.
(b) Initial performance test report. If
you use add-on control devices, you
must submit reports of performance test
results for emission capture systems and
add-on control devices. Within 60 days
after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected
facility will be operated, but not later
than 180 days after initial startup of
such facility, you are required to
conduct performance test(s) and furnish
the Administrator a report of the results
of such performance test(s) in
accordance with § 60.8(a). You are also
required to conduct transfer efficiency
test(s) and submit reports of the results
of transfer efficiency tests and furnish
the Administrator a report of the results
of such transfer efficiency tests. The
initial performance test report must
include the information specified in
§ 60.8.
(c) Subsequent performance test
reports. You must conduct periodic
performance tests of add-on control
devices in accordance with § 60.393a(b)
within five years of the previous
performance test and at such other times
as may be required by the Administrator
under section 114 of the Act in
accordance with § 60.8(a). You must
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of such performance
test(s) within 60 days of completing the
performance test. Periodic testing of
transfer efficiency and capture
efficiency are not required.
(d) Compliance reports. Following the
initial performance test, you must
submit a quarterly or semiannual
compliance report for each affected
source required by § 60.8 according to
the requirements of paragraphs (e) and
(f) of this section. You must identify,
record, and submit a report to the
Administrator every calendar quarter
each instance a deviation occurred from
the emission limits, operating limits, or
work practices in §§ 60.392a, 60.393a,
and 60.394a, that apply to you. If no
such instances have occurred during a
particular quarter, a report stating this
shall be submitted to the Administrator
semiannually. For each affected source
that is subject to 40 CFR part 70 or 71
permitting regulations and if the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
permitting authority has established
dates for submitting semiannual
compliance reports pursuant to 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you
may submit the semiannual compliance
reports according to the dates the
permitting authority has established.
(e) Initial compliance report. You
must include the data outlined in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section
in the initial compliance report required
by § 60.8 and the information required
by pargraphs (f) through (h) of this
section.
(1) The volume weighted average
mass of VOC per volume of applied
coating solids for each affected facility.
(2) Where compliance is achieved
through the use of a capture or control
device, include the following additional
data in the initial performance test
report required by § 60.8(a) specified in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (v) of this
section:
(i) The data collected to establish the
operating limits for the appropriate
capture or control device required as by
§ 60.394a and table 1 to this subpart;
(ii) The total mass of VOC per volume
of applied coating solids before and
after the control device as required by
§ 60.396a;
(iii) The destruction efficiency of the
control device used to attain compliance
with the applicable emission limit
specified in § 60.392a(a);
(iv) The capture efficiency as required
by § 60.397a and a description of the
method used to establish the capture
efficiency for the affected facility; and
(v) The transfer efficiency test results
and a description of the method used to
establish the transfer efficiency for the
affected facility.
(f) Compliance report content.
Compliance reports must contain the
information specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this section and
paragraph (g) that are applicable to your
affected source.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official
with that official’s name, title, and
signature, certifying the truth, accuracy,
and completeness of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and
ending dates of the reporting period.
(4) Identification of the affected
source.
(g) No deviations. If there were no
deviations from the emission limits,
work practices, or operating limits in
§§ 60.392a and 60.394a, that apply to
you, the compliance report must
include a statement that there were no
deviations from the applicable emission
limitations during the reporting period.
If you used control devices to comply
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the emission limits, and there were
no periods during which the CMS were
out of control as specified in
§ 60.394a(g) the compliance report must
include a statement that there were no
periods during which the CMS were out
of control during the reporting period.
(h) Deviations. If there was a deviation
from the applicable emission limits in
§ 60.392a or the applicable operating
limit(s) in table 1 to this subpart or the
work practice standards in § 60.392a,
the compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (h)(1) through
(15) of this section.
(1) The beginning and ending dates of
each month during which the volumeweighted average of the total mass of
VOC emitted to the atmosphere per
volume of applied coating solids (N) for
the affected source exceeded the
applicable emission limit in § 60.392a.
(2) The calculation used to determine
the volume-weighted average of the total
mass of VOC emitted to the atmosphere
per volume of applied coating solids (N)
in accordance with § 60.395a. You do
not need to submit the background data
supporting these calculations, for
example information provided by
materials suppliers or manufacturers, or
test reports.
(3) The date and time that each
malfunction of the capture system or
add-on control devices used to control
emissions from these operations started
and stopped.
(4) A brief description of the CMS.
(5) The date of the latest CMS
certification or audit.
(6) For each instance that the CMS
was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks, the date,
time, and duration that the CMS was
inoperative; the cause (including
unknown cause) for the CMS being
inoperative; and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(7) For each instance that the CMS
was malfunctioning or out-of-control, as
specified in § 60.394a(g)(6) or (7), the
date, time, and duration that the CMS
was malfunctioning or out-of-control;
the cause (including unknown cause)
for the CMS malfunctioning or being
out-of-control; and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(8) The date, time, and duration of
each deviation from an operating limit
in table 1 to this subpart; and the date,
time, and duration of each bypass of an
add-on control device.
(9) A summary of the total duration
and the percent of the total source
operating time of the deviations from
each operating limit in table 1 to this
subpart and the bypass of each add-on
control device during the semiannual
reporting period.
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(10) A breakdown of the total duration
of the deviations from each operating
limit in Table 1 to this subpart and
bypasses of each add-on control device
during the semiannual reporting period
into those that were due to control
equipment problems, process problems,
other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(11) A summary of the total duration
and the percent of the total source
operating time of the downtime for each
CMS during the semiannual reporting
period.
(12) A description of any changes in
the CMS, coating operation, emission
capture system, or add-on control
devices since the last semiannual
reporting period.
(13) For deviations from the work
practice standards, the number of
deviations, and, for each deviation, the
information in paragraphs (h)(13)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) A description of the deviation, the
date, time, and duration of the
deviation; and the actions you took to
minimize emissions in accordance with
§ 60.11(d).
(ii) A list of the affected sources or
equipment for which a deviation
occurred, the cause of the deviation
(including unknown cause, if
applicable), and any corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
(14) For deviations from an emission
limitation in § 60.392a or operating limit
in Table 1 of this subpart, a statement
of the cause of each deviation (including
unknown cause, if applicable).
(15) For each deviation from an
emission limitation in § 60.392a, or
operating limit in Table 1 to this
subpart, a list of the affected sources or
equipment for which a deviation
occurred, an estimate of the quantity of
VOC emitted over any emission limit in
§ 60.392a, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
(i) Electronic reporting of performance
test data. Where compliance is achieved
through the use of add-on control
devices, the owner or operator shall
submit control device performance test
results for initial and subsequent
performance tests according to
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
within 60 days of completing each
performance test following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Supported test methods. Data
collected using test methods supported
by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT
website (https://www.epa.gov/
electronic-reporting-air-emissions/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time
of the test.
(i) Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can
be accessed through the EPA’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX) (https://
cdx.epa.gov/).
(ii) The data must be submitted in a
file format generated using the EPA’s
ERT. Alternatively, the owner or
operator may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the
EPA’s ERT website.
(2) Unsupported test methods. Data
collected using test methods that are not
supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on
the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the
test.
(i) The results of the performance test
must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA’s ERT website.
(ii) Submit the ERT generated package
or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information
(CBI). Do not use CEDRI to submit
information you claim as CBI. Any
information submitted using CEDRI
cannot later be claimed CBI. Under CAA
section 114(c), emissions data are not
entitled to confidential treatment, and
the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as
CBI and will be made publicly available.
Owners or operators that assert a CBI
claim for any information submitted
under paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
section, must submit a complete file,
including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be
generated using the EPA’s ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA’s
ERT website. Owners or operators can
submit CBI according to one of the two
procedures in paragraph (i)(3)(i) or (ii)
of this section. All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission.
(i) If sending CBI through the postal
service, submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly
used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI.
Owners or operators are required to mail
the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention:
Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations Sector Lead,
MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described
in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30013
(ii) The EPA preferred method for CBI
submittal is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments,
File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other
online file sharing services (e.g.,
Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive).
Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI
Office at the email address oaqpscbi@
epa.gov, and as described above, should
be clearly identified as CBI and note
Attention: Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations
Sector Lead. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that
exceed the file size limit for email
attachments, and if you do not have
your own file sharing service, you can
email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file
transfer link.
(j) Electronic submittal of reports. The
owner or operator shall submit the
reports listed in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (3) of this section. In addition
to the information required in
paragraphs (b) through (h) of this
section, owners or operators are
required to report excess emissions and
a monitoring systems performance
report and a summary report to the
Administrator according to § 60.7(c) and
(d). Owners or operators are required by
§ 60.7(c) and (d) to report the date, time,
cause, and duration of each exceedance
of the applicable emission limit
specified in § 60.392a(a), any
malfunction of the air pollution control
equipment, and any periods during
which the CMS or monitoring device is
inoperative, malfunctioning, or out-ofcontrol. For each failure, the report must
include a list of the affected sources or
equipment and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
(1) Effective date. On and after
November 6, 2023, or once the reporting
template has been available on the
CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever
date is later, owners or operators must
use the appropriate spreadsheet
template on the CEDRI website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/cedri) for this subpart. The
date the reporting template for this
subpart becomes available will be listed
on the CEDRI website. The report must
be submitted by the deadline specified
in this subpart, regardless of the method
by which the report is submitted.
Submit all reports to the EPA via CEDRI,
which can be accessed through the
EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The
EPA will make all the information
submitted through CEDRI available to
the public without further notice to the
owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to
submit information you claim as CBI.
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
30014
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Any information submitted using CEDRI
cannot later be claimed CBI. If you
claim CBI, submit the report following
the procedure described in paragraph
(i)(3) of this section. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
CEDRI as described in this paragraph.
(2) System outage. Owner or operators
that are required to submit a report
electronically through CEDRI in the
EPA’s CDX, may assert a claim of EPA
system outage for failure to timely
comply with that reporting requirement.
To assert a claim of EPA system outage,
owners or operators must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must have been or will be
precluded from accessing CEDRI and
submitting a required report within the
time prescribed due to an outage of
either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems.
(ii) The outage must have occurred
within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date that the
submission is due.
(iii) The outage may be planned or
unplanned.
(iv) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(v) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description
identifying:
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX
or CEDRI was accessed, and the system
was unavailable;
(B) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) A description of measures taken or
to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(vi) The decision to accept the claim
of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(vii) In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as
soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(3) Force majeure. Owner or operators
that are required to submit a report
electronically through CEDRI in the
EPA’s CDX, may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply
with that reporting requirement. To
assert a claim of force majeure, you
must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
(i) You may submit a claim if a force
majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the
period of time beginning five business
days prior to the date the submission is
due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an
event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility
that prevents you from complying with
the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are
acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power
outage).
(ii) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(iii) You must provide to the
Administrator:
(A) A written description of the force
majeure event;
(B) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event;
(C) A description of measures taken or
to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim
of force majeure and allow an extension
to the reporting deadline is solely
within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(k) Recordkeeping. You must collect
and keep records of the data and
information specified in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (12) of this section.
Failure to collect and keep these records
is a deviation from the applicable
standard.
(1) A copy of each notification and
report that you submitted to comply
with this subpart, and the
documentation supporting each
notification and report.
(2) A current copy of information
provided by materials suppliers or
manufacturers, such as manufacturer’s
formulation data, or test data used to
determine the mass fraction of VOC, the
density and the volume fraction of
coating solids for each coating, and the
mass fraction of VOC and the density for
each thinner. If you conducted testing to
determine mass fraction of VOC,
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
density, or volume fraction of coating
solids, you must keep a copy of the
complete test report. If you use
information provided to you by the
manufacturer or supplier of the material
that was based on testing, you must
keep the summary sheet of results
provided to you by the manufacturer or
supplier. If you use the results of an
analysis conducted by an outside testing
lab, you must keep a copy of the test
report. You are not required to obtain
the test report or other supporting
documentation from the manufacturer
or supplier.
(3) For each month, the records
specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) For each coating used for the
affected source, a record of the volume
used in each month, the mass fraction
VOC content, the density, and the
volume fraction of solids.
(ii) For each thinner used in coating
operations for the affected source, a
record of the volume used in each
month, the mass fraction VOC content,
and the density.
(iii) A record of the calculation of the
VOC emission rate for the affected
source for each month. This record must
include all raw data, algorithms, and
intermediate calculations. If the
guidelines presented in the ‘‘Protocol
for Determining the Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat’’ EPA–
453/R–08–002 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17), are used, you
must keep records of all data input to
this protocol. If these data are
maintained as electronic files, the
electronic files, as well as any paper
copies must be maintained. These data
must be provided to the permitting
authority on request on paper, and in (if
calculations are done electronically)
electronic form.
(4) For each deviation from an
emission limitation, operating limit, or
work practice plan reported under
paragraph (h) of this section, a record of
the information specified in paragraphs
(4)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable.
(i) The date, time, and duration of the
deviation, and for each deviation, the
information as reported under
paragraph (h) of this section.
(ii) A list of the affected sources or
equipment for which the deviation
occurred and the cause of the deviation,
as reported under paragraph (h) of this
section.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of
VOC emitted over any applicable
emission limit in § 60.392a or any
applicable operating limit in Table 1 to
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
this subpart, and a description of the
method used to calculate the estimate,
as reported under paragraph (h) of this
section.
(iv) A record of actions taken to
minimize emissions in accordance with
§ 60.11(d) and any corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
(5) The records required by § 60.7(b)
and (c) related to SSM.
(6) For each capture system that is a
PTE, the data and documentation you
used to support a determination that the
capture system meets the criteria in
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR
part 51 for a PTE and has a capture
efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in
§ 60.397a(a).
(7) For each capture system that is not
a PTE, the data and documentation you
used to determine capture efficiency
according to the requirements specified
in § 60.397a(b) through (g), including
the records specified in paragraphs
(k)(7)(i) through (iv) of this section that
apply to you.
(i) Records for a liquid-to-uncapturedgas protocol using a temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure.
Records of the mass of total VOC, as
measured by Method 204A or F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, for each
material used in the coating operation,
and the total VOC for all materials used
during each capture efficiency test run,
including a copy of the test report.
Records of the mass of VOC emissions
not captured by the capture system that
exited the temporary total enclosure or
building enclosure during each capture
efficiency test run, as measured by
Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40
CFR part 51, including a copy of the test
report. Records documenting that the
enclosure used for the capture efficiency
test met the criteria in Method 204 of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either
a temporary total enclosure or a
building enclosure.
(ii) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol
using a temporary total enclosure or a
building enclosure. Records of the mass
of VOC emissions captured by the
emission capture system, as measured
by Method 204B or C of appendix M to
40 CFR part 51, at the inlet to the addon control device, including a copy of
the test report. Records of the mass of
VOC emissions not captured by the
capture system that exited the
temporary total enclosure or building
enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run, as measured by Method 204D
or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51,
including a copy of the test report.
Records documenting that the enclosure
used for the capture efficiency test met
the criteria in Method 204 of appendix
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a
temporary total enclosure or a building
enclosure.
(iii) Records for panel tests. Records
needed to document a capture efficiency
determination using a panel test as
described in § 60.397a(e) and (g),
including a copy of the test report and
calculations performed to convert the
panel test results to percent capture
efficiency values.
(iv) Records for an alternative
protocol. Records needed to document a
capture efficiency determination using
an alternative method or protocol, as
specified in § 60.397a(f), if applicable.
(8) The records specified in
paragraphs (k)(8)(i) and (ii) of this
section for each add-on control device
VOC destruction or removal efficiency
determination as specified in § 60.393a.
(i) Records of each add-on control
device performance test conducted
according to § 60.393a.
(ii) Records of the coating operation
conditions during the add-on control
device performance test showing that
the performance test was conducted
under representative operating
conditions.
(9) Records of the data and
calculations you used to establish the
emission capture and add-on control
device operating limits as specified in
§ 60.394a and to document compliance
with the operating limits as specified in
table 1 to this subpart.
(10) Records of the data and
calculations you used to determine the
transfer efficiency for guide coat and
topcoat coating operations pursuant to
§ 60.393a(h).
(11) A record of the work practice
plans required by § 60.392a(b) and (c)
and documentation that you are
implementing the plans on a continuous
basis. Appropriate documentation may
include operational and maintenance
records, records of documented
inspections, and records of internal
audits.
(12) For each add-on control device
and for each CMS, a copy of the
equipment operating instructions must
be maintained on-site for the life of the
equipment in a location readily
available to plant operators and
inspectors. You may prepare your own
equipment operating instructions, or
they may be provided to you by the
equipment supplier or other third party.
(l) Record form and retention time. (1)
Any records required to be maintained
by this subpart that are submitted
electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may
be maintained in electronic format. This
ability to maintain electronic copies
does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30015
reports available upon request to a
delegated air agency or the EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(k)(12) of this section, you must keep
each record for 5 years following the
date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report,
or record.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph
(k)(12) of this section, you must keep
each record on site for at least 2 years
after the date of each occurrence,
measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record. You may keep
the records off site for the remaining 3
years.
§ 60.396a Add-on control device
destruction efficiency.
You must use the procedures and test
methods in this section to determine the
add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency as part
of the performance test required by
§ 60.393a(j)(4), except as provided in
§ 60.8. You must conduct three test runs
as specified in §§ 60.8(f) and 60.394a,
and each test run must last at least 1
hour.
(a) For all types of add-on control
devices, use the test methods specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of
appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select sampling sites and
velocity traverse points.
(2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or
2F of appendix A–1, or 2G of appendix
A–2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate,
to measure gas volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, for gas analysis to
determine dry molecular weight. The
ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10–1981
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17),
may be used as an alternative to EPA
Method 3B.
(4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A–
3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine stack
gas moisture.
(5) Methods for determining gas
volumetric flow rate, dry molecular
weight, and stack gas moisture must be
performed, as applicable, during each
test run.
(b) Measure total gaseous organic
mass emissions as carbon in the effluent
gas leaving each stack not equipped
with a control device and at the inlet
and outlet of the add-on control device
simultaneously, using either EPA
Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to
40 CFR part 60, as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section. You must use the same method
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
must be at least one hour. The minimum
sample volume must be 0.003 dscm
except that shorter sampling times or
smaller volumes, when necessitated by
process variables or other factors, may
be approved by the Administrator. The
Administrator will approve the
sampling of representative stacks on a
case-by-case basis if you can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the testing of
representative stacks would yield
results comparable to those that would
be obtained by testing all stacks.
(c) If two or more add-on control
devices are used for the same emission
stream, then you must measure
emissions at the outlet of each device.
For example, if one add-on control
device is a concentrator with an outlet
for the high-volume, dilute stream that
Where:
Mf = Total gaseous organic emissions mass
flow rate, kg per hour (kg/h).
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as
carbon in the vent gas, as determined by
Method 25 or Method 25A, ppmv, dry
basis.
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering
or exiting the add-on control device, as
determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
or 2G, dry standard cubic meters per
hour (dscm/h). 0.0416 = Conversion
factor for molar volume, kg-moles per
cubic meter (mol/m3) (@293 Kelvin (K)
(e) For each test run, determine the
add-on control device organic emissions
destruction or removal efficiency using
Equation 2 of this section:
Where:
DRE = Organic emissions destruction or
removal efficiency of the add-on control
device, percent.
Mfi = Total gaseous organic emissions mass
flow rate at the inlet(s) to the add-on
control device, using Equation 1 of this
section, kg/h.
Mfo = Total gaseous organic emissions mass
flow rate at the outlet(s) of the add-on
control device, using Equation 1 of this
section, kg/h.
draft opening in a PTE or a temporary
total enclosure provided you
demonstrate that the direction of air
movement across the interface between
the spray booth air seal and the spray
booth is into the spray booth. For
purposes of this subpart, a bake oven air
seal is not considered a natural draft
opening in a PTE or a temporary total
enclosure provided you demonstrate
that the direction of air movement
across the interface between the bake
oven air seal and the bake oven is into
the bake oven. You may use lightweight
strips of fabric or paper, or smoke tubes
to make such demonstrations as part of
showing that your capture system is a
PTE or conducting a capture efficiency
test using a temporary total enclosure.
You cannot count air flowing from a
spray booth air seal into a spray booth
as air flowing through a natural draft
opening into a PTE or into a temporary
total enclosure unless you elect to treat
that spray booth air seal as a natural
draft opening. You cannot count air
flowing from a bake oven air seal into
a bake oven as air flowing through a
natural draft opening into a PTE or into
a temporary total enclosure unless you
elect to treat that bake oven air seal as
a natural draft opening.
(a) Assuming 100 percent capture
efficiency. You may assume the capture
system efficiency is 100 percent if both
of the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2) of this section are met:
(1) The capture system meets the
criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to
40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and directs all
the exhaust gases from the enclosure to
an add-on control device.
(2) All coatings and thinners used in
the coating operation are applied within
the capture system, and coating solvent
flash-off and coating curing and drying
occurs within the capture system. For
example, this criterion is not met if
parts enter the open shop environment
when being moved between a spray
booth and a curing oven.
§ 60.397a Emission capture system
efficiency.
You must use the procedures and test
methods in this section to determine
capture efficiency as part of the
performance test required by § 60.393a.
For purposes of this subpart, a spray
booth air seal is not considered a natural
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and 760 millimeters of mercury
(mmHg)).
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.010</GPH>
(f) Determine the emission destruction
or removal efficiency of the add-on
control device as the average of the
efficiencies determined in the three test
runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this
section.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
has been treated by the concentrator,
and a second add-on control device is
an oxidizer with an outlet for the lowvolume, concentrated stream that is
treated with the oxidizer, you must
measure emissions at the outlet of the
oxidizer and the high-volume dilute
stream outlet of the concentrator.
(d) For each test run, determine the
total gaseous organic emissions mass
flow rates (Mf) for the inlet and the
outlet of the add-on control device,
using Equation 1 of this section. If there
is more than one inlet or outlet to the
add-on control device, you must
calculate the total gaseous organic mass
flow rate using Equation 1 of this
section for each inlet and each outlet
and then total all of the inlet emissions
and total all of the outlet emissions.
for both the inlet and outlet
measurements.
(1) Use Method 25 if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer and you
expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be more than
50 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
at the control device outlet.
(2) Use Method 25A if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer and you
expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be 50 ppmv
or less at the control device outlet.
(3) Use Method 25A if the add-control
device is not an oxidizer.
(4) You may use EPA Method 18 of
appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 to
subtract methane emissions from
measured total gaseous organic mass
emissions as carbon.
(5) For Method 25 and 25A, the
sampling time for each of three runs
ER09MY23.009</GPH>
30016
(b) Measuring capture efficiency. If
the capture system does not meet both
of the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section, then you must use
one of the five procedures described in
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section
to measure capture efficiency. For the
protocols in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section, the capture efficiency
measurement must consist of three test
runs. Each test run must be at least 3
hours duration or the length of a
production run, whichever is longer, up
to 8 hours. For the purposes of this test,
a production run means the time
required for a single part to go from the
beginning to the end of production,
which includes surface preparation
activities and drying or curing time.
(c) Liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol
using a temporary total enclosure or
building enclosure. The liquid-touncaptured-gas protocol compares the
mass of liquid VOC in materials used in
the coating operation to the mass of
VOC emissions not captured by the
emission capture system. Use a
temporary total enclosure or a building
enclosure and the procedures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section to measure emission capture
system efficiency using the liquid-touncaptured-gas protocol.
(1) Either use a building enclosure or
construct an enclosure around the
coating operation where coatings and
thinners are applied, and all areas
where emissions from these applied
coatings and thinners subsequently
occur, such as flash-off, curing, and
drying areas. The areas of the coating
operation where capture devices collect
emissions for routing to an add-on
control device, such as the entrance and
exit areas of an oven or spray booth,
must also be inside the enclosure. The
enclosure must meet the applicable
definition of a temporary total enclosure
or building enclosure in Method 204 of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
(2) Use Method 204A or F of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51 to determine the
mass fraction of VOC liquid input from
each coating and thinner used in the
coating operation during each capture
efficiency test run.
(3) Use Equation 1 of this section to
calculate the total mass of VOC liquid
input (VOCused) from all the coatings and
thinners used in the coating operation
during each capture efficiency test run.
Where:
VOCi = Mass fraction of VOC in coating or
thinner, i, used in the coating operation
during the capture efficiency test run, kg
VOC per kg material.
Voli = Total volume of coating or thinner, i,
used in the coating operation during the
capture efficiency test run, liters.
Di = Density of coating or thinner, i, kg
material per liter material.
n = Number of different coatings and
thinners used in the coating operation
during the capture efficiency test run.
(4) Use Method 204D or E of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total
mass, kg, of VOC emissions that are not
captured by the emission capture
system; they are measured as they exit
the temporary total enclosure or
building enclosure during each capture
efficiency test run.
(i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure
is a temporary total enclosure.
(ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure
is a building enclosure. During the
capture efficiency measurement, all
organic compound emitting operations
inside the building enclosure, other
than the coating operation for which
capture efficiency is being determined,
must be shut down, but all fans and
blowers must be operating normally.
(5) For each capture efficiency test
run, determine the percent capture
efficiency of the emission capture
system using Equation 2 of this section:
Where:
CE = Capture efficiency of the emission
capture system vented to the add-on
control device, percent.
VOCused = Total mass of VOC liquid input
used in the coating operation during the
capture efficiency test run, kg.
VOCuncaptured = Total mass of VOC that is not
captured by the emission capture system
and that exits from the temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure during
the capture efficiency test run, kg.
not captured. Use a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure and
the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (5) of this section to measure
emission capture system efficiency
using the gas-to-gas protocol.
(1) Either use a building enclosure or
construct an enclosure around the
coating operation where coatings and
thinners are applied, and all areas
where emissions from these applied
coatings and thinners subsequently
occur, such as flash-off, curing, and
drying areas. The areas of the coating
operation where capture devices collect
emissions generated by the coating
operation for routing to an add-on
control device, such as the entrance and
exit areas of an oven or a spray booth,
must also be inside the enclosure. The
enclosure must meet the applicable
definition of a temporary total enclosure
or building enclosure in Method 204 of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
(2) Use Method 204B or C of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total
mass, kg, of VOC emissions captured by
the emission capture system during
each capture efficiency test run as
measured at the inlet to the add-on
control device.
(i) The sampling points for the
Method 204B or C measurement must be
upstream from the add-on control
device and must represent total
emissions routed from the capture
system and entering the add-on control
device.
(ii) If multiple emission streams from
the capture system enter the add-on
control device without a single common
duct, then the emissions entering the
(6) Determine the capture efficiency of
the emission capture system as the
average of the capture efficiencies
measured in the three test runs.
(d) Gas-to-gas protocol using a
temporary total enclosure or a building
enclosure. The gas-to-gas protocol
compares the mass of VOC emissions
captured by the emission capture
system to the mass of VOC emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.012</GPH>
30017
ER09MY23.011</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
add-on control device must be
simultaneously or sequentially
measured in each duct, and the total
emissions entering the add-on control
device must be determined.
(3) Use Method 204D or E of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total
mass, kg, of VOC emissions that are not
captured by the emission capture
system; they are measured as they exit
the temporary total enclosure or
building enclosure during each capture
efficiency test run. To make the
measurement, substitute VOC for each
occurrence of the term VOC in the
methods.
(i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure
is a temporary total enclosure.
(ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure
is a building enclosure. During the
capture efficiency measurement, all
organic compound emitting operations
inside the building enclosure, other
than the coating operation for which
capture efficiency is being determined,
must be shut down, but all fans and
blowers must be operating normally.
(4) For each capture efficiency test
run, determine the percent capture
efficiency of the emission capture
system using Equation 3 of this section:
Where:
CE = Capture efficiency of the emission
capture system vented to the add-on
control device, percent.
VOCcaptured = Total mass of VOC captured by
the emission capture system as measured
at the inlet to the add-on control device
during the emission capture efficiency
test run, kg.
VOCuncaptured = Total mass of VOC that is not
captured by the emission capture system
and that exits from the temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure during
the capture efficiency test run, kg.
(5) Determine the capture efficiency of
the emission capture system as the
average of the capture efficiencies
measured in the three test runs.
(e) Panel testing to determine the
capture efficiency of flash-off or bake
oven emissions. You may conduct panel
testing to determine the capture
efficiency of flash-off or bake oven
emissions using ASTM Method D5087–
02 (Reapproved 2021), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining Amount of
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Released from Solventborne Automotive
Coatings and Available for Removal in
a VOC Control Device (Abatement)’’
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17),
ASTM Method 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)’’ (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17), or the guidelines
presented in ‘‘Protocol for Determining
the Daily Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat’’ EPA–453/R–08–002
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
You may conduct panel testing on
representative coatings as described in
‘‘Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat’’
EPA–453/R–08–002 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17).
(1) Calculate the volume of coating
solids deposited per volume of coating
used for coating, i, or the composite
volume of coating solids deposited per
volume of coating used for the group of
coatings including coating, i, used
during the month in the spray booth(s)
preceding the flash-off area or bake oven
for which the panel test is conducted
using Equation 4 of this section:
Where:
Vsdep, i = Volume of coating solids deposited
per volume of coating used for coating,
i, or composite volume of coating solids
deposited per volume of coating used for
the group of coatings including coating,
i, in the spray booth(s) preceding the
flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, liter of coating
solids deposited per liter of coating used.
Vs, i = Volume fraction of coating solids for
coating, i, or average volume fraction of
coating solids for the group of coatings
including coating, i, liter coating solids
per liter coating, determined according
to § 60.393a(g).
TEc, i = Transfer efficiency of coating, i, or
average transfer efficiency for the group
of coatings including coating, i, in the
spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or
bake oven for which the panel test is
conducted determined according to
§ 60.393a(h), expressed as a decimal, for
example 60 percent must be expressed as
0.60. (Transfer efficiency also may be
determined by testing representative
coatings. The same coating groupings
may be appropriate for both transfer
efficiency testing and panel testing. In
this case, all of the coatings in a panel
test grouping would have the same
transfer efficiency.)
Where:
VOCi = Mass of VOC per volume of coating
for coating, i, or composite mass of VOC
per volume of coating for the group of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
coatings including coating, i, used
during the month in the spray booth(s)
preceding the flash-off area or bake oven
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) Calculate the mass of VOC per
volume of coating for coating, i, or the
composite mass of VOC per volume of
coating for the group of coatings
including coating, i, used during the
month in the spray booth(s) preceding
the flash-off area or bake oven for which
the panel test is conducted, kg, using
Equation 5 of this section:
for which the panel test is conducted, kg
VOC per liter coating.
