[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76152-76191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30356]



[[Page 76151]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 234

December 7, 2015

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





 National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 76152]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830; FRL-9936-64-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ99


National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) and the rule review the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
conducted for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities under the 
national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In 
this action, we are finalizing several amendments to the NESHAP based 
on the review of these standards. These final amendments add 
limitations to reduce organic and inorganic emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) from specialty coating application operations; remove 
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) so 
that affected units will be subject to the emission standards at all 
times; and revise provisions to address recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements applicable to periods of SSM. These final amendments 
include a requirement to report performance testing through the EPA's 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). This action 
also makes clarifications to the applicability, definitions, and 
compliance demonstration provisions, and other technical corrections. 
The EPA estimates that implementation of this rule will reduce annual 
HAP emissions by 58 tons.

DATES: This final action is effective on December 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830. All documents in this docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC 
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Kim Teal, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-5580; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email 
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the risk 
modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental 
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470; fax 
number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Patrick Yellin, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, (202) 564-2970, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. 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:

ADAF Age dependent adjustment factor
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTG Control Technique Guideline
DoD Department of Defense
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FR Federal Register
g/L grams/liter
HAP Hazardous air pollutants
HCl Hydrochloric acid
HF Hydrogen fluoride
HI Hazard index
HQ Hazard quotient
HVLP High volume low pressure
ICR Information collection request
km Kilometer
lb/gal Pounds/gallon
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
MIR Maximum individual risk
mm Hg Millimeters mercury
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM Polycyclic organic matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
REL Reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC Reference concentration
RIA Regulatory impact analysis
RTR Residual risk and technology review
SIP State implementation plan
S/L/T State, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies
SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction
TOSHI Target organ-specific hazard index
tpy Tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE Unit risk estimate
VCS Voluntary consensus standard
VOC Volatile organic compounds

    Background information. On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8392), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions 
and revisions for this rule. We summarize some of the more significant 
comments that were timely received regarding the proposed rule and we 
have provided our responses 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 response to comments document titled, 
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (Risk and Technology Review)--
Summary of Public Comments and Responses (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0830). The background information also includes discussion and 
technical analyses of other issues addressed in this final rule. A 
``track-changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates 
the changes in this action is available in the docket.

[[Page 76153]]

    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 Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities source category in our February 17, 2015 RTR 
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source 
category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source 
category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities source category?
    D. What are the requirements during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities Source Category
    C. Legal Basis to Regulate Specialty Coatings
    D. Determination of Specialty Coating Limits and Definitions
    E. Specialty Coating Application Equipment Requirements
    F. Specialty Coating Inorganic HAP Control Requirements
    G. Complying With the Specialty Coating Limits
    H. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions
    J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates for the Amendments
    K. Standards for Cleaning Operations and Standards for Handling 
and Storage of Waste
    L. Technical Corrections to the Aerospace NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality 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?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. 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 (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)
    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?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

      Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                NESHAP          NAICS Code \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Manufacturing and       Aerospace           336411, 336412,
 Rework Facilities.                Manufacturing and   336413, 336414,
                                   Rework Facilities.  336415, 336419,
                                                       481111, 481112,
                                                       481211, 481212,
                                                       481219.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature 
by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action 
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/aerosp/aeropg.html. 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 Web site.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR 
source categories and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    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 February 5, 2016. 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 only 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

[[Page 76154]]

provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if 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. 
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC North 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. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems or techniques, including but not limited to 
those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, 
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive 
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than the MACT floor for new sources, but they cannot 
be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 80 FR 8394 (February 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 
112(f)(2)(A). NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
(``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards 
provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to 
readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

1. Description of the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
Source Category and Applicability
    The NESHAP for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
source category (surface coating) (henceforth referred to as the 
``Aerospace NESHAP'') was promulgated on September 1, 1995 (60 FR 
45956), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG. As promulgated in 
1995, the Aerospace NESHAP applies to the surface coating and related 
operations (i.e., cleaning and depainting operations) at each new and 
existing affected source of HAP emissions at facilities that are major 
sources and are engaged, either in part or in whole, in the manufacture 
or rework of commercial, civil, or military aerospace vehicles or 
components. The requirements of the standards are nearly the same for 
both new and existing sources. The Aerospace NESHAP (40 CFR 63.742) 
defines ``aerospace vehicle or component'' as ``any fabricated part, 
processed part, assembly of parts or completed unit, with the exception 
of electronic components, of any aircraft, including but not limited to 
airplanes, helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.'' Today, 
we estimate that 144 facilities are subject to the Aerospace NESHAP. A 
complete list of facilities subject to the Aerospace NESHAP is 
available in the Aerospace RTR database, which is available for review 
in the docket for this rulemaking. Section 63.741(c) defines each 
affected source in the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
source category, and a facility could have a combination of both new 
and existing affected sources. However, the emission standards for new 
and existing affected sources are the same for nearly all operations 
covered by subpart GG. The exceptions are the filter efficiency 
requirements to control inorganic HAP emissions from primer and topcoat 
spray application operations in 40 CFR 63.745(g) and from dry media 
blasting operations in 40 CFR 63.746(b)(4), and the requirements for 
controls to reduce organic HAP emissions from chemical depainting 
operations in 40 CFR 63.746(c).
    The Aerospace NESHAP applies to organic HAP emissions from cleaning 
operations, depainting operations, primer application operations, 
topcoat

[[Page 76155]]

application operations, chemical milling maskant application 
operations, and the handling and storage of waste. The rule also 
applies to inorganic HAP emissions from primer and topcoat application 
operations using spray equipment and depainting operations using dry 
media blasting. The rule provides an exemption for primers, topcoats, 
and chemical milling maskants used in low volumes, which is defined as 
189 liters (50 gallons) or less per formulation, and for which the 
combined annual total does not exceed 757 liters (200 gallons).
    Prior to the amendments being finalized here, the Aerospace NESHAP 
did not contain control requirements for specialty coating operations, 
as specified in 40 CFR 63.741(f) and in 40 CFR 63.742 (i.e., the 
definitions for ``exterior primer,'' ``primer,'' and ``topcoat'' 
exclude specialty coatings). Appendix A of the Aerospace NESHAP defines 
56 separate categories of specialty coatings.
    Although the EPA did not include emission limitations for specialty 
coatings in the Aerospace NESHAP finalized in 1995 or in any subsequent 
amendments prior to the amendments being finalized here, the EPA 
included volatile organic compounds (VOC) content limits for the 
specialty coating categories in the 1997 Aerospace Control Techniques 
Guidelines (CTG) document.\2\ The CAA requires that state 
implementation plans (SIPs) for certain ozone nonattainment areas be 
revised to require the implementation of reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) to control VOC emissions. The EPA has defined RACT as 
the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of 
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably 
available considering technological and economic feasibility. The 
Aerospace CTG is intended to provide state and local air pollution 
control authorities with an information base; recommended emissions 
limitations; and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
for proceeding with their analyses of RACT for their own regulations to 
reduce VOC emissions from aerospace surface coating operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Guideline Series: Control of Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Operations. Emission Standards Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
December 1997. Publication No. EPA-453/R-97-004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Organic and Inorganic HAP Emission Sources
    Organic HAP emissions from cleaning and depainting operations occur 
from the evaporation of the volatile portion of the cleaning solvents 
or chemical strippers. Emissions from cleaning operations are typically 
fugitive in nature and occur at most processing steps. Emissions from 
depainting operations that occur within a booth or hangar are typically 
captured and exhausted through a stack, although some emissions may be 
fugitive in nature (e.g., open tanks).
    Organic HAP emissions from coating (primers, topcoats, specialty 
coatings, and chemical milling maskants) application operations occur 
from the evaporation of the solvent contained in the coatings. These 
emissions occur during the application of the coatings on aerospace 
vehicles or parts, which may take place in large open areas, such as 
hangars, or in partially or fully enclosed spaces, such as within spray 
booths.
    Organic HAP emissions from cleaning solvents and waste occur from 
evaporation of the volatile portion of the cleaning solvent or waste 
while it is being handled or stored. These emissions are fugitive in 
nature, occurring from each solvent and waste container.
    Some coatings contain compounds that are inorganic HAP. Inorganic 
HAP emissions from coatings occur during the application of the coating 
if it is applied using spray guns. These inorganic HAP emissions are 
particles of the spray-applied coating, commonly referred to as 
``overspray,'' that do not adhere to the surface being coated. Like the 
organic HAP emissions from the operations, the emissions of the 
inorganic HAP may occur in large open areas, such as hangars, or in 
partially or fully enclosed spaces, such as within spray booths. 
However, coatings that contain inorganic HAP are typically applied in 
spray booths equipped with exhaust filters to capture coating 
overspray. Inorganic HAP are not emitted from coatings applied with 
non-spray methods, such as brushes, rollers, or dip coating, because 
the coating is not atomized with these methods.
    Inorganic HAP emissions from depainting operations may occur from 
non-chemical methods, such as plastic and other types of dry media 
blasting, used to strip an aerospace vehicle. (Chemical stripping 
techniques do not release inorganic HAP.) These emissions occur as 
particulates that are generated during the blasting process. The 
operation is typically carried out within a large hangar equipped with 
a ventilation system and particulate filtration device (e.g., a 
baghouse) or in smaller enclosures, also equipped with filtration. The 
inorganic HAP that are released from the depainting operations are 
primarily found in the coating being stripped, although some stripping 
media may contain trace amounts of inorganic HAP.
3. Regulation of Organic and Inorganic HAP Emissions in the Aerospace 
NESHAP
    The Aerospace NESHAP, prior to the amendments being finalized here, 
specified numerical emission limits for organic HAP emissions from 
primer, topcoat, chemical milling maskant application operations and 
chemical depainting operations; equipment and filter efficiency 
requirements for dry media blasting depainting operations and spray-
applied coating operations; composition requirements and equipment 
standards for cleaning operations; and work practice standards for 
waste handling and storage operations.
    The organic HAP emission rates for primers, topcoats, and chemical 
milling maskants are in the format of grams of HAP per liter of coating 
(g/L), or pounds/gallon (lb/gal), less water. Alternative limits are 
also provided for VOC in the format of g/L (or lb/gal), less water and 
exempt (non-VOC) solvents. Alternatively, a control system (e.g., a 
thermal or catalytic oxidizer or carbon adsorption system) can be used 
to capture and control emissions from the primer, topcoat, or chemical 
milling maskant application operation. The system must achieve an 
overall capture and control efficiency of 81 percent. Further, the 
Aerospace NESHAP specifies which types of coating application 
techniques may be used.
    The Aerospace NESHAP also provides operating requirements for the 
application of primers or topcoats that contain inorganic HAP, 
including control of spray booth exhaust streams with either 
particulate filters or waterwash systems (40 CFR 63.745(g)).
    The amendments being finalized here require controlling organic and 
inorganic HAP emissions from specialty coating operations. They 
establish organic HAP and VOC content limits for 57 specialty coating 
categories, and also require specialty coating operations to meet the 
same inorganic HAP control requirements as for primers and topcoats. 
(The Aerospace CTG and appendix A to the Aerospace NESHAP define 56 
categories of specialty coatings. The number of limits and the number 
of categories defined are different because some defined

