[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