Dc,i = Density of coating, i, or average density
of the group of coatings, including
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.014</GPH> ER09MY23.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ER09MY23.013</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
30018
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
mass of VOC per volume of coating,
average values for the group of coatings
for mass fraction VOC, transfer
efficiency, and mass fraction solids in
Equations 7 and 8 of this section. If you
panel test each coating, then you must
convert the panel test result for each
coating to a unique percent capture
efficiency for that coating by using
coating specific values for the mass of
coating solids deposited per mass of
coating used, mass fraction VOC,
transfer efficiency, and mass fraction
solids in Equations 7 and 8 of this
section. Panel test results expressed in
units of mass of VOC per mass of
coating solids deposited must be
converted to percent capture efficiency
using Equation 6 of this section:
(3) As an alternative, you may choose
to express the results of your panel tests
in units of mass of VOC per mass of
coating solids deposited and convert
such results to a percent using Equation
7 of this section. If you panel test
representative coatings, then you may
convert the panel test result for each
representative coating either to a unique
percent capture efficiency for each
coating grouped with that representative
coating by using coating specific values
for the mass of coating solids deposited
per mass of coating used, mass fraction
VOC, transfer efficiency, and mass
fraction solids in Equations 7 and 8 of
this section; or to a composite percent
capture efficiency for the group of
coatings by using composite values for
the group of coatings for the mass of
coating solids deposited per mass of
coating used and average values for the
Where:
CEi = Capture efficiency for coating, i, or for
the group of coatings including coating,
i, for the flash-off area or bake oven for
which the panel test is conducted,
percent.
Pm,i = Panel test result for coating, i, or for
the coating representing coating, i, in the
panel test, kg of VOC per kg of coating
solids deposited.
Wsdep,i = Mass of coating solids deposited per
mass of coating used for coating, i, or
composite mass of coating solids
deposited per mass of coating used for
the group of coatings, including coating,
i, in the spray booth(s) preceding the
flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, kg of solids
deposited per kg of coating used, from
Equation 8 of this section.
Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i,
or average mass fraction of VOC for the
group of coatings, including coating, i, kg
VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA
Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part
60) or the guidelines for combining
analytical VOC content and formulation
solvent content presented in Section 9 of
‘‘Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission
(4) Calculate the mass of coating
solids deposited per mass of coating
used for each coating or the composite
mass of coating solids deposited per
mass of coating used for each group of
coatings used during the month in the
spray booth(s) preceding the flash-off
area or bake oven for which the panel
test is conducted using Equation 7 of
this section:
Where:
Wsdep, i = Mass of coating solids deposited per
mass of coating used for coating, i, or
composite mass of coating solids
deposited per mass of coating used for
the group of coatings including coating,
i, in the spray booth(s) preceding the
flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, kg coating solids
deposited per kg coating used.
Ws, i = Mass fraction of coating solids for
coating, i, or average mass fraction of
coating solids for the group of coatings
including coating, i, kg coating solids per
kg coating, determined by EPA Method
24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60) or
the 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 Primer-Surfacer
and Topcoat, EPA–453/R–08–002’’
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
TEc, i = Transfer efficiency of coating, i, or
average transfer efficiency for the group
of coatings including coating, i, in the
spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or
bake oven for which the panel test is
conducted determined according to
§ 60.393a(h), expressed as a decimal, for
example 60 percent must be expressed as
0.60. (Transfer efficiency also may be
determined by testing representative
coatings. The same coating groupings
may be appropriate used for both transfer
efficiency testing and panel testing. In
this case, all of the coatings in a panel
test grouping would have the same
transfer efficiency.)
(f) Alternative capture efficiency
procedure. As an alternative to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)
through (e) and (g) of this section, you
may determine capture efficiency using
any other capture efficiency protocol
and test methods that satisfy the criteria
of either the Data Quality Objective
(DQO) or Lower Confidence Limit (LCL)
approach as described in appendix A to
subpart KK of 40 CFR part 63.
(g) Panel testing to determine the
capture efficiency of spray booth
emissions from solvent-borne coatings.
You may conduct panel testing to
determine the capture efficiency of
spray booth emissions from solventborne coatings using the procedure in
appendix A to this subpart.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.017</GPH>
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat,
EPA–453/R–08–002’’ (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17).
ER09MY23.016</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
coating, i, kg coating per liter coating,
density determined according to
§ 60.393a(f)(2).
Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i,
or average mass fraction of VOC for the
group of coatings, including coating, i, kg
VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA
Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part
60) or the guidelines for combining
analytical VOC content and formulation
solvent content presented in Section 9 of
‘‘Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat,
EPA–453/R–08–002’’ (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17).
30019
30020
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMa OF PART 60—OPERATING LIMITS FOR CAPTURE SYSTEMS AND ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES
[If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 60.392a(g), you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table.]
For the following device . . .
You must meet the following operating
limit . . .
And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by . . .
1. Thermal oxidizer .............................................
a. The average combustion temperature in
any 3-hour period must not fall below the
combustion temperature limit established
according to § 60.394a(a).
2. Catalytic oxidizer ............................................
a. The average temperature measured just
before the catalyst bed in any 3-hour period
must not fall below the limit established according to § 60.394a(b); and either
i. Collecting the combustion temperature data
according to § 60.394a(i);
ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and
iii. Maintaining the 3-hour average combustion
temperature at or above the temperature
limit.
i. Collecting the temperature data temperature
according to § 60.394a(i));
ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and
iii. Maintaining the 3-hour average temperature before the catalyst bed at or above the
temperature limit.
i. Collecting the temperature data according to
§ 60.394a(i);
ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and
iii. Maintaining the 3-hour average temperature difference at or above the temperature
difference limit; or
i. Maintaining an up-to-date inspection and
maintenance plan, records of annual catalyst activity checks, records of monthly inspections of the oxidizer system, and
records of the annual internal inspections of
the catalyst bed. If a problem is discovered
during a monthly or annual inspection required by § 60.394a(b)(4), you must take
corrective action as soon as practicable
consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
i. Measuring the total regeneration desorbing
gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for
each regeneration cycle according to
§ 60.394a(j); and
ii. Maintaining the total regeneration desorbing
gas mass flow at or above the mass flow
limit.
i. Measuring the temperature of the carbon
bed after completing each regeneration and
any cooling cycle according to § 60.394a(j);
and
ii. Operating the carbon beds such that each
carbon bed is not returned to service until
completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle until the recorded temperature of
the carbon bed is at or below the temperature limit.
i. Collecting the condenser outlet (product
side) gas temperature according to
§ 60.394a(k);
ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and
iii. Maintaining the 3-hour average gas temperature at the outlet at or below the temperature limit.
i. Collecting the temperature data according to
§ 60.394a(l);
ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and
iii. maintaining the 3-hour average temperature at or above the temperature limit.
b. Ensure that the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed in any 3hour period does not fall below the temperature difference limit established according to § 60.394a(b)(2); or
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
c. Develop and implement an inspection and
maintenance
plan
according
to
§ 60.394a(b)(4).
3. Regenerative carbon adsorber ......................
a. The total regeneration desorbing gas (e.g.,
steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each carbon bed regeneration cycle must not fall
below the total regeneration desorbing gas
mass flow limit established according to
§ 60.394a(c).
b. The temperature of the carbon bed after
completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle must not exceed the carbon bed
temperature limit established according to
§ 60.394a(c).
4. Condenser ......................................................
a. The average condenser outlet (product
side) gas temperature in any 3-hour period
must not exceed the temperature limit established according to § 60.394a(d).
5. Concentrators, including zeolite wheels and
rotary carbon adsorbers.
a. The average desorption gas inlet temperature in any 3-hour period must not fall
below the limit established according to
§ 60.394a(e).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
30021
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMa OF PART 60—OPERATING LIMITS FOR CAPTURE SYSTEMS AND ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES—
Continued
[If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 60.392a(g), you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table.]
For the following device . . .
You must meet the following operating
limit . . .
And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by . . .
6. Emission capture system that is a PTE .........
a. The direction of the air flow at all times
must be into the enclosure; and either
b. The average facial velocity of air through
all natural draft openings in the enclosure
must be at least 200 feet per minute; or
c. The pressure drop across the enclosure
must be at least 0.007 inch water, as established in Method 204 of appendix M to 40
CFR part 51.
7. Emission capture system that is not a PTE ...
a. The average gas volumetric flow rate or
duct static pressure in each duct between a
capture device and add-on control device
inlet in any 3-hour period must not fall
below the average volumetric flow rate or
duct static pressure limit established for that
capture device according to § 60.394a(f).
This applies only to capture devices that
are not part of a PTE that meets the criteria
of § 60.397a(a) and that are not capturing
emissions from a downdraft spray booth or
from a flashoff area or bake oven associated with a downdraft spray booth.
i. Collecting the direction of air flow, and either the facial velocity of air through all natural
draft
openings
according
to
§ 60.394a(m)(1) or the pressure drop
across the enclosure according to
§ 60.394a(m)(2); and
ii. Maintaining the facial velocity of air flow
through all natural draft openings or the
pressure drop at or above the facial velocity
limit or pressure drop limit, and maintaining
the direction of air flow into the enclosure at
all times.
i. Collecting the gas volumetric flow rate or
duct static pressure for each capture device
according to § 60.394a(m);
ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and
iii. Maintaining the 3-hour average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for
each capture device at or above the gas
volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure
limit.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Appendix A to Subpart MMa of Part
60—Determination of Capture
Efficiency of Automobile and LightDuty Truck Spray Booth Emissions
From Solvent-Borne Coatings Using
Panel Testing
1.0 Applicability, Principle, and
Summary of Procedure.
1.1 Applicability.
This procedure applies to the
determination of capture efficiency of
automobile and light-duty truck spray booth
emissions from solvent-borne coatings using
panel testing. This procedure can be used to
determine capture efficiency for partially
controlled spray booths (e.g., automated
spray zones controlled and manual spray
zones not controlled) and for fully controlled
spray booths.
1.2 Principle.
1.2.1 The volatile organic compounds
(VOC) associated with the coating solids
deposited on a part (or panel) in a controlled
spray booth zone (or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones) partition
themselves between the VOC that volatilize
in the controlled spray booth zone
(principally between the spray gun and the
part) and the VOC that remain on the part (or
panel) when the part (or panel) leaves the
controlled spray booth zone. For solventborne coatings essentially all of the VOC
associated with the coating solids deposited
on a part (or panel) in a controlled spray
booth zone that volatilize in the controlled
spray booth zone pass through the waterwash
and are exhausted from the controlled spray
booth zone to the control device.
1.2.2 The VOC associated with the
overspray coating solids in a controlled spray
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
booth zone partition themselves between the
VOC that volatilize in the controlled spray
booth zone and the VOC that are still tied to
the overspray coating solids when the
overspray coating solids hit the waterwash.
For solvent-borne coatings almost all of the
VOC associated with the overspray coating
solids that volatilize in the controlled spray
booth zone pass through the waterwash and
are exhausted from the controlled spray
booth zone to the control device. The exact
fate of the VOC still tied to the overspray
coating solids when the overspray coating
solids hit the waterwash is unknown. This
procedure assumes that none of the VOC still
tied to the overspray coating solids when the
overspray coating solids hit the waterwash
are captured and delivered to the control
device. Much of this VOC may become
entrained in the water along with the
overspray coating solids. Most of the VOC
that become entrained in the water along
with the overspray coating solids leave the
water, but the point at which this VOC leave
the water is unknown. Some of the VOC still
tied to the overspray coating solids when the
overspray coating solids hit the waterwash
may pass through the waterwash and be
exhausted from the controlled spray booth
zone to the control device.
1.2.3 This procedure assumes that the
portion of the VOC associated with the
overspray coating solids in a controlled spray
booth zone that volatilizes in the controlled
spray booth zone, passes through the
waterwash and is exhausted from the
controlled spray booth zone to the control
device is equal to the portion of the VOC
associated with the coating solids deposited
on a part (or panel) in that controlled spray
booth zone that volatilizes in the controlled
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
spray booth zone, passes through the
waterwash, and is exhausted from the
controlled spray booth zone to the control
device. This assumption is equivalent to
treating all of the coating solids sprayed in
the controlled spray booth zone as if they are
deposited coating solids (i.e., assuming 100
percent transfer efficiency) for purposes of
using a panel test to determine spray booth
capture efficiency.
1.2.4 This is a conservative (low)
assumption for the portion of the VOC
associated with the overspray coating solids
in a controlled spray booth zone that
volatilizes in the controlled spray booth
zone. Thus, this assumption results in an
underestimate of conservative capture
efficiency. The overspray coating solids have
more travel time and distance from the spray
gun to the waterwash than the deposited
coating solids have between the spray gun
and the part (or panel). Therefore, the portion
of the VOC associated with the overspray
coating solids in a controlled spray booth
zone that volatilizes in the controlled spray
booth zone should be greater than the portion
of the VOC associated with the coating solids
deposited on a part (or panel) in that
controlled spray booth zone that volatilizes
in that controlled spray booth zone.
1.3 Summary of Procedure
1.3.1 A panel test is performed to
determine the mass of VOC that remains on
the panel when the panel leaves a controlled
spray booth zone. The total mass of VOC
associated with the coating solids deposited
on the panel is calculated.
1.3.2 The percent of the total VOC
associated with the coating solids deposited
on the panel in the controlled spray booth
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
2.0 Procedure
2.1 You may conduct panel testing to
determine the capture efficiency of spray
booth emissions. You must follow the
instructions and calculations in this
appendix A, and use the panel testing
procedures in ASTM D5087–02 (Reapproved
2021), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Released from
Solventborne Automotive Coatings and
Available for Removal in a VOC Control
Device (Abatement)’’ (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17), or the guidelines
presented in ‘‘Protocol for Determining the
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat’’ EPA–453/R–
08–002 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17). You must weigh panels at the points
described in section 2.5 of this appendix A
and perform calculations as described in
sections 3 and 4 of this appendix A. You may
conduct panel tests on the production paint
line in your facility or in a laboratory
simulation of the production paint line in
your facility.
2.2 You may conduct panel testing on
representative coatings as described in
‘‘Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck PrimerSurfacer and Topcoat’’ EPA–453/R–08–002
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17). If
you panel test representative coatings, then
you may calculate either a unique percent
capture efficiency value for each coating
grouped with that representative coating, or
a composite percent capture efficiency value
for the group of coatings. If you panel test
each coating, then you must convert the
panel test result for each coating to a unique
percent capture efficiency value for that
coating.
2.3 Identification of Controlled Spray
Booth Zones.
You must identify each controlled spray
booth zone or each group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones to be tested.
(For example, a controlled bell zone
immediately followed by a controlled robotic
zone.) Separate panel tests are required for
non-contiguous controlled spray booth zones.
The flash zone between the last basecoat
zone and the first clearcoat zone makes these
zones non-contiguous.
2.4 Where to Apply Coating to the Panel.
If you are conducting a panel test for a
single controlled spray booth zone, then you
must apply coating to the panel only in that
controlled spray booth zone. If you are
conducting a panel test for a group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones,
then you must apply coating to the panel
only in that group of contiguous controlled
spray booth zones.
2.5 How to Process and When to Weigh
the Panel.
The instructions in this section pertain to
panel testing of coating, i, or of the coating
representing the group of coatings that
includes coating, i.
2.5.1 You must weigh the blank panel.
(Same as in bake oven panel test.) The mass
of the blank panel is represented by Wblank,i
(grams).
2.5.2 Apply coating, i, or the coating
representing coating, i, to the panel in the
controlled spray booth zone or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested (in plant test), or in a simulation
of the controlled spray booth zone or group
of contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested (laboratory test).
2.5.3 Remove and weigh the wet panel as
soon as the wet panel leaves the controlled
spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being tested.
(Different than bake oven panel test.) This
weighing must be conducted quickly to avoid
further evaporation of VOC. The mass of the
wet panel is represented by Wwet,i (grams).
2.5.4 Return the wet panel to the point in
the coating process or simulation of the
coating process where it was removed for
weighing.
2.5.5 Allow the panel to travel through
the rest of the coating process in the plant or
laboratory simulation of the coating process.
You must not apply any more coating to the
panel after it leaves the controlled spray
booth zone (or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones) being tested.
The rest of the coating process or simulation
of the coating process consists of:
2.5.5.1 All of the spray booth zone(s) or
simulation of all of the spray booth zone(s)
located after the controlled spray booth zone
or group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones being tested and before the bake
oven where the coating applied to the panel
is cured,
2.5.5.2 All of the flash-off area(s) or
simulation of all of the flash-off area(s)
located after the controlled spray booth zone
or group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones being tested and before the bake
oven where the coating applied to the panel
is cured, and
2.5.5.3 The bake oven or simulation of
the bake oven where the coating applied to
the panel is cured.
2.5.6 After the panel exits the bake oven,
you must cool and weigh the baked panel.
(Same as in bake oven panel test.) The mass
of the baked panel is represented by Wbaked,i
(grams).
Where:
Wsdep, i = Mass of coating solids (from
coating, i, or from the coating
representing coating, i, in the panel test)
deposited on the panel, grams.
3.2 The mass of VOC (from coating, i, or
from the coating representing coating, i, in
the panel test) remaining on the wet panel
when the wet panel leaves the controlled
spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being tested
equals the mass of the wet panel when the
wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth
zone or group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones being tested minus the mass of
the baked panel as shown in Equation A–2.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
zone that remains on the panel when the
panel leaves the controlled section of the
spray booth is then calculated from the ratio
of the two previously determined masses.
The percent of the total VOC associated with
the coating solids deposited on the panel in
the controlled spray booth zone that is
captured and delivered to the control device
equals 100 minus this percentage. (The mass
of VOC associated with the coating solids
deposited on the panel which is volatilized
and captured in the controlled spray booth
zone equals the difference between the total
mass of VOC associated with the coating
solids deposited on the panel and the mass
of VOC remaining with the coating solids
deposited on the panel when the panel leaves
the controlled spray booth zone.)
1.3.3 The percent of the total VOC
associated with the coating sprayed in the
controlled spray booth zone that is captured
and delivered to the control device is
assumed to be equal to the percent of the
total VOC associated with the coating solids
deposited on the panel in the controlled
spray booth zone that is captured and
delivered to the control device. The percent
of the total VOC associated with the coating
sprayed in the entire spray booth that is
captured and delivered to the control device
can be calculated by multiplying the percent
of the total VOC associated with the coating
sprayed in the controlled spray booth zone
that is captured and delivered to the control
device by the fraction of coating sprayed in
the spray booth that is sprayed in the
controlled spray booth zone.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3.0
Panel Calculations
The instructions in this section pertain to
panel testing of coating, i, or of the coating
representing the group of coatings that
includes coating, i.
3.1 The mass of coating solids (from
coating, i, or from the coating representing
coating, i, in the panel test) deposited on the
panel equals the mass of the baked panel
minus the mass of the blank panel as shown
in Equation A–1.
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.018</GPH>
30022
contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested, grams.
3.3 Calculate the mass of VOC (from
coating, i, or from the coating representing
coating, i, in the panel test) remaining on the
wet panel when the wet panel leaves the
controlled spray booth zone or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested per mass of coating solids
deposited on the panel as shown in Equation
A–3.
Where:
Pm, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from
the coating representing coating, i, in the
panel test) remaining on the wet panel
when the wet panel leaves the controlled
spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being
tested per mass of coating solids
deposited on the panel, grams of VOC
remaining per gram of coating solids
deposited.
Wrem, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or
from the coating representing coating, i,
in the panel test) remaining on the wet
panel when the wet panel leaves the
controlled spray booth zone or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested, grams.
Wsdep, i = Mass of coating solids (from
coating, i, or from the coating
representing coating, i, in the panel test)
deposited on the panel, grams.
4.0 Converting Panel Result to Percent
Capture
The instructions in this section pertain to
panel testing of for coating, i, or of the
coating representing the group of coatings
that includes coating, i.
4.1 If you panel test representative
coatings, then you may convert the panel test
result for each representative coating from
section 3.3 of this appendix A either to a
unique percent capture efficiency value for
each coating grouped with that representative
coating by using coating specific values for
the mass fraction coating solids and mass
fraction VOC in section 4.2 of this appendix
A, or to a composite percent capture
efficiency value for the group of coatings by
using the average values for the group of
coatings for mass fraction coating solids and
mass fraction VOC in section 4.2 of this
appendix A. If you panel test each coating,
then you must convert the panel test result
for each coating to a unique percent capture
efficiency value by using coating specific
values for the mass fraction coating solids
and mass fraction VOC in section 4.2 of this
appendix A. The mass fraction of VOC in the
coating and the mass fraction of solids in the
coating must be determined by Method 24
(appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60) or by
following the 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 Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat’’ EPA–453/R–08–002 (incorporated
by reference, see § 60.17).’≤
4.2 The percent of VOC for coating, i, or
composite percent of VOC for the group of
coatings including coating, i, associated with
the coating solids deposited on the panel that
remains on the wet panel when the wet panel
leaves the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray booth
zones being tested is calculated using
Equation A–4.
Where:
Pvocpan, i = Percent of VOC for coating, i, or
composite percent of VOC for the group
of coatings including coating, i,
associated with the coating solids
deposited on the panel that remains on
the wet panel when the wet panel leaves
the controlled spray booth zone (or
group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones) being tested, percent.
Pm, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from
the coating representing coating, i, in the
panel test) remaining on the wet panel
when the wet panel leaves the controlled
spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being
tested per mass of coating solids
deposited on the panel, grams of VOC
remaining per gram of coating solids
deposited.
Ws, i = Mass fraction of coating solids for
coating, i, or average mass fraction of
coating solids for the group of coatings
including coating, i, grams coating solids
per gram coating, determined by EPA
Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part
60) or by following the 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 Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat,
EPA–453/R–08–002’’ (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17).
Wvocc, i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating,
i, or average mass fraction of VOC for the
group of coatings including coating, i,
grams VOC per grams coating,
determined by EPA Method 24
(appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the
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 LightDuty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA–
453/R–08–002 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17).
4.3 The percent of VOC for coating, i, or
composite percent of VOC for the group of
coatings including coating, i, associated with
the coating sprayed in the controlled spray
booth zone (or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones) being tested
that is captured in the controlled spray booth
zone or group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones being tested, CEzone,i (percent), is
calculated using Equation A–5.
Where:
CEzone, i = Capture efficiency for coating, i, or
for the group of coatings including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
coating, i, in the controlled spray booth
zone or group of contiguous controlled
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.020</GPH> ER09MY23.021</GPH>
Where:
Wrem, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or
from the coating representing coating, i,
in the panel test) remaining on the wet
panel when the wet panel leaves the
controlled spray booth zone or group of
ER09MY23.022</GPH>
30023
ER09MY23.019</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
spray booth zones being tested as a
percentage of the VOC in the coating, i,
or of the group of coatings including
coating, i, sprayed in the controlled
spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being
tested, percent.
4.4 Calculate the percent of VOC for
coating, i, or composite percent of VOC for
the group of coatings including coating, i,
associated with the entire volume of coating,
i, or with the total volume of all of the
coatings grouped with coating, i, sprayed in
the entire spray booth that is captured in the
controlled spray booth zone or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested, using Equation A–6. The
volume of coating, i, or of the group of
coatings including coating, i, sprayed in the
controlled spray booth zone or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested, and the volume of coating, i, or
of the group of coatings including coating, i,
sprayed in the entire spray booth may be
determined from gun on times and fluid flow
rates or from direct measurements of coating
usage.
Where:
CEi = Capture efficiency for coating, i, or for
the group of coatings including coating,
i, in the controlled spray booth zone (or
group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones) being tested as a percentage
of the VOC in the coating, i, or of the
group of coatings including coating, i,
sprayed in the entire spray booth in
which the controlled spray booth zone
(or group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones) being tested, percent.
Vzone, i = Volume of coating, i, or of the group
of coatings including coating, i, sprayed
in the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray
booth zones being tested, liters.
Vbooth, i = Volume of coating, i, or of the group
of coatings including coating, i, sprayed
in the entire spray booth containing the
controlled spray booth zone (or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones)
being tested, liters.
4.5 If you conduct multiple panel tests for
the same coating or same group of coatings
in the same spray booth (either because the
coating or group of coatings is controlled in
non-contiguous zones of the spray booth, or
because you choose to conduct separate
panel tests for contiguous controlled spray
booth zones), then you may add the result
from section 4.4 for each such panel test to
get the total capture efficiency for the coating
or group of coatings over all of the controlled
zones in the spray booth for the coating or
group of coatings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 May 08, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
[FR Doc. 2023–09587 Filed 5–8–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\09MYR2.SGM
09MYR2
ER09MY23.023</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
30024
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29978-30024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09587]
[[Page 29977]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 89
May 9, 2023
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29978]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664; FRL-8511-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV30
Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the new source performance standards for Automobile and
Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations pursuant to the review
required by the Clean Air Act. The EPA determined that revisions to the
NSPS were needed to reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the best system of emission
reduction (BSER). The EPA is therefore finalizing, as proposed, in a
new NSPS subpart MMa, revised volatile organic compound (VOC) emission
limits for prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat operations for affected
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
after May 18, 2022. In addition, in the new NSPS subpart, the EPA is
finalizing the proposed amendments: the addition of work practices to
minimize VOC emissions; revision of the plastic parts provision;
updates to the capture and control devices and the associated testing
and monitoring requirements; revision of the transfer efficiency
provisions; new test methods and alternative test methods; revision of
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including the addition of
electronic reporting; removing exemptions for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction; and other amendments to harmonize the new
NSPS subpart and Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
requirements. The EPA is also finalizing the proposed electronic
reporting requirements in the NSPS subpart MM, applicable to sources
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after
October 5, 1979, and on or before May 18, 2022.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 9, 2023. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of May 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula Deselich Hirtz, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618;
and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
ALDT Automobile and Light Duty Truck
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BACT best available control technology
BID background information document
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CEPCI Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System
EDP electrodeposition
EIA economic impact analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FID flame ionization detector
FR Federal Register
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
LAER lowest available control technology
kg/lacs kilograms per liter of applied coating solids
km kilometer
kwh kilowatt hours
mtCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant
NMOC nonmethane organic compound(s)
Non-EDP non-electrodeposition
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OMB Office of Management and Budget
lb/gal acs pounds per gallon of applied coating solids
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACT reasonably available control technology
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
scf standard cubic feet
TE transfer efficiency
THC total hydrocarbon
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
C. What is the ALDT surface coating source category regulated in
this final action?
D. What changes did we propose for the ALDT surface coating
NSPS?
III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for
such decisions?
A. Emission Limits
B. Work Practice Standards
C. Plastic Parts Provision
D. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Provisions
E. Transfer Efficiency Provisions
F. NSPS Subpart MMa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
Exemptions
G. Electronic Reporting
H. Test Methods
I. Other Final Amendments
J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the energy impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
[[Page 29979]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject of this final action is
automobile and light duty truck (ALDT) surface coating operations
regulated under CAA section 111 NSPS. The 2022 North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes for the ALDT manufacturing industry
are 336111 (automotive manufacturing), 336112 (light truck and utility
vehicle manufacturing), and 336211 (manufacturing of truck and bus
bodies and cabs and automobile bodies). The NAICS codes serve as a
guide for readers outlining the types of entities that this final
action is likely to affect. We estimate that 60 facilities engaged in
ALDT manufacturing will be affected by this final action. The NSPS
requirements finalized in this action and codified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa are directly applicable to affected facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022, which
is the date of publication of the proposed NSPS subpart MMa in the
Federal Register. The requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM are
applicable to affected facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, but that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification no later than May 18,
2022. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities will not be
affected by this final action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 60,
subparts MM and MMa, and consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state or local air
pollution control agency with delegated authority for the NSPS, or your
EPA Regional Office.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/automobile-and-light-duty-truck-surface-coating-operations-new. Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final
rule and key technical documents at this same website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by July 10, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection
within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the
time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room
3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
The EPA's authority for this final rule is CAA section 111, which
governs the establishment of standards of performance for stationary
sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator
to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's
judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA
must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or
reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source performance
standards or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the scope of the
source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards should
be developed, set the emission level of the standards, and distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes within categories in establishing the
standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' new source performance
standards. However, the Administrator need not review any such standard
if the ``Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate
in light of readily available information on the efficacy'' of the
standard. When conducting a review of an existing performance standard,
the EPA has the discretion and authority to add emission limits for
pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source
category.
In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost
of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to
determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the
regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must
then, under CAA section
[[Page 29980]]
111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new sources that
reflect that level of stringency.
CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate
``a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof'' if in his or her judgment, ``it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under which prescribing or
enforcing a standard of performance is ``not feasible,'' such as, when
the pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit
or capture the pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement
methodology for the particular class of sources. Except as authorized
under CAA section 111(h), CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the EPA from
prescribing a particular technological system that must be used to
comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any
measure or combination of measures that will achieve the standard.
Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon
promulgation.
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, CAA section 111 requires
the EPA to, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise
the standards of performance applicable to new, modified, and
reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards of performance,
they must reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through
the application of the BSER considering the cost of achieving such
reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to
review and revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the
statutory factors, which may include consideration of the following
information:
Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current
standards are achieved in practice.
Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
Any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can
achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also
considers cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means
of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a
reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of 2 or more options. In general,
cost effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by resources
spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant
reductions realized annually.
After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a
standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this
analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is
appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may
identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards
for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination
leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of
publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because
the new source performance standards reflect the best system of
emission reduction under conditions of proper operation and
maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.
C. What is the ALDT surface coating source category regulated in this
final action?
Pursuant to the CAA section 111 authority described earlier in this
preamble, the EPA listed the ALDT surface coating source category under
CAA section 111(b)(1). 44 FR 49222, 49226 (August 21, 1979). The EPA
first promulgated NSPS for ALDT surface coating operations on December
24, 1980 (45 FR 85415; December 24, 1980). The 1980 ALDT NSPS are
codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM and are applicable to sources
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after
October 5, 1979 (ALDT NSPS MM). The ALDT NSPS MM regulate VOC emissions
from surface coating operations located at automobile and light duty
truck assembly plants. Subpart MM was amended in a series of actions
and the last amendment was promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 51383; October
11, 1994).