[[Page 76156]]

categories are exempt, while others are split into subcategories 
subject to different HAP and VOC content limits.)
    For cleaning operations (including hand-wipe cleaning), the 
Aerospace NESHAP specifies that cleaning solvents meet certain 
composition requirements or that the cleaning solvents have a composite 
vapor pressure of no more than 45 millimeters mercury (mm Hg) (24.1 
inches of water) (40 CFR 63.744(b)). Work practice measures are also 
required (40 CFR 63.744(a)). Four work practice alternative techniques 
are specified for spray gun cleaning, and work practice standards are 
specified for flush cleaning operations (40 CFR 63.744(c) and (d)).
    The Aerospace NESHAP also specifies requirements for depainting 
operations. Where there are no controls for organic HAP emissions from 
chemical depainting operations, the rule prohibits organic HAP 
emissions from chemical depainting operations, with the exception that 
26 gallons of HAP-containing chemical stripper (or, alternatively, 190 
pounds of organic HAP) may be used for each commercial aircraft 
stripped, or 50 gallons (or 365 pounds of organic HAP) for each 
military aircraft for spot stripping and decal removal (40 CFR 
63.746(b)(1) through (3)). Where there are controls for organic HAP 
emissions from chemical depainting, emissions must be reduced (i.e., 
captured and controlled) by 81 percent for controls installed before 
the effective date (i.e., September 1, 1995) and by 95 percent for 
controls installed on or after the effective date (40 CFR 63.746(c)). 
For non-chemical depainting operations that generate inorganic HAP 
emissions from dry media blasting, the operation must be performed in 
an enclosed area or in a closed cycle depainting system, and the air 
stream from the operation must pass through a dry filter system meeting 
a minimum efficiency specified in the rule, through a baghouse or 
through a waterwash system before being released to the atmosphere (40 
CFR 63.746(b)(4)).
    The handling and storage of waste that contains HAP must be 
conducted in a manner that minimizes spills (40 CFR 63.748).

C. What changes did we propose for the Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities source category in our February 17, 2015, RTR 
proposal?

    On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8392), the EPA proposed amendments to 
the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP that included 
the following:

     Requirements to limit organic and inorganic HAP 
emissions from specialty coating application operations;
     The addition of reporting requirements for reporting of 
performance testing through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX);
     Revisions related to the application of emission 
standards during SSM periods;
     Amendments to simplify recordkeeping and reporting for 
facilities using compliant coatings; and
     Several minor technical amendments.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities source category. This action also finalizes other 
changes to the NESHAP including the following:

     Requirements to limit organic and inorganic HAP 
emissions from specialty coating application operations;
     The addition of reporting requirements for reporting of 
performance testing through the EPA's CDX;
     Revisions related to the application of emission 
standards during SSM periods;
     Amendments to simplify recordkeeping and reporting for 
facilities using compliant coatings; and
     Several minor technical amendments and clarifications 
of the applicability of the NESHAP and definitions.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category?

    This section introduces the final amendments to the Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP being promulgated pursuant 
to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to the Aerospace 
NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 
112(f). Specifically, as we proposed, we are finalizing our 
determination that risks from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities source category are acceptable, considering all of the 
health information and factors evaluated and also considering risk 
estimation uncertainty, the ample margin of safety, and the absence of 
adverse environmental effects. The EPA received no new data or other 
information during the public comment period that affected that 
determination. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls and 
are thus readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. The EPA proposed no changes to the 
Aerospace NESHAP based on the technology review conducted pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6). As explained in section IV.B of this preamble, 
in response to public comments the EPA conducted a technology review 
for waste storage and handling operations since proposal. However, the 
technology review identified no developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards 
for waste storage and handling operations. The EPA received no new data 
or other information during the public comment period that affected the 
technology review determinations for primer and topcoat application 
operations; chemical milling maskant application operations; cleaning 
operations; and chemical and dry media blasting depainting operations. 
Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under 
CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
source category?

    We are finalizing amendments to the Aerospace NESHAP under CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3) to add emission standards for specialty 
coating application operations at facilities in the source category, 
which previously were not subject to control requirements under 40 CFR 
63.745. Emission standards for specialty coating operations were 
included in the proposed amendments published on February 17, 2015. We 
are finalizing, as proposed, the organic HAP content and alternative 
VOC content limits for specialty coatings, with the exception of minor 
changes to the coating category definitions. We are finalizing the 
proposed requirements for specialty coating application equipment 
requirements, with the exception of minor changes to clarify the types 
of equipment and methods that are permitted for certain types of 
coating materials. We are also finalizing, as proposed, the 
requirements for controlling inorganic HAP emissions from specialty 
coating operations, with the exception of minor changes to make these 
requirements consistent with

[[Page 76157]]

those for similar operations in other surface coating NESHAP. We are 
making other changes in response to comments we received on our 
proposal.

D. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction?

    We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Aerospace NESHAP to 
eliminate the SSM exemption. 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. Table 1 to Subpart GG of Part 63 (General 
Provisions applicability table) is being revised to change several 
references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We 
eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to 
the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant 
language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that 
facilities in this source category can meet the applicable emission 
standards in the Aerospace NESHAP at all times, including periods of 
startup and shutdown; therefore, the EPA determined that no additional 
standards are needed to address emissions during these periods.

E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other 
Aerospace NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions in the 
following paragraphs.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that 
owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities 
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports 
through the EPA's CDX Web site using an electronic performance test 
report tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This 
requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA 
does not require any additional performance testing and applies only to 
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported 
by the ERT.
    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to include an alternative 
compliance demonstration that will allow facilities to use coating 
manufacturers' supplied data to demonstrate compliance with the HAP and 
VOC content limits for all coating types (primers, topcoats, specialty 
coatings, and chemical milling maskants). In response to comments, we 
are also finalizing a change that would allow any facility that is not 
using the averaging provisions in 40 CFR 63.743(d) to keep only annual 
records of consumption of each coating instead of having to keep 
monthly records. The EPA originally proposed that facilities using the 
alternative compliance demonstration could keep annual records instead 
of monthly records; facilities that were using test methods to 
determine HAP or VOC content of coatings would still need to keep 
monthly records.
    In response to comments, we are also finalizing a provision that 
would add EPA Method 311, Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds 
in Paints and Coatings, as the reference method for determining the HAP 
content of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings. This change was 
made as a result of comments received on the proposed alternative 
compliance demonstration and on the addition of HAP and VOC content 
limits for specialty coatings.
    Also in response to comments, we are finalizing a change that would 
allow facilities that use spray booths to control inorganic HAP 
emissions to use an interlock system between the surface coating 
equipment and the monitoring system for the booth's filtration system. 
The interlock system will automatically shut down the surface coating 
equipment if the monitored parameters for the filtration system deviate 
from the allowed operating range.
    In response to comments, the EPA is clarifying the applicability of 
the requirements for the handling and storage of spent cleaning 
solvents and HAP-containing wastes in 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 
relative to subpart GG and the regulations in 40 CFR parts 262 through 
268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 
265, subpart CC) that implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA). These changes include removing and reserving 40 CFR 
63.741(e), and revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 to specify 
requirements for spent cleaning solvents and solvent-laden applicators, 
and for organic HAP-containing waste that are not handled and stored in 
compliance with the regulations that implement RCRA.
    In addition, we are finalizing, as proposed, several miscellaneous 
minor changes to improve the clarity of the rule requirements.
    We are also finalizing minor changes to the NESHAP in consideration 
of comments received during the public comment period for the proposed 
rulemaking, as described in section IV.K of this preamble.