The ALDT surface coating source category consists of each prime
coat operation, each guide coat operation, and each topcoat operation
in an automobile or light duty truck assembly plant. Subpart MM
requires a monthly compliance demonstration with the VOC emission limit
established for each surface coating operation:
[[Page 29981]]
For prime coat operations:
[cir] For electrodeposition (EDP) prime coat: 0.17 to 0.34
kilograms VOC/liter applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs) (1.42 to 2.84
lbs VOC/gallon (gal) acs) depending on the solids turnover ratio
(RT); for RT greater than 0.16, the limit is 0.17
kg VOC/l acs (1.42 lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios less than 0.04,
there is no emission limit.
[cir] For non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat: 0.17 kg VOC/l acs
(1.42 lb VOC/gal acs);
For guide coat operations: 1.40 kg VOC/l acs (11.7 lb VOC/
gal acs); and
For topcoat operations: 1.47 kg VOC/l acs (12.3 lb VOC/gal
acs).
Subpart MM provides default transfer efficiencies (TE) for various
surface coating application methods for the monthly compliance
calculation. The default TE values in subpart MM also account for the
recovery of purge solvent. The monthly compliance calculation also
includes control device VOC destruction efficiency as determined by the
initial or the most recent control device performance test. The control
devices identified in the ALDT NSPS MM include thermal and catalytic
oxidizers. In addition, subpart MM requires continuous monitoring of
thermal and catalytic oxidizer operating temperatures. Quarterly or
semiannual reporting is required to report emission limit exceedances
and negative reports are required for no exceedances. Surface coating
operations for plastic body components or all-plastic automobile or
light-duty truck bodies on separate coating lines are exempted from the
ALDT NSPS MM. However, the attachment of plastic body parts to a metal
body before the body is coated does not cause the metal body coating
operation to be exempted. Additional detail on the ALDT surface coating
source category and ALDT NSPS MM requirements are provided in the
proposal (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022).
The EPA estimates that the ALDT NSPS MM currently affects surface
coating operations at 44 ALDT assembly plants operating in the U.S.
ALDT NSPS MM sources and will be subject to the electronic reporting
amendments being finalized by this action. The EPA also expects that an
additional 16 ALDT assembly plants will commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the affected surface coating
operations over the next 8 years (after May 18, 2022). These new
sources will be subject to the new ALDT NSPS MMa being finalized in
this action.
The EPA proposed the current review of the ALDT NSPS MM on May 18,
2022 (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). We received 5 comment letters from
the affected industry, the industry association, environmental groups,
and a state environmental agency during the comment period. In
addition, we met with the affected industry and the industry
association on December 8 and 13, 2022. A summary of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and
our responses are provided in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the document titled, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule: New Source Performance
Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM) Best System of Emission
Reduction Review, Final Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664.
Additional information provided by the affected industry and the
industry association in meetings held on December 8 and 13, 2022, to
support their written comments and meeting minutes are provided in
separate memoranda available in the docket. A ``track changes'' version
of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this final
action for ALDT NSPS MM is also available in the docket. In this
action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions pursuant CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B) review for the ALDT surface coating source
category after our consideration of all the comments received.
D. What changes did we propose for the ALDT surface coating NSPS?
The EPA proposed the results of the CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review of the
ALDT NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM on May 18, 2022 (87 FR 30141; May
18, 2022). The EPA proposed to codify the revisions to the ALDT NSPS MM
in a new NSPS subpart, MMa. In the new subpart MMa, the EPA proposed
requirements that apply to sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022. The revisions
proposed to be codified in subpart MMa were: revised VOC emission
limits for the prime coat, guide coat, and topcoat operations; the
addition of work practices to minimize VOC emissions; revision of the
plastic parts provision; updates to the capture and control devices and
the associated testing and monitoring requirements; revision of the
transfer efficiency provisions; revision of the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements; the addition of electronic reporting;
clarification of the requirements for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM); new test methods and incorporation by reference
(IBR) of alternative methods; minor corrections and clarifications; and
other amendments to harmonize the new NSPS subpart requirements with
the Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII
(ALDT NESHAP) requirements.
The EPA also proposed electronic reporting requirements in subpart
MM, which applies to affected sources that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, and on or before
May 18, 2022.
III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such
decisions?
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for the ALDT surface
coating source category pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review.
The EPA is promulgating the NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart MMa. Subpart MMa is applicable to affected sources
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after May 18, 2022. This action
also finalizes revisions to ALDT NSPS subpart MM. Subpart MM is
applicable to affected sources that are constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after October 5, 1979, but on or before May 18, 2022.
The final requirements in subpart MMa include the following
revisions that the EPA proposed: VOC emission limits for the prime
coat, guide coat, and topcoat operations; work practices to minimize
VOC emissions; plastic parts provision; capture and control devices and
the associated testing and monitoring requirements; transfer efficiency
provisions; recordkeeping and reporting requirements; electronic
reporting; requirements for periods of SSM; test methods and IBR of
alternative methods; and other requirements to harmonize the new NSPS
subpart MMa requirements with the Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, 63 subpart IIII (ALDT NESHAP) requirements.
The final requirements also include the addition of electronic
reporting requirements in subpart MM, which applies to affected sources
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after
October 5, 1979, but on or before May 18, 2022.
A. Emission Limits
The EPA is finalizing VOC emission limits in new subpart MMa for
each
[[Page 29982]]
prime coat operation, each guide coat operation, and each topcoat
operation in an automobile or light duty truck assembly plant,
calculated monthly. For the prime coat operation, we are finalizing the
proposed numeric limit with the addition of a solids turnover ratio
(RT) in response to comments. For the guide coat and topcoat
operations we are finalizing the proposed numeric limits.
For prime coat operations:
[cir] Electrodeposition (EDP) prime coat, 0.027 to 0.055 kilograms
VOC/liter applied coating solids (kg VOC/l acs) (0.23 to 0.46 lbs VOC/
gal acs) depending on the solids turnover ratio (RT) when
RT is between 0.04 and 0.16; For RT greater than
0.16, the limit is 0.027 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for
turnover ratios less than 0.04, there is no emission limit.
[cir] Non-EDP (spray applied) prime coat, 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23
lb VOC/gal acs).
For guide coat operations, 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/
gal acs); and
For topcoat operations, 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal
acs).
For prime coat operations, the final VOC emission limit reflects
the EPA's determination that use of waterborne prime coat applied by
EDP with control of the curing oven emissions with thermal oxidation
that is capable of achieving 95 percent destruction or removal
efficiency (DRE) represents the updated BSER for this surface coating
operation. The final emission limit for EDP prime coat operations in
subpart MMa includes the RT, which is a factor in
determining compliance with the VOC emission limit for the prime coat
in the current subpart MM. EPA determined the final emission limit for
the prime coat operation was cost effective.
For guide coat operations, the final VOC limit reflects the EPA's
determination that use of waterborne or solvent borne guide coats
applied by spray application with control of the waterborne flash off
area or control of the solvent borne booth and oven with either a
carbon adsorber concentrator and an RTO or just an RTO, with the RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions represents the
updated BSER for this surface coating operation. The final emission
limit for guide coat operations in subpart MMa is based on facilities
that are subject to and achieve the emission limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l acs
(2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) by using either: (1) waterborne guide coat with
control of the flash off area with a carbon adsorber concentrator and
an RTO but no control of the booth; or (2) solvent borne guide coat and
control of the booth and oven with either a carbon adsorber
concentrator and an RTO or just an RTO, with the RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions. The EPA determined the final
emission limit for the guide coat operation was cost effective.
For topcoat operations, the final VOC limit reflects the EPA's
determination that the use of waterborne basecoats and solvent borne
clearcoats applied by spray application with control of the waterborne
basecoat booth and/or the flash off area and control of the solvent
borne clearcoat booth, flash off area, and topcoat oven with an RTO or
a combination of a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions represents the updated BSER for
this surface coating operation. The final emission limit for topcoat
operations in subpart MMa is based on facilities that are subject to
and achieve the emission limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal
acs) by using: (1) waterborne basecoat with control of the booth and/or
the flash off area with a combination of a concentrator and an RTO; and
(2) solvent borne clearcoat with control of the automated sections of
the clearcoat booth, the clearcoat flash off area and the topcoat oven
with an RTO or a combination of a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions. The EPA determined
the final emission limit for the topcoat operation was cost effective.
The EPA identified and considered more stringent emission limits in
its review that were not selected for the proposed and final actions.
The more stringent emission limits were not selected because the EPA
determined they were based on coating technology that was not
adequately demonstrated by the industry (i.e., powder coating for the
guide coat operation) or because the EPA determined they were not cost
effective (i.e., lower limits for the EDP prime coat and topcoat
operations).
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA conducted a BSER
review of the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM and presented
the results of this review, along with our proposed determinations, in
section IV.A of the proposed rule preamble (87 FR 30147; May 18, 2022).
A detailed discussion of our review and proposed determinations are
included in the memorandum titled, Final Rule Best System of Emission
Reduction Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck Source Category (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM),
available in the docket for this action. Based on our review, we
proposed revised VOC emission limits for each prime coat operation,
each guide coat operation, and each topcoat operation in an automobile
or light duty truck assembly plant. The final VOC emission limits are
based on the proposed VOC emission limits and the revisions made in
response to comments we received, as described here.
1. Prime Coat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
For the prime coat operation, at proposal, the EPA evaluated 2
regulatory options based on facilities using an EDP prime coat dip tank
system. Both options were more stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM limit
for prime coat operations. The options were based on 19 facilities with
28 EDP prime coat operations that are currently subject to more
stringent prime coat limits than the ALDT NSPS MM prime coat limit.
The first option was a numerical VOC emission limit of 0.028 kg
VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs) based on control of the curing oven
emissions only with thermal oxidation (e.g., an RTO) achieving 95
percent DRE of the captured emissions. This VOC emission limit is
demonstrated by 13 of the 44 existing ALDT facilities and the EPA
determined the cost effectiveness for this option to be $6,800/ton of
VOC reduced. The EPA considered this option to be cost-effective over
the baseline level of control and to be consistent with one of the
compliance options for EDP prime coat systems in the ALDT NESHAP.
The second option was a numerical VOC emission limit of 0.005 kg/l
acs (0.040 lb VOC/gal acs) based on control of both the oven and the
tank emissions with an RTO capable of achieving 95 percent DRE. Four
plants control the emissions from the EDP prime coat dip tank in
addition to the oven emissions with some form of thermal oxidation. At
proposal, the EPA determined the second option to be not cost-effective
and not reflective of BSER because the cost effectiveness of
controlling the tank emissions was estimated to be $91,100 per ton of
VOC reduced. In addition, the EPA estimated the second option would
only achieve an additional 3 tpy of VOC reductions over the first
option and would have an estimated incremental cost effectiveness of
$46,000 per ton of VOC reduced compared to the first option. Due to the
poor cost-effectiveness of this option relative to the baseline level
of control and the likewise unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness
of this option when
[[Page 29983]]
compared to the first option, we rejected the second option as the
BSER.
The EPA proposed the first option of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb
VOC/gal acs) with a cost effectiveness of $6,800/ton of VOC reduced,
which reflects the EPA's determination that control of the curing oven
emissions with thermal oxidation that is capable of achieving 95
percent DRE represents the updated BSER for the prime coat operations.
The proposed emission limit for the EDP prime coat operation did not
include the solids turnover ratio (RT), which is a factor in
determining compliance with the VOC emission limit for the prime coat
dip tank in the subpart MM. This factor was not proposed because it is
not included in the facility permits with more stringent limits than
the current prime coat operation VOC limits, which were the basis of
our revised BSER determination (87 FR 30148, May 18, 2022). We also
proposed a non-EDP limit of 0.028 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs)
for spray application of the prime coat based on industry input.
b. How the Final Revisions to Prime Coat Limits Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
As a result of comments received for the prime coat operation, in
subpart MMa the EPA is finalizing a revised prime coat operation limit
with the inclusion of the solids turnover ratio (RT). The
EPA is promulgating the following limits for the prime coat operation
in 40 CFR 60.392a depending on the solids turnover ratio
(RT); for RT greater than 0.16, the limit is
0.027 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios less than
0.04 (i.e., periods of non-production), there is no emission limit; and
when the solids turnover ratio is between 0.04 and 0.16 (inclusive),
the emission limit is determined using the following equation:
Limit = 0.027 x 350 (0.160-RT) kg of VOC per
liter of applied coating solids. The EPA is also including the
definition of solids turnover ratio in 40 CFR 60.391a.
c. Prime Coat Limits Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter stated that the subpart MMa prime coat
operation standards should reflect a modern E-coat system with VOC
controls on emissions from the curing oven. According to the commenter,
anything more would not be cost-effective and would only reduce
insignificant amounts of VOC.
Response: As a result of the BSER determination for the prime coat
operation, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, standards that reflect a
modern EDP prime coat (E-coat) system with control of VOC emissions
from the curing oven. The final prime coat operation standard reflects
a numeric limit of 0.23 lb VOC/gal acs with a cost effectiveness of
$6,800/ton VOC reduced, as proposed. The EPA estimates the VOC emission
reduction associated this final limit to be 40 tpy compared to the 1980
NSPS baseline level of control.
Comment: Two commenters asserted that the EPA must include the
solids turnover ratio factor in the emission limit for prime coat
operation. Regarding the decision to exclude the option of utilizing
the solids turnover for prime coat compliance demonstrations, one
commenter stated that the EPA needs to review the extensive data and
supporting comments that served as the basis for the 1994 final rule
that established the prime coat limits as a function of the solids
turnover ratio. The commenter stated that the rationale was compelling
then, and it is equally compelling now, and that the EPA has not
adequately explained how prime coat downtime or reduced throughput
would be accommodated under the newly proposed standard and why a
change is needed. The commenter stated that eliminating consideration
of the solids turnover ratio would be arbitrary and capricious. With
the solids turnover ratio, the commenter stated, the prime coat limit
of 0.23 lbs VOC/gal acs can be achieved when the solids turnover ratio
is greater than or equal to 0.16. One commenter asserted that without
the adjusted emission limit for low solid turnover ratios, the
commenter could not achieve the existing NSPS limit.
Response: In the proposal the EPA noted that ALDT prime coat
operation permit limits did not include a factor to account for the
solids turnover ratio, and the EPA understood that to mean that
facilities currently using the EDP prime coat process are now able to
consistently maintain the solids turnover ratio (RT) at a
value equal to or greater than 0.16 (87 FR 30148, May 18, 2022).
Therefore, we proposed a prime coat limit of 0.23 lbs VOC/gal acs based
on sources' control of the curing oven emissions with thermal oxidation
(e.g., an RTO) achieving 95 percent DRE without the RT
factor. After consideration of the 1994 final rule (59 FR 51383,
October 11, 1994) and in response to the commenters' argument, we are
retaining the RT factor to account for periods of non-
production and reduced throughput. Thus, the EPA is promulgating the
following limits in 40 CFR 60.392a depending on the solids turnover
ratio (RT); for RT greater than 0.16, the limit
is 0.027 kg VOC/l acs (0.23 lb VOC/gal acs); for turnover ratios less
than 0.04 (periods of non-production), there is no emission limit; and
when the solids turnover ratio is between 0.04 and 0.16 (inclusive),
the emission limit is determined using the following equation:
Limit = 0.027 x 350 (0.160-RT) kg of VOC per
liter of applied coating solids
2. Guide Coat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
For the guide coat operation, at proposal the EPA evaluated four
regulatory options. These regulatory options were more stringent than
the ALDT NSPS MM limit of 1.40 kg VOC/l acs (11.7 lb VOC/gal acs).
These options were based on 14 facilities with 31 guide coat operations
subject to more stringent guide coat limits than the current ALDT NSPS
MM guide coat limit (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). The guide coat
emission limits found in permits for facilities using liquid coatings
that were more stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM limit ranged from 0.060
to 1.21 kg VOC/l acs (0.050 to 10.11 lb VOC/gal acs) and 27 of the 31
guide coat operations were subject to limits less than or equal to 0.69
kg VOC/l acs (5.5 lb VOC/gal acs). Three of the 31 guide coat
operations with limits more stringent than the ALDT NSPS MM are meeting
a lower emission limit (less than 0.060 kg VOC/l acs (0.050 lb VOC/gal
acs)) or have no emission limit based on the use of powder guide coat
and no controls.
The first option evaluated at proposal for the guide coat operation
was a numerical VOC emission limit of 0.57 kg VOC/l acs (4.8 lb VOC/gal
acs) to reflect control of the guide coat oven with an RTO achieving 95
percent DRE and use of solvent borne or waterborne coating and no
control of the guide coat spray booth or heated flash off area
exhausts. The facilities using this system of emission reduction had
limits in the range of 0.41 to 0.66 kg VOC/l acs (3.46 to 5.5 lb VOC/
gal acs). This limit option was selected because it is the most common
numerical limit for these facilities and matches the operating permit
limit for 9 facilities with this control scenario. The EPA estimated
that this option would reduce emissions from a typical guide coat
operation by about 40 tpy of VOC at a cost of $4,400 per ton of VOC
reduced.
The second option evaluated was a VOC emission limit of 0.35 kg
VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect control of the guide coat
spray booth and oven with either a carbon adsorber and an
[[Page 29984]]
RTO or a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE
of the captured emissions and the use of solvent borne guide coat. This
VOC emission limit matches the 2020 presumptive best available control
technology (BACT) emission limit for the guide coat operation
identified by EPA Region 5, and 2 facilities are currently subject to
this limit. The EPA estimated that this option would reduce emissions
from a typical guide coat operation by about 50 tpy of VOC at a cost of
$4,900 per ton of VOC reduced.
The third option was a VOC emission limit of 0.036 kg VOC/l acs
(0.30 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect the use of a waterborne guide coat
demonstrated by 1 facility employing the use of a 3-wet coating
process. As described in the proposal, in a 3-wet process the guide
coat and topcoat operations are combined, and the guide coat oven is
replaced by a heated flash off area, resulting in lower emissions from
the guide coat operation and a more efficient process in terms of time
and energy savings for the facility. The process consists of a series
of 2 separate booths with heated flash off areas for partial cure (one
for the guide coat and one for the basecoat), followed by a clearcoat
booth, a flash off area, and a topcoat oven (where the guide coat, the
basecoat, and the topcoat are fully cured). Only one facility with 2
guide coat operations is subject to this VOC emission limit (0.036 kg
VOC/l acs (0.30 lb VOC/gal acs)) and uses the 3-wet process for the
guide coat operation. The costs associated with this option are for
controlling the guide coat heated flash off area emissions with an RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions. The EPA estimated
that this option would reduce emissions (from a typical guide coat
operation) by about 73 tpy of VOC at a cost of $3,250 per ton of VOC
reduced. As discussed in the proposal, although this option is cost-
effective when considering the cost of controls, the emission limit
would be achievable only for guide coat operations as part of a 3-wet
combined guide coat and topcoat operation. Further, it would be not
cost-effective for the purposes of this BSER analysis due to the major
capital investment associated with reconfiguring the guide coat
operation so that it could become part of a 3-wet combined guide coat
and topcoat operation.
The fourth option we considered was a numerical VOC limit of 0.016
kg VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) to reflect the use of a powder guide
coat, instead of a liquid coating. One facility is subject to an
emission limit of 0.016 kg VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs), and 3
facilities either are subject to a lower emission limit than 0.016 kg
VOC/l acs (0.13 lb VOC/gal acs) or have no emission limit based on the
use of powder guide coat and no controls. As discussed in the proposal,
operations using powder coatings are essentially non-emitting
operations because the dry powder coating has no solvent. Therefore,
guide coat operations using powder coatings emit virtually no VOCs from
the booth, flash off area(s), or curing oven. The use of powder for the
guide coat operation could eliminate all VOC emissions from a typical
guide coat operation with no additional control costs and could be the
best environmental outcome. However, the industry has experienced
difficulties (including appearance and finish quality) with the
application of powder coatings to ALDT vehicle bodies, so we considered
this option to be not adequately demonstrated. Further, it would not be
cost-effective for the purposes of this BSER analysis for a
reconstructed or modified operation due to the major capital investment
associated with switching the guide coat operation from a liquid
coating application to a powder coating application.
After consideration of all guide coat options, the EPA proposed a
revised VOC limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l acs (2.92 lb VOC/gal acs) for the
guide coat operation based on Option 2, being the use of solvent borne
guide coat and 95 percent control of the spray booth and oven with
either a carbon adsorber and an RTO or a concentrator and an RTO, with
the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions, as the
updated BSER for guide coat operation. This option also represents the
lower range of emission limits for facilities using solvent borne guide
coats and is demonstrated by 3 of 44 existing ALDT plants.
b. How the Final Revisions to Guide Coat Limits Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed revisions to the
guide coat emission limit, the EPA is finalizing the guide coat
operation VOC emission limit as proposed.
c. Guide Coat Comments and Responses
The EPA received comments on the guide coat operation that caused
us to further evaluate the use of waterborne and solvent borne coatings
and to investigate the controls used for each, as described in the EPA
response in this section.
Comment: One commenter asserted that reliance on New Source Review
(NSR) BACT and LAER determinations in setting subpart MMa emissions
standards would result in unreasonably constrained national standards.
For example, according to the commenter, the proposed guide coat
standard based on a BACT determination for solvent-based systems using
add-on booth controls does not reasonably or adequately accommodate
waterborne guide coat systems.
The commenter also provided determinations for 2 case studies for
guide coat operations with BACT limits in ALDT plants located in the
state of Indiana to support their claim that the proposed subpart MMa
emissions standards for the guide coat operations are not cost-
effective for sources using waterborne coatings. The commenter stated
the standards must be adjusted to avoid the need to install cost-
ineffective spray booth controls on waterborne guide coat lines.
Response: The EPA considered the VOC emission limits in ALDT plant
title V permits in its BSER analysis, including those that were derived
from BACT determinations. The EPA did not consider the limits that were
derived from LAER determinations in its BSER analysis, except for
limits that were determined to be both BACT and LAER. The EPA
considered these VOC emission limits in its BSER review because they
represented the best available control technology at the time, were
developed by the individual ALDT plants, are inherently cost-effective,
and were approved by state and local permitting authorities. However,
as required by CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA conducted its own
cost-effectiveness and other analyses to determine BSER, as described
in the proposal (87 FR 30141, May 18, 2022).
The EPA disagrees that the proposed guide coat standard is based on
a BACT determination for solvent-based systems using add-on booth
controls that does not reasonably or adequately accommodate waterborne
guide coat systems. In our review of guide coat operations, we
generally found that most operations use solvent borne coatings.
However, for guide coat operations with VOC emission limits lower than
the 1980 ALDT NSPS limit, we found 8 operations using a waterborne
coating (the rest use a solvent borne coating). For guide coat
operations, we are clarifying the description included in the proposal
for the 2 cost-effective options (Option 1 and Option 2) to distinguish
between the use of waterborne basecoat and solvent borne coatings, as
described here.
[[Page 29985]]
The first option for guide coat operations was represented by
plants using either waterborne or solvent borne coatings achieving a
numerical VOC emission limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs (0.57 kg VOC/l acs).
We found that plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs limit using
waterborne guide coat had no control of the booth or flash off area
(for 3-wet operations) or controlled the guide coat oven with an RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions (if not a 3-wet
operation). Plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs limit using solvent
borne guide coat generally control one of the following: the guide coat
spray booth, the guide coat flash off area, or the guide coat oven (if
not a 3-wet operation).
The second proposed option for guide coat operations was
represented by plants using either waterborne or solvent borne coatings
achieving a numerical VOC emission limit of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs (0.35
kg VOC/l acs). We found that plants subject to and achieving the 2.92
lb VOC/gal acs limit used either: (1) waterborne guide coat and control
of the flash off area with no control of the booth; or (2) solvent
borne guide coat and control of the booth and oven with either a carbon
adsorber and an RTO or a concentrator and an RTO, with the RTO
achieving 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions.
During our review since proposal, we updated the cost effectiveness
calculations for the guide coat operation by increasing the interest
rate to 7 percent and the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI)
to the 2021 index, to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness
between two guide coat options and found it to be reasonable at $6,670/
ton VOC reduced. We determined this incremental cost effectiveness has
a lower cost per ton of VOC reduced than the cost effectiveness for the
prime coat operation ($6,800/ton VOC reduced) and results in greater
VOC emission reductions (147 tpy compared to 40 tpy for prime coat)
when compared to the 1980 NSPS baseline level of control.
The EPA also collected compliance data from one ALDT plant cited by
the commenter, Subaru of Indiana, covering the period from 2019 to 2021
and these data show that the waterborne guide coat operations are
consistently achieving a daily emission rate of 2.1 to 2.2 lb VOC/gal
acs. These achieved emission rates are about 75 percent of the proposed
monthly emission rate of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs. The waterborne guide coat
operations at Subaru Indiana Automotive are subject to a BACT emission
limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs, and do not apply emission reductions from
any add-on controls to achieve compliance. These data support the EPA's
proposed emission limit of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs and the determination
that this emission limit is achievable in a cost-effective manner for
both waterborne and solvent borne guide coat systems.
Therefore, the EPA disagrees that the proposed standard does not
reasonably or adequately accommodate waterborne guide coat systems and
is finalizing the guide coat emission limit, as proposed. Additional
detail is provided in the memorandum titled, Final Cost and
Environmental Impacts Memo for Surface Coating Operations in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for this action.
Comment: One commenter recommended a guide coat standard of 4.8 lb
VOC/gal acs for new and reconstructed facilities. This standard has
been achieved in the ALDT sector in cases where a waterborne guide coat
is used with VOC controls on the oven, but no additional VOC controls
on the booth. For modifications, the commenter recommended the EPA
maintain in subpart MMa the subpart MM VOC emission limit for guide
coat operations. The commenter stated that the EPA has not considered
the cost-effectiveness to implement a lower standard in the event of a
modification of a guide coat affected facility.
Response: As a result of the BSER review, the EPA has determined
that a guide coat standard of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs reflects BSER for
new, reconstructed, and modified sources. We found this option to be
achievable for both waterborne and solvent borne coating applications
and the emission limit is consistent with the 2020 presumptive BACT
emission limit identified by U.S. EPA Region 5. Contrary to the
commenter's statement, we found that plants achieving the 4.8 lb VOC/
gal acs limit used waterborne guide coat and no control of the booth or
flash off area. This numeric limit would represent no change from the
1980 NSPS MM level of no control for waterborne guide coat operations
(i.e., the 1980 limit and the limit of 4.8 lb VOC/gal acs could both be
achieved by plants with no add-control of the waterborne guide coat
operations). Our analysis indicates that waterborne guide coat
operations can achieve a limit of 2.92 lb VOC/gal acs by controlling
the emissions from the waterborne guide coat flash off area. The EPA
identified this as the difference between the 2 guide coat options with
an incremental cost effectiveness of $6,670 per ton of VOC reduced.
During our review we identified no modifications (consistent with
part 60 definitions and proposed subpart MMa exceptions) for guide coat
operations. Instead, we found that guide coat systems are newly
constructed or reconstructed (and not modified) at existing ALDT
plants. Subpart MMa would not be triggered if the changes to an
existing system do not meet either the part 60 definition of
modification or the subpart MMa exceptions for modifications. For these
reasons subpart MM did not include separate emission limits for guide
coat modifications, and separate emission limits were not proposed for
the new subpart MMa. The commenter also provided no data or information
to support a separate emission limit for modifications. Therefore, we
are finalizing the proposed standard for the guide coat operation,
including for modifications.
Additional detailed on modifications for ALDT affected facilities
is provided in the document titled, Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rule: New Source Performance Standards for
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part
60, subpart MM) Best System of Emission Reduction Review, Final
Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664.
3. Topcoat Operation
a. Proposed Emission Limit
The ALDT NSPS subpart MM topcoat limit is based on the application
of topcoat in one booth. It is also based on no control of waterborne
topcoats (e.g., waterborne base coat and clearcoat) if used, or based
on 95-percent control of the topcoat booth and oven VOC emissions if
solvent borne topcoats (solvent borne base coat and clearcoat) are used
with a thermal or catalytic oxidizer.
For the topcoat operation, at proposal, the EPA evaluated 2
regulatory options. These regulatory options were more stringent than
the ALDT NSPS MM limit of 1.47 kg VOC/l acs (12.3 lb VOC/gal acs).
These options were based on 20 facilities operating approximately 25
topcoat lines that are subject to more stringent topcoat limits than
the topcoat VOC limit in the ALDT NSPS MM (87 FR 30150; May 18, 2022).
The topcoat VOC emission limits more stringent than the current ALDT
NSPS MM range from 0.28 to 1.44 kg VOC/l acs (2.32 to 12.0 lb VOC/gal
acs). The regulatory options include the use of add-on controls for
both waterborne and solvent borne basecoats and the use of add-on
[[Page 29986]]
controls for solvent borne clearcoats (the EPA is not aware of any
facilities in the U.S. using waterborne clearcoats).
The first option evaluated in the ALDT NSPS review for the topcoat
operation is a numerical topcoat limit of 0.62 kg VOC/l acs (5.20 lb
VOC/gal acs) demonstrated by 6 facilities with 11 topcoat operations
with control of the clearcoat spray booth and the topcoat oven with a
concentrator, such as a carbon adsorber or rotary carbon adsorber,
followed by a thermal oxidizer, usually an RTO achieving 95 percent DRE
of the captured emissions. The EPA estimated this option would reduce
VOC emissions from a typical topcoat operation by 110 tpy of VOC at a
cost of $5,200 per ton of VOC reduced.
The second option considered by the EPA for the topcoat operation
is a numerical topcoat limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs)
demonstrated by 2 facilities operating 3 coating lines (corrected in
this final action to reflect 3 facilities operating 4 coating lines)
with control of the basecoat spray booth and/or the basecoat flash off
area, as well as the clearcoat spray booth and topcoat oven. The add-on
controls used by facilities include a thermal oxidizer, usually an RTO
achieving 95 percent control of the captured emissions and a
concentrator, such as a carbon adsorber or rotary carbon adsorber
before the RTO (same as the first option). For this option, the
emissions from the basecoat spray booth and/or the basecoat flash off
area would also be routed to the concentrator before going to the RTO.
This option also represents the lower range of emission limits for
topcoat operations using solvent borne basecoat and clearcoats and it
matches the 2020 presumptive BACT emission limit identified by EPA
Region 5. The EPA estimated that this option would reduce emissions
from a typical topcoat operation by 160 tpy of VOC at a cost of $7,900
per ton of VOC reduced (corrected in this final action). The EPA
proposed a revised VOC limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal acs)
for the topcoat operation based on Option 2.
After consideration of the 2 topcoat options, the EPA proposed
option 2, a revised VOC limit of 0.42 kg VOC/l acs (3.53 lb VOC/gal
acs) for the topcoat operation based on control of the basecoat spray
booth and/or the basecoat heated flash off area, as well as the
clearcoat booth and the topcoat oven with an RTO or a combination of a
concentrator and RTO, with the RTO achieving 95 percent DRE of the
captured emissions.
b. How the Final Revisions to Topcoat Limits Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed revisions to the
topcoat emission limit, the EPA is finalizing the topcoat operation VOC
emission limit, as proposed.
c. Topcoat Comments and Responses
Similar to the guide coat operation, the EPA received comments on
the topcoat operation that caused us to further evaluate the use of
waterborne and solvent borne coatings and to further investigate the
controls used for each. This evaluation resulted in the finding that
topcoat operations using a waterborne basecoat and achieving the 3.53
lb VOC/gal acs limit are doing so by controlling the waterborne
basecoat booth and/or flash off area, as stated in the EPA response in
this section. During this evaluation we also updated the cost
effectiveness calculations for the topcoat operation by increasing the
interest rate to 7 percent and the CEPCI to the 2021 index, we made a
correction to the proposed topcoat cost effectiveness calculations, and
we estimated the incremental cost effectiveness between the two topcoat
options.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA cannot use Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits by themselves as a basis for
setting national emissions standards, but that PSD permits do provide
useful information as to what emissions control alternatives should be
rejected, since state permitting agencies routinely use incremental
cost-effectiveness analysis in assessing emissions control alternatives
in PSD permitting. The commenter provided determinations for 2 case
studies for topcoat operations with BACT limits in the state of Indiana
to support their claim that the proposed subpart MMa emissions
standards for the topcoat operations are not cost-effective for sources
using waterborne coatings. The commenter stated the standards must be
adjusted to avoid the need to install cost-ineffective spray booth
controls on waterborne topcoat lines.
Response: CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to conduct its
own cost effectiveness determination as part of the BSER analysis. As
part of that analysis, the EPA also considered these same topcoat
operations identified by the commenter in the 2 case studies cited by
the commenter in its BSER review. The BACT limits referred to by the
commenter, reflected in the ALDT plants' title V operating permits, are
lower than the 1980 subpart MM emissions limits for topcoat operations.
Thus, even the examples provided by the commenters indicate that ALDT
plants can achieve a greater level of emission reductions in topcoat
operations than the current standards. In addition, the EPA identified
topcoat operations achieving lower VOC emission limits than those
reflected in the 2 case studies and determined the proposed limit for
the topcoat operation is achievable and cost-effective.
In our review of topcoat operations, we found that more plants use
waterborne than solvent borne coatings for the basecoat and that all
plants use solvent borne clearcoats. For topcoat operations, we are
clarifying the description of the 2 cost-effective options included in
the proposal to better distinguish between the use of waterborne and
solvent borne coatings, as described here.
For topcoat operations, the first option was represented by plants
achieving a BACT limit of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs by controlling the solvent
borne clearcoat process only and no control of the waterborne basecoat
part of the topcoat operation. We found that plants achieving a limit
of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs used: (1) waterborne basecoat and no control of
the basecoat booth and no control of the heated flash off area; and (2)
solvent borne clearcoat with control of the automated sections of the
clearcoat booth and the clearcoat flash off area and the topcoat
(combined basecoat and clearcoat) oven. The automated sections of the
solvent borne clearcoat booth are controlled by either an RTO or a
combination of a concentrator and an RTO. The concentrators include a
carbon or zeolite adsorber (either a dual bed system or rotary wheel
system) before the RTO, and most RTOs achieve greater than 95 percent
DRE of the captured emissions. The topcoat oven is controlled with an
RTO that achieves 95 percent DRE of the captured emissions. For topcoat
operations using a waterborne basecoat, this numeric limit would
represent no change from the 1980 NSPS level of no add-on control of
the waterborne basecoat. For topcoat operations using a solvent borne
clearcoat, this numeric limit would represent an increase from the 1980
NSPS level of add-on control (control of the automated sections of the
clearcoat booth and flash off area). Therefore, the cost effectiveness
for this option reflects the emission reductions and costs associated
with controlling the solvent borne clearcoat process.
For topcoat operations, the proposed second option was represented
by plants achieving a BACT limit of 3.53 lb
[[Page 29987]]
VOC/gal acs by controlling both the waterborne basecoat and solvent
borne clearcoat parts of the topcoat operation. We found that plants
achieving a limit of 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs limit used: (1) waterborne
basecoat with control of the booth and/or the flash off area with an
RTO; and (2) solvent borne clearcoat with control of the automated
sections of the clearcoat booth, the clearcoat flash off area and the
topcoat (combined basecoat and clearcoat) oven, as described in the
first topcoat option. For waterborne basecoat operations, this numeric
limit represents an increase in the level of control (control of the
waterborne basecoat booth and/or flash off area) compared to the 1980
NSPS (no control). For solvent borne clearcoat operations, this numeric
limit represents the same increase in the level of control (compared to
the 1980 NSPS) as the first topcoat option (by adding control of the
automated sections of the clearcoat booth and flash off area), and no
change when compared to the first topcoat option. Therefore, the cost
effectiveness for the second topcoat option reflects the emission
reductions and costs associated with controlling the water borne
basecoat process.
As a result of the BSER analysis for the topcoat operation, the EPA
is clarifying that the difference between the 2 options is due to
control of VOC emissions from the waterborne base coat booth and/or
flash off area with an incremental cost effectiveness of $6,500 per ton
of VOC reduced. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the proposed
standard is achievable using either solvent borne or waterborne topcoat
systems and is finalizing the proposed limits for the topcoat operation
in subpart MMa. Additional detail is provided in the memorandum titled,
Final Cost and Environmental Impacts Memo for Surface Coating
Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category (40
CFR part 60, subpart MMa), located in the docket for this action.
Comment: One commenter claimed the proposed analysis is flawed
because it is not based on an incremental evaluation of regulatory
alternatives. The commenter stated that the subpart MMa proposal
contains analysis of 2 control options for topcoat lines and it does
not evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of option 2 as compared
to option 1. The commenter stated that option 1 was based on control of
the clearcoat spray booth and the topcoat oven and option 2 was based
on control of the basecoat spray booth/flash off area as well as
clearcoat booth and oven. According to the commenter, option 2 further
reduces VOC by 50 tons with an incremental cost-effectiveness of
$13,840/ton of VOC reduced, a value that is facially not cost-effective
using the EPA's usual cost effectiveness thresholds for VOCs. Moreover,
the commenter stated that this value exceeds levels that the EPA has
rejected in other rules as not being incrementally cost-effective.
According to the commenter, in a recently proposed NSPS for Bulk
Gasoline Terminals, the EPA determined that in setting emission limits
for loading operations the incremental cost effectiveness of $8,300/ton
of VOC reduced was not cost-effective.
Response: The EPA is clarifying the description of the options in
the proposal to distinguish between the use of waterborne and solvent
borne coatings for the topcoat operation and has estimated the
incremental cost-effectiveness of those options.
The 1980 subpart MM baseline level of control for topcoat
operations (including basecoats) was a limit of 12.3 lb VOC/gal acs and
required no control on waterborne coating operations. Our analysis
indicates topcoat operations using waterborne basecoats are now
achieving a limit of 5.2 lb VOC/gal acs using no control and that a
lower limit of 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs is achieved by ALDT plants by
controlling the emissions from the waterborne basecoat booth and/or
flash off area. The cost effectiveness to control the waterborne
basecoat booth or flash off area is $6,010 per ton of VOC reduced,
which is the incremental cost effectiveness between the 2 topcoat
options.
In this final action, the EPA is correcting an error in the
proposal found while estimating the incremental cost effectiveness
between the topcoat options. In its proposal for the second topcoat
option, the EPA estimated an emission reduction of 160 tpy and a cost
effectiveness of $7,900/ton VOC reduced to achieve the lower FCA
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant limit of 2.32 lb VOC/gal acs (instead
of the proposed 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs). The final estimated emission
reduction and cost per ton for option 1 (5.2 lb VOC/gal acs) is 137
tons VOC reduced per year and $3,980/ton reduced. The revised emission
reduction and cost effectiveness for the second topcoat option of 3.53
lb VOC/gal acs is 169 tpy and $4,370 per ton of VOC reduced compared to
the 1980 baseline level of control, which the EPA determined to be
reasonable. As a result, the EPA estimated the incremental emission
reduction to be 32 tpy and estimated an incremental cost effectiveness
between the 2 topcoat options to be $6,010 per ton of VOC reduced when
compared to the cost and emission reduction estimated for option 1 at
5.2 lb VOC/gal asc.
The EPA determined the topcoat incremental cost effectiveness of
$6,010 per ton of VOC reduced to be reasonable as an incremental cost.
The topcoat incremental cost effectiveness of $6,010 per ton of VOC
reduced is lower than the cost per ton of VOC reduced for the prime
coat operation ($6,800/ton VOC reduced) and results in greater VOC
emission reductions (169 tpy compared to 40 tpy for prime coat) when
compared to the 1980 NSPS baseline level of control. This incremental
cost effectiveness ($6,010 per ton of VOC reduced) is also lower than
the incremental cost effectiveness value of $8,300/ton for modified and
reconstructed loading operations that was rejected in the Bulk Gasoline
Terminals NSPS cited by the commenter. The EPA also notes that, in any
event, the Bulk Gasoline Terminals source category is a very different
industry and emission source type and cannot be used to establish an
incremental cost effectiveness boundary or threshold for ALDT surface
coating operations. Revision of the standards of performance for each
source category must reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the BSER considering the cost of
achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements (CAA section 111(a)(1)).
Therefore, we are finalizing the 3.53 lb VOC/gal acs emission limit for
the topcoat operation, as proposed. Additional detail on the topcoat
cost effectiveness analysis is provided in the memorandum titled, Final
Cost and Environmental Impacts Memo for Surface Coating Operations in
the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa), located in the docket for this action.
B. Work Practice Standards
1. Proposed Work Practice Standards
The EPA proposed work practice standards in the new subpart MMa to
minimize fugitive VOC emissions from: (1) the storage, mixing, and
conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and
waste materials generated by, the prime coat, guide coat and topcoat
operations; and (2) the cleaning and purging of equipment associated
with the prime coat, guide coat and topcoat operations. Subpart MMa
affected sources are also required to develop and implement work
practice plans consistent with the ALDT
[[Page 29988]]
NESHAP provisions, which we have determined to be BSER. The work
practices include: the use of low-VOC and no-VOC alternatives;
controlled access to VOC-containing cleaning materials; capture and
recovery of VOC-containing materials; use of high-pressure water
systems to clean equipment in the place of VOC-containing materials;
masking of spray booth interior walls, floors, and spray equipment to
protect from over spray; and use of tack wipes or solvent moistened
wipes.
For fugitive emissions of VOC, the EPA evaluated work practices
demonstrated by 43 of 44 existing ALDT plants currently subject to ALDT
NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.3094 as discussed in the proposal (87 FR 30151; May
18, 2022). The EPA proposed these work practices and the development
and implementation of work practice plans for the ALDT NSPS MMa to
minimize fugitive VOC emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying
of VOC-containing materials that include the coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the prime
coat, guide coat and topcoat operations. The EPA also proposed work
practices and the development and implementation of work practice plans
for the ALDT NSPS MMa to minimize fugitive VOC emissions from the
cleaning and purging of equipment. The EPA proposed VOC minimizing
practices including: the use of low-VOC and no-VOC alternatives;
controlled access to VOC-containing cleaning materials; capture and
recovery of VOC-containing materials; use of high-pressure water
systems to clean equipment in the place of VOC-containing materials;
masking of spray booth interior walls, floors, and spray equipment to
protect from over spray; and use of tack wipes or solvent moistened
wipes. The EPA considers these work practices to reflect BSER for
controlling fugitive emissions of VOC.
As discussed in the proposal, CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate ``a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination thereof'' if in his or her
judgment, ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of
performance.'' CAA section 111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under
which prescribing or enforcing a standard of performance is ``not
feasible,'' such as when the pollutant cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant, or when there is
no practicable measurement methodology for the particular class of
sources.
The results of our BSER review did not identify any ALDT facilities
demonstrating add-on controls for these fugitive VOC emissions, and
because these emissions are from various sources and activities located
throughout the ALDT facility and are generally released into the
ambient air from various locations throughout the facility, the EPA
determined that it would not be feasible to route these fugitive VOC
emissions to capture and control systems. The sources of fugitive VOC
emissions include: containers for VOC-containing materials used for
wipe-down operations and cleaning; spills of VOC-containing materials;
the cleaning of spray booth interior walls, floors, grates and spray
equipment; the cleaning of spray booth exterior surfaces; and the
cleaning of equipment used to convey the vehicle body through the
surface coating operations.
2. How the Final Revisions to Work Practice Standards Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed work practice
standards, the EPA is finalizing the work practice standards, as
proposed.
3. Work Practice Standards Comments and Responses
Comment: Three commenters requested that the EPA provide a
compliance alternative such that compliance with the elements of the
ALDT NESHAP work practice plan that incorporate subpart MMa
requirements for VOC represent compliance with subpart MMa. The
commenter refers to the subpart MMa proposal where the EPA stated that
``[f]acilities demonstrating compliance with the ALDT NESHAP Subpart
IIII work practice provisions will be in compliance with these same
requirements in the revised ALDT NSPS Subpart MMa'' and requests that
this condition be added to the subpart MMa rule text to streamline the
permitting process and to avoid the use of repetitive permit terms in
site compliance systems. The commenters provided suggestions for
subpart MMa regulatory text in their comments.
Response: In subpart MMa, 40 CFR 60.392a provides the work
practices to minimize fugitive emissions of VOC from materials and
equipment associated with coating operations for which emission limits
are established under 40 CFR 60.392a(a). These coating operations are
the prime coat, guide coat and topcoat operations that are subject to
MMa due to construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18,
2022. Subpart MMa, 40 CFR 60.392a(b) provides the work practices for
storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials generated by, all coating
operations for which emission limits are established under 40 CFR
60.392a(a). In subpart MMa, 40 CFR 60.392a(c) provides the work
practices for cleaning and purging of equipment associated with all
coating operations for which emission limits are established under 40
CFR 60.392a(a).
These same work practices are required by the ALDT NESHAP to
minimize fugitive emissions of organic HAP. However, the ALDT NESHAP
applies to the subpart MMa sources as well as additional ALDT surface
coating operations including operations for paint repair, underbody
coating, sealers, etc. (i.e., the NESHAP has broader applicability than
subpart MMa). In addition, low-HAP-containing materials are not
necessarily low-VOC-containing materials. For example, methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK) was delisted as a HAP but is still considered to be a VOC.
In addition, due to the potential for changes to the work practice
standards in future ALDT NSPS and ALDT NESHAP rulemakings, the EPA is
not providing a compliance alternative in subpart MMa to say that
compliance with elements of the ALDT NESHAP work practice plans
represents compliance with subpart MMa. After considering the comments
on the proposed work practice standards, the EPA is finalizing the work
practice standards, as proposed.
C. Plastic Parts Provision
1. Proposed Plastic Parts Provision
The EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, revision of the plastic
parts provision so that subpart MMa applies to the surface coating of
all vehicle bodies, including all-plastic vehicle bodies, to reflect
changes in coating technology since the original ALDT NSPS MM and to
make the requirements consistent for all ALDT surface coating
facilities subject to subpart MMa (87 FR 30151-30152, May 18, 2022).
Based on the BSER review required by CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the
EPA proposed to remove the all-plastic vehicle body exemption from
subpart MM in subpart MMa. One affected ALDT plant that uses waterborne
(and solvent borne) coatings on all-plastic bodies is not subject to
the ALDT NSPS subpart MM due to this exemption. The exemption was based
on an industry comment the EPA received during development of the 1980
ALDT NSPS stating that compliance with subpart
[[Page 29989]]
MM was not possible due to the significant problems associated with the
use of waterborne topcoats on plastic substrates due to the high
temperature required to cure the waterborne coatings \1\ (87 FR 30152;
May 18, 2022). The EPA is finalizing that subpart MMa applies to the
surface coating of all vehicle bodies, including all-plastic vehicle
bodies. This requirement that includes all-plastic vehicle bodies in
subpart MMa reflects BSER because the coating of the vehicle bodies
using waterborne coatings has been demonstrated and it is expected that
new all-plastic vehicle body surface coating operations can use the
same technology as other facilities to meet the emission limits that
reflect the application of BSER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations,
Background Information for Promulgated Standards, EPA-450/3-79-030b,
September 1980, Comment 2.1.9, page 2-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How the Final Revisions to the Plastic Parts Provision Differ From
the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comment on the proposed plastic parts
provisions, the EPA is finalizing the plastic parts provisions in
subpart MMa, as proposed.
3. Plastic Parts Provision Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's decision to exclude the
coating of plastic parts from regulation under the proposed 40 CFR part
60, subpart MMa.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters support of the
proposed amendment to the rule.
D. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Provisions
1. Proposed Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Provisions
The NSPS developed under CAA section 111 are required to reflect
the best system of emission reduction under conditions of proper
operation and maintenance. For the NSPS review, the EPA also evaluates
and determines the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance with the performance
standards.
As a result of our review, we evaluated the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for 43 of 44 ALDT plants
currently subject to the ALDT NESHAP as discussed in the proposal (87
FR 30152; May 18, 2022) and proposed revisions to the ALDT NSPS MMa
requirements. The EPA considers these to be appropriate means of
ensuring compliance with the standards that reflect BSER. These
requirements will provide for more robust testing, monitoring, and
reporting than is required by the current ALDT NSPS MM and will align
the new ALDT NSPS MMa and the ALDT NESHAP requirements. Facilities
demonstrating compliance with the ALDT NESHAP requirements will have no
additional burden complying with these same requirements in the new
NSPS subpart MMa.
a. Capture and Control Devices
In addition to the thermal and catalytic incineration in the
current ALDT NSPS MM, we proposed to add the control devices listed in
Table 1 to subpart IIII of part 63--Operating Limits for Capture
Systems and Add-On Control Devices (ALDT NESHAP Table 1) to the new
ALDT NSPS subpart MMa. The additional control devices include
regenerative carbon adsorbers, condensers, and concentrators (including
zeolite wheels and rotary carbon adsorbers). We also proposed
requirements for capture systems that are permanent total enclosures
and capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures for the new
NSPS subpart MMa to match the ALDT NESHAP requirements.
b. Operating Limits and Monitoring Provisions for Capture and Control
Devices
In addition to updating the capture and control devices in the new
ALDT NSPS subpart MMa, the EPA proposed operating limits and monitoring
provisions for the capture and control devices to match the ALDT NESHAP
requirements. These requirements include matching: (a) 40 CFR 63.3093
and the ALDT NESHAP Table 1; (b) the provisions for establishing
control device operating limits in 40 CFR 63.3167; and (c) the
provisions for the continuous monitoring system installation,
operation, and maintenance of control devices in 40 CFR 63.3168.
c. Performance Testing of Capture and Control Devices
In addition to updating the capture and control devices in the new
ALDT NSPS MMa, the EPA proposed initial capture performance testing and
initial and periodic control device performance testing requirements in
NSPS subpart MMa to match the ALDT NESHAP provisions in 40 CFR 63.3160
and 63.3160(c)(3). Periodic performance tests are used to establish or
evaluate the ongoing destruction efficiency of the control device and
establish the corresponding operating parameters, such as temperature,
which can vary as processes change or as control devices age. The EPA
also proposed control device destruction efficiency requirements to
match the ALDT NESHAP provisions in 40 CFR 63.3166 for the new NSPS
subpart MMa.
d. Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
The recordkeeping and reporting provisions proposed in the new ALDT
NSPS MMa reflect the part 60 general provisions and are included in 40
CFR 60.395a. Subpart MMa requires quarterly or semiannual compliance
reports, similar to subpart MM. Subpart MMa sources must identify,
record, and submit a report every calendar quarter for each instance a
deviation occurred from the emission limits, operating limits, or work
practices. If no such instances have occurred during a particular
quarter, a report stating such is required to be submitted
semiannually.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping
and Reporting Provisions Differ From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting provisions, the EPA is finalizing these
provisions, as proposed.
3. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Comments and
Responses
Comment: One commenter explained that during performance tests RTOs
may experience a rise in combustion chamber temperature above the
chamber temperature setpoint due to the high thermal efficiency of
modern RTOs and the release of heat from materials contained in the
incoming gases from various consolidated and concentrated VOC sources.
The commenter requested that the EPA allow the performance test chamber
temperature setpoint to be the minimum combustion temperature operating
limit and revise 40 CFR 60.394a(a)(2) to either (a) allow the permit
holder to establish the operating limit as equal to the combustion
chamber temperature setpoint that has been established for the oxidizer
based on previous source measurements that demonstrated compliance, or
(b) allow the permit holder of the thermal oxidizer to apply to the
Administrator for approval of an alternate operating limit under 40 CFR
60.13(i).
[[Page 29990]]
Response: Subpart MMa requires initial and periodic performance
testing of RTOs to demonstrate compliance with the required emission
limits and to establish and demonstrate compliance with the operating
limits for control devices. Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.392a(a) and 40 CFR
60.392a(g) require that the emission limits and the operating limits
must be met at all times, including periods of SSM.
The commenter stated that RTOs ``may'' experience a higher
combustion chamber temperature than indicated by the setpoint during
performance testing and provided examples of RTOs operating at higher
temperatures than the operating limit. However, the examples provided
show that the sources have not demonstrated the RTO destruction or
removal efficiency (DRE) at the setpoint, but instead demonstrated the
capability of the RTO to meet the required DRE at whatever temperature
the RTO was actually operating. The EPA agrees that the effect of
solvent loading depends on the degree to which the various sources of
VOC are consolidated and concentrated within the facility, as well as
the thermal and destruction efficiency of the RTO. However, the
commenter does not provide any data on the number of sources routed to
the RTOs or any information about the RTOs such as the age or date of
installation. The commenter also does not provide data related to the
materials in the exhaust gases or the BTU content of these materials,
or data related to the fuel used for the RTO. These data could be used
to predict the combustion temperatures expected during performance
testing. In addition to the subpart MMa and the part 60 general
provision performance testing requirements, performance testing could
also include the retest of various materials/fuel mixtures used, in
order to identify the minimum operating temperature corresponding to
the DRE needed demonstrate compliance. Therefore, the EPA considers
this to be a site-specific issue that should be addressed on a case-by-
case basis in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(i).
The EPA bases its stack testing requirements on the Clean Air Act
National Stack Testing Guidance dated April 27, 2009.\2\ In this
guidance the EPA recommends that performance tests for a facility
operating under an emission rate standard or concentration standard,
normal process operating conditions producing the highest emissions or
loading to a control device would generally constitute the most
challenging conditions for meeting the emissions standard. In these
cases, the EPA recommends that the facility conduct a stack test at
maximum capacity or the allowable/permitted capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.epa.gov/compliance/clean-air-act-national-stack-testing-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both ALDT subparts MM and MMa, in which sources are subject to
rate limits (mass VOC per volume of applied coating solids), testing
should be conducted at maximum capacity or allowable/permitted
capacity, and this could be expected to lead to the most challenging
test conditions. Facility operators have several options if they expect
that temperatures may rise above the set point during a compliance
test. These include the following:
If temperature rise is expected to occur when a facility
is operating at maximum production, the facility operator may be able
to adjust the set point prior to the test to prevent a temperature rise
and achieve an average temperature operating limit more in line with
the set point and representative minimum operating temperatures.
The facility operator may request approval to use a VOC
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to continuously measure
actual VOC emissions after the control device and use these direct VOC
emission measurements in demonstrating compliance with the VOC emission
rate limits.
The facility operator may test at a lower average RTO
temperature and use the DRE from that test in their compliance
calculations and as the operating limit.
The temperature and thermal oxidizer DRE data in the stack tests
collected by the EPA for this rulemaking show that DRE values are more
variable at lower temperatures (e.g., 92 to 98 percent DRE at 1400
degrees F) than at higher temperatures (e.g., 96 to 99 percent DRE at
1500 degrees F) in the range between 1400 to 1550 degrees F. Because
RTO temperature is an important determinant of DRE and DRE is used in
the compliance calculations, it is important that the EPA ensure that
RTOs are complying with an operating limit based on the actual
temperature that corresponds to the DRE used in a facility's compliance
calculations. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed monitoring
and operating limit provisions for subpart MMa that rely on the actual
measured combustion temperature rather than the set point.
To request approval of alternatives to any monitoring procedures or
requirements of part 60, including the operating limits, subpart MMa
refers to the part 60 general provisions at 40 CFR 60.13(i).
Specifically, subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.394a provides performance test
requirements for RTOs and refers to 40 CFR 60.13(i) for alternative
monitoring. Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.394a also refers to 40 CFR
60.392a(h) which states that if a source uses an add-on control device
other than those listed in Table 1 to subpart MMa or wishes to monitor
an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating limit,
the source must apply to the Administrator for approval according to 40
CFR 60.13(i). The part 60 general provisions also provide an
alternative to the monitoring requirements for VOC emissions in subpart
MMa with a CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(i).
Comment: One commenter agreed that the time periods of bypass on an
air pollution control device must be recorded and factored into the
monthly compliance calculation by assuming that during bypass periods,
the control efficiency for that portion of the operation(s) is zero.
However, the commenter believes the bypass should not be characterized
as a deviation from the standard unless the emission limit is exceeded.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Subpart MMa at 40
CFR 60.392a(a) and 60.392a(g) require that the emission limits and the
operating limits for capture and control devices must be met at all
times after they are established during the initial performance test.
This includes periods of SSM. The ALDT NESHAP also includes these same
requirements.
Subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.392a(g) also refers to Table 1 to subpart
MMa, Operating Limits for Capture Systems and Add-On Control Devices,
and requires sources to establish operating limits during performance
tests according to the requirements in 40 CFR 60.394a. Sources are
required to comply with the applicable operating limits in Table 1; for
example, for thermal oxidizers the average combustion temperature in
any 3-hour period must not fall below the operating limit (combustion
temperature limit) established according to 40 CFR 60.394a(a). The
average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test
establishes the operating limit (the minimum 3-hour average operating
limit) for the thermal oxidizer. In addition, subpart MMa at 40 CFR
60.393a(c)(2) and (3) requires sources to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable operating limit, and if an operating
parameter is out of the allowed range, as specified in Table 1, it is a
deviation from the operating limit that must be
[[Page 29991]]
reported as specified by 40 CFR 60.395a(h).
As the commenter states, subpart MMa in 40 CFR 60.393a(c)(4)
requires that if an operating parameter deviates from the operating
limit specified in Table 1, sources must assume that the emission
capture system and add-on control device were achieving zero efficiency
during the time period of the deviation except as provided in 40 CFR
60.393a(m). For the purposes of completing the compliance calculations
specified in 40 CFR 60.393a(j), the rule text reiterates that sources
must assume that both the emission capture system and the add-on
control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of
the deviation.
Specifically for bypasses, subpart MMa in 40 CFR 60.393a(c)(6)
requires sources to meet the requirements for bypass lines in 40 CFR
60.394a(h) for control devices (other than solvent recovery systems for
which liquid-liquid material balances are conducted). If any bypass
line is opened and emissions are diverted to the atmosphere when the
coating operation is running, this is a deviation that must be reported
as specified in 40 CFR 60.395a(h). Subpart MMa in 40 CFR 60.395a(h)(1)
also requires sources to monitor or secure the valve or closure
mechanism controlling the bypass line in a non-diverting position in
such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without
creating a record that the valve was opened. If any bypass line is
opened, sources must include a description of why the bypass line was
opened and the length of time it remained open in the semiannual
compliance report required by 40 CFR 60.395a. For the purposes of
completing the compliance calculations specified in 40 CFR 60.393a(j),
the rule text reiterates that sources must assume that both the
emission capture system and the add-on control device were achieving
zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation.
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA modify the regulatory
language in subparts MM and MMa to eliminate any quarterly reporting to
align with the semiannual reporting frequency in the ALDT NESHAP and
title V. The submittal of deviations should be addressed in a
semiannual report as already required under the ALDT NESHAP in 40 CFR
63.3120(a) and under the title V requirements.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter and provides the
basis for the quarterly reporting requirement in the 1979 subpart MM
proposal (44 FR 57801; October 5, 1979). We consider this basis to
still be valid today. As discussed in the selection of monitoring
requirements section, the EPA explained that monitoring requirements
are generally included in the standards of performance to provide a
means for enforcement personnel to ensure that the emission control
measures adopted by a facility to comply with standards are properly
operated and maintained. Each surface coating operation that has
achieved compliance without the use of an add-on VOC emission control
device would be required to monitor the average VOC content of the
coating materials used in that operation. Generally, increases in the
VOC content of the coating materials would cause VOC emissions to
increase. These increases could be caused by the use of new coatings or
by changes in the composition of existing coatings. Therefore,
following the initial performance test, increases in the average VOC
content of the coating materials used in each surface coating operation
are required to be reported on a quarterly basis. For surface coating
operations using add-on control devices, the monitoring of combustion
temperatures is required. Following the initial performance test,
decreases in the incinerator combustion temperature are required to be
reported on a quarterly basis.
Less frequent reporting is provided for affected facilities
demonstrating compliance with subpart MMa requirements after 1 year.
The part 60 General Provision at 40 CFR 60.7 provides that reporting on
a quarterly (or more frequent) basis may be reduced if the following
conditions are met: (i) for 1 full year (e.g., 4 quarterly or 12
monthly reporting periods) the affected facility's excess emissions and
monitoring systems reports submitted to comply with a part 60 standard
continually demonstrate that the facility is in compliance with the
applicable standard; (ii) the owner or operator continues to comply
with all recordkeeping and monitoring requirements specified in this
subpart and the applicable standard; and (iii) the Administrator does
not object to a reduced frequency of reporting for the affected
facility. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed requirement for
quarterly reporting in subpart MMa at 40 CFR 60.395a(d).
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA provide flexibility
in the NSPS MMa to submit compliance reports according to dates
incorporated in title V operating permits, consistent with the
provisions in the ALDT NESHAP. The commenter also recommended that the
EPA allow NSPS reporting to align with any reporting date provisions in
a title V operating permit.
Response: The EPA has revised the reporting requirements in subpart
MMa at 40 CFR 60.395a (d) for compliance reports according to dates
incorporated in title V operating permits, consistent with the
provisions in the ALDT NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.3120.
E. Transfer Efficiency Provisions
1. Proposed Transfer Efficiency Provisions
The EPA proposed provisions to require the measurement of transfer
efficiency (TE) and a separate calculation to account for the recovery
of purge solvent in subpart MMa, to be consistent with the ALDT NESHAP.