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on December 7, 2015.
    The compliance date for the revised SSM requirements and the 
electronic reporting requirements for existing aerospace manufacturing 
and rework facilities is the effective date of the standards, December 
7, 2015.
    The compliance date for existing specialty coating application 
operations with the requirements to control organic HAP and inorganic 
HAP emissions from specialty coating application operations in 40 CFR 
63.745 is December 7, 2018. The 3-year compliance date is based on the 
time needed for facilities to identify new coatings that comply with 
the HAP and VOC content limits and, in some cases, to receive approval 
to use them in certain aircraft, to upgrade coating application 
equipment, and to develop recordkeeping and reporting systems to 
demonstrate compliance. As discussed in section IV.J.3 of this 
preamble, this was revised from the proposed 1-year compliance period 
based on public comments.
    New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon 
the effective date of the standard, December 7, 2015, or upon startup, 
whichever is later.

G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    The EPA is requiring owners and operators of aerospace 
manufacturing and rework facilities to submit electronic copies of 
certain required performance test reports through the EPA's CDX using 
the CEDRI. As stated in the proposal preamble (80 FR 8422, February 17, 
2015), the EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports 
addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data 
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data 
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the 
regulated community. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paper-
based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying 
data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors 
and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, 
air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal (80 FR 8422, February 
17,

[[Page 76158]]

2015), the EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, 
WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to everyone and will provide a user-
friendly interface that any stakeholder can access. By making the 
records, data, and reports addressed in this rulemaking readily 
available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public will 
benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology and risk-
based reviews. As a result of having reports readily accessible, our 
ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and 
achieved within a shorter period of time and with less burden on the 
regulated community to gather and provide data.
    We anticipate that fewer or less substantial information collection 
requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology 
and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a 
decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection 
requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack 
testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data 
electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to 
industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews 
more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced 
burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency's ability 
to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased 
public health and environmental protection.
    Air agencies will benefit from more streamlined and automated 
review of the electronically submitted data. Having reports and 
associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the 
use of software ``search'' options, as well as the downloading and 
analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. The ability to access and 
review air emission report information electronically will assist air 
agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the 
applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to 
violations, which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits 
both air agencies and the general public.
    For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by 
this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (80 FR 
8422, February 17, 2015). In summary, in addition to supporting 
regulation development, control strategy development, and other air 
pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated 
with performance test data will save industry, air agencies, and the 
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories, air quality regulations, and enhancing the 
public's access to this important information.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review 
and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed 
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in 
the February 17, 2015, proposed rule for the Aerospace NESHAP (80 FR 
8392). The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly in 
Table 2 of this preamble, and in more detail in the residual risk 
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities Source Category in Support of the November 2015 Risk 
and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this rulemaking. Based on both actual and allowable emissions for the 
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category, the 
maximum individual risk (MIR) was estimated to be 10-in-1 million, with 
emissions of strontium chromate from coating operations accounting for 
the majority of the risk. The total estimated national cancer incidence 
from this source category, based on both actual and allowable emission 
levels, was 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 50 
years, with emissions of strontium chromate and chromium compounds 
contributing 66 percent and 15 percent, respectively, to the cancer 
incidence. The maximum chronic non-cancer target organ specific hazard 
index (TOSHI) value for the source category based on both actual and 
allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.5, driven by cadmium 
compounds emissions from blast depainting. Both chronic cancer MIR and 
non-cancer hazard index (HI) are determined at the census block with 
highest estimated risk. While this is generally at off-site locations, 
in the case of military operations, the census block could be located 
within the facility boundary (i.e., on the military base).

            Table 2--Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
                                 Estimated population at   annual cancer      Maximum        Maximum screening
 Maximum individual cancer risk   increased risk levels      incidence     chronic non-     acute non-cancer HQ
      (-in-1 million) \a\               of cancer           (cases per     cancer TOSHI             \c\
                                                               year)            \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Actual Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.............................  >= 1-in-1 million:                 0.02             0.5  HQREL = 2 (ethylene
                                  180,000.                                                 glycol ethyl ether
                                                                                           acetate).
                                 >= 10-in-1 million:
                                  1,500.
                                 >= 100-in-1 million: 0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Allowable Emissions \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.............................  >= 1-in-1 million:                 0.02             0.5  ......................
                                  180,000.
                                 >= 10-in-1 million:
                                  2,000.

[[Page 76159]]

 
                                 >= 100-in-1 million: 0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\b\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
  source category for both actual and allowable emissions is the kidney system.
\c\ See section III.A.3 of the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 8392) for an explanation of acute dose-
  response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions.
\d\ The development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memorandum titled, Aerospace
  Manufacturing and Rework Facilities RTR Modeling File Preparation, December 2014, which is available in the
  docket. The allowable emissions multiplier of 1.02 was based on the ratio between the 20-year historical
  maximum production utilization rate and the 2008 production utilization rate. Because the allowable emissions
  were estimated to be only 2 percent higher than the actual emissions, the risk assessment results were the
  same.

    Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on actual 
emissions indicated the potential for one HAP, ethylene glycol ethyl 
ether acetate, from one facility, to have hazard quotient (HQ) values 
above 1, based on its reference exposure level (REL) value. The EPA 
evaluated screening estimates of acute exposures and risks for each of 
the HAP at the point of highest potential off-site exposure for each 
facility. In the case of military operations, acute impacts could be 
evaluated within the official fenceline of the installation because of 
the mix of residential, military, industrial, and commercial activities 
on most military bases. However, the acute impacts would still be 
evaluated outside the perimeter of the actual aerospace manufacturing 
and rework facility. Of the 144 aerospace manufacturing and rework 
facilities, 143 had an estimated worst-case HQ less than or equal to 1 
for all HAP.
    In the multipathway risk screening analysis, the results of the 
worst-case Tier I screening analysis indicated that emissions of 
neither cadmium compounds nor mercury compounds, which are persistent 
and bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP), exceeded the screening emission 
rates. Neither dioxins nor polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), 
which are also PB-HAP, are emitted by any source in the source 
category.
    In the environmental risk screening analysis, the Tier 1 screening 
analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead compounds, which were evaluated 
differently) indicated that the individual modeled Tier 1 
concentrations for mercury and cadmium did not exceed any ecological 
benchmark for any facility in the source category. For lead compounds, 
we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead, indicating adequate protection 
against damage to animals, crops, and vegetation. For Hydrogen Fluoride 
(HF) and Hydrochloric acid (HCl), the average modeled concentration 
around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site 
data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological 
benchmarks. In addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl 
and HF (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was 
below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
    The facility-wide chronic MIR and TOSHI were estimated based on 
emissions from all sources at the identified facilities (both MACT and 
non MACT sources). The results of the facility-wide assessment for 
cancer risks indicated that 44 facilities with aerospace manufacturing 
and rework processes had a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or 
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR was 20-
in-1 million, primarily driven by arsenic and chromium (VI) compounds, 
from internal combustion engines. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for 
the source category was estimated to be 0.5, primarily driven by 
emissions of hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from specialty coatings 
operations.
    We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from the 
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category are 
acceptable.
    We then considered whether the Aerospace NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and whether more stringent 
standards are necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, 
energy, safety and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental 
effect. In considering whether the standards should be tightened to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we 
considered the same risk factors that we considered for our 
acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category. As noted in the discussion of the 
technology review in the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 8416-
8419), no measures (beyond those already in place or that were proposed 
under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3)) were identified for reducing 
HAP emissions from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
source category. Therefore, we proposed that the current standards 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Further, we proposed that more stringent standards would not be 
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect, and this 
determination has not changed.
2. How did the risk review change for the Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities source category?
    During the public comment period, the EPA received only two 
corrections affecting two emission sources at one facility in the risk 
modelling database, and both corrections reduced the emissions from 
that one facility. Because the residual risk analysis performed for the 
proposed rule had already found that the risks were acceptable with an 
ample margin of safety, the EPA did not repeat the risk analysis using 
these revised data.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    The comments received on the proposed risk review were generally 
supportive of our determination of risk acceptability and ample margin 
of safety analysis. A summary of these comments and our responses can 
be found in the comment summary and response document available in the 
docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).

[[Page 76160]]