In addition, we proposed provisions that sources determine the TE for
each guide coat and topcoat coating operation using either ASTM D5066-
91 (Reapproved 2017) or the guidelines presented in the ``Protocol for
Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-453/R-08-002,
September 2008 (2008 ALDT Protocol). The EPA also proposed amendments
for TE testing on representative coatings and for representative spray
booths as described in the 2008 ALDT Protocol. In addition, the EPA
proposed that sources can assume 100 percent TE for prime coat EDP
operations.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Transfer Efficiency Provisions Differ
From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed transfer efficiency
provisions for subpart MMa, the EPA is finalizing the transfer
efficiency provisions, as proposed.
3. Transfer Efficiency Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter stated that subpart MMa emissions standards
must provide the operational flexibility to employ a variety of coating
application technologies and they must not be based on the assumption
that all new, reconstructed, and modified facilities can achieve the
highest levels of TE, because all facilities cannot do so.
Response: The EPA is finalizing in subpart MMa, as proposed, the
measurement of the overall TE, which comprises all methods of spray
application, for each guide coat and each topcoat operation subject to
subpart MMa. These requirements are in accordance with the ``Protocol
for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of
[[Page 29992]]
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations'' (2008 Auto
Protocol), contrary to the comment that the EPA is requiring the
highest levels of TE (87 FR 30141; May 18, 2022). The EPA is not
prescribing any specific application methods or requirements for a
minimum allowable TE in subpart MMa.
F. NSPS Subpart MMa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Exemptions
1. Proposed SSM Provisions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times.
The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(c) currently exempt non-
opacity emission standards during periods of SSM. We are finalizing in
subpart MMa in section 40 CFR 60.392a specific requirements that
override these general provisions for SSM requirements and match the
SSM provisions in the ALDT NESHAP. In finalizing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and,
for the reasons explained in this section of the preamble, has not
finalized alternate standards for those periods. We discussed the
potential need for alternative standards with industry representatives
during the recent development of amendments to the ALDT NESHAP and
during the proposal of this ALDT NSPS action. No issues were
identified, and there are no data indicating problems with complying
with these provisions during periods of startup and shutdown.
Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed
to address emissions during these periods. The legal rationale and
explanation of the changes for SSM periods are set forth in the
proposed rule (see 87 FR 30153-30154, May 18, 2022). Further, the EPA
did not propose and is not promulgating standards for malfunctions in
this final action.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable''
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the
D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).]
2. How the Final Revisions to the SSM Provisions Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comment on the proposed revisions to the SSM
provisions for subpart MMa, the EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions,
as proposed.
3. SSM Provision Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to remove
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) regulatory loopholes, and
additionally would like the EPA to also remove the SSM exemption from
the NSPS general provisions.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the
proposed amendment to the rule and the commenter's suggestion to make a
similar amendment to the 40 CFR part 60 general provisions. However,
changes to the general provisions are outside the scope of this
rulemaking action.
G. Electronic Reporting
1. Proposed Electronic Reporting Requirement
The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that owners and
operators of affected facilities in the ALDT surface coating source
category subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60,
subparts MM and MMa submit electronic copies of required performance
test reports and compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that
allow affected facility owners and operators the ability to seek
extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond
the control of the ALDT plant, i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX
or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a
report's due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim (87 FR
30154; May 18, 2022). The final subpart MM and MMa electronic reporting
provisions require performance test results and compliance reports to
be submitted to the Administrator as required by 40 CFR 60.395(f) and
60.395a(f). These final electronic reporting provisions would not
affect submittals required by state air agencies.
Current subpart MM and new subpart MMa affected sources are
required to comply with the electronic reporting requirements for
performance test results on the effective date of the standard or upon
startup, whichever is later. Current subpart MM and new subpart MMa
affected sources are required to use the appropriate e-reporting
template to comply with the electronic reporting requirements for
compliance reports beginning 180 days after the EPA posts the final
compliance reporting templates to CEDRI.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Electronic Reporting Requirement
Differ From the Proposed Revisions
The EPA revised the proposed electronic reporting provisions for
compliance reports in subparts MM and MMa due to the comments received.
Sources are required to use the appropriate e-reporting template to
comply with the electronic reporting requirements for compliance
reports beginning 180 days instead of the proposed 90 days after the
EPA posts the final compliance reporting templates to CEDRI. The
electronic reporting templates were also revised according to the
comments we received during the comment period and are available in the
docket for this action.
3. Electronic Reporting Requirement Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA allow facilities that
become subject to electronic reporting to submit the compliance report
for both subpart MM and subpart MMa at least 180 days after the
effective date of the rule, or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever date is later.
According to the commenter the proposal stated that the EPA would
require use of the
[[Page 29993]]
NSPS template once the template has been available on the CEDRI website
for 90 days, but this language was not included in the proposed
regulatory text.
Response: The EPA has revised the subpart MM and subpart MMa rule
language to state that the reporting template must be used beginning
180 days after the effective date of the rule or once the reporting
template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever
date is later.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the use of electronic
reporting is reasonable as a general matter, but that the proposed
compliance templates, and regulatory language contain errors that must
be corrected in the final rule. The EPA must correct the errors
identified in the two proposed compliance templates and implement
recommendations to make the templates more user-friendly.
Response: The EPA requested review and comment on the proposed
templates and regulatory language, revised them according to the
comments, and is providing the final versions in this rulemaking
docket.
H. Test Methods
1. Proposed Test Methods
We are finalizing the proposed additional EPA test methods,
voluntary consensus standards (VCS), alternative methods, and a
guidance document in subpart MMa (87 FR 30157; May 18, 2022).
In addition to the EPA test methods listed in subpart MM (EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, and 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), we are
finalizing the following EPA test methods in subpart MMa, as proposed:
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60;
EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and
EPA Method 311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
incorporating by reference (IBR) the following VCS and a guidance
document described in the amendments to 40 CFR 60.17:
ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]'' issued August 31, 1981, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 60.396a(a)(3).
ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' Approved December 1, 2016, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(g)(1).
ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile Content
of Coatings,'' (Approved June 1, 2020), IBR approved for 40 CFR
60.393a(f)(1)(i).
ASTM D2697-22, ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' (Approved July 1,
2022), IBR approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(g)(1).
EPA-453/R-08-002, ``Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Primer Surfacer and Topcoat Operations,'' September 2008, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), IBR approved for 40 CFR
60.393a(e), 60.393a(h), 60.395a(k)(3)(iii), 60.397a(e) introductory
text, 60.397a (e)(2)-(4), and Appendix A to subpart MMa of Part 60
sections 2.1 and 2.2, 4.1 and 4.2.
We are also incorporating by reference the following alternative
methods specific to automotive coatings described in the amendments to
40 CFR 60.17:
ASTM D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' Approved November 1,
2013, IBR approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(f)(2).
ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), ``Standard Test Methods
for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,'' Approved June 1, 2013, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(f)(2).
ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), ``Standard Test Method
for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production
Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis,''
Approved June 1, 2017, IBR approved for 40 CFR 60.393a(h).
ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), ``Standard Test Method
for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solvent-borne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement),'' Approved February 1, 2021, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 60.397a(e) and appendix A to subpart MMa, section 2.1.
ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), ``Standard Test Method
for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement),'' Approved July 1, 2017, IBR approved for
60.397a(e).
In addition, the EPA is finalizing the addition of the ALDT panel
testing procedure titled ``Determination of Capture Efficiency of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Spray Booth Emissions From Solvent-
borne Coatings Using Panel Testing'' as appendix A to subpart MMa of 40
CFR part 60.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Test Methods Differ From the Proposed
Revisions
After considering the comments on the proposed revisions to the
test methods, the EPA is finalizing the test methods, as proposed.
However, based on ASTM revisions to 2 proposed test methods we are
updating Methods ASTM D2369-20, ``Standard Test Method for Volatile
Content of Coatings,'' (Approved June 1, 2020) and ASTM D2697-22,
``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings,'' (Approved July 1, 2022) in the final rule.
3. Test Method Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA allow the use of
Conditional Test Method 042 (CTM-042), Use of Flame Ionization
Detector-Methane Cutter Analysis Systems for VOC Compliance Testing of
Bakeries, to identify the methane content, rather than EPA Method 18
during performance tests. The commenter noted that although CTM-042 was
originally approved for VOC testing in bakeries, many state agencies
allow it for other processes, as it allows evaluation in real time so
that the company and agency can identify issues during the test. The
commenter argued that recognizing a measurement issue during the test
benefits both the permittee and the agency, as costly and time-
consuming re-testing can often be avoided. The commenter also noted
that the use of CTM-042 reduces the risk of damaged sample bags or lab
error that would require additional test runs after the tests have been
completed and the test crews have left the site.
Response: The EPA is not revising the proposed test methods to
allow the use of CTM-042 for measuring methane in ALDT surface coating
emissions and does not support the use of CTM-042 for ALDT sources. The
EPA acknowledges that although measuring VOC using EPA Method 25A and
then subtracting EPA Method 18 methane results to measure nonmethane
organic compounds (NMOC) is viewed by some as difficult, we are making
this decision because use of CTM-042 is limited to bakery emissions in
which ethanol is the predominant non-methane organic species in those
emissions. CTM-042 calibrates the non-methane channel with ethanol, so
it is simple to do a direct subtraction of the instrument calibrated
for just methane and ethanol.
[[Page 29994]]
For application to the ALDT emission sources and many other
emission source types in general, choosing the right calibration gas to
measure methane and non-methane compounds will be an issue, because
NMOC can be composed of a variety of compounds with different
combustion temperatures depending on the emission source. It is also
important to note that source owners and operators are not limited to
the use of bags for EPA Method 18 samples. EPA Method 18 can be
performed on site by direct real-time gas chromatography (GC) analysis
to determine the methane concentration rather than by choosing the EPA
Method 18 bag sample option. The real-time GC analysis of methane
emissions using EPA Method 18 would address issues of timely feedback
on emissions and the risks of bag damage or lab error raised by the
commenters.
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA allow performance
testing to continue to be reported ``as propane'' or ``as methane'' as
the basis for compliance. The commenter stated that a potential concern
is that most historic test reports are not conducted for NSPS purposes,
but for BACT or RACT purposes, and would be presented as VOC ``as
propane,'' while the new reports performed for NSPS would be ``as
carbon.'' The commenter stated that permit limits or other items based
on the VOC concentration on a propane basis would not necessarily be
the same as on a carbon basis, and that this difference would require
duplicative tests or calculations to demonstrate compliance with VOC
concentration limits. Additionally, the commenter stated, test results
as carbon would be inconsistent from previous tests and would not allow
the company or agency to observe testing in real time to review results
to identify concerns.
Response: Subpart MM requires compliance calculations to include
the concentration of VOC (as carbon) in units of parts per million by
volume (ppmv). Similarly, the new subpart MMa requires compliance
calculations to include the concentration of VOC (as carbon) in units
of ppmv as the basis for compliance, so the NSPS performance testing
requirements have not changed as a result of this rulemaking, contrary
to the comment received. Subpart MMa requires VOC concentrations to be
measured by following the procedures in EPA Method 25A.\3\ Review of
RTO destruction efficiency performance tests included in the docket for
this rulemaking show that ALDT plants are measuring VOC concentrations
using the procedures found in EPA Method 25A using on-line (real time)
total hydrocarbon (THC) gas analyzers. The THC gas analyzer directs the
sample to a flame ionization detector (FID) where the hydrocarbons
present in the sample are ionized into carbon. The concentration
determined by the analyzer is based on the calibration gas used,
typically either methane or propane. Section 12.1 of EPA Method 25A
explicitly outlines the procedures for calculating the concentration as
carbon, which is as simple as a 1:1 ratio for methane and a 3:1 ratio
for propane. No duplicative tests are required, and the conversion to
units of carbon does not inhibit real-time assessment of compliance.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the compliance calculations, as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/method_25a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Other Final Amendments
The EPA is promulgating a final amendment in response to a comment
to modify the definition of ``flash-off area'' in subparts MM and MMa
to include the flash-off areas located between spray booths. The
``flash-off area'' in subpart MM and proposed subpart MMa are defined
as ``the structure on automobile and light-duty truck assembly lines
between the coating application system (dip tank or spray booth) and
the bake oven.'' The EPA is revising this definition in the final rules
to include: ``Flash off area also means the structure between spray
booths in a wet-on-wet coating process in which some of the solvent
evaporates before the next spray booth; the flash off area may be
ambient temperature or heated to accelerate evaporation.'' Additional
detail on the EPA response to this comment is provided in the document
titled, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule: New
Source Performance Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM) Best System of
Emission Reduction Review, Final Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0664.
In addition, the EPA is finalizing minor corrections and edits to
the subpart MM and MMa equations and rule text to provide clarity as
described in the summary of public comments and responses document
identified above.
J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in subpart MM and subpart MMa will be the
promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022, must comply with
all requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later,
except for the electronic reporting of compliance reports. For
electronic reporting of quarterly and semiannual compliance reports,
subpart MM and MMa affected sources are required to use the appropriate
electronic template to submit information to CEDRI. The electronic
templates are available in the docket for this final action. Both
templates were revised according to comments the EPA received during
the comment period. Subpart MM and MMa affected sources are required to
use the templates to electronically submit compliance reports 180 days
after the EPA posts the final templates to CEDRI.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The final ALDT NSPS subpart MMa would achieve an annual average VOC
emission reduction of 331 tpy reduction of allowable VOC emissions per
facility compared to that of the current NSPS subpart MM. Over the
first 8 years after the rule is final, we expect an average of 2 new,
reconstructed, or modified facilities per year, or 16 new affected
facilities. We estimate a total VOC emission reduction of 4,160 tpy in
the eighth year after the rule is final, compared to the current NSPS
subpart MM.
We estimate the increased usage of electricity and natural gas
would result in an increase in the average production of 4,474 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (mtCO2e) per year per
facility. We estimate a total GHG emission production of 71,584
mtCO2e in the eighth year after the rule is final.
In this action, we are not evaluating the environmental impacts of
other pollutants such as hydrocarbons (other than VOC), GHG, nitrogen
oxides, and carbon monoxide emitted by control devices due to the
combustion of natural gas as fuel or from the generation of
electricity.
B. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with the electricity and natural gas
consumption associated with the operation of control devices to meet
the final NSPS subpart MMa include an estimated average electricity
consumption of 2.54 million kilowatt hours (kwh) per year per facility
and an estimated average natural gas consumption of 48.8 million
standard cubic feet (scf) per year per facility compared to that of the
current NSPS
[[Page 29995]]
subpart MM. Over the first 8 years after the rule is final, we expect
an average of 2 new, reconstructed, or modified facilities per year, or
16 new affected facilities. We estimate a total electricity consumption
of 40.6 million kwh and a total natural gas consumption of 780.8
million scf in the eighth year after the rule is final, compared to the
current NSPS subpart MM.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate that the average capital cost of controls to comply
with the NSPS subpart MMa will be $7.44 million per new facility, or
$14.9 million per year for 2 new facilities in each year in the 8-year
period after the rule is final.
We estimate that the average annual cost of controls to comply with
the NSPS subpart MMa will be $1.97 million per year per facility, or
$3.93 million for 2 new facilities in each year in the 8-year period
after the rule is final. The total cumulative annual costs (including
annualized capital costs and O&M costs) of complying with the rule in
the eighth year after the rule is final would be $31.5 million.
We estimate that the average cost of the periodic testing of
control devices once every 5 years to comply with subpart MMa will be
$57,000 per facility, or $114,000 for 2 facilities in the fifth year
after the rule is final.
For further information on the cost impacts for this action see the
memorandum titled, Final Cost and Environmental Impacts Memo for
Surface Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Source Category (40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa), located in the docket
for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis (EIA) and small
business screening assessment for this final action, as discussed in
the proposal for this action and detailed in the memorandum, Economic
Impact Analysis and Small Business Screening Assessment for Final
Revisions and Amendments to the New Source Performance Standards for
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations, which is
available in the docket for this action. The economic impacts of this
final action were estimated by comparing total annualized compliance
costs to revenues at the ultimate parent company level. This is known
as the cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales test. This ratio provides a
measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of
facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. As discussed in the
proposal for this action, we estimate that none of the ultimate parent
owners potentially affected by this final action will incur total
annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of their revenues if they
modify or reconstruct the relevant portions of their facility and
become subject to the requirements of this final rule (87 FR 30155, May
18, 2022).
Since proposal, the 1 existing facility that was owned by a small
entity was sold to a company in May 2022 that is not a small entity.
Because the coatings processes are large operations at automobile and
light duty truck manufacturing facilities, it is not anticipated that
any affected facilities that have completed their initial startup phase
would be classified as small entities. Therefore, no economic impacts
are expected for small entities. Furthermore, it was assumed that any
new entrant into the industry would have sales similar to at least the
smallest current ultimate owner, so it is not anticipated that any new
ultimate owner would face costs of greater than 1 percent of sales.
Therefore, the economic impacts are anticipated to be low for
affected companies and the industries impacted by this final action,
and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets for affected
products. The costs of this final action are not expected to result in
a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on
to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
As described earlier in this preamble, the final NSPS subpart MMa
would result in lower VOC emissions compared to the existing NSPS
subpart MM. The new NSPS subpart MMa would also require that the
standards apply at all times, which includes SSM periods. We are also
promulgating several compliance assurance requirements which will
ensure compliance with the new NSPS subpart MMa and help prevent
noncompliant emissions of VOC. Furthermore, the final requirements in
the new NSPS subpart MMa to submit reports and test results
electronically will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation
of the rule.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth
in multiple Executive Orders as well as CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the
Agency has carefully evaluated the impacts of this action on
communities with environmental justice concerns. This action finalizes
standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed ALDT
surface coating sources that commence construction after May 18, 2022.
In general, the locations of the new, modified, and reconstructed ALDT
surface coating facilities are not known. However, since proposal, we
became aware of 3 ALDT surface coating facilities for which
construction permits were recently issued or were about to be issued.
We have evaluated the demographics of the populations living within 5
kilometers (km) and 50 km of these 3 new facilities as examples of new
facility locations. We also evaluated the demographics of the
populations living within 5 km and 50 km of 46 ALDT plants. The 46 ALDT
plants include the 44 existing ALDT plants and two additional ALDT
plants for which we had locational data.
Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms--specifically, minority populations, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial
equity and support underserved communities through Federal government
actions (86 FR 7009; January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.'' \4\ The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.'' In recognizing that minority and low-income populations
often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA
continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A demographic analysis was conducted for 3 new ALDT plants, which
we identified after proposal and anticipate will be subject to the
requirements of subpart MMa once in operation. The demographic analysis
shows that within 5 km of these new
[[Page 29996]]
facilities, the percent of the population that is African American is
significantly higher than the national average (17 percent versus 12
percent). The percent of the population within 5 km that is Hispanic/
Latino is significantly higher than the national average (51 percent
versus 19 percent). The percent of people within 5 km that are over 25
without a high school diploma is also higher than the national average
(28 percent versus 12 percent).
A demographic analysis was conducted for 46 existing ALDT plants to
characterize the demographics in areas where the plants are currently
located. These represent ALDT plants that might modify or reconstruct
in the future and become subject to the NSPS MMa requirements. This
analysis was presented in the proposal and remains unchanged. The
demographic analysis shows that, within 5 km of the ALDT facilities,
the percent of the population that is African American is significantly
higher than the national average (27 percent versus 12 percent). The
percent of people within 5 km living below the poverty level is
significantly higher than the national average (22 percent versus 13
percent). The percent of people living within 5 km that are over 25
without a high school diploma is also higher than the national average
(15 percent versus 12 percent).
The EPA particularly noted community impacts and concerns in some
areas of the country that have a larger percentage of sources. A large
percentage of the sources in the Auto and Light Duty Truck Surface
Coating source category are in EPA Region 5 states and, of those
states, most sources are in the state of Michigan. Most if not all the
counties where these sources are located are designated as ozone
nonattainment areas. For this reason, we engaged with EPA Region 5 and
the state of Michigan as part of this rulemaking.
The EPA expects that this ALDT NSPS review will result in
significant reductions of VOC emissions from the affected sources. The
new emission limits finalized for this action reflect the best system
of emission reduction demonstrated and establish new more stringent
standards of performance for the primary sources of VOC emissions from
the source category. The EPA expects that the finalized requirements in
subpart MMa will result in significant reductions of VOC emissions for
communities surrounding new, modified, and reconstructed affected
sources compared to the existing rule in subpart MM and will result in
lower VOC emissions for communities located in areas designated as
ozone non-attainment areas. These areas are already overburdened by
pollution and are often minority, low-income, and indigenous
communities. The methodology and the results (including facility-
specific results and the 50 km proximity results) of the demographic
analysis are presented in a technical report titled, Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Surface Coating NSPS Source Category Operations--Final Rule,
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0664).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This final action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this action have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA.
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared for subpart MM has been assigned EPA ICR number 1064.20 and
OMB control number 2060-0034. The ICR document that the EPA prepared
for subpart MMa has been assigned EPA ICR number 2714.01 and OMB
control number 2060-0034. You can find a copy of the final ICR
documents in the ALDT NSPS Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0664, and they
are briefly summarized here. The final ICR documents were updated to
reflect 2021 labor costs. The information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
Each ICR is specific to information collection associated with the
ALDT surface coating source category, in accordance with the
requirements in the revised 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM or the new 40
CFR part 60, subpart MMa.
For the revised 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM, as part of the ALDT
NSPS review, the EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for the
electronic submittal of reports.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of ALDT surface
coating operations subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MM).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 44 respondents per year will be
subject to the NSPS and no new respondents will be subject to the NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart MM).
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include a one-time review of rule
requirements, reports of performance tests, and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports.
Total estimated burden: The average annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for the 44 responding facilities to comply with the
requirements in subpart MM over the 3 years after the rule is final is
estimated to be 506 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the
Agency over the 3 years after the rule is final is estimated to be 152
hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the ALDT
facilities is $47,200 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the
rule is final. The total average annual Agency cost over the first 3
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $7,800.
For the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa, as part of the ALDT NSPS
review, the EPA is finalizing the proposed emission limits and other
requirements as described in this preamble for affected sources that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18,
2022. We are also finalizing the proposed testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa, including the
performance testing of control devices once every 5 years and
electronic submittal of performance test results and compliance
reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with
40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of ALDT surface
coating operations subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMa).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 6 respondents per
[[Page 29997]]
year will be subject to the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart MMa).
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule
requirements, reports of performance tests, and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports.
Total estimated burden: The average annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for the 6 responding facilities to comply with all the
requirements in the new NSPS subpart MMa over the 3 years after the
rule is final is estimated to be 1,663 hours (per year). The average
annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the rule is final is
estimated to be 207 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the ALDT
facilities is $155,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the
rule is final. The average annual capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) cost is $151,000 in the first 3 years after the rule is final.
The total average annual cost is $306,000 in the first 3 years after
the rule is final. The total average annual Agency cost over the first
3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $10,600.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities because there
are no regulated facilities owned by small entities. Details of the
analysis in support of this determination are presented in the
memorandum titled, Economic Impact Analysis and Small Business
Screening Assessment for Final Revisions and Amendments to the New
Source Performance Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations, which is available in the docket for this
action.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not
exceed $100 million or more.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor
preempt tribal law, and it does not have substantial direct effects on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249; November 9, 2000). No tribal facilities are known to be
engaged in the industry that would be affected by this action nor are
there any adverse health or environmental effects from this action.
However, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis for this source
category and found that 6 ALDT plants are located within 50 miles of
tribal lands. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered consultation with
tribal officials during the development of this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not anticipate the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. No health or risk assessments were performed for this action.
As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the EPA estimates a
reduction in VOC emissions from the ALDT NSPS subpart MMa for sources
affected by this action because the subpart MMa requirements are more
stringent than the existing ALDT NSPS subpart MM requirements.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This
action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the Enhanced National Standards System
Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) to determine if there are VCS that are relevant to this action.
The Agency also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched
their databases.
During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a
potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation data which meets the
requirements of the EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA
reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS. As a result, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by
reference (IBR) the following proposed VCS for subpart MMa:
ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses.'' This method determines quantitatively the gaseous
constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources.
The manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of ASME/ANSI
PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10 may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B
for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas.
The gases covered in ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide,
nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons.
However, the use in this
[[Page 29998]]
rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide and is an
acceptable alternative to the manual portion only and not the
instrumental portion.
ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method can be used to
determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.
ASTM D2369-20 (Approved June 1, 2020), ``Standard Test
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method allows for
more accurate results for multi-component chemical resistant coatings
and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.
ASTM D2697-22 (Approved July 1, 2022), ``Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.''
This test method can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile
matter in clear and pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA
Method 24.
EPA-453/R-08-002, ``Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' September 2008. This protocol provides
guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation solvent
content as an alternative to EPA Method 24.
In addition to the VCS identified here, we are amending 40 CFR
60.17 to IBR the following ASTM methods that are specific to automotive
coatings:
ASTM D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' Approved November 1,
2013. This test method can be used to determine the density of coatings
and the updated version of the test method clarifies units of measure
and reduces the number of determinations required.
ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), ``Standard Test Methods
for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders.'' These test methods include
Test Methods A and B that can be used to determine the specific gravity
of coating powders. Test Method A can be used to test coating powders
except for metallics. Test Method B provides greater precision than
Test Method A, includes the use of helium pycnometry, and can be used
for metallics.
ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017) ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis.'' This test
method includes procedures to determine the transfer efficiency under
production conditions for in-plant spray-application of automotive
coatings using a weight method. The transfer efficiency is calculated
from the weight of the paint solids sprayed and the paint solids that
are deposited on the painted part. An alternative approach is also
included in the method.
ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), ``Standard Test Method
for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solvent-borne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement).'' This test method can be used to measure
solvent loading for the heated flash off areas and bake ovens for
waterborne coatings.
ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017) ``Standard Test Method
for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released
from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement).'' This test method can be used to measure
solvent loading for heated flash off areas and bake ovens for
waterborne coatings.
In addition, we are adding the ALDT panel testing procedure titled
``Determination of Capture Efficiency of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Spray Booth Emissions from Solvent-borne Coatings Using Panel
Testing'' as appendix A to subpart MMa of 40 CFR part 60, as proposed.
In addition to the EPA test methods listed in subpart MM (EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, and 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), we are
finalizing the following EPA methods in subpart MMa, as proposed:
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 18, and 25A of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60;
EPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, and 204F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51; and
EPA Method 311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
EPA-453/R-08-002 is available online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-guidelines-and-standards-solvent-use-and-surface (see Automobile and Light Duty Truck
CTG) or through https://www.regulations.gov under EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413-
0080.
ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981 is available from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990,
Telephone (800) 843-2763. See https://www.asme.org.
The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org.
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found in the memorandum titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for Review of Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating, which is dated January 24, 2023, and is
available in the docket for this action.
Under the general provisions at 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of
subpart A, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test
methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final
rule or any amendments.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
The EPA anticipates that the human health or environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the
potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or
environmental effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or
indigenous peoples.
The EPA anticipates that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples. As discussed in section IV.F of
this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis for the ALDT surface
coating source category, which is an assessment of the proximity of
individual demographic groups living close to the facilities (within 50
km and within 5 km). We performed demographic analyses during proposal
for 46 existing ALDT plants and after proposal for three new ALDT
plants. The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are
presented in a technical report titled, Analysis of Demographic Factors
for Populations Living Near Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface
Coating NSPS Source Category Operations--Final Rule, available in the
[[Page 29999]]
docket for this action. The results of the demographic analysis for
existing ALDT plants indicate that the following groups are above the
national average: African Americans, People Living Below the Poverty
Level, and People without a High School Diploma. For the new ALDT
plants, the results of the demographic analysis indicate that the
following groups are above the national average: African Americans,
Hispanic/Latino, and People without a High School Diploma. We
anticipate that the lower VOC emission limits finalized in this action
for new, modified, or reconstructed ALDT surface coating sources that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 18,
2022, will result in lower ambient concentrations of ground level ozone
and increase compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 60 as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 60.17 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g)(14);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(186) through (218) as paragraphs
(h)(191) through (223);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(183) through (185) as paragraphs
(h)(187) through (189);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (h)(182) as paragraph (h)(184) and paragraph
(h)(181) as paragraph (h)(186), respectively;
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(172) through (180) as paragraphs
(h)(175) through (183);
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(60) through (171) as paragraphs (h)(61)
through (172)
0
g. Adding new paragraph (h)(60);
0
h. Revising newly-designated paragraphs (h)(97) and (h)(110);
0
i. Adding new paragraphs (h)(173), (174), and (185);
0
j. Revising newly-designated paragraph (h)(186);
0
k. Adding new paragraph (h)(190);
0
l. Redesignating paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) as (j)(2) through (5);
and
0
m. Adding a new paragraph (j)(1).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], Issued August 31, 1981; IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 60.56c(b); 60.63(f); 60.106(e); 60.104a(d), (h), (i),
and (j); 60.105a(b), (d), (f), and (g); 60.106a(a); 60.107a(a), (c),
and (d); tables 1 and 3 to subpart EEEE; tables 2 and 4 to subpart
FFFF; table 2 to subpart JJJJ; Sec. Sec. 60.285a(f); 60.396a(a);
60.2145(s) and (t); 60.2710(s) and (t); 60.2730(q); 60.4415(a);
60.4900(b); 60.5220(b); tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL; tables 2 and 3
to subpart MMMM; Sec. Sec. 60.5406(c); 60.5406a(c); 60.5407a(g);
60.5413(b); 60.5413a(b); 60.5413a(d).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(60) ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, Approved November 1, 2013; IBR
approved for Sec. 60.393a(f).
* * * * *
(97) ASTM D2369-20, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, Approved June 1, 2020; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.393a(f); 60.723(b); 60.724(a); 60.725(b); 60.723a(b); 60.724a(a);
60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(110) ASTM D2697-22, Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, Approved July 1, 2022; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 60.393a(g); 60.723(b); 60.724(a); 60.725(b);
60.723a(b); 60.724a(a); 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(173) ASTM D5066-91, Standard Test Method for Determination of the
Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application
of Automotive Paints--Weight Basis, Approved June 1, 2017; IBR approved
for Sec. 60.393a(h).
(174) ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement), Approved February 1, 2021; IBR approved for
Sec. 60.397a(e); appendix A to subpart MMa.
* * * * *
(185) ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, Approved June 1, 2013; IBR
approved for Sec. 60.393a(f).