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, we 
have determined that the risks from the Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities source category are acceptable and provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. In addition, for the reasons 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, we have determined that 
more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor 
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety 
or adverse environmental effects have changed. Therefore, we are not 
revising the Aerospace NESHAP to require additional controls pursuant 
to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and are 
thus readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category?
    The EPA performed a technology review for the Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category and summarized the 
results of that review in the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 
8416-8419). The technology review covered the following emission source 
types in this source category: Primer and topcoat application 
operations; chemical milling maskant application operations; cleaning 
operations; and chemical and dry media blasting depainting operations. 
For each of these emission source types, the EPA's technology review 
found that there were no new developments in practices, processes and 
control technologies. As a result, the EPA did not propose to revise 
the Aerospace NESHAP standard requirements for any of these emission 
source types pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
    For waste storage and handling operations, the EPA determined that 
the practical effect of the provisions in 40 CFR 63.741(e) is that all 
HAP-containing wastes generated in aerospace manufacturing and rework 
operations are subject to RCRA regulations and are not subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.748. The EPA proposed that, because all of 
these HAP-containing wastes are subject to regulation under RCRA and 
not subject to 40 CFR 63.748, there would be no need to conduct a 
technology review of the standards for handling and storage of waste.
2. How did the technology review change for the Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities source category?
    As proposed, the EPA is making no changes to the Aerospace NESHAP 
standard requirements in the final rule pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed 
technology review and our determination that no revisions were 
warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). A summary of these comments and 
our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).
    The EPA received one comment that disagreed with the determination 
that no technology review was needed for the standards for the storage 
and handling of waste in 40 CFR 63.748. The commenter argued that the 
EPA may not exempt a major source from CAA section 112 standards and 
may not evade the need to perform a CAA section 112(d)(6) review by 
referring to a different statute (i.e., RCRA). In response to this 
comment, the EPA has completed a technology review for the standards 
for the storage and handling of waste, which is documented in the 
memorandum, Technology Review for Waste Storage and Handling Operations 
in the Aerospace Source Category, October 2015, available in the docket 
for this action. As discussed in the memorandum, we did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for 
the storage and handling of waste. However, as explained in section 
IV.K of this preamble, in response to public comments, the EPA has 
revised the standards in 40 CFR 63.748 in the final rule to clarify the 
applicability of these standards relative to those found in RCRA.
    The EPA received a second comment that the EPA's technology review 
did not address whether the current standards were adequate to control 
polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions from the aerospace 
manufacturing and rework source category. The EPA disagrees with this 
comment. The only POM compound the EPA identified from Aerospace 
manufacturing and rework surface coating operations is naphthalene. The 
EPA conducted a technology review for the control of all organic HAP 
emissions, including naphthalene, from cleaning operations, primer and 
topcoat operations, chemical depainting operations, and chemical 
milling maskant operations. These technology reviews were included in 
the docket for the proposed rulemaking. The EPA also compared the 1990 
naphthalene baseline emission inventory for the aerospace industry (79 
FR 74661, December 16, 2014) \3\ to the more recent naphthalene 
emissions from the risk modeling data file. In this comparative 
analysis between the 1990 baseline inventory and the risk modeling 
file, we found that emissions of naphthalene from the aerospace 
manufacturing and rework source category have been reduced by 99.96 
percent since the updated 1990 baseline inventory. The results show 
that the MACT standards for aerospace coating operation, including the 
limits for total organic HAP, have resulted in naphthalene reductions 
of a magnitude that is typically associated only with the use of add-on 
controls. This result also demonstrates that the current approach of 
regulating total organic HAP and providing the option of using add-on 
controls is adequate to address naphthalene emissions under the 
technology review. In addition, the current risk modeling data file 
shows no POM emissions other than naphthalene from aerospace surface 
coating operations. Because these operations are not sources of other 
types of POM, there was no need to consider emissions of the other 
types of POM in these technology reviews. The full response to this 
comment can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6), EPA developed a 1990 
baseline inventory for HAP identified in that section, including 
POM. This baseline inventory was recently updated. See 79 FR 74656 
(December 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and 
in section IV.B.3 of this preamble, we determined there were no new 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies. Since 
proposal, neither the technology review nor our determinations 
regarding new developments in practices, processes and control 
technologies have changed. Therefore, we are not revising the Aerospace 
NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) as a result of our technology 
review.

[[Page 76161]]

C. Legal Basis To Regulate Specialty Coatings

1. What did we propose?
    In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit found that the EPA had erred in establishing emissions 
standards for sources of HAP in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural 
Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (67 FR 
26690, May 16, 2003), and consequently vacated the rules.\4\ Among 
other things, the Court found that the EPA erred by failing to regulate 
processes that emitted HAP, in some instances by establishing a MACT 
floor of ``no control.'' The EPA proposed to correct the same error in 
the Aerospace NESHAP by proposing to remove the exemption for the use 
of specialty coatings found at 40 CFR 63.741(f) and to add limits for 
specialty coating operations (including adhesives, adhesive bonding 
primers and sealants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. March 13, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the amendments that remove the 
exemption for specialty coating operations found at 40 CFR 63.741(f) 
and is adding limits for specialty coating operations, including 
organic HAP and VOC content limits, application equipment requirements, 
and requirements to limit inorganic HAP emissions.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One commenter noted that the EPA's risk modeling has shown 
that specialty coatings account for less than 2 percent of the risk 
from the facility with the highest modeled risk, and the maximum cancer 
risk from specialty coatings is less than 1-in-1 million at over 90 
percent of facilities and less than 10-in-1 million at all facilities. 
As a result, specialty coatings do not warrant regulation based on 
risk.
    Response: The standards for specialty coatings were not proposed 
under the residual risk requirements in CAA 112(f)(2). The standards 
that were proposed to address organic and inorganic HAP emissions from 
specialty coating operations are for currently unregulated emission 
sources, and were proposed under the authority of CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (d)(3). Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's 
statement that we should allow the residual risk analysis to determine 
whether we address unregulated emission sources. The EPA is adding 
these standards for specialty coatings because they are a source of HAP 
emissions from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source 
category and the EPA had not previously established MACT standards for 
these emissions points. These changes are necessary to ensure the 
emissions standards are consistent with the requirements of the CAA as 
interpreted by the Courts and are unrelated to the risk findings.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA is not compelled to 
regulate specialty coatings under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) by the 
``Brick MACT'' decision. The commenter argued that the situation in the 
Aerospace NESHAP is different from the situation in the Brick MACT 
case. According to the commenter, the EPA erred in the Brick MACT case 
``by failing to regulate processes that emitted HAP, in some instances 
by establishing a MACT floor of 'no control'.'' The commenter argued 
that in the Aerospace NESHAP, in contrast, the EPA did not establish a 
MACT floor of ``no control'' but instead excluded specialty coatings 
from that MACT floor because the amount of organic HAP emissions 
generated by coating-related operations is ``relatively small,'' the 
coatings are highly specialized, and subcategorization for specialty 
coatings ``can be significant,'' ``resulting in lower potential 
emission reductions.'' The commenter argued that the exclusion for 
specialty coatings is lawful under the Brick MACT decision, and that if 
the EPA's interpretation was taken to its logical conclusion, it would 
be unlawful for the Agency to exempt any subcategory or source from any 
MACT standard, and this is a result that is not mandated by the Brick 
MACT decision.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of 
the ``Brick MACT'' decision relative to the regulation of specialty 
coatings. As explained at proposal, in March 2007 the D.C. Circuit 
Court issued an opinion vacating and remanding the CAA section 112(d) 
standards for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing 
source categories in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007) 
(Brick MACT). Some key holdings in the Brick MACT case were: (1) Floors 
for existing sources must reflect the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing sources, not levels that are achievable 
by all sources (479 F.3d at 880-81); (2) the EPA cannot set ``no-
control floors.'' (479 F.3d at 883). The court reiterated its prior 
holdings, including National Lime Ass'n, 233 F.3d 625), that the EPA 
must set floor standards for all HAP emitted by the major source, 
including those HAP that are not controlled by at-the-stack control 
devices; and (3) that the EPA cannot ignore non-technology factors that 
reduce HAP emissions. ``The EPA's decision to base floors exclusively 
on technology even though non-technology factors affect emissions 
violates the Act.'' Id. The Agency has authority to amend improper MACT 
determinations, including amendments to improperly promulgated floor 
determinations, under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Medical Waste 
Institute v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420, 425-27 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (resetting MACT 
floor, based on post-compliance data, permissible when originally-
established floor was improperly established, and permissibility of the 
EPA's action does not turn on whether the prior standard was remanded 
or vacated).
    As explained at proposal, in the Aerospace NESHAP, the EPA made 
essentially the same error in failing to regulate sources of HAP within 
this source category (80 FR 8399). Specifically, in the Aerospace 
NESHAP, the EPA exempted specialty coatings from the standards 
established for other surface coating operations in the same source 
category, even though the EPA identified specialty coatings as a 
``coating related operation'' and a source of HAP, as documented in the 
preamble to the proposed subpart GG. The issues cited by the EPA that 
complicated the regulation of specialty coatings, which were identified 
in the preamble to the proposed rule and noted by the commenter, do not 
remove the EPA's obligation to regulate these coatings under CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3). Indeed, the EPA identified achievable 
standards for VOC emissions from the same coatings and incorporated 
them into the Aerospace CTG only a few years after the NESHAP was 
promulgated. As previously explained, in developing MACT standards, CAA 
section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of 
measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including but not 
limited to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions 
through process changes, substitution of materials, or other 
modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; 
collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, 
storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above. 
The identified achievable standards for VOC emissions from the same 
coatings that were incorporated into the Aerospace CTG are processes, 
measures and

[[Page 76162]]

methods that the EPA is directed to consider under CAA section 
112(d)(2).
    Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011) 
confirms that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not constrain EPA and it may 
reassess its standards more often, including revising existing floors 
if need be. As a general matter, an agency remains free to revise 
improperly promulgated or otherwise unsupportable rules, even in the 
absence of a remand from a court. United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery 
Props. Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1996) (An agency, like a court, can 
undo what is wrongfully done by virtues of its order.'').
    Moreover, in several recent rulemakings, we have chosen to fix 
underlying defects in existing MACT standards under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3), provisions that directly govern the initial 
promulgation of MACT standards (see National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 2009, 
74 FR 55670; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing 
Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 FR 22566). We believe that our approach is 
reasonable because using those provisions ensures that the process and 
considerations are those associated with initially establishing a MACT 
standard, and it is reasonable to make corrections using the process 
that would have been followed if we had not made an error at the time 
of the original promulgation.
    We also disagree with the comment that the EPA is not mandated to 
regulate de minimis HAP. While the EPA's de minimis authority exists to 
help avoid what might be perceived as excessive regulation of tiny 
amounts of pollutants, it is unavailable ``where the regulatory 
function does provide benefits, in the sense of furthering the 
regulatory objectives, but the agency concludes that the acknowledged 
benefits are exceeded by the costs.'' Alabama Power v. EPA, 636 F.2d 
323, 360-61 &n.89 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Accordingly, a de minimis exemption 
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) is unavailable because it would 
frustrate a primary legislative goal by carving out HAP emissions from 
regulation. Moreover, the EPA's rejection of the de minimis concept has 
been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 
National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 640 (D.C. Cir. 2000), where 
the Court rejected the petitioner's claim that in light of both high 
costs and low quantities of HAP at issue in that rule, the EPA should 
read a de minimis exemption into the requirement to regulate all HAP 
emitted by major sources. The Court found that the ``EPA reasonably 
rejected this argument on the ground that the statute `does not provide 
for exception from emissions standards based on de minimis principles 
where a MACT floor exists'.'' National Lime Ass'n, at 640. We also 
continue to believe that CAA section 112 is replete with careful 
definitions of volume or effect based limitations on regulation, 
indicating that Congress has already defined what amounts of HAP 
emissions are too small to warrant MACT standards. The requirement to 
adopt MACT emission limitations, for example, applies without exception 
to ``category or subcategory of major sources . . . of [HAP].'' CAA 
section 112(d)(1). For sources below the major sources threshold, 
however, the EPA has discretion to require ``generally available 
control technologies or management practices.'' CAA section 112(d)(5). 
Congress has thus defined volumetrically which sources' emissions are 
small enough not to warrant mandatory MACT standards.
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and 
in our comment responses in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, we 
determined that the EPA should regulate specialty coating operations 
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Since proposal, the EPA's 
rationale and legal justification for that decision have not changed. 
Therefore, in the final rule, we are including standards to limit 
emissions of organic and inorganic HAP from specialty coating 
operations.