(186) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016; IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 60.393a(g); 60.723(b); 60.724(a); 60.725(b); 60.723a(b);
60.724a(a); 60.725a(b).
* * * * *
(190) ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for
Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released From
Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement), Approved July 1, 2017; IBR approved for
Sec. 60.397a(e).
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) EPA-453/R-08-002, Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations, September 2008, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS); IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.393a(e) and (h); 60.395a(k); 60.397a(e); appendix A to subpart MMa.
* * * * *
Subpart MM--Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After October 5, 1979, and
On or Before May 18, 2022
0
3. Revise the heading for subpart MM of part 60 to read as set forth
above.
0
4. Amend Sec. 60.390 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.390 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(c) The provisions of this subpart apply to any affected facility
identified
[[Page 30000]]
in paragraph (a) of this section that begins construction,
reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979, and on or before
May 18, 2022.
0
5. Amend Sec. 60.391 in paragraph (a) by revising the definition of
``Flash-off area'' to read as follows:
Sec. 60.391 Definitions.
(a) * * *
Flash-off area means the structure on automobile and light-duty
truck assembly lines between the coating application system (dip tank
or spray booth) and the bake oven. Flash-off area also means the
structure between spray booths in a wet-on-wet coating process in which
some of the solvent evaporates before the next spray booth; the flash
off area may be ambient temperature or heated to accelerate
evaporation.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 60.392 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.392 Standards for volatile organic compounds.
On and after the date on which the initial performance test
required by Sec. 60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall discharge or cause the discharge
into the atmosphere from any affected facility VOC emissions in excess
of the limitations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
The emission limitations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall
apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction. As provided in Sec. 60.11(f), this provision supersedes
the exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in the
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 60.393 by revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.393 Performance test and compliance provisions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Determine the fraction of total VOC which is emitted by an
affected facility that enters the control device by using the following
equation where ``n'' is the total number of stacks entering the control
device and ``p'' is the total number of stacks not connected to the
control device:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.000
(1) In subsequent months, the owner or operator shall use the most
recently determined capture fraction for the performance test.
(2) If the owner can justify to the Administrator's satisfaction
that another method will give comparable results, the Administrator
will approve its use on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 60.395 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c)
introductory text and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.395 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Where compliance is achieved through the use of incineration,
the owner or operator shall include the following additional data in
the control device initial performance test required by Sec. 60.8(a)
or subsequent performance tests at which destruction efficiency is
determined: the combustion temperature (or the gas temperature upstream
and downstream of the catalyst bed), the total mass of VOC per volume
of applied coating solids before and after the incinerator, capture
efficiency, the destruction efficiency of the incinerator used to
attain compliance with the applicable emission limit specified in Sec.
60.392 and a description of the method used to establish the fraction
of VOC captured and sent to the control device.
(b) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator
of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit a report to
the Administrator every calendar quarter of each instance in which the
volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOC's emitted to the
atmosphere per volume of applied coating solids (N) is greater than the
limit specified under Sec. 60.392. If no such instances have occurred
during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted
to the Administrator semiannually. Where compliance is achieved through
the use of a capture system and control device, the volume-weighted
average after the control device should be reported.
(c) Where compliance with Sec. 60.392 is achieved through the use
of incineration, the owner or operator shall continuously record the
incinerator combustion temperature during coating operations for
thermal incineration or the gas temperature upstream and downstream of
the incinerator catalyst bed during coating operations for catalytic
incineration. The owner or operator shall submit a report at the
frequency specified in Sec. 60.7(c) and paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) The owner or operator shall submit the reports listed in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. In addition
to the information required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
owners or operators are required to report excess emissions and a
monitoring systems performance report and a summary report to the
Administrator according to Sec. 60.7(c) and (d). Owners or operators
are required by Sec. 60.7(c) and (d) to report the date, time, cause,
and duration of each exceedance of the applicable emission limit
specified in Sec. 60.392, any malfunction of the air pollution control
equipment, and any periods during which the CMS or monitoring device is
inoperative. For each failure, the report must include a list of the
affected sources or equipment and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(1) Effective date. On and after November 6, 2023, or once the
reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year,
whichever date is later, owners or operators must use the appropriate
spreadsheet template on the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI) website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date the reporting template
for this subpart becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method by which the report is submitted. Submit all
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's
CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information
submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice
to the owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you
claim as CBI. Any information submitted using CEDRI
[[Page 30001]]
cannot later be claimed CBI. If you claim CBI, submit the report
following the procedure described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to CEDRI as
described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(2) System outage. Owner or operators that are required to submit a
report electronically through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, owners
or operators must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed, and the
system was unavailable;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date
you reported.
(vi) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
(vii) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(3) Force majeure. Owner or operators that are required to submit a
report electronically through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, Owner or operators
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
(A) A written description of the force majeure event;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(C) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date
you reported.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(f) Where compliance is achieved through the use of incineration,
the owner or operator shall submit control device performance test
results at which destruction efficiency is determined for initial and
subsequent performance tests according to paragraph (a) of this section
within 60 days of completing each performance test following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test.
(i) Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
(ii) The data must be submitted in a file format generated using
the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit an
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
(i) The results of the performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(ii) Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). Do not use CEDRI to
submit information you claim as CBI. Any information submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Under CAA section 114(c), emissions
data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required
to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data
will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
Owners or operators that assert a CBI claim for any information
submitted under paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section, must submit a
complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The
file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic
file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
Owners or operators can submit CBI according to one of the two
procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section. All CBI
claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
(i) If sending CBI through the postal service, submit the file on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Owners or operators are
required to mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations Sector Lead, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(ii) The EPA preferred method for CBI submittal is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox,
OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted
directly to the OAQPS CBI
[[Page 30002]]
Office at the email address [email protected], Attention: Automobile and
Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations Sector Lead, and as
described above, should be clearly identified as CBI. If assistance is
needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size
limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file
sharing service, you may email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
0
9. Add subpart MMa to part 60 to read as follows:
Subpart MMa--Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After May 18, 2022
Sec.
60.390a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.391a Definitions.
60.392a Standards for volatile organic compounds.
60.393a Performance test and compliance provisions.
60.394a Add-on control device operating limits and monitoring
requirements.
60.395a Notifications, reports, and records.
60.396a Add-on control device destruction efficiency.
60.397a Emission capture system efficiency.
Table 1 to Subpart MMa of Part 60--Operating limits for capture
systems and add-on control devices.
Appendix A to Subpart MMa of Part 60--Determination of capture
efficiency of automobile and light-duty truck spray booth emissions
from solvent-borne coatings using panel testing.
Subpart MMa--Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations for which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After May 18, 2022
Sec. 60.390a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following affected
facilities in an automobile or light-duty truck assembly plant
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) Each prime coat operation, each guide coat operation, and each
topcoat operation.
(2) All storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed.
(3) All manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials.
(4) All storage containers and all manual and automated equipment
and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a
coating operation.
(b) Exempted from the provisions of this subpart are operations
used to coat plastic body components on separate coating lines. The
attachment of plastic body parts to a metal body before the body is
coated does not cause the metal body coating operation to be exempted.
(c) The provisions of this subpart apply to any affected facility
identified in paragraph (a) of this section that begins construction,
reconstruction, or modification after May 18, 2022.
(d) The following physical or operational changes are not, by
themselves, considered modifications of existing facilities:
(1) Changes as a result of model year changeovers or switches to
larger vehicles.
(2) Changes in the application of the coatings to increase coating
film thickness.
Sec. 60.391a Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have the
meaning given to them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
Applied coating solids means the volume of dried or cured coating
solids which is deposited and remains on the surface of the automobile
or light-duty truck body.
Automobile means a motor vehicle capable of carrying no more than
12 passengers.
Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plant means a facility
that assembles automobiles or light-duty trucks, including coating
facilities and processes.
Automobile and light-duty truck body means the exterior surface of
an automobile or light-duty truck including hoods, fenders, cargo
boxes, doors, and grill opening panels.
Bake oven means a device that uses heat to dry or cure coatings.
Electrodeposition (EDP) means a method of applying a prime coat by
which the automobile or light-duty truck body is submerged in a tank
filled with coating material and an electrical field is used to affect
the deposition of the coating material on the body.
Electrostatic spray application means a spray application method
that uses an electrical potential to increase the transfer efficiency
of the coating solids. Electrostatic spray application can be used for
prime coat, guide coat, or topcoat operations.
Flash-off area means the structure on automobile and light-duty
truck assembly lines between the coating application system (dip tank
or spray booth) and the bake oven. Flash off area also means the
structure between spray booths in a wet-on-wet coating process in which
some of the solvent evaporates before the next spray booth; the flash
off area may be ambient temperature or heated to accelerate
evaporation.
Guide coat operation means the guide coat spray booth, flash-off
area, and bake oven(s) which are used to apply and dry or cure a
surface coating between the prime coat and topcoat operation on the
components of automobile and light-duty truck bodies.
Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at 3,850 kilograms
gross vehicle weight or less, designed mainly to transport property.
Plastic body means an automobile or light-duty truck body
constructed of synthetic organic material.
Plastic body component means any component of an automobile or
light-duty truck exterior surface constructed of synthetic organic
material.
Prime coat operation means the prime coat spray booth or dip tank,
flash-off area, and bake oven(s) which are used to apply and dry or
cure the initial coating on components of automobile or light-duty
truck bodies.
Purge or line purge means the coating material expelled from the
spray system when clearing it.
Solvent-borne means a coating which contains five percent or less
water by weight in its volatile fraction.
Spray application means a method of applying coatings by atomizing
the coating material and directing the atomized material toward the
part to be coated. Spray applications can be used for prime coat, guide
coat, and topcoat operations.
Spray booth means a structure housing automatic or manual spray
application equipment where prime coat, guide coat, or topcoat is
applied to components of automobile or light-duty truck bodies.
Surface coating operation means any prime coat, guide coat, or
topcoat operation on an automobile or light-duty truck surface coating
line.
Topcoat operation means the topcoat spray booth(s), heated flash-
off area, flash-off area, and bake oven(s) which are used to apply and
dry or cure the final coating(s) on components of automobile and light-
duty truck bodies.
Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the amount of coating solids
transferred onto the surface of a part or product to the total amount
of coating solids used.
VOC content means all volatile organic compounds that are in a
coating expressed as kilograms of VOC per liter of coating solids.
[[Page 30003]]
Waterborne or water reducible means a coating which contains more
than five weight percent water in its volatile fraction.
Sec. 60.392a Standards for volatile organic compounds.
You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (h)
of this section.
(a) Emission limitations. On and after the date on which the
initial performance test required by Sec. 60.8 is completed, you must
not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from any
affected facility VOC emissions in excess of the limits in paragraph
(a)(1) through (4) of this section. The emission limitations listed in
this paragraph (a) of this section shall apply at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As provided in Sec.
60.11(f), this provision supersedes the exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction in the part 60 general provisions in
subpart A to this part.
(1) For each EDP prime coat operation:
(i) 0.027 kilogram of VOC per liter of applied coating solids when
RT is 0.16 or greater.
(ii) 0.027 x 350(0.160-RT) kg of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids when RT is greater than or equal to 0.040 and
less than 0.160.
(iii) When RT is less than 0.040, there is no emission
limit.
(2) 0.027 kilograms of VOC per liter of applied coating solids
(0.23 pounds per gallon of applied coating solids) from each non-EDP
prime coat operation.
(3) 0.35 kilograms of VOC per liter of applied coating solids (2.92
pounds per gallon of applied coating solids) from each guide coat
operation.
(4) 0.42 kilograms of VOC per liter of applied coating solids (3.53
pounds per gallon of applied coating solids) from each topcoat
operation.
(b) Work practices for storage, mixing, and conveying. You must
develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize VOC emissions
from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, all
coating operations for which emission limits are established under
Sec. 60.392a(a). The plan must specify practices and procedures to
ensure that, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section are implemented.
(1) All VOC-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and
waste materials must be stored in closed containers.
(2) The risk of spills of VOC-containing coatings, thinners,
cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
(3) VOC-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and
waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed
containers or pipes.
(4) Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with continuous
agitation systems, which contain VOC-containing coatings and other
materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the
contents.
(5) Emissions of VOC must be minimized during cleaning of storage,
mixing, and conveying equipment.
(c) Work practices for cleaning and purging. You must develop and
implement a work practice plan to minimize VOC emissions from cleaning
and from purging of equipment associated with all coating operations
for which emission limits are established under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(1) The plan shall, at a minimum, address each of the operations
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section in which
you use VOC-containing materials or in which there is a potential for
emission of VOC.
(i) The plan must address vehicle body wipe emissions through one
or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (D)
of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of solvent-moistened wipes.
(B) Keeping solvent containers closed when not in use.
(C) Keeping wipe disposal/recovery containers closed when not in
use.
(D) Use of tack-wipes.
(ii) The plan must address coating line purging emissions through
one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A)
through (D) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Air/solvent push-out.
(B) Capture and reclaim or recovery of purge materials (excluding
applicator nozzles/tips).
(C) Block painting to the maximum extent feasible.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC solvents for purge.
(iii) The plan must address emissions from flushing of coating
systems through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent tanks closed.
(B) Recovering and recycling solvents.
(C) Keeping recovered/recycled solvent tanks closed.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC solvents.
(iv) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
grates through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Controlled burn-off.
(B) Rinsing with high-pressure water (in place).
(C) Rinsing with high-pressure water (off line).
(D) Use of spray-on masking or other type of liquid masking.
(E) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(v) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
walls through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(v)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of masking materials (contact paper, plastic sheet, or
other similar type of material).
(B) Use of spray-on masking.
(C) Use of rags and manual wipes instead of spray application when
cleaning walls.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(vi) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
equipment through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(vi)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of covers on equipment (disposable or reusable).
(B) Use of parts cleaners (off-line submersion cleaning).
(C) Use of spray-on masking or other protective coatings.
(D) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(vii) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of external
spray booth areas through one or more of the techniques listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(vii)(A) through (F) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Use of removable floor coverings (paper, foil, plastic, or
similar type of material).
(B) Use of manual and/or mechanical scrubbers, rags, or wipes
instead of spray application.
(C) Use of shoe cleaners to eliminate coating track-out from spray
booths.
(D) Use of booties or shoe wraps.
(E) Use of low-VOC or no-VOC content cleaners.
(F) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(viii) The plan must address emissions from housekeeping measures
not addressed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section
through one or more of the techniques listed in
[[Page 30004]]
paragraphs (c)(1)(viii)(A) through (C) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent-laden articles (cloths, paper, plastic, rags,
wipes, and similar items) in covered containers when not in use.
(B) Storing new and used solvents in closed containers.
(C) Transferring of solvents in a manner to minimize the risk of
spills.
(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (viii) of this section, if the type of coatings used in any
facility with surface coating operations subject to the requirements of
this section are of such a nature that the need for one or more of the
practices specified under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this
section is eliminated, then the plan may include approved alternative
or equivalent measures that are applicable or necessary during cleaning
of storage, conveying, and application equipment.
(d) Work practice plan revisions. The work practice plans developed
in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are not
required to be incorporated in your title V permit. Any revisions to
the work practice plans developed in accordance with paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section do not constitute revisions to your title V permit.
(e) Work practice plan retention time. Copies of the current work
practice plans developed in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, as well as plans developed within the preceding 5 years
must be available on-site for inspection and copying by the permitting
authority.
(f) Operating limits. You are not required to meet any operating
limits for any coating operation(s) without add-on controls, nor are
you required to meet operating limits for any coating operation(s) that
do not utilize emission capture systems and add-on controls to comply
with the emission limits in Sec. 60.392a(a).
(g) Operating limits for operations with add-on controls. Except as
provided in paragraph (h) of this section, for any controlled coating
operation(s), you must meet the operating limits specified in table 1
to this subpart. These operating limits apply to the emission capture
and add-on control systems for affected sources in Sec. 60.390a(a)(1),
and you must establish the operating limits during performance tests
according to the requirements in Sec. 60.394a. You must meet the
operating limits at all times after you establish them.
(h) Alternative operating limits. If you use an add-on control
device other than those listed in table 1 to this subpart or wish to
monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating
limit, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of alternative
monitoring under Sec. 60.13(i).
Sec. 60.393a Performance test and compliance provisions.
(a) Representative conditions. You must conduct performance tests
under representative conditions for the affected coating operation
according to Sec. 60.8(c) and under the conditions in this section
unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the
provisions in Sec. 60.8(b)(4).
(1) Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or nonoperation
do not constitute conditions representative of normal operation for
purposes of conducting a performance test. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. Emissions in excess of
the applicable emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction will be considered a violation of the applicable emission
limit.
(2) You must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the performance test and explain
why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
(3) Section 60.8(d) and (f) do not apply to the performance test
procedures required by this section.
(b) Initial and continuous compliance requirements. You must
conduct an initial performance test in accordance with Sec. 60.8(a)
and thereafter for each calendar month for each affected facility
according to the procedures in this section. You must also conduct
periodic performance tests of add-on controls, except for solvent
recovery systems for which liquid-liquid material balances are
conducted according to paragraph (l) of this section, to reestablish
the operating limits required by Sec. 60.392a within 5 years following
the previous performance test. You must meet all the requirements of
this section to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance.
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance, the VOC emissions from
affected source must meet the applicable emission limitation in Sec.
60.392a and the work practice standards in Sec. 60.392a and the
applicable operating limits in Sec. 60.392a established during the
initial performance test using the procedures in Sec. 60.394a and
table 1 to this subpart.
(i) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the
initial compliance period according to the requirements of this
section. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable
compliance date specified in Sec. 60.8 and ends on the last day of the
month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on
any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial
compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next
month.
(ii) You must determine the mass of VOC emissions and volume of
coating solids deposited in the initial compliance period. The initial
compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture
system and add-on control device performance tests conducted according
to Sec. Sec. 60.396a and 60.397a; supporting documentation showing
that during the initial compliance period the VOC emission rate was
equal to or less than the emission limit in Sec. 60.392a; the
operating limits established during the performance tests and the
results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by Sec.
60.394a; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the
work practice plans required by Sec. 60.392(b) and (c).
(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 60.392a, the VOC emission rate for each
compliance period, determined according to the procedures in this
section, must be equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in
Sec. 60.392a. A compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month
after the end of the initial compliance period described in Sec.
60.393a(b)(1)(i) is a compliance period consisting of that month. You
must perform the calculations in this section on a monthly basis.
(3) If the VOC emission rate for any 1-month compliance period
exceeded the applicable emission limit in Sec. 60.392a, this is a
deviation from the emission limitation for that compliance period and
must be reported as specified in Sec. 60.395a(h).
(c) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, you must establish and demonstrate
continuous compliance during the initial compliance period with the
operating limits required by Sec. 60.392a, using the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.394a.
(1) You do not need to comply with the operating limits for the
emission capture system and add-on control device required by Sec.
60.394a until after you have completed the initial
[[Page 30005]]
performance test specified in paragraph (b) of this section. During the
period between the startup date of the affected source and the initial
performance test required by Sec. 60.8 you must maintain a log
detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system,
the add-on control device, and the continuous monitoring system (CMS).
(2) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit required by Sec. 60.392a that applies to you, as specified in
Table 1 to this subpart, and you must conduct performance tests as
specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(3) If an operating parameter is out of the allowed range specified
in table 1 to this subpart, this is a deviation from the operating
limit that must be reported as specified in Sec. 60.395a(h).
(4) If an operating parameter deviates from the operating limit
specified in table 1 to this subpart, then you must assume that the
emission capture system and add-on control device were achieving zero
efficiency during the time period of the deviation except as provided
in Sec. 60.393a (m).
(5) Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct
liquid-liquid material balances according to paragraph (l) of this
section for controlled coating operations, you must conduct periodic
performance tests of add-on controls and reestablish the operating
limits required by Sec. 60.392a within 5 years following the previous
performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test
within 5 years following the initial performance test required by Sec.
60.8. Thereafter, you must conduct a performance test no later than 5
years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be
confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. If you are
using the alternative monitoring option for a catalytic oxidizer
according to Sec. 60.394a(b)(3) and following the catalyst maintenance
procedures in Sec. 60.394a(b)(4), you are not required to conduct
periodic control device performance testing as specified by this
paragraph (c). For any control device for which instruments are used to
continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not required
to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by
this paragraph. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to
measuring emission capture system efficiency.
(6) You must meet the requirements for bypass lines in Sec.
60.394a(h) for control devices other than solvent recovery systems for
which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances. If any bypass line
is opened and emissions are diverted to the atmosphere when the coating
operation is running, this is a deviation that must be reported as
specified in Sec. 60.395a(h). For the purposes of completing the
compliance calculations specified in paragraph (j) of this section, you
must assume that the emission capture system and add-on control device
were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation.
(d) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop,
implement, and document implementation of the work practice plans
required by Sec. 60.392a(b) and (c) during the initial compliance
period, as specified in Sec. 60.395a.
(1) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards in Sec. 60.392a (b) and (c). If you did not develop
a work practice plan, if you did not implement the plan, or if you did
not keep the records required by Sec. 60.395a (k)(11), this is a
deviation from the work practice standards that must be reported as
specified in Sec. 60.395a (k)(4).
(e) Compliance with emission limits. You must use the following
procedures in paragraphs (f) through (m) of this section to determine
the monthly volume weighted average mass of VOC emitted per volume of
applied coating solids for each affected facility to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emission limitation in Sec. 60.392a.
You may also use the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining
the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) in making this
demonstration.
(f) Determine the mass fraction of VOC, density, and volume for
each material used. You must follow the procedures specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section to determine the mass
fraction of VOC, the density, and volume for each coating and thinner
used during each month. For the electrodeposition primer operation, the
mass fraction of VOC, density, and volume used must be determined for
each material added to the tank or system during each month.
(1) Determine the mass fraction of VOC for each material used. You
must determine the mass fraction of VOC for each material used during
the compliance period by using one of the options in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings,
you may use EPA Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous
volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for the mass
fraction of VOC. As an alternative to using EPA Method 24, you may use
ASTM D2369-20 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17). For Method
24, the coating sample must be a 1-liter sample taken in a 1-liter
container.
(ii) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for
determining the mass fraction of VOC once the Administrator has
approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec. 60.8(b)(3) to
submit an alternative test method for approval.
(iii) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the
material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the
test methods specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section, such as manufacturer's formulation data. If there is a
disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted
according to paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, then
the test method results will take precedence, unless after
consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement
authority that the facility's data are correct.
(2) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the
density of each material used during the compliance period from test
results using ASTM D1475-13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17) or for powder coatings, test method A or test method B of ASTM
D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17), or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the
material. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475-13 test results
or ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), Test Method A or Test Method B test
results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test
results will take precedence unless after consultation, the facility
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the
supplier's or manufacturer's data are correct.
(3) Determine the volume of each material used. You must determine
from company records on a monthly basis the volume of coating consumed,
as received, and the mass of solvent used for thinning purposes.
(g) Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each
coating. You must determine the volume fraction of coating solids for
each coating used during the compliance period by a test or by
information provided by the supplier or the manufacturer of the
material, as specified in paragraphs
[[Page 30006]]
(g)(1) and (2) of this section. For electrodeposition primer
operations, the volume fraction of solids must be determined for each
material added to the tank or system during each month. If test results
obtained according to paragraph (g)(1) of this section do not agree
with the information obtained under paragraph (g)(2) of this section,
the test results will take precedence unless, after consultation, the
facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority
that the facility's data are correct.
(1) ASTM Method D2697-22 or ASTM Method D6093-97. You may use ASTM
D2697-22 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), or ASTM D6093-97
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), to determine the volume
fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile
volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume
fraction of coating solids.
(2) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may obtain the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating
from the supplier or manufacturer.
(h) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must
determine the transfer efficiency for each non-electrodeposition prime
coat coating, each guide coat coating and each topcoat coating using
ASTM Method D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints--Weight Basis''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), or the guidelines
presented in ``Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-
Surfacer and Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17). You may conduct 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 Primer-
Surfacer and Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17). You may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for
electrodeposition primer coatings.
(i) Calculate the volume weighted average mass of VOC emitted per
volume of applied coating solids before add-on controls. (1) Calculate
the mass of VOC used in each calendar month for each affected facility
using Equation 1 of this section, where ``n'' is the total number of
coatings used and ``m'' is the total number of VOC solvents used:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.001
Where:
Mo = total mass of VOC in coatings as received
(kilograms).
Md = total mass of VOC in dilution solvent (kilograms).
Lci = volume of each coating (i) consumed, as received
(liters).
Dci = density of each coating (i) as received (kilograms
per liter).
Woi = proportion of VOC by weight in each coating (i), as
received.
Ldj = volume of each type VOC dilution solvent (j) added
to the coatings, as received (liters).
Ddj = density of each type VOC dilution solvent (j) added
to the coatings, as received (kilograms per liter).
[[Sigma]LdjDdj will be zero if no VOC solvent
is added to the coatings, as received.]
(2) Calculate the total volume of coating solids used in each
calendar month for each affected facility using Equation 2 of this
section, where ``n'' is the total number of coatings used:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.002
Where:
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed (liters).
Lci = volume of each coating (i) consumed, as received
(liters).
Vsi = proportion of solids by volume in each coating (i)
as received.
(3) Calculate the transfer efficiency (T) for each surface coating
operation according to paragraph (h) of this section.
(i) When more than one application method (l) is used on an
individual surface coating operation, you must perform an analysis to
determine an average transfer efficiency using Equation 3 of this
section, where ``n'' is the total number of coatings used and ``p'' is
the total number of application methods:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.003
Where:
T = overall transfer efficiency.
Tl = transfer efficiency for application method (l).
Vsi = proportion of solids by volume in each coating (i)
as received
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.004
Lcil = Volume of each coating (i) consumed by each
application method (l), as received (liters).
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed (liters).
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Calculate the volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids (G) during each calendar month for each affected
facility using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.005
Where:
[[Page 30007]]
G = volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of applied solids
(kilograms per liter).
Mo = total mass of VOC in coatings as received
(kilograms).
Md = total mass of VOC in dilution solvent (kilograms).
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed (liters).
T = overall transfer efficiency.
(5) Select the appropriate limit according to Sec. 60.392a. If the
volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of applied coating
solids (G), calculated on a calendar month basis, is less than or equal
to the applicable emission limit specified in Sec. 60.392a, the
affected facility is in compliance. Each monthly calculation is a
performance test for the purpose of this subpart.
(j) Calculate the volume weighted average mass of VOC emitted per
volume of applied coating solids after add-on controls. You use the
following procedures for each affected facility which uses a capture
system and a control device that destroys VOC (e.g., incinerator) to
comply with the applicable emission limit specified under Sec.
60.392a. Use the procedures in paragraph (j)(1) through (5) of this
section to calculate volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids for each controlled coating operation using an
emission capture system and add-on control device other than a solvent
recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances.
For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system
for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you must use
the procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.
(1) Calculate the volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids (G) during each calendar month for each affected
facility as described under Sec. 60.393a(i)(4).
(2) Calculate the volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids (N) emitted after the control device using
Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.006
Where:
N = volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of applied
coating solids after the control device in units of kilograms of VOC
per liter of applied coating solids.
G = volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of applied
coating solids (kilograms per liter).
CE = fraction of total VOC that is emitted by an affected facility
that enters the control device.
DRE = VOC destruction or removal efficiency of the control device.
(3) You must use the procedures and test methods in section 60.397a
to determine the emission capture system efficiency (CE) as part of the
initial performance test.
(i) If you can justify to the Administrator's satisfaction that
another method will give comparable results, the Administrator will
approve its use on a case-by-case basis.
(ii) In subsequent months, you must use the most recently
determined capture efficiency for the performance test.
(4) You must use the procedures and test methods in section 60.396a
to determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the initial performance test.
(i) In subsequent months, you must use the most recently determined
VOC destruction efficiency for the performance test.
(ii) If two or more add-on control devices are used for the same
emission stream, you must measure emissions at the outlet of each
device in accordance with Sec. 60.396a(c). If there is more than one
inlet or outlet to the add-on control device, you must calculate the
total gaseous organic mass flow rate for each inlet and each outlet and
then total all of the inlet emissions and total all of the outlet
emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.396a(d). The emission destruction
or removal efficiency of the add-on control device is the average of
the efficiencies determined in the three test runs. The destruction or
removal efficiency determined using these data shall be applied to each
affected facility served by the control device.
(5) Calculate the mass of VOC for each affected facility each
calendar month for each period of time in which a deviation, including
a deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, from
an emission limitation, an operating limit or any CMS requirement for
the capture system or control device serving the controlled coating
operation occurred. Except as provided in paragraph (m) of this
section, for any period of time in which a deviation, including a
deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, from an
emission limitation or operating limit or from any CMS requirement of
the capture system or control device serving the controlled coating
operation occurred, you must assume zero efficiency for the emission
capture system and add-on control device. During such a deviation you
must assume the affected source was uncontrolled for the duration of
the deviation using the equation in paragraph (i)(4) of this section.
(6) Adjust the volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids emitted after the control device for each
affected facility (N) during a calendar month for periods of deviation
by adding the mass of VOC for the uncontrolled period of time according
to paragraph (i)(5) of this section.
(7) If the adjusted volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume
of applied solids emitted after the control device (N) calculated on a
calendar month basis is less than or equal to the applicable emission
limit specified in Sec. 60.392a, the affected facility is in
compliance. Each monthly calculation is a performance test for the
purposes of this subpart.
(k) Calculate the volume weighted average mass of VOC emitted per
volume of applied coating solids after add-on recovery devices. You
must use the following procedures for each affected facility which uses
a capture system and a control device that recovers the VOC (e.g.,
carbon adsorber) other than a solvent recovery system for which you
conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the applicable
emission limit specified under Sec. 60.392a.
(1) Calculate the mass of VOC (Mo + Md) used
during each calendar month for each affected facility as described
under paragraph (i) of this section.
(2) Calculate the total volume of coating solids (Ls)
used in each calendar month for each affected facility as described
under paragraph (i) of this section.
(3) Calculate the mass of VOC recovered (Mr) each
calendar month for each affected facility by the following equation:
Mr = Lr * Dr
Where:
Mr = total mass of VOC recovered from an affected
facility (kilograms).
Lr = volume of VOC recovered from an affected facility
(liters).
[[Page 30008]]
Dr = density of VOC recovered from an affected facility
(kilograms per liter).
(4) Calculate the volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids emitted after the control device (N) during a
calendar month using Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.007
Where:
N = volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of applied
coating solids after the control device in units of kilograms of VOC
per liter of applied coating solids.