D. Determination of Specialty Coating Limits and Definitions

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to establish standards for specialty coatings at 
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities with organic HAP content 
limits that are equivalent to the VOC content limits for specialty 
coatings included in the Aerospace CTG. The EPA proposed that the same 
application equipment requirements that apply to primer and topcoat 
application operations apply to specialty coatings. The EPA also 
proposed limits for emissions of inorganic HAP from spray-applied 
specialty coatings by revising the requirements to use spray booths 
with filters meeting minimum efficiency requirements for the spray 
application of primers and topcoats that contain inorganic HAP so they 
also apply to specialty coatings. Additionally, we proposed that the 
low-volume exemption provisions in the current Aerospace NESHAP for 
primers, topcoats and chemical milling maskants be revised to include 
specialty coatings.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is including a definition of ``non-HAP material'' in 40 CFR 
63.742, and revising 40 CFR 63.741(f) to exclude non-HAP coatings, 
strippers, maskants, and cleaning solvents from the requirements to 
reduce organic HAP emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework 
operations. The final rule also clarifies that only the organic HAP 
content limits for all types of coatings are enforceable (i.e., a 
coating cannot be considered out of compliance if it exceeds the VOC 
content, but does not exceed the HAP content limit), and that the VOC 
content can be used to demonstrate compliance with the HAP content 
limit for coatings that do not contain HAP solvents that are exempt 
from the EPA's definition of VOC found at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
    The EPA is amending 40 CFR 63.741(f) in the final rule to exempt 
coatings that have been designated as ``classified national security 
information'' and amending 40 CFR 63.742 to add the definition of 
``classified national security information.'' The EPA is revising the 
definition in Appendix A to subpart GG of ``electric or radiation-
effect coating'' to change the word ``classified'' to ``classified 
national security information.''
    The EPA is also revising the definition of ``electrostatic 
discharge and electromagnetic interference (EMI) coating'' in Appendix 
A to subpart GG to reflect all of the uses of these coatings on 
aerospace vehicles and components.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should not issue dual 
limits for VOC and HAP for specialty coatings and should clarify that 
the VOC limits are not separately enforceable and are used only as a 
surrogate for HAP. The commenter argued that the EPA should make clear 
in the final rule that:
    (1) Only the organic HAP limits are enforceable;
    (2) Coatings that do not contain organic HAP are not covered by the 
rule; and
    (3) For coatings that do not contain exempt solvents that are also 
HAP, VOC content may be used to demonstrate compliance with the organic 
HAP limits as an alternative to determining organic HAP content 
directly.

[[Page 76163]]

    The commenter argued that CAA section 112 does not allow for the 
setting of VOC limits, except as a surrogate for HAP content, and then 
only in situations in which the HAP content could not exceed the VOC 
content. Therefore, the use of the VOC content to demonstrate 
compliance with the HAP content limits can only apply when the coating 
does not contain any exempt solvents that are HAP. The commenter argued 
that the VOC content would effectively cap the HAP content in those 
coatings with no exempt solvents.
    The commenter also argued that under either approach, coatings that 
do not contain any organic HAP cannot be subject to the HAP content 
limits or the VOC limits as a surrogate for HAP, and the rule should 
include a provision to clarify this. The commenter argued that 
facilities can use coating formulation information to establish whether 
or not the coatings contain organic HAP.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's recommendations to 
clarify the relationship between the VOC content of coatings and the 
HAP emission limits. In the final rule, the EPA is including a 
definition of ``non-HAP material'' in 40 CFR 63.472, and revising 40 
CFR 63.741(f) to exclude non-HAP coatings from the requirements to 
reduce organic HAP emissions from coating operations. These 
clarifications and revisions in the final rule apply to all coating 
operations and not just specialty coating operations. The definition of 
``non-HAP material'' is consistent with the HAP content criteria in 
other surface coating NESHAP.
    The final rule also clarifies that only the organic HAP content 
limits are enforceable (i.e., a coating cannot be considered out of 
compliance if it exceeds the VOC content, but does not exceed the HAP 
content limit), and that the VOC content can be used to demonstrate 
compliance with the HAP content limit for coatings that do not contain 
exempt solvents that are HAP. For coatings that contain exempt solvents 
that are HAP, the HAP content must be used to demonstrate compliance.
    Comment: One commenter representing the Department of Defense (DoD) 
commented that DoD will be unable to certify compliance with the HAP/
VOC limits for some materials whose composition is classified as 
national security information. The materials have properties with 
specific, classified characteristics based on their use such as 
radiation-effect coating, according to the commenter. Disclosure of the 
composition of these materials would risk undermining the function of 
the coating or could provide sufficient information that could be used 
to counter the effect of the coating, according to the commenter. The 
commenter requested that the proposed rule be modified to continue to 
exempt materials that meet the definition of ``Classified National 
Security Information.''
    The commenter recommended that the EPA amend 40 CFR 63.742 with an 
additional definition for the term ``Classified National Security 
Information'' to read as follows:

    Classified National Security Information means information that 
has been determined pursuant to this Executive Order 13526, 
``Classified National Security Information,'' December 29, 2009 or 
any successor order to require protection against unauthorized 
disclosure and is marked to indicate its classified status when in 
documentary form. The term ``Classified Information'' is an 
alternative term that may be used instead of ``Classified National 
Security Information.''

    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter. Therefore, the EPA is 
amending 40 CFR 63.741(f) in the final rule to specify that certain 
coatings that have been designated as ``classified national security 
information'' are not subject to the requirements of subpart GG and 
amending 40 CFR 63.742 to add the definition of ``classified national 
security information'' as suggested by the commenter. For consistency, 
the EPA is also revising the definition of ``electric or radiation-
effect coating'' to change the word ``classified'' to ``classified 
national security information.''
    Comment: One commenter argued that the current definition of 
electrostatic discharge and EMI coating in Appendix A to subpart GG 
appears to limit the use of these coatings on aircraft radomes, but 
these coatings are commonly used on several parts of the non-metallic 
exterior portions of the aircraft to dissipate electrical charge, not 
just the composite radome. The commenter recommended that the EPA 
should change the definition to reflect all of the uses of coatings on 
aircraft to state the following (deleted text in brackets, added text 
in italics):

    Electrostatic discharge and electromagnetic interference (EMI) 
coating--A coating applied to [space vehicles, missiles, aircraft 
radomes, and helicopter blades] aerospace vehicles or components to 
disperse static electricity or reduce electromagnetic interference.

    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that this definition 
should be revised as suggested to reflect all of the uses of these 
coatings on aerospace vehicles and components.
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in 
the comment responses in section IV.D.3 of this preamble, and in the 
response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are 
finalizing the proposed requirements for specialty coatings with 
respect to HAP and VOC content limits as proposed and with the changes 
described in section IV.D.2 of this preamble.

E. Specialty Coating Application Equipment Requirements

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed that specialty coating application operations be 
subject to the same application equipment requirements in 40 CFR 
63.745(f) that apply to primer and topcoat application operations. 
These requirements include the use of either non-spray application 
methods (e.g., brush or roller), or the use of high-efficiency spray 
application methods (e.g., high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) or 
electrostatic spray guns), with exceptions for certain coating 
operations and materials.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is revising the application equipment requirements in 40 
CFR 63.745(f) since proposal to make the following changes in the final 
rule:
     Exclude the application of adhesives, sealants, maskants, 
caulking materials, and inks from the application equipment 
requirements. (These coatings will be still subject to the organic HAP 
content limitations in 40 CFR 63.745(c).)
     Exclude from the application equipment requirements the 
application of any high-solids coating (not just specialty coatings) 
that contains less than 20 grams per liter of VOC for coatings that do 
not contain exempt solvents that are HAP, or 20 grams per liter of HAP 
for coatings that do contain exempt solvents that are HAP.
     Exclude from the application equipment requirements the 
application of all coatings (not just specialty coatings) applied using 
hand-held application equipment with a paint cup capacity that is equal 
to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). The exclusion 
from the application equipment requirements is also limited to the 
spray application of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a 
single application or ``job'' (i.e., the total volume of a single 
coating formulation applied during any one day to any one aerospace 
vehicle or component) from a hand-held device with a paint cup

[[Page 76164]]

capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic 
centimeters). Using multiple small paint cups or refilling a small 
paint cup to apply more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating under this 
exclusion in 40 CFR 63.745(f) is prohibited. If a paint cup liner is 
used in a reusable holder or paint cup, then the holder or paint cup 
must be designed to hold a liner with a capacity of no more than 3.0 
fluid ounces. (These coatings will still be subject to the organic HAP 
content limitations in 40 CFR 63.745(c).)
     Include high-efficiency airless spray guns and air-
assisted airless spray guns in the list of allowable application 
methods for all coatings (not just specialty coatings).
     Revise 40 CFR 63.745(f)(1) and (f)(2) to clarify that the 
high-efficiency application equipment requirements apply only to spray-
applied coating operations, as defined in 40 CFR 63.742, and remove the 
references to non-spray application methods.
    The final rule includes a definition of ``spray-applied coating 
operation'' in 40 CFR 63.742 to clarify the applicability of the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.745(f) and (g).
    For specialty coating operations, the final rule also provides an 
alternative to the application equipment equivalency demonstration 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.750(i) so owners and operators may apply 
specialty coatings using any other coating application method capable 
of achieving emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent to 
or better than that provided by HVLP, electrostatic spray, air-assisted 
airless, or airless application. To use this option, the owner or 
operator must also maintain records demonstrating the transfer 
efficiency achieved.
3. Comments and responses
    Comment: One commenter argued that 40 CFR 63.745(f) should be 
revised to clarify that the proposed specialty coating application 
equipment requirements allow the use of any non-spray application 
equipment. The commenter argued that the rule allows the use of 
alternatives to the methods listed in 40 CFR 63.745(f)(1), but only if 
they are demonstrated to be equivalent to HVLP spray or electrostatic 
spray, according to 40 CFR 63.750(i). The commenter argued that the 
rule should be revised to allow all hand application methods and non-
spray methods allowed in the California rules and to require the 
equivalency demonstration only for spray application methods. The 
commenter recommended that the EPA add the following language to 40 CFR 
63.745(f)(1) to clarify that other methods are allowed:

    In addition to the methods in (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(ix), 
specialty coatings may be applied by flow coating, web coating, coil 
coating, touch-up markers, marking pens, trowels, spatulas, daubers, 
rags, sponges, and mechanically and/or pneumatic-driven syringes.

    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that 40 CFR 63.745(f) 
should be revised to clarify that any hand or non-spray application 
methods should be allowed. Although the commenter made this in 
reference to only specialty coatings, the same is also true for the 
other types of coatings regulated by subpart GG. However, the EPA has 
determined that, based on the public comments received, further 
clarification and simplification of 40 CFR 63.745(f) are needed in the 
final rule. The purpose of this section is to minimize emissions from 
spray-applied coating operations by requiring the use of high-
efficiency spray application equipment in almost all spray-applied 
coating operations, except in limited situations in which it is not 
technically feasible. All hand and non-spray application methods, 
including the specialty coating methods listed by the commenter, have 
essentially 100-percent transfer efficiency because no coating material 
is lost to overspray. The same is also true of other non-spray methods 
listed in 40 CFR 63.745(f): Flow/curtain coat application; dip coat 
application; roll coating; brush coating; cotton-tipped swab 
application; and electrodeposition (dip) coating. Two of the 
application methods mentioned by the commenter, touch-up markers and 
marking pens, are not included in the list of allowed methods in the 
final rule because the definition of ``coating'' in the final rule 
excludes materials applied by these methods, as a result of changes 
made in response to other public comments.
    Therefore, in order to clarify and simplify the requirements of 40 
CFR 63.745(f) in the final rule, the EPA is removing the references to 
these non-spray application methods and is revising the language of 
this section to clarify that these requirements apply to only spray-
applied coating operations. The final rule is also adding a definition 
of ``spray-applied coating operations'' to 40 CFR 63.742. The 
definition of spray-applied coating operation added to 40 CFR 63.742 
includes a list of application methods that are excluded from this 
definition, and these exclusions include, but are not limited to, the 
non-spray application methods that were formerly listed in 40 CFR 
63.745(f) and the additions suggested by the commenters.
    Comment: One commenter argued that adhesives, sealants, maskants, 
caulking materials, and inks are not atomized even when applied with 
spray application equipment; therefore, the application of these 
specialty coatings is not a spray-application operation and should not 
be subject to the high efficiency application equipment requirements. 
The commenter argued that the EPA should clarify that the application 
of adhesives, sealants, and maskants, caulking materials, and inks is 
not subject to the application equipment requirements by adding these 
to the list of exemptions in 40 CFR 63.745(f)(3).
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that these operations 
should be excluded from the provisions for spray-applied coating 
operations in 40 CFR 63.745(f). In other, more recently developed 
surface coating NESHAP such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, the EPA 
also recognized that these materials are not atomized in the same way 
as, for example, primers and topcoats, even when applied with spray 
application equipment.
    Comment: One commenter argued that 40 CFR 63.745(f)(3)(ii), which 
is an exemption from the high-efficiency application requirement in 40 
CFR 63.745(f)(1), should be revised to exempt coatings that contain 
less than 20 grams of VOC per liter of coating. The commenter argued 
that this exemption accommodates spray application of low VOC coatings 
with high solids content that are not practical to apply with high-
efficiency equipment, such as high solid/low VOC ceramic coatings 
applied to reduce the infrared signature of military aircraft and are 
classified as electric or radiation-effect specialty coatings. These 
coatings are not water-reducible and, due to high viscosity, cannot be 
spray applied using high-efficiency application equipment. The 
commenter noted that this exemption is also found in the California 
South Coast Air Quality Management District and Antelope Valley Air 
Quality Management District aerospace rules.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter on the need for an 
exemption from the application equipment rules for coatings that 
contain less than 20 grams of VOC per liter of coating. (These coatings 
continue to be subject to all other applicable requirements of subpart 
GG.) However, because subpart GG is a NESHAP and is not a VOC rule, 
facilities will be able to use the VOC content to meet this exemption 
only for coatings that do not

[[Page 76165]]

contain HAP that are exempt from the definition of VOC. For coatings 
that contain HAP that are exempt from the definition of VOC, facilities 
will need to consider both the HAP and VOC content in determining 
whether the coatings qualify for this exemption to ensure that it is 
applied only to coatings with a high-solids content as intended.
    Comment: One commenter argued that 40 CFR 63.745(f)(3) should be 
revised to allow the use of detailing guns or airbrushes for all 
specialty coating application operations, and not just the two 
exemptions currently in the rule at 40 CFR 63.745(f)(3)(i) and (iv).
    Response: The EPA agrees that the use of airbrushes and detailing 
guns should be allowed for all specialty coating operations, and not 
just those included at 40 CFR 63.745(f)(3)(i) and (iv). Although the 
commenter made this comment in reference to only specialty coatings, 
the same is also true for the other types of coatings regulated by 
subpart GG, so the EPA is making this revision for all coatings. In 
past surface coating rulemakings, the EPA has determined that it is 
difficult to precisely define a ``detailing gun'' and ``airbrush,'' and 
these terms are not currently defined in subpart GG. Instead, in more 
recent rulemakings the EPA has adopted an objective standard based on 
the capacity of the paint cup attached to the spray gun to identify 
equipment that is typically considered an airbrush or detail gun. In 40 
CFR part 63, subparts HHHHHH and XXXXXX, the EPA included less 
stringent provisions for hand-held application equipment with a paint 
cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic 
centimeters). The EPA is adopting the same approach in the final 
amendments to 40 CFR 63.745(f)(3), but is also including language that 
limits the amount of coating applied to no more than 3.0 fluid ounces 
in a single coating operation. The exclusion from the application 
equipment requirements is also limited to the spray-application of no 
more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a single application or 
``job'' (i.e., the total volume of a single coating formulation applied 
during any one day to any one aerospace vehicle or component) from a 
hand-held device with a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less 
than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). Using multiple small 
paint cups or refilling a small paint cup to apply more than 3.0 fluid 
ounces under this exclusion in 40 CFR 63.745(f) is prohibited. If a 
paint cup liner is used in a reusable holder or cup, then the holder or 
cup must also be designed to hold a liner with a capacity of no more 
than 3.0 fluid ounces. For example, a 3.0 ounce liner cannot be used in 
a holder that can also be used with a 6.0 ounce liner. This language is 
intended to prevent facilities from circumventing the rule by refilling 
paint cups or by using multiple detachable cups that have been filled 
in advance. (These coatings continue to be subject to the organic HAP 
content limitations in 40 CFR 63.745(c).)
    Comment: One commenter argued that 40 CFR 63.745(f)(1) should be 
revised to allow the use of high-efficiency air-assisted airless spray 
guns, airless spray guns, screen printing, and inkjet printing for 
application of specialty coatings because these technologies are 
equivalent to or better than HVLP. The commenter argued that under CAA 
section 112(h)(3), the Agency must allow alternative equipment that 
achieves equivalent emission reductions to the equipment prescribed as 
MACT. The commenter also noted that under other NESHAP (e.g,. 40 CFR 
part 63, subparts JJ and HHHHHH), the EPA has determined that air-
assisted airless and airless spray guns are equivalent to HVLP and 
electrostatic spray, which the EPA has designated as the MACT for 
aerospace specialty coatings. The commenter also noted that 40 CFR part 
63, subpart HHHHHH allows the use of air-assisted airless spray guns 
and airless spray guns (in addition to HVLP) for aerospace surface 
coating operations at area sources. Further, the commenter noted that 
several state and regional air agencies allow the use of air-assisted 
airless spray guns and airless spray guns as equivalent to HVLP and 
included copies of two permits from the Antelope Valley Air Quality 
Management District and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
    Finally, the commenter argued that screen printing and ink jet 
technology should be listed as approved application methods because 
they each achieve nearly 100-percent transfer efficiency, which is 
higher than the transfer efficiency of HVLP spray guns.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that these alternative 
application methods (high-efficiency air-assisted airless spray guns, 
airless spray guns, screen printing, and inkjet printing) should be 
allowed under 40 CFR 63.745(f)(1) for surface coating application. 
Although the commenter made this comment in reference to specialty 
coatings only, the same is also true for the other types of coatings 
regulated by subpart GG; so, the EPA is making this revision for all 
coatings. As the commenter noted, the EPA has already included air-
assisted airless spray guns and airless spray guns in other more recent 
surface coating rule makings. The EPA is adding them to the list of 
allowed methods under subpart GG because they are considered equivalent 
in efficiency to the methods already listed. The EPA is also including 
screen printing and inkjet printing to the list of methods that are 
considered non-spray application methods with transfer efficiency at 
least equal to the other non-spray application methods already in the 
rule. The definition of ``spray-applied coating operation'' being added 
to 40 CFR 63.742 specifically excludes screen printing and inkjet 
printing.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should provide an 
alternative to using the equivalency demonstration requirements in 40 
CFR 63.750(i). The commenter argued that the method in 40 CFR 63.750(i) 
is overly burdensome, especially for specialty coatings, because it 
requires testing on parts of a similar configuration to the actual 
parts being coated, and because of the number of specialty coatings 
used at most facilities. The commenter recommended that for specialty 
coatings, the EPA should allow a facility to use any application method 
that achieves emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equal to or 
better than the methods approved in the rule (HVLP, electrostatic 
spray, air-assisted airless, and airless), and that the EPA should 
allow facilities to use a method of its choice to demonstrate 
equivalency. The commenter argued that clarifying that facilities may 
demonstrate either equivalent emission reductions or transfer 
efficiency would increase flexibility in the rule by allowing the use 
of either type of equivalency method. The commenter recommended that 
the following language be added to 40 CFR 63.745(f):