Mo = total mass of VOC in coatings as received
(kilograms).
Md = total mass of VOC in dilution solvent (kilograms).
Mr = total mass of VOC recovered from an affected
facility (kilograms).
Ls = volume of solids in coatings consumed (liters).
T = overall transfer efficiency.
(5) Adjust the volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids emitted after the recovery device for each
affected facility (N) during a calendar month for periods of deviation
by adding the mass of VOC for the uncontrolled periods of time
according to paragraph (i)(6) of this section.
(6) If the adjusted volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume
of applied solids emitted after the control device (N) calculated on a
calendar month basis is less than or equal to the applicable emission
limit specified in Sec. 60.392a, the affected facility is in
compliance. Each monthly calculation is a performance test for the
purposes of this subpart.
(l) Calculate the collection and recovery efficiency for solvent
recovery systems using liquid-liquid material balances. You must use
the following procedures for each affected facility which uses a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances to comply with the applicable emission limit specified under
Sec. 60.392a.
(1) Calculate the mass of VOC emission reduction for the coating
operation controlled by the solvent recovery system using a liquid-
liquid material balance for each affected facility by applying the
volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency to the mass
of VOC contained in the coatings and thinners used in the coating
operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during each month.
Perform a liquid-liquid material balance for each month as specified in
paragraphs (l)(1) through (6) of this section.
(2) For each solvent recovery system, install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, a device
that indicates the cumulative amount of volatile organic matter
recovered by the solvent recovery system each month. The device must be
initially certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within 2.0 percent of the mass of volatile organic matter recovered.
(3) For each solvent recovery system, determine the mass of
volatile organic matter recovered for the month based on measurement
with the device required in paragraphs (l)(l) and (2) of this section.
(4) For each affected facility, determine the mass of VOC (Mo + Md)
of each coating and thinner controlled by the solvent recovery system
for each calendar month using the equation in paragraph (i)(1) of this
section.
(5) Calculate the solvent recovery system's volatile organic matter
collection and recovery efficiency (RV) for each affected
facility using Equation 7 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.008
Where:
RV = Volatile organic matter collection and recovery
efficiency of the solvent recovery system during the month, percent.
MVR = Mass of volatile organic matter recovered by the
solvent recovery system during the month, kg.
Voli = Volume of coating, i, used in the coating
operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the
month, liters.
Di = Density of coating, i, kg per liter.
WVc, i = Mass fraction of volatile organic matter for
coating, i, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating.
Volj = Volume of thinner, j, used in the coating
operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the
month, liters.
Dj = Density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
WVt, j = Mass fraction of volatile organic matter for
thinner, j, kg volatile organic matter per kg thinner.
m = Number of different coatings used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month.
n = Number of different thinners used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month.
(6) For each affected facility, you may apply the solvent recovery
system's volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency to
the mass of VOC for the coating operation controlled by the solvent
recovery system for each calendar month.
(m) Deviations. You may request approval from the Administrator to
use non-zero capture efficiencies and add-on control device
efficiencies for any period of time in which a deviation, including a
deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, from an
emission limitation, operating limit or any CMS requirement for the
capture system or add-on control device serving a controlled coating
operation occurred.
(1) If you have manually collected parameter data indicating that a
capture system or add-on control device was operating normally during a
CMS malfunction, a CMS out-of-control period, or associated repair,
then these data may be used to support and document your request to use
the normal capture efficiency or add-on control device efficiency for
that period of deviation.
(2) If you have data indicating the actual performance of a capture
system or add-on control device (e.g., capture efficiency measured at a
reduced flow rate or add-on control device efficiency measured at a
reduced thermal oxidizer temperature) during a deviation,
[[Page 30009]]
including a deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, from an emission limitation or operating limit or from any
CMS requirement for the capture system or add-on control device serving
a controlled coating operation, then these data may be used to support
and document your request to use these values for that period of
deviation.
(3) You may recalculate the adjusted volume weighted average mass
of VOC emitted per volume of applied coating solids after add-on
controls in paragraph (j)(6) of this section, and the adjusted volume
weighted average mass of VOC per volume of applied coating solids
emitted after the recovery device in paragraph (k)(4) of this section,
based on Administrator approval of the non-zero capture efficiency and
add-on control device efficiency values based on data provided in
accordance with paragraphs (m)(1) and (2) of this section.
(n) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission
limitations, submit a statement as part of the compliance report that
you were in compliance with the emission limitations during the
reporting period because the VOC emission rate for each compliance
period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.
60.392a, you achieved the operating limits required by Sec. 60.394a,
and you achieved the work practice standards required by Sec. 60.392a
during each compliance period.
(o) Recordkeeping. You must maintain records as specified in Sec.
60.395a.
Sec. 60.394a Add-on control device operating limits and monitoring
requirements.
During the performance tests required by Sec. 60.393a, if you use
an add-on control device(s) to comply with the emission limits
specified under Sec. 60.392a(a) through (c), you must establish add-on
control device operating limits required by Sec. 60.392a(h) according
to this section, unless approval has been received for alternative
monitoring under Sec. 60.13(i) as specified in Sec. 60.392a(h).
(a) Thermal oxidizers. If your add-on control device is a thermal
oxidizer, establish the operating limit according to paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) Use all valid data collected during the performance test to
calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained
during the performance test. This average combustion temperature is the
minimum 3-hour average operating limit for your thermal oxidizer.
(b) Catalytic oxidizers. If your add-on control device is a
catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) or paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs.
(2) Use all valid data collected during the performance test to
calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst
bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed
maintained during the performance test. The minimum 3-hour average
operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer are the average
temperature just before the catalyst bed maintained during the
performance test of that catalytic oxidizer and 80 percent of the
average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained
during the performance test of that catalytic oxidizer, except during
periods of low production, the latter minimum operating limit is to
maintain a positive temperature gradient across the catalyst bed. A low
production period is when production is less than 80 percent of
production rate during the performance test of that catalytic oxidizer.
(3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section. During the performance test, you must monitor
and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once
every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use all valid data
collected during the performance test to calculate and record the
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance
test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
(4) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance
plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor
according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The plan must address,
at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e.,
conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer's or catalyst
supplier's recommended procedures. If problems are found during the
catalyst activity test, you must replace the catalyst bed or take other
corrective action consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations.
(ii) Monthly external inspection of the catalytic oxidizer system,
including the burner assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and,
as necessary, adjust the equipment to assure proper air-to-fuel
mixtures.
(iii) Annual internal inspection of the catalyst bed to check for
channeling, abrasion, and settling. If problems are found during the
annual internal inspection of the catalyst, you must replace the
catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent with the
manufacturer's recommendations. If the catalyst bed is replaced and is
not of like or better kind and quality as the old catalyst, and is not
consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations, then you must
conduct a new performance test to determine destruction efficiency
according to Sec. 60.396a. If a catalyst bed is replaced and the
replacement catalyst is of like or better kind and quality as the old
catalyst, and is consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations,
then a new performance test to determine destruction efficiency is not
required and you may continue to use the previously established
operating limits for that catalytic oxidizer.
(c) Regenerative carbon adsorbers. If your add-on control device is
a regenerative carbon adsorber, establish the operating limits
according to paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing
gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle and
the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and
cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding
or immediately following the performance test.
(2) The operating limits for your carbon adsorber are the minimum
total desorbing gas mass flow recorded during the regeneration cycle
and the maximum carbon bed temperature recorded after the cooling
cycle.
(d) Condensers. If your add-on control device is a condenser,
establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at
[[Page 30010]]
least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs.
(2) Use all valid data collected during the performance test to
calculate and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas
temperature maintained during the performance test. This average
condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum 3-hour average
operating limit for your condenser.
(e) Concentrators. If your add-on control device includes a
concentrator, you must establish operating limits for the concentrator
according to paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
desorption gas inlet temperature at least once every 15 minutes during
each of the three runs of the performance test.
(2) Use all valid data collected during the performance test to
calculate and record the average desorption gas inlet temperature. The
minimum operating limit for the concentrator is 8 degrees Celsius (15
degrees Fahrenheit) below the average desorption gas inlet temperature
maintained during the performance test for that concentrator. You must
keep the set point for the desorption gas inlet temperature no lower
than 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit) below the lower of that
set point during the performance test for that concentrator and the
average desorption gas inlet temperature maintained during the
performance test for that concentrator.
(f) Emission capture systems. For each capture device that is not
part of a permanent total enclosure (PTE) that meets the criteria of
Sec. 60.397a and that is not capturing emissions from a downdraft
spray booth or from a flash-off area or bake oven associated with a
downdraft spray booth, establish an operating limit for either the gas
volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure, as specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. The operating limit for a
PTE is specified in table 1 to this subpart.
(1) During the capture efficiency determination required by Sec.
60.393a and described in Sec. 60.397a, you must monitor and record
either the gas volumetric flow rate or the duct static pressure for
each separate capture device in your emission capture system at least
once every 15 minutes during each of the test runs at a point in the
duct between the capture device and the add-on control device inlet.
(2) Calculate and record the average gas volumetric flow rate or
duct static pressure for the three test runs for each capture device,
using all valid data. This average gas volumetric flow rate or duct
static pressure is the minimum operating limit for that specific
capture device.
(g) Monitoring requirements. If you use an add-on control device(s)
to comply with the emission limits specified under Sec. 60.392a(a)
through (c), you must install, operate, and maintain each CMS specified
in paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g) of this section according to
paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section. You must install,
operate, and maintain each CMS specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of
this section according to paragraphs (g)(3) through (5) of this
section.
(1) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four
equally spaced successive cycles of CMS operation in 1 hour.
(2) You must determine the average of all recorded readings for
each successive 3-hour period of the emission capture system and add-on
control device operation.
(3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration,
and validation check of the CMS.
(4) You must maintain the CMS at all times in accordance with Sec.
60.11(d) and have readily available necessary parts for routine repairs
of the monitoring equipment.
(5) You must operate the CMS and collect emission capture system
and add-on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled
coating operation is operating in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d).
(6) Startups and shutdowns are normal operation for this source
category. Emissions from these activities are to be included when
determining if the standards specified in Sec. 60.392a(a) through (c)
are being attained. You must not use emission capture system or add-on
control device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You
must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating
the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture
system and add-on control device operating limits.
(7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the CMS to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions. Except for periods of required
quality assurance or control activities, any period during which the
CMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this section or generates data that cannot be
included in calculating averages as specified in this paragraph (g)(7)
constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
(h) Capture system bypass line. You must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section for each emission capture
system that contains bypass lines that could divert emissions away from
the add-on control device to the atmosphere.
(1) You must monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism
controlling the bypass line in a nondiverting position in such a way
that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without creating a
record that the valve was opened. The method used to monitor or secure
the valve or closure mechanism must meet one of the requirements
specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow
control position indicator that takes a reading at least once every 15
minutes and provides a record indicating whether the emissions are
directed to the add-on control device or diverted from the add-on
control device. The time of occurrence and flow control position must
be recorded, as well as every time the flow direction is changed. The
flow control position indicator must be installed at the entrance to
any bypass line that could divert the emissions away from the add-on
control device to the atmosphere.
(ii) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures. Secure any bypass
line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key
type configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure
mechanism at least once every month to ensure that the valve is
maintained in the closed position, and the emissions are not diverted
away from the add-on control device to the atmosphere.
(iii) Valve closure monitoring. Ensure that any bypass line valve
is in the closed (nondiverting) position through monitoring of valve
position at least once every 15 minutes. You must inspect the
monitoring system at least once every month to verify that the monitor
will indicate valve position.
(iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in
which the coating operation is stopped when flow is diverted by the
bypass line away from the add-on control device to the atmosphere when
the coating operation is running. You must inspect the automatic
shutdown system at least once every month to verify that it will
[[Page 30011]]
detect diversions of flow and shut down the coating operation.
(2) If any bypass line is opened, you must include a description of
why the bypass line was opened and the length of time it remained open
in the semiannual compliance reports required in Sec. 60.395a.
(i) Thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. If you are using a
thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer as an add-on control device
(including those used to treat desorbed concentrate streams from
concentrators or carbon adsorbers), you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) For a thermal oxidizer, install a gas temperature monitor in
the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or in the duct immediately
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) For a catalytic oxidizer, install a gas temperature monitor
upstream of the catalyst bed. If you establish the operating parameters
for a catalytic oxidizer under paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section, you must also install a gas temperature monitor downstream of
the catalyst bed. The temperature monitors must be in the gas stream
immediately before and after the catalyst bed to measure the
temperature difference across the bed. If you establish the operating
parameters for a catalytic oxidizer under paragraphs (b)(4) through (6)
of this section, you need not install a gas temperature monitor
downstream of the catalyst bed.
(3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) and (i)(3)(i)
through (vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring
device, unless approval has been received for alternative monitoring
under Sec. 60.13(i) as specified in Sec. 60.392a(h). For the purposes
of this paragraph (i)(3), a thermocouple is part of the temperature
sensor.
(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4
degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever
is larger.
(iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(iv) The gas temperature sensor must be capable of recording the
temperature continuously. If a gas temperature chart recorder is used,
it must have a measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at
least 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
(v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owner's manual.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature sensor
reading.
(vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range or install a new temperature sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(j) Regenerative carbon adsorbers. If you are using a regenerative
carbon adsorber as an add-on control device, you must monitor the total
regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each
regeneration cycle, the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration
and cooling cycle and comply with paragraphs (g)(3) through (5) and
(j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The regeneration desorbing gas mass flow monitor must be an
integrating device having a measurement sensitivity of plus or minus 10
percent, capable of recording the total regeneration desorbing gas mass
flow for each regeneration cycle.
(2) The carbon bed temperature monitor must have a measurement
sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature (as expressed in degrees
Fahrenheit) recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater, and
must be capable of recording the temperature within 15 minutes of
completing any carbon bed cooling cycle.
(k) Condensers. If you are using a condenser, you must monitor the
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature and comply with
paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) and (k)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The gas temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity
of 1 percent of the temperature (expressed in degrees Fahrenheit)
recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater.
(2) The temperature monitor must provide a gas temperature record
at least once every 15 minutes.
(l) Concentrators. If you are using a concentrator, such as a
zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed concentrator, you must install a
temperature monitor in the desorption gas stream. The temperature
monitor must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) and
(i)(3) of this section.
(m) Emission capture systems. The capture system monitoring system
must comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) and (m)(1)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) Locate a flow sensor in a position that provides a
representative flow measurement in the duct from each capture device in
the emission capture system to the add-on control device.
(ii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least
semiannually.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical
connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage.
(2) For each pressure drop measurement device, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) and (m)(2)(i) through
(vi) of this section.
(i) Locate the pressure tap(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure drop across each opening you
are monitoring.
(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(iii) Using an inclined manometer with a measurement sensitivity of
0.0002 inches of water, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(iv) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(v) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical
connections for continuity, pressure taps for plugging and mechanical
connections for leakage.
Sec. 60.395a Notifications, reports, and records.
(a) Notifications. You must submit all notifications in Sec. Sec.
60.7, 60.8, and 60.13 that apply to you by the dates specified in those
sections and in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) A notification of the date construction (or reconstruction as
defined under Sec. 60.15) of an affected facility is commenced no
later than 30 days after such date.
(2) A notification of the actual date of initial startup of an
affected facility within 15 days after such date.
(3) A notification of any physical or operational change to an
existing facility which may increase the VOC emission
[[Page 30012]]
rate within 60 days or as soon as practicable before the change is
commenced.
(4) A notification of the date upon which demonstration of the CMS
performance commences in accordance with Sec. 60.13(c) not less than
30 days prior to such date.
(5) A notification of any performance test at least 30 days prior
to afford the Administrator (or delegated State or local agency) the
opportunity to have an observer present.
(b) Initial performance test report. If you use add-on control
devices, you must submit reports of performance test results for
emission capture systems and add-on control devices. Within 60 days
after achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected
facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days after initial
startup of such facility, you are required to conduct performance
test(s) and furnish the Administrator a report of the results of such
performance test(s) in accordance with Sec. 60.8(a). You are also
required to conduct transfer efficiency test(s) and submit reports of
the results of transfer efficiency tests and furnish the Administrator
a report of the results of such transfer efficiency tests. The initial
performance test report must include the information specified in Sec.
60.8.
(c) Subsequent performance test reports. You must conduct periodic
performance tests of add-on control devices in accordance with Sec.
60.393a(b) within five years of the previous performance test and at
such other times as may be required by the Administrator under section
114 of the Act in accordance with Sec. 60.8(a). You must furnish the
Administrator a written report of the results of such performance
test(s) within 60 days of completing the performance test. Periodic
testing of transfer efficiency and capture efficiency are not required.
(d) Compliance reports. Following the initial performance test, you
must submit a quarterly or semiannual compliance report for each
affected source required by Sec. 60.8 according to the requirements of
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. You must identify, record, and
submit a report to the Administrator every calendar quarter each
instance a deviation occurred from the emission limits, operating
limits, or work practices in Sec. Sec. 60.392a, 60.393a, and 60.394a,
that apply to you. If no such instances have occurred during a
particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted to the
Administrator semiannually. For each affected source that is subject to
40 CFR part 70 or 71 permitting regulations and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual compliance
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A),
you may submit the semiannual compliance reports according to the dates
the permitting authority has established.
(e) Initial compliance report. You must include the data outlined
in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section in the initial compliance
report required by Sec. 60.8 and the information required by pargraphs
(f) through (h) of this section.
(1) The volume weighted average mass of VOC per volume of applied
coating solids for each affected facility.
(2) Where compliance is achieved through the use of a capture or
control device, include the following additional data in the initial
performance test report required by Sec. 60.8(a) specified in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (v) of this section:
(i) The data collected to establish the operating limits for the
appropriate capture or control device required as by Sec. 60.394a and
table 1 to this subpart;
(ii) The total mass of VOC per volume of applied coating solids
before and after the control device as required by Sec. 60.396a;
(iii) The destruction efficiency of the control device used to
attain compliance with the applicable emission limit specified in Sec.
60.392a(a);
(iv) The capture efficiency as required by Sec. 60.397a and a
description of the method used to establish the capture efficiency for
the affected facility; and
(v) The transfer efficiency test results and a description of the
method used to establish the transfer efficiency for the affected
facility.
(f) Compliance report content. Compliance reports must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section
and paragraph (g) that are applicable to your affected source.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) Identification of the affected source.
(g) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission
limits, work practices, or operating limits in Sec. Sec. 60.392a and
60.394a, that apply to you, the compliance report must include a
statement that there were no deviations from the applicable emission
limitations during the reporting period. If you used control devices to
comply with the emission limits, and there were no periods during which
the CMS were out of control as specified in Sec. 60.394a(g) the
compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods
during which the CMS were out of control during the reporting period.
(h) Deviations. If there was a deviation from the applicable
emission limits in Sec. 60.392a or the applicable operating limit(s)
in table 1 to this subpart or the work practice standards in Sec.
60.392a, the compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (15) of this section.
(1) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the
volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOC emitted to the
atmosphere per volume of applied coating solids (N) for the affected
source exceeded the applicable emission limit in Sec. 60.392a.
(2) The calculation used to determine the volume-weighted average
of the total mass of VOC emitted to the atmosphere per volume of
applied coating solids (N) in accordance with Sec. 60.395a. You do not
need to submit the background data supporting these calculations, for
example information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers,
or test reports.
(3) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices used to control emissions from these
operations started and stopped.
(4) A brief description of the CMS.
(5) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(6) For each instance that the CMS was inoperative, except for zero
(low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that
the CMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the
CMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(7) For each instance that the CMS was malfunctioning or out-of-
control, as specified in Sec. 60.394a(g)(6) or (7), the date, time,
and duration that the CMS was malfunctioning or out-of-control; the
cause (including unknown cause) for the CMS malfunctioning or being
out-of-control; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(8) The date, time, and duration of each deviation from an
operating limit in table 1 to this subpart; and the date, time, and
duration of each bypass of an add-on control device.
(9) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total
source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in
table 1 to this subpart and the bypass of each add-on control device
during the semiannual reporting period.
[[Page 30013]]
(10) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on
control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that
were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known
causes, and other unknown causes.
(11) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total
source operating time of the downtime for each CMS during the
semiannual reporting period.
(12) A description of any changes in the CMS, coating operation,
emission capture system, or add-on control devices since the last
semiannual reporting period.
(13) For deviations from the work practice standards, the number of
deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs
(h)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A description of the deviation, the date, time, and duration of
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 60.11(d).
(ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which a
deviation occurred, the cause of the deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(14) For deviations from an emission limitation in Sec. 60.392a or
operating limit in Table 1 of this subpart, a statement of the cause of
each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(15) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Sec.
60.392a, or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a list of the
affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an
estimate of the quantity of VOC emitted over any emission limit in
Sec. 60.392a, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
(i) Electronic reporting of performance test data. Where compliance
is achieved through the use of add-on control devices, the owner or
operator shall submit control device performance test results for
initial and subsequent performance tests according to paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section within 60 days of completing each performance
test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Supported test methods. Data collected using test methods
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test.
(i) Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
(ii) The data must be submitted in a file format generated using
the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit an
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Unsupported test methods. Data collected using test methods
that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT
website at the time of the test.
(i) The results of the performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(ii) Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). Do not use CEDRI to
submit information you claim as CBI. Any information submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Under CAA section 114(c), emissions
data are not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is
required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available. Owners or operators that assert a CBI claim for any
information submitted under paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this section,
must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI,
to the EPA. The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Owners or operators can submit CBI according to one
of the two procedures in paragraph (i)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
(i) If sending CBI through the postal service, submit the file on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Owners or operators are
required to mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations Sector Lead, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(ii) The EPA preferred method for CBI submittal is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox,
OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted
directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected],
and as described above, should be clearly identified as CBI and note
Attention: Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations
Sector Lead. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic
files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you
do not have your own file sharing service, you can email
[email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(j) Electronic submittal of reports. The owner or operator shall
submit the reports listed in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of
this section. In addition to the information required in paragraphs (b)
through (h) of this section, owners or operators are required to report
excess emissions and a monitoring systems performance report and a
summary report to the Administrator according to Sec. 60.7(c) and (d).
Owners or operators are required by Sec. 60.7(c) and (d) to report the
date, time, cause, and duration of each exceedance of the applicable
emission limit specified in Sec. 60.392a(a), any malfunction of the
air pollution control equipment, and any periods during which the CMS
or monitoring device is inoperative, malfunctioning, or out-of-control.
For each failure, the report must include a list of the affected
sources or equipment and a description of the method used to estimate
the emissions.
(1) Effective date. On and after November 6, 2023, or once the
reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year,
whichever date is later, owners or operators must use the appropriate
spreadsheet template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date
the reporting template for this subpart becomes available will be
listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method by which
the report is submitted. Submit all reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which
can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA
will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the
public without further notice to the owner or operator. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI.
[[Page 30014]]
Any information submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. If
you claim CBI, submit the report following the procedure described in
paragraph (i)(3) of this section. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to CEDRI as described in this paragraph.
(2) System outage. Owner or operators that are required to submit a
report electronically through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, owners
or operators must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed, and the
system was unavailable;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date
you reported.
(vi) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
(vii) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(3) Force majeure. Owner or operators that are required to submit a
report electronically through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
(A) A written description of the force majeure event;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(C) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date
you reported.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(k) Recordkeeping. You must collect and keep records of the data
and information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (12) of this
section. Failure to collect and keep these records is a deviation from
the applicable standard.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, and the documentation supporting each
notification and report.
(2) A current copy of information provided by materials suppliers
or manufacturers, such as manufacturer's formulation data, or test data
used to determine the mass fraction of VOC, the density and the volume
fraction of coating solids for each coating, and the mass fraction of
VOC and the density for each thinner. If you conducted testing to
determine mass fraction of VOC, density, or volume fraction of coating
solids, you must keep a copy of the complete test report. If you use
information provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier of the
material that was based on testing, you must keep the summary sheet of
results provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier. If you use the
results of an analysis conducted by an outside testing lab, you must
keep a copy of the test report. You are not required to obtain the test
report or other supporting documentation from the manufacturer or
supplier.
(3) For each month, the records specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) For each coating used for the affected source, a record of the
volume used in each month, the mass fraction VOC content, the density,
and the volume fraction of solids.
(ii) For each thinner used in coating operations for the affected
source, a record of the volume used in each month, the mass fraction
VOC content, and the density.
(iii) A record of the calculation of the VOC emission rate for the
affected source for each month. This record must include all raw data,
algorithms, and intermediate calculations. If the guidelines presented
in the ``Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17), are used, you must keep records of all data input to this
protocol. If these data are maintained as electronic files, the
electronic files, as well as any paper copies must be maintained. These
data must be provided to the permitting authority on request on paper,
and in (if calculations are done electronically) electronic form.
(4) For each deviation from an emission limitation, operating
limit, or work practice plan reported under paragraph (h) of this
section, a record of the information specified in paragraphs (4)(i)
through (iv) of this section, as applicable.
(i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, and for each
deviation, the information as reported under paragraph (h) of this
section.
(ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under
paragraph (h) of this section.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of VOC emitted over any
applicable emission limit in Sec. 60.392a or any applicable operating
limit in Table 1 to
[[Page 30015]]
this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the
estimate, as reported under paragraph (h) of this section.
(iv) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 60.11(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(5) The records required by Sec. 60.7(b) and (c) related to SSM.
(6) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to support a determination that the capture
system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51
for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in
Sec. 60.397a(a).
(7) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the
requirements specified in Sec. 60.397a(b) through (g), including the
records specified in paragraphs (k)(7)(i) through (iv) of this section
that apply to you.
(i) Records for a liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a
temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of
total VOC, as measured by Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part
51, for each material used in the coating operation, and the total VOC
for all materials used during each capture efficiency test run,
including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of VOC
emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part
51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the
enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure.
(ii) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of VOC emissions
captured by the emission capture system, as measured by Method 204B or
C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, at the inlet to the add-on control
device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of VOC
emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part
51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the
enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure.
(iii) Records for panel tests. Records needed to document a capture
efficiency determination using a panel test as described in Sec.
60.397a(e) and (g), including a copy of the test report and
calculations performed to convert the panel test results to percent
capture efficiency values.
(iv) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to
document a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method
or protocol, as specified in Sec. 60.397a(f), if applicable.
(8) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(8)(i) and (ii) of this
section for each add-on control device VOC destruction or removal
efficiency determination as specified in Sec. 60.393a.
(i) Records of each add-on control device performance test
conducted according to Sec. 60.393a.
(ii) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add-on
control device performance test showing that the performance test was
conducted under representative operating conditions.
(9) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the
emission capture and add-on control device operating limits as
specified in Sec. 60.394a and to document compliance with the
operating limits as specified in table 1 to this subpart.
(10) Records of the data and calculations you used to determine the
transfer efficiency for guide coat and topcoat coating operations
pursuant to Sec. 60.393a(h).
(11) A record of the work practice plans required by Sec.
60.392a(b) and (c) and documentation that you are implementing the
plans on a continuous basis. Appropriate documentation may include
operational and maintenance records, records of documented inspections,
and records of internal audits.
(12) For each add-on control device and for each CMS, a copy of the
equipment operating instructions must be maintained on-site for the
life of the equipment in a location readily available to plant
operators and inspectors. You may prepare your own equipment operating
instructions, or they may be provided to you by the equipment supplier
or other third party.
(l) Record form and retention time. (1) Any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the
EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (k)(12) of this section, you
must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each
occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or
record.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (k)(12) of this section, you
must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of
each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report,
or record. You may keep the records off site for the remaining 3 years.
Sec. 60.396a Add-on control device destruction efficiency.
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec.
60.393a(j)(4), except as provided in Sec. 60.8. You must conduct three
test runs as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.8(f) and 60.394a, and each test
run must last at least 1 hour.
(a) For all types of add-on control devices, use the test methods
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
(2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1, or 2G of
appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas
volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60,
as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. The
ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17),
may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.
(4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine
stack gas moisture.
(5) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular
weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during
each test run.
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon in the
effluent gas leaving each stack not equipped with a control device and
at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously,
using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, as
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. You must
use the same method
[[Page 30016]]
for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
(1) Use Method 25 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and
you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more
than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at the control device
outlet.
(2) Use Method 25A if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and
you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50
ppmv or less at the control device outlet.
(3) Use Method 25A if the add-control device is not an oxidizer.
(4) You may use EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass
emissions as carbon.
(5) For Method 25 and 25A, the sampling time for each of three runs
must be at least one hour. The minimum sample volume must be 0.003 dscm
except that shorter sampling times or smaller volumes, when
necessitated by process variables or other factors, may be approved by
the Administrator. The Administrator will approve the sampling of
representative stacks on a case-by-case basis if you can demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Administrator that the testing of
representative stacks would yield results comparable to those that
would be obtained by testing all stacks.
(c) If two or more add-on control devices are used for the same
emission stream, then you must measure emissions at the outlet of each
device. For example, if one add-on control device is a concentrator
with an outlet for the high-volume, dilute stream that has been treated
by the concentrator, and a second add-on control device is an oxidizer
with an outlet for the low-volume, concentrated stream that is treated
with the oxidizer, you must measure emissions at the outlet of the
oxidizer and the high-volume dilute stream outlet of the concentrator.
(d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic
emissions mass flow rates (Mf) for the inlet and the outlet
of the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If
there is more than one inlet or outlet to the add-on control device,
you must calculate the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using
Equation 1 of this section for each inlet and each outlet and then
total all of the inlet emissions and total all of the outlet emissions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.009
Where:
Mf = Total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate, kg
per hour (kg/h).
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as carbon in the
vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or Method 25A, ppmv, dry basis.
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting
the add-on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, or 2G, dry standard cubic meters per hour (dscm/h). 0.0416 =
Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic meter (mol/
m\3\) (@293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)).
(e) For each test run, determine the add-on control device organic
emissions destruction or removal efficiency using Equation 2 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.010
Where:
DRE = Organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the
add-on control device, percent.
Mfi = Total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at
the inlet(s) to the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this
section, kg/h.
Mfo = Total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at
the outlet(s) of the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this
section, kg/h.
(f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the
add-on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in
the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section.
Sec. 60.397a Emission capture system efficiency.