    For specialty coatings, any other coating application method 
capable of achieving emission reductions or a transfer efficiency 
equivalent to or better than that provided by HVLP, electrostatic 
spray, air-assisted airless, or airless application. Any owner or 
operator using an application method pursuant to this subparagraph 
shall maintain records demonstrating the transfer efficiency 
achieved.

    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the approval 
procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.750(i) may be less appropriate for 
specialty coatings than for primers and topcoats because of the 
diversity of parts on which specialty coatings are used. Therefore, the 
EPA is adding language similar to the recommended language to 40 CFR 
63.750(i) for specialty coating application methods, which is the

[[Page 76166]]

actual approval process that needs to be revised for specialty 
coatings. The EPA also recognizes that with the addition of other 
application methods in 40 CFR 63.745(f)(1), aerospace facilities will 
be less likely to have to demonstrate that an alternative method is 
equivalent to HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods.
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in 
the comment responses in section IV.E.3 of this preamble, and in the 
response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are 
finalizing requirements for specialty coatings with respect to 
application equipment methods, as proposed, and with the changes 
described in section IV.E.2 of this preamble.

F. Specialty Coating Inorganic HAP Control Requirements

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed that specialty coating application operations that 
include the spray application of coatings that contain inorganic HAP be 
subject to the same standards for inorganic HAP emissions in 40 CFR 
63.745(g) that apply to primer and topcoat application operations. 
These requirements include the use of a spray booth or similar 
enclosure that is fitted with filters on the exhaust and minimum 
filtration efficiency requirements for the exhaust filters.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is revising the inorganic HAP control requirements in 40 
CFR 63.745(g) since proposal to make the following changes:
     Clarifying in 40 CFR 63.745(g) that the inorganic HAP 
control requirements apply to only spray-applied coatings, and adding a 
definition of ``spray-applied coating operations'' to 40 CFR 63.742.
     Excluding from the inorganic HAP control requirements 
coatings applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup capacity that 
is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). The 
exclusion from the inorganic HAP control requirements is also limited 
to the spray application of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in 
a single application or ``job'' (i.e., the total volume of a single 
coating formulation applied during any one day to any one aerospace 
vehicle or component) from a hand-held device with a paint cup capacity 
that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). 
Using multiple small paint cups or refilling a small paint cup to apply 
more than 3.0 fluid ounces under this exclusion in 40 CFR 63.745(g) is 
prohibited. If a paint cup liner is used in a reusable holder or paint 
cup, then the holder or cup must be designed to hold a liner with a 
capacity of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces. (These coatings will 
continue to be subject to the organic HAP content limitations in 40 CFR 
63.745(c).)
     Clarifying that the use of portable enclosures that meet 
the same filtration requirements as for spray booths can be used to 
comply.
     Allowing facilities that use spray booths to control 
inorganic HAP emissions to use an interlock system that will 
automatically shut down the surface coating equipment if the monitored 
parameters for the filtration system deviate from the allowed operating 
range.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should clarify the 
operations subject to the inorganic HAP requirements by defining 
``spray-applied coating operation.'' The commenter noted that the term 
``spray gun'' is defined in the current rule as ``a device that 
atomizes a coating or other material and projects the particulates or 
other material onto a substrate.'' The commenter noted that 40 CFR part 
63, subpart HHHHHH, which applies to area source aerospace facilities, 
excludes some specialty coating materials (including adhesives, 
sealants, maskants, and caulking materials) from the definition of 
spray-applied coating operation because they are not spray applied or 
are not atomized even when they are applied with a spray gun, and 
instead are emitted in larger particles that settle near the source and 
are not emitted. The commenter also noted that certain application 
methods were excluded from the definition of ``spray-applied coating 
operation'' in subpart HHHHHH, including the following: Powder coating, 
hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers, and non-atomizing 
application technology (for example, paint brushes, rollers, hand 
wiping, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web 
coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, and marking pens).
    The commenter recommended that the operations subject to the 
inorganic HAP control requirements be clarified by adding the following 
definition to 40 CFR 63.742:

    Spray-Applied Coating Operations means operations that apply 
coatings using a device that creates an atomized mist of coating and 
deposits the coating on a substrate. For the purposes of this 
subpart, spray-applied operations do not include the following 
materials or activities:
    (1) Application of coating using powder coating, hand-held non-
refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application 
technology, including but not limited to paint brushes, rollers, 
flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web coating, 
coil coating, touch-up markers, marking pens, trowels, spatulas, 
daubers, rags, sponges, mechanically and/or pneumatic-driven 
syringes, and inkjet machines.
    (2) Application of adhesives, sealants, maskants, caulking 
materials, and inks.

    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that certain 
operations, which are often performed with specialty coatings, should 
be specifically excluded from the inorganic HAP control requirements 
for spray-applied coating operations because they are not, in fact, 
applied with atomizing spray application equipment. Therefore, the EPA 
is adopting a definition very similar to that suggested by the 
commenter. The suggested definition is consistent with the provisions 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH for defining coating operations 
subject to the inorganic HAP control requirements in subpart HHHHHH.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the rule should include an 
additional exemption from the inorganic HAP requirements for specialty 
coatings in 40 CFR 63.745(g)(4) for the application of coatings from a 
hand-held device with a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less 
than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). The commenter noted that 
this exemption is provided in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH to 
accommodate low volume applications, including operations that use 
airbrushes, which may occasionally occur in various locations 
throughout the assembly facility where it is impractical to relocate 
the aircraft or part to a coating booth. Because the paint cup capacity 
is limited to 3.0 fluid ounces, operations of this type are inherently 
limited and result in little or no inorganic HAP emissions. Providing 
this exemption for specialty coatings would allow operational 
flexibility without creating extra HAP emissions, according to the 
commenter.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter on the need for the 
suggested exemption for coatings applied from a hand-held device with a 
paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 
cubic centimeters). (These coatings will continue to be subject to the 
organic HAP content limitations in 40 CFR 63.745(c) and other 
applicable requirements of subpart GG.) The EPA

[[Page 76167]]

is incorporating this change into the final rule because it is 
consistent with the exemption for coatings applied with air brushes in 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, as noted by the commenter. This 
exemption is also consistent with the current exemptions in 40 CFR 
63.745(g) for the control of inorganic HAP, for example, stencil 
operations performed by brush or airbrush, and the use of hand-held 
aerosol can application methods. The EPA is also including language 
that limits the amount of coating applied to no more than 3.0 fluid 
ounces in a single coating operation. The exclusion from the inorganic 
HAP control requirements is limited to the spray-application of no more 
than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a single application or ``job'' 
(i.e., the total volume of a single coating formulation applied during 
any one day to any one aerospace vehicle or component) from a hand-held 
device with a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 
fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). Using multiple small paint cups or 
refilling a small paint cup to apply more than 3.0 fluid ounces of 
coating under this exclusion in 40 CFR 63.745(g) is prohibited. If a 
paint cup liner is used in a holder or cup, then the holder or cup must 
also be designed to hold a liner with a capacity of no more than 3.0 
fluid ounces. For example, a 3.0 ounce liner cannot be used in a holder 
or cup that can also be used with a 6.0 ounce liner. This language is 
intended to prevent facilities from circumventing the rule by refilling 
paint cups or by using multiple detachable cups that have been filled 
in advance.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA allow interlock 
systems as an alternative to daily pressure drop and water flow 
readings on coating spray booths, as this type of system automatically 
shuts off the air supply to the spray guns if the monitored parameters 
are out of range. The commenter noted that the EPA has included an 
interlock option in other NESHAP (e.g., 79 FR 72874, December 8, 2014). 
The commenter argued that an interlock system option would reduce the 
monitoring and recordkeeping burden for regulated facilities while 
ensuring that coating operations cease when the parameters are out of 
range.
    Response: The EPA agrees that these types of interlock systems 
accomplish the same objectives as daily pressure drop and water flow 
readings and reduce the monitoring and recordkeeping burden associated 
with the use of spray booths to control inorganic HAP emissions from 
spray-applied coating operations, and has included this option in the 
final rule.
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in 
the comment responses in section IV.F.3 of this preamble, and in the 
response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are 
finalizing the proposed requirements for specialty coatings with 
respect to the requirements for controlling inorganic HAP emissions as 
proposed and with the changes described in section IV.F.2 of this 
preamble.