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required
by Sec. 60.393a. For purposes of this subpart, a spray booth air seal
is not considered a natural draft opening in a PTE or a temporary total
enclosure provided you demonstrate that the direction of air movement
across the interface between the spray booth air seal and the spray
booth is into the spray booth. For purposes of this subpart, a bake
oven air seal is not considered a natural draft opening in a PTE or a
temporary total enclosure provided you demonstrate that the direction
of air movement across the interface between the bake oven air seal and
the bake oven is into the bake oven. You may use lightweight strips of
fabric or paper, or smoke tubes to make such demonstrations as part of
showing that your capture system is a PTE or conducting a capture
efficiency test using a temporary total enclosure. You cannot count air
flowing from a spray booth air seal into a spray booth as air flowing
through a natural draft opening into a PTE or into a temporary total
enclosure unless you elect to treat that spray booth air seal as a
natural draft opening. You cannot count air flowing from a bake oven
air seal into a bake oven as air flowing through a natural draft
opening into a PTE or into a temporary total enclosure unless you elect
to treat that bake oven air seal as a natural draft opening.
(a) Assuming 100 percent capture efficiency. You may assume the
capture system efficiency is 100 percent if both of the conditions in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are met:
(1) The capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and directs all the exhaust gases from
the enclosure to an add-on control device.
(2) All coatings and thinners used in the coating operation are
applied within the capture system, and coating solvent flash-off and
coating curing and drying occurs within the capture system. For
example, this criterion is not met if parts enter the open shop
environment when being moved between a spray booth and a curing oven.
[[Page 30017]]
(b) Measuring capture efficiency. If the capture system does not
meet both of the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section,
then you must use one of the five procedures described in paragraphs
(c) through (g) of this section to measure capture efficiency. For the
protocols in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the capture
efficiency measurement must consist of three test runs. Each test run
must be at least 3 hours duration or the length of a production run,
whichever is longer, up to 8 hours. For the purposes of this test, a
production run means the time required for a single part to go from the
beginning to the end of production, which includes surface preparation
activities and drying or curing time.
(c) Liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure. The liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol
compares the mass of liquid VOC in materials used in the coating
operation to the mass of VOC emissions not captured by the emission
capture system. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure
and the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section to
measure emission capture system efficiency using the liquid-to-
uncaptured-gas protocol.
(1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure
around the coating operation where coatings and thinners are applied,
and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and thinners
subsequently occur, such as flash-off, curing, and drying areas. The
areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions
for routing to an add-on control device, such as the entrance and exit
areas of an oven or spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The
enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR
part 51.
(2) Use Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to
determine the mass fraction of VOC liquid input from each coating and
thinner used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency
test run.
(3) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the total mass of
VOC liquid input (VOCused) from all the coatings and
thinners used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency
test run.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.011
Where:
VOCi = Mass fraction of VOC in coating or thinner, i,
used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test
run, kg VOC per kg material.
Voli = Total volume of coating or thinner, i, used in the
coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, liters.
Di = Density of coating or thinner, i, kg material per
liter material.
n = Number of different coatings and thinners used in the coating
operation during the capture efficiency test run.
(4) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure
the total mass, kg, of VOC emissions that are not captured by the
emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run.
(i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total
enclosure.
(ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure.
During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound
emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the
coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined,
must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally.
(5) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent
capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 2 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.012
Where:
CE = Capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the
add-on control device, percent.
VOCused = Total mass of VOC liquid input used in the
coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg.
VOCuncaptured = Total mass of VOC that is not captured by
the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test
run, kg.
(6) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system
as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test
runs.
(d) Gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a
building enclosure. The gas-to-gas protocol compares the mass of VOC
emissions captured by the emission capture system to the mass of VOC
emissions not captured. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building
enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this
section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the gas-to-
gas protocol.
(1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure
around the coating operation where coatings and thinners are applied,
and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and thinners
subsequently occur, such as flash-off, curing, and drying areas. The
areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions
generated by the coating operation for routing to an add-on control
device, such as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or a spray
booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the
applicable definition of a temporary total enclosure or building
enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
(2) Use Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure
the total mass, kg, of VOC emissions captured by the emission capture
system during each capture efficiency test run as measured at the inlet
to the add-on control device.
(i) The sampling points for the Method 204B or C measurement must
be upstream from the add-on control device and must represent total
emissions routed from the capture system and entering the add-on
control device.
(ii) If multiple emission streams from the capture system enter the
add-on control device without a single common duct, then the emissions
entering the
[[Page 30018]]
add-on control device must be simultaneously or sequentially measured
in each duct, and the total emissions entering the add-on control
device must be determined.
(3) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure
the total mass, kg, of VOC emissions that are not captured by the
emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run. To make the measurement, substitute VOC for each occurrence
of the term VOC in the methods.
(i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total
enclosure.
(ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure.
During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound
emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the
coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined,
must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally.
(4) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent
capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 3 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.013
Where:
CE = Capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the
add-on control device, percent.
VOCcaptured = Total mass of VOC captured by the emission
capture system as measured at the inlet to the add-on control device
during the emission capture efficiency test run, kg.
VOCuncaptured = Total mass of VOC that is not captured by
the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test
run, kg.
(5) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system
as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test
runs.
(e) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off
or bake oven emissions. You may conduct panel testing to determine the
capture efficiency of flash-off or bake oven emissions using ASTM
Method D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), ``Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement)'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17), ASTM Method 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)'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17), or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining the
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 60.17). You may conduct panel testing on
representative coatings as described in ``Protocol for Determining the
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 60.17).
(1) Calculate the volume of coating solids deposited per volume of
coating used for coating, i, or the composite volume of coating solids
deposited per volume of coating used for the group of coatings
including coating, i, used during the month in the spray booth(s)
preceding the flash-off area or bake oven for which the panel test is
conducted using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.014
Where:
Vsdep, i = Volume of coating solids deposited per volume
of coating used for coating, i, or composite volume of coating
solids deposited per volume of coating used for the group of
coatings including coating, i, in the spray booth(s) preceding the
flash-off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted,
liter of coating solids deposited per liter of coating used.
Vs, i = Volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i,
or average volume fraction of coating solids for the group of
coatings including coating, i, liter coating solids per liter
coating, determined according to Sec. 60.393a(g).
TEc, i = Transfer efficiency of coating, i, or average
transfer efficiency for the group of coatings including coating, i,
in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which
the panel test is conducted determined according to Sec.
60.393a(h), expressed as a decimal, for example 60 percent must be
expressed as 0.60. (Transfer efficiency also may be determined by
testing representative coatings. The same coating groupings may be
appropriate for both transfer efficiency testing and panel testing.
In this case, all of the coatings in a panel test grouping would
have the same transfer efficiency.)
(2) Calculate the mass of VOC per volume of coating for coating, i,
or the composite mass of VOC per volume of coating for the group of
coatings including coating, i, used during the month in the spray
booth(s) preceding the flash-off area or bake oven for which the panel
test is conducted, kg, using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.015
Where:
VOCi = Mass of VOC per volume of coating for coating, i,
or composite mass of VOC per volume of coating for the group of
coatings including coating, i, used during the month in the spray
booth(s) preceding the flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, kg VOC per liter coating.
Dc,i = Density of coating, i, or average density of the
group of coatings, including
[[Page 30019]]
coating, i, kg coating per liter coating, density determined
according to Sec. 60.393a(f)(2).
Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or average
mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including coating,
i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7
to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining analytical VOC
content and formulation solvent content presented in Section 9 of
``Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat, EPA-453/R-08-002'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17).
(3) As an alternative, you may choose to express the results of
your panel tests in units of mass of VOC per mass of coating solids
deposited and convert such results to a percent using Equation 7 of
this section. If you panel test representative coatings, then you may
convert the panel test result for each representative coating either to
a unique percent capture efficiency for each coating grouped with that
representative coating by using coating specific values for the mass of
coating solids deposited per mass of coating used, mass fraction VOC,
transfer efficiency, and mass fraction solids in Equations 7 and 8 of
this section; or to a composite percent capture efficiency for the
group of coatings by using composite values for the group of coatings
for the mass of coating solids deposited per mass of coating used and
average values for the mass of VOC per volume of coating, average
values for the group of coatings for mass fraction VOC, transfer
efficiency, and mass fraction solids in Equations 7 and 8 of this
section. If you panel test each coating, then you must convert the
panel test result for each coating to a unique percent capture
efficiency for that coating by using coating specific values for the
mass of coating solids deposited per mass of coating used, mass
fraction VOC, transfer efficiency, and mass fraction solids in
Equations 7 and 8 of this section. Panel test results expressed in
units of mass of VOC per mass of coating solids deposited must be
converted to percent capture efficiency using Equation 6 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.016
Where:
CEi = Capture efficiency for coating, i, or for the group
of coatings including coating, i, for the flash-off area or bake
oven for which the panel test is conducted, percent.
Pm,i = Panel test result for coating, i, or for the
coating representing coating, i, in the panel test, kg of VOC per kg
of coating solids deposited.
Wsdep,i = Mass of coating solids deposited per mass of
coating used for coating, i, or composite mass of coating solids
deposited per mass of coating used for the group of coatings,
including coating, i, in the spray booth(s) preceding the flash-off
area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, kg of
solids deposited per kg of coating used, from Equation 8 of this
section.
Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or average
mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including coating,
i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7
to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining analytical VOC
content and formulation solvent content presented in Section 9 of
``Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat, EPA-453/R-08-002'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17).
(4) Calculate the mass of coating solids deposited per mass of
coating used for each coating or the composite mass of coating solids
deposited per mass of coating used for each group of coatings used
during the month in the spray booth(s) preceding the flash-off area or
bake oven for which the panel test is conducted using Equation 7 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.017
Where:
Wsdep, i = Mass of coating solids deposited per mass of
coating used for coating, i, or composite mass of coating solids
deposited per mass of coating used for the group of coatings
including coating, i, in the spray booth(s) preceding the flash-off
area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, kg coating
solids deposited per kg coating used.
Ws, i = Mass fraction of coating solids for coating, i,
or average mass fraction of coating solids for the group of coatings
including coating, i, kg coating solids per kg coating, determined
by EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the 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 Primer-
Surfacer and Topcoat, EPA-453/R-08-002'' (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 60.17).
TEc, i = Transfer efficiency of coating, i, or average
transfer efficiency for the group of coatings including coating, i,
in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which
the panel test is conducted determined according to Sec.
60.393a(h), expressed as a decimal, for example 60 percent must be
expressed as 0.60. (Transfer efficiency also may be determined by
testing representative coatings. The same coating groupings may be
appropriate used for both transfer efficiency testing and panel
testing. In this case, all of the coatings in a panel test grouping
would have the same transfer efficiency.)
(f) Alternative capture efficiency procedure. As an alternative to
the procedures specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) and (g) of this
section, you may determine capture efficiency using any other capture
efficiency protocol and test methods that satisfy the criteria of
either the Data Quality Objective (DQO) or Lower Confidence Limit (LCL)
approach as described in appendix A to subpart KK of 40 CFR part 63.
(g) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of spray
booth emissions from solvent-borne coatings. You may conduct panel
testing to determine the capture efficiency of spray booth emissions
from solvent-borne coatings using the procedure in appendix A to this
subpart.
[[Page 30020]]
Table 1 to Subpart MMa of Part 60--Operating Limits for Capture Systems
and Add-On Control Devices
[If you are required to comply with operating limits by Sec.
60.392a(g), you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the
following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must
demonstrate
For the following device . . You must meet the continuous
. following operating compliance with the
limit . . . operating limit by .
. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer......... a. The average i. Collecting the
combustion combustion
temperature in any temperature data
3-hour period must according to Sec.
not fall below the 60.394a(i);
combustion ii. Reducing the
temperature limit data to 3-hour
established block averages; and
according to Sec. iii. Maintaining the
60.394a(a). 3-hour average
combustion
temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
2. Catalytic oxidizer....... a. The average i. Collecting the
temperature temperature data
measured just temperature
before the catalyst according to Sec.
bed in any 3-hour 60.394a(i));
period must not ii. Reducing the
fall below the data to 3-hour
limit established block averages; and
according to Sec. iii. Maintaining the
60.394a(b); and 3-hour average
either temperature before
the catalyst bed at
or above the
temperature limit.
b. Ensure that the i. Collecting the
average temperature temperature data
difference across according to Sec.
the catalyst bed in 60.394a(i);
any 3-hour period ii. Reducing the
does not fall below data to 3-hour
the temperature block averages; and
difference limit iii. Maintaining the
established 3-hour average
according to Sec. temperature
60.394a(b)(2); or difference at or
above the
temperature
difference limit;
or
c. Develop and i. Maintaining an up-
implement an to-date inspection
inspection and and maintenance
maintenance plan plan, records of
according to Sec. annual catalyst
60.394a(b)(4). activity checks,
records of monthly
inspections of the
oxidizer system,
and records of the
annual internal
inspections of the
catalyst bed. If a
problem is
discovered during a
monthly or annual
inspection required
by Sec.
60.394a(b)(4), you
must take
corrective action
as soon as
practicable
consistent with the
manufacturer's
recommendations.
3. Regenerative carbon a. The total i. Measuring the
adsorber. regeneration total regeneration
desorbing gas desorbing gas
(e.g., steam or (e.g., steam or
nitrogen) mass flow nitrogen) mass flow
for each carbon bed for each
regeneration cycle regeneration cycle
must not fall below according to Sec.
the total 60.394a(j); and
regeneration ii. Maintaining the
desorbing gas mass total regeneration
flow limit desorbing gas mass
established flow at or above
according to Sec. the mass flow
60.394a(c). limit.
b. The temperature i. Measuring the
of the carbon bed temperature of the
after completing carbon bed after
each regeneration completing each
and any cooling regeneration and
cycle must not any cooling cycle
exceed the carbon according to Sec.
bed temperature 60.394a(j); and
limit established ii. Operating the
according to Sec. carbon beds such
60.394a(c). that each carbon
bed is not returned
to service until
completing each
regeneration and
any cooling cycle
until the recorded
temperature of the
carbon bed is at or
below the
temperature limit.
4. Condenser................ a. The average i. Collecting the
condenser outlet condenser outlet
(product side) gas (product side) gas
temperature in any temperature
3-hour period must according to Sec.
not exceed the 60.394a(k);
temperature limit ii. Reducing the
established data to 3-hour
according to Sec. block averages; and
60.394a(d). iii. Maintaining the
3-hour average gas
temperature at the
outlet at or below
the temperature
limit.
5. Concentrators, including a. The average i. Collecting the
zeolite wheels and rotary desorption gas temperature data
carbon adsorbers. inlet temperature according to Sec.
in any 3-hour 60.394a(l);
period must not ii. Reducing the
fall below the data to 3-hour
limit established block averages; and
according to Sec. iii. maintaining the
60.394a(e). 3-hour average
temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
[[Page 30021]]
6. Emission capture system a. The direction of i. Collecting the
that is a PTE. the air flow at all direction of air
times must be into flow, and either
the enclosure; and the facial velocity
either of air through all
b. The average natural draft
facial velocity of openings according
air through all to Sec.
natural draft 60.394a(m)(1) or
openings in the the pressure drop
enclosure must be across the
at least 200 feet enclosure according
per minute; or. to Sec.
c. The pressure drop 60.394a(m)(2); and
across the ii. Maintaining the
enclosure must be facial velocity of
at least 0.007 inch air flow through
water, as all natural draft
established in openings or the
Method 204 of pressure drop at or
appendix M to 40 above the facial
CFR part 51. velocity limit or
pressure drop
limit, and
maintaining the
direction of air
flow into the
enclosure at all
times.
7. Emission capture system a. The average gas i. Collecting the
that is not a PTE. volumetric flow gas volumetric flow
rate or duct static rate or duct static
pressure in each pressure for each
duct between a capture device
capture device and according to Sec.
add-on control 60.394a(m);
device inlet in any ii. Reducing the
3-hour period must data to 3-hour
not fall below the block averages; and
average volumetric iii. Maintaining the
flow rate or duct 3-hour average gas
static pressure volumetric flow
limit established rate or duct static
for that capture pressure for each
device according to capture device at
Sec. 60.394a(f). or above the gas
This applies only volumetric flow
to capture devices rate or duct static
that are not part pressure limit.
of a PTE that meets
the criteria of
Sec. 60.397a(a)
and that are not
capturing emissions
from a downdraft
spray booth or from
a flashoff area or
bake oven
associated with a
downdraft spray
booth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A to Subpart MMa of Part 60--Determination of Capture
Efficiency of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Spray Booth Emissions
From Solvent-Borne Coatings Using Panel Testing
1.0 Applicability, Principle, and Summary of Procedure.
1.1 Applicability.
This procedure applies to the determination of capture
efficiency of automobile and light-duty truck spray booth emissions
from solvent-borne coatings using panel testing. This procedure can
be used to determine capture efficiency for partially controlled
spray booths (e.g., automated spray zones controlled and manual
spray zones not controlled) and for fully controlled spray booths.
1.2 Principle.
1.2.1 The volatile organic compounds (VOC) associated with the
coating solids deposited on a part (or panel) in a controlled spray
booth zone (or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones)
partition themselves between the VOC that volatilize in the
controlled spray booth zone (principally between the spray gun and
the part) and the VOC that remain on the part (or panel) when the
part (or panel) leaves the controlled spray booth zone. For solvent-
borne coatings essentially all of the VOC associated with the
coating solids deposited on a part (or panel) in a controlled spray
booth zone that volatilize in the controlled spray booth zone pass
through the waterwash and are exhausted from the controlled spray
booth zone to the control device.
1.2.2 The VOC associated with the overspray coating solids in a
controlled spray booth zone partition themselves between the VOC
that volatilize in the controlled spray booth zone and the VOC that
are still tied to the overspray coating solids when the overspray
coating solids hit the waterwash. For solvent-borne coatings almost
all of the VOC associated with the overspray coating solids that
volatilize in the controlled spray booth zone pass through the
waterwash and are exhausted from the controlled spray booth zone to
the control device. The exact fate of the VOC still tied to the
overspray coating solids when the overspray coating solids hit the
waterwash is unknown. This procedure assumes that none of the VOC
still tied to the overspray coating solids when the overspray
coating solids hit the waterwash are captured and delivered to the
control device. Much of this VOC may become entrained in the water
along with the overspray coating solids. Most of the VOC that become
entrained in the water along with the overspray coating solids leave
the water, but the point at which this VOC leave the water is
unknown. Some of the VOC still tied to the overspray coating solids
when the overspray coating solids hit the waterwash may pass through
the waterwash and be exhausted from the controlled spray booth zone
to the control device.
1.2.3 This procedure assumes that the portion of the VOC
associated with the overspray coating solids in a controlled spray
booth zone that volatilizes in the controlled spray booth zone,
passes through the waterwash and is exhausted from the controlled
spray booth zone to the control device is equal to the portion of
the VOC associated with the coating solids deposited on a part (or
panel) in that controlled spray booth zone that volatilizes in the
controlled spray booth zone, passes through the waterwash, and is
exhausted from the controlled spray booth zone to the control
device. This assumption is equivalent to treating all of the coating
solids sprayed in the controlled spray booth zone as if they are
deposited coating solids (i.e., assuming 100 percent transfer
efficiency) for purposes of using a panel test to determine spray
booth capture efficiency.
1.2.4 This is a conservative (low) assumption for the portion of
the VOC associated with the overspray coating solids in a controlled
spray booth zone that volatilizes in the controlled spray booth
zone. Thus, this assumption results in an underestimate of
conservative capture efficiency. The overspray coating solids have
more travel time and distance from the spray gun to the waterwash
than the deposited coating solids have between the spray gun and the
part (or panel). Therefore, the portion of the VOC associated with
the overspray coating solids in a controlled spray booth zone that
volatilizes in the controlled spray booth zone should be greater
than the portion of the VOC associated with the coating solids
deposited on a part (or panel) in that controlled spray booth zone
that volatilizes in that controlled spray booth zone.
1.3 Summary of Procedure
1.3.1 A panel test is performed to determine the mass of VOC
that remains on the panel when the panel leaves a controlled spray
booth zone. The total mass of VOC associated with the coating solids
deposited on the panel is calculated.
1.3.2 The percent of the total VOC associated with the coating
solids deposited on the panel in the controlled spray booth
[[Page 30022]]
zone that remains on the panel when the panel leaves the controlled
section of the spray booth is then calculated from the ratio of the
two previously determined masses. The percent of the total VOC
associated with the coating solids deposited on the panel in the
controlled spray booth zone that is captured and delivered to the
control device equals 100 minus this percentage. (The mass of VOC
associated with the coating solids deposited on the panel which is
volatilized and captured in the controlled spray booth zone equals
the difference between the total mass of VOC associated with the
coating solids deposited on the panel and the mass of VOC remaining
with the coating solids deposited on the panel when the panel leaves
the controlled spray booth zone.)
1.3.3 The percent of the total VOC associated with the coating
sprayed in the controlled spray booth zone that is captured and
delivered to the control device is assumed to be equal to the
percent of the total VOC associated with the coating solids
deposited on the panel in the controlled spray booth zone that is
captured and delivered to the control device. The percent of the
total VOC associated with the coating sprayed in the entire spray
booth that is captured and delivered to the control device can be
calculated by multiplying the percent of the total VOC associated
with the coating sprayed in the controlled spray booth zone that is
captured and delivered to the control device by the fraction of
coating sprayed in the spray booth that is sprayed in the controlled
spray booth zone.
2.0 Procedure
2.1 You may conduct panel testing to determine the capture
efficiency of spray booth emissions. You must follow the
instructions and calculations in this appendix A, and use the panel
testing procedures in ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 2021), ``Standard
Test Method for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Released from Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available
for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement)'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17), or the guidelines presented in
``Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17). You must weigh panels at the points described in section 2.5
of this appendix A and perform calculations as described in sections
3 and 4 of this appendix A. You may conduct panel tests on the
production paint line in your facility or in a laboratory simulation
of the production paint line in your facility.
2.2 You may conduct panel testing on representative coatings as
described in ``Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-
Surfacer and Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 60.17). If you panel test representative coatings, then
you may calculate either a unique percent capture efficiency value
for each coating grouped with that representative coating, or a
composite percent capture efficiency value for the group of
coatings. If you panel test each coating, then you must convert the
panel test result for each coating to a unique percent capture
efficiency value for that coating.
2.3 Identification of Controlled Spray Booth Zones.
You must identify each controlled spray booth zone or each group
of contiguous controlled spray booth zones to be tested. (For
example, a controlled bell zone immediately followed by a controlled
robotic zone.) Separate panel tests are required for non-contiguous
controlled spray booth zones. The flash zone between the last
basecoat zone and the first clearcoat zone makes these zones non-
contiguous.
2.4 Where to Apply Coating to the Panel.
If you are conducting a panel test for a single controlled spray
booth zone, then you must apply coating to the panel only in that
controlled spray booth zone. If you are conducting a panel test for
a group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones, then you must
apply coating to the panel only in that group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones.
2.5 How to Process and When to Weigh the Panel.
The instructions in this section pertain to panel testing of
coating, i, or of the coating representing the group of coatings
that includes coating, i.
2.5.1 You must weigh the blank panel. (Same as in bake oven
panel test.) The mass of the blank panel is represented by
Wblank,i (grams).
2.5.2 Apply coating, i, or the coating representing coating, i,
to the panel in the controlled spray booth zone or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested (in plant
test), or in a simulation of the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested
(laboratory test).
2.5.3 Remove and weigh the wet panel as soon as the wet panel
leaves the controlled spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being tested. (Different than bake oven
panel test.) This weighing must be conducted quickly to avoid
further evaporation of VOC. The mass of the wet panel is represented
by Wwet,i (grams).
2.5.4 Return the wet panel to the point in the coating process
or simulation of the coating process where it was removed for
weighing.
2.5.5 Allow the panel to travel through the rest of the coating
process in the plant or laboratory simulation of the coating
process. You must not apply any more coating to the panel after it
leaves the controlled spray booth zone (or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones) being tested. The rest of the coating
process or simulation of the coating process consists of:
2.5.5.1 All of the spray booth zone(s) or simulation of all of
the spray booth zone(s) located after the controlled spray booth
zone or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being
tested and before the bake oven where the coating applied to the
panel is cured,
2.5.5.2 All of the flash-off area(s) or simulation of all of the
flash-off area(s) located after the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested and
before the bake oven where the coating applied to the panel is
cured, and
2.5.5.3 The bake oven or simulation of the bake oven where the
coating applied to the panel is cured.
2.5.6 After the panel exits the bake oven, you must cool and
weigh the baked panel. (Same as in bake oven panel test.) The mass
of the baked panel is represented by Wbaked,i (grams).
3.0 Panel Calculations
The instructions in this section pertain to panel testing of
coating, i, or of the coating representing the group of coatings
that includes coating, i.
3.1 The mass of coating solids (from coating, i, or from the
coating representing coating, i, in the panel test) deposited on the
panel equals the mass of the baked panel minus the mass of the blank
panel as shown in Equation A-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.018
Where:
Wsdep, i = Mass of coating solids (from coating, i, or
from the coating representing coating, i, in the panel test)
deposited on the panel, grams.
3.2 The mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from the coating
representing coating, i, in the panel test) remaining on the wet
panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested equals
the mass of the wet panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled
spray booth zone or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested minus the mass of the baked panel as shown in Equation
A-2.
[[Page 30023]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.019
Where:
Wrem, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from the
coating representing coating, i, in the panel test) remaining on the
wet panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth zone
or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested,
grams.
3.3 Calculate the mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from the
coating representing coating, i, in the panel test) remaining on the
wet panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth zone
or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested per
mass of coating solids deposited on the panel as shown in Equation
A-3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.020
Where:
Pm, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from the coating
representing coating, i, in the panel test) remaining on the wet
panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested per
mass of coating solids deposited on the panel, grams of VOC
remaining per gram of coating solids deposited.
Wrem, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from the
coating representing coating, i, in the panel test) remaining on the
wet panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth zone
or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested,
grams.
Wsdep, i = Mass of coating solids (from coating, i, or
from the coating representing coating, i, in the panel test)
deposited on the panel, grams.
4.0 Converting Panel Result to Percent Capture
The instructions in this section pertain to panel testing of for
coating, i, or of the coating representing the group of coatings
that includes coating, i.
4.1 If you panel test representative coatings, then you may
convert the panel test result for each representative coating from
section 3.3 of this appendix A either to a unique percent capture
efficiency value for each coating grouped with that representative
coating by using coating specific values for the mass fraction
coating solids and mass fraction VOC in section 4.2 of this appendix
A, or to a composite percent capture efficiency value for the group
of coatings by using the average values for the group of coatings
for mass fraction coating solids and mass fraction VOC in section
4.2 of this appendix A. If you panel test each coating, then you
must convert the panel test result for each coating to a unique
percent capture efficiency value by using coating specific values
for the mass fraction coating solids and mass fraction VOC in
section 4.2 of this appendix A. The mass fraction of VOC in the
coating and the mass fraction of solids in the coating must be
determined by Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or by
following the 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 Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat'' EPA-453/R-08-002
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17).'>
4.2 The percent of VOC for coating, i, or composite percent of
VOC for the group of coatings including coating, i, associated with
the coating solids deposited on the panel that remains on the wet
panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested is
calculated using Equation A-4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.021
Where:
Pvocpan, i = Percent of VOC for coating, i, or composite
percent of VOC for the group of coatings including coating, i,
associated with the coating solids deposited on the panel that
remains on the wet panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled
spray booth zone (or group of contiguous controlled spray booth
zones) being tested, percent.
Pm, i = Mass of VOC (from coating, i, or from the coating
representing coating, i, in the panel test) remaining on the wet
panel when the wet panel leaves the controlled spray booth zone or
group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being tested per
mass of coating solids deposited on the panel, grams of VOC
remaining per gram of coating solids deposited.
Ws, i = Mass fraction of coating solids for coating, i,
or average mass fraction of coating solids for the group of coatings
including coating, i, grams coating solids per gram coating,
determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or by
following the 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 Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat, EPA-453/R-08-002''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17).
Wvocc, i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or average
mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings including coating, i,
grams VOC per grams coating, determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the 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 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17).
4.3 The percent of VOC for coating, i, or composite percent of
VOC for the group of coatings including coating, i, associated with
the coating sprayed in the controlled spray booth zone (or group of
contiguous controlled spray booth zones) being tested that is
captured in the controlled spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being tested, CEzone,i
(percent), is calculated using Equation A-5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.022
Where:
CEzone, i = Capture efficiency for coating, i, or for the
group of coatings including coating, i, in the controlled spray
booth zone or group of contiguous controlled
[[Page 30024]]
spray booth zones being tested as a percentage of the VOC in the
coating, i, or of the group of coatings including coating, i,
sprayed in the controlled spray booth zone or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones being tested, percent.
4.4 Calculate the percent of VOC for coating, i, or composite
percent of VOC for the group of coatings including coating, i,
associated with the entire volume of coating, i, or with the total
volume of all of the coatings grouped with coating, i, sprayed in
the entire spray booth that is captured in the controlled spray
booth zone or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being
tested, using Equation A-6. The volume of coating, i, or of the
group of coatings including coating, i, sprayed in the controlled
spray booth zone or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones
being tested, and the volume of coating, i, or of the group of
coatings including coating, i, sprayed in the entire spray booth may
be determined from gun on times and fluid flow rates or from direct
measurements of coating usage.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY23.023
Where:
CEi = Capture efficiency for coating, i, or for the group
of coatings including coating, i, in the controlled spray booth zone
(or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones) being tested
as a percentage of the VOC in the coating, i, or of the group of
coatings including coating, i, sprayed in the entire spray booth in
which the controlled spray booth zone (or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones) being tested, percent.
Vzone, i = Volume of coating, i, or of the group of
coatings including coating, i, sprayed in the controlled spray booth
zone or group of contiguous controlled spray booth zones being
tested, liters.
Vbooth, i = Volume of coating, i, or of the group of
coatings including coating, i, sprayed in the entire spray booth
containing the controlled spray booth zone (or group of contiguous
controlled spray booth zones) being tested, liters.
4.5 If you conduct multiple panel tests for the same coating or
same group of coatings in the same spray booth (either because the
coating or group of coatings is controlled in non-contiguous zones
of the spray booth, or because you choose to conduct separate panel
tests for contiguous controlled spray booth zones), then you may add
the result from section 4.4 for each such panel test to get the
total capture efficiency for the coating or group of coatings over
all of the controlled zones in the spray booth for the coating or
group of coatings.
[FR Doc. 2023-09587 Filed 5-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