G. Complying With the Specialty Coating Limits

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.750 to include alternative 
compliance demonstration provisions for all coatings subject to the 
Aerospace NESHAP (primers, topcoats, specialty coatings and chemical 
milling maskants). If the manufacturer's supplied formulation data or 
calculation of HAP and VOC content indicates that the coating meets the 
organic HAP and VOC content emission limits for its coating type, as 
specified in 40 CFR 63.745(c) and 63.747(c), then the owner or operator 
would not be required to demonstrate compliance for these coatings 
using the test method and calculations specified in 40 CFR 63.750(c), 
(e), (k), and (m), or to keep the associated records and submit reports 
associated with these methods and calculations. Instead, the owner or 
operator would be able to rely on the manufacturers' formulation data 
and calculation of the HAP or VOC content to demonstrate compliance. 
However, the owner or operator would continue to be required to 
maintain purchase records and manufacturers' supplied data sheets for 
these compliant coatings. Owners or operators of facilities using these 
coatings would also continue to be required to handle and transfer 
these coatings in a manner that minimizes spills, apply these coatings 
using one or more of the specified application techniques and comply 
with inorganic HAP emission requirements.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has revised 40 CFR 63.750(c) (Organic HAP content level 
determination--compliant primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings) and 
63.750(k) (Organic HAP content level determination--compliant chemical 
milling maskants) to add a provision that owners and operators may add 
non-HAP solvents to coatings that meet the organic HAP and VOC content 
limits as supplied by the manufacturer and added language to 63.752(c) 
and (f) to specify the records that must be kept to demonstrate 
compliance using this provision.
    The EPA revised 40 CFR 63.741(f) to clarify that subpart GG does 
not apply to coatings that do not contain HAP, but owners and operators 
can include these non-HAP coatings in averaging as long as records are 
kept of the non-HAP coatings used for averaging.
    The EPA is revising the definition of coating in 40 CFR 63.742 to 
be consistent with the definition used in other more recent surface 
coating NESHAP.
    We are also finalizing a change made since proposal as an outgrowth 
of comments to add EPA Method 311, Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Compounds in Paints and Coatings, as the reference method for 
determining the HAP content of primers, topcoats, and specialty 
coatings.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the rule allow addition of 
HAP-free solvents to specialty coatings that meet the organic HAP and 
VOC content limits as supplied by the coating manufacturer. The 
commenter argued that industry members have identified several 
specialty coatings that meet the organic HAP and VOC content limits as 
supplied by the manufacturer but that would no longer meet the VOC 
limit ``as applied'' when solvents are added as recommended in the 
manufacturing specification. In those cases, the solvents added contain 
VOC, but no HAP, such as primers that are applied in warm weather. The 
commenter suggested that facilities would be required to keep records 
demonstrating compliance with the limits as supplied and that the 
solvents added do not contain HAP. The commenter argued that such a 
change would be equivalent to the proposed standards because (1) The 
coatings meet the organic HAP and VOC content limits as supplied, 
thereby effectively limiting the HAP content of the coating, and (2) 
the solvents added do not contain HAP, such that the coatings would 
remain compliant with the organic HAP limit ``as applied.''
    Response: The EPA agrees that facilities should be able to add non-
HAP solvents to coatings that meet the organic HAP and VOC content 
limits as supplied by the manufacturer. The facilities will be required 
to keep records demonstrating that the coatings meet the HAP and VOC 
content limits as supplied and that the thinners contain no HAP. The 
EPA has added language to 40 CFR 63.750(c) (primers/topcoat/specialty) 
and (k) (chemical

[[Page 76168]]

milling maskants) to add this provision and to 40 CFR 63.752(c) and (f) 
to specify the records that must be kept to demonstrate compliance.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the rule should be revised to 
clarify that it does not apply to specialty coatings that do not 
contain HAP. The commenter noted that proposed 40 CFR 63.741(f) 
includes the following sentence (emphasis added):

    The requirements of this subpart also do not apply to primers, 
topcoats, specialty coatings, chemical milling maskants, strippers, 
and cleaning solvents containing HAP and VOC at concentrations less 
than 0.1 percent by mass for carcinogens or 1.0 percent by mass for 
non-carcinogens, as determined from manufacturer's representations, 
such as in a material safety data sheet or product data sheet, or 
testing.

    The commenter argued that this could be interpreted to mean that 
the rule would regulate coatings that contain no HAP, if they contained 
VOC above the levels specified in that sentence. The commenter argued 
that this is likely to have been unintentional because the EPA has the 
authority to regulate only sources of HAP under CAA section 112, and 
the EPA cannot regulate sources of VOC that are not sources of HAP. The 
commenter argued, however, that aerospace facilities should have the 
option to use coatings with no HAP to demonstrate compliance using the 
coating content averaging provisions of 40 CFR 63.750(d) and (f) to 
encourage the development and use of non-HAP coatings. The commenter 
recommended that the following provision should be added to 40 CFR 
63.741(f) to clarify the exemption:

    The requirements of this subpart also do not apply to specialty 
coatings containing HAP at concentrations less than 0.1 percent by 
mass for carcinogens or 1.0 percent by mass for carcinogens, as 
determined from manufacturer's representations, such as in a 
material safety data sheet or product data sheet, or testing, except 
that if an owner or operator chooses to include one or more such 
coatings in averaging under Sec. 63.743(d), then the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec. 63.752(c)(4) shall apply.

    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that, as a rule 
promulgated under section 112 of the CAA, subpart GG should not apply 
to coatings that contain no HAP. Under CAA section 112(d)(1), the EPA 
is required to ``promulgate regulations establishing emissions 
standards for each category or subcategory of major sources . . . of 
listed hazardous air pollutants.'' Therefore, the EPA is revising 40 
CFR 63.741(f) to remove the reference to VOC in the sentence cited by 
the commenter. The EPA also agrees that facilities should be allowed to 
include these non-HAP coatings in averaging, so the EPA is adding in 
language similar to that suggested by the commenter to clarify the 
recordkeeping requirements that would apply to these non-HAP coatings 
used in an average.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should revise the 
definition of ``coating'' in 40 CFR 63.742 to be consistent with other 
surface coating NESHAP. The commenter argued that the current 
definition is vague, and with the proposed regulation of specialty 
coatings, it could be read to include products that are not considered 
coating products under other EPA surface coating rules. The commenter 
argued that the definition should limit coatings to liquid or mastic 
materials and exclude materials that are excluded from the definition 
of coating in other EPA rules. The commenter recommended the following 
definition of coating:

    Coating means a liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that 
is applied to the surface of an aerospace vehicle or component and 
converted by evaporation, cross-linking, or cooling, to form a 
decorative, protective, or functional solid film or the solid film 
itself. Coating application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol 
containers, touch-up markers, marking pens, or the application of 
paper film or plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive 
by the manufacturer are not coating operations for the purposes of 
this subpart.

    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the definition of 
``coating'' should be clarified because of the addition of specialty 
coatings, and the revised definition should be consistent with other 
surface coating NESHAP. The EPA reviewed the definitions of ``coating'' 
in other surface coating NESHAP and is revising the definition in 
subpart GG to match the definition used in 40 CFR part 63, subparts 
MMMM and PPPP to account for the diversity of materials represented by 
the specialty coatings and to clarify that the standards do not apply 
to paper or plastic film pre-coated with an adhesive by the film 
manufacturer.
    The EPA is also excluding materials in handheld, non-refillable 
aerosol containers, touch-up markers, and marking pens from the 
definition of coating because these types of coatings have been 
excluded from the definition of ``coating'' or ``coating operation'' in 
other surface coating NESHAP. Aerosol coatings have been excluded from 
the subpart GG emissions limits because they are included in the list 
of specialty coatings in Appendix A to subpart GG.
    The EPA is not adding the suggested language that a coating is ``a 
liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that is applied to the 
surface of an aerospace vehicle or component and converted by 
evaporation, cross-linking, or cooling, to form a decorative, 
protective, or functional solid film or the solid film itself.'' The 
EPA believes that this language is not needed because the revised 
definition will now include the following as examples of coatings: 
Paints, sealants, liquid plastic coatings, caulks, inks, adhesives, and 
maskants. The EPA believes that these examples will be at least as 
illustrative as the language suggested by the commenter and will be 
consistent with the definition of ``coatings'' in other EPA rules.
    The definition of coating in the final rule reads as set forth in 
40 CFR 63.742.
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in 
the comment responses in section IV.G.3 of this preamble, and in the 
response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are 
finalizing the proposed requirements for specialty coatings with 
respect to the compliance requirements as proposed and with the changes 
described in section IV.G.2 of this preamble.

H. Electronic Reporting Requirements

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed that owners and operators of aerospace 
manufacturing and rework facilities submit electronic copies of certain 
required performance test reports by direct computer-to-computer 
electronic transfer using EPA-provided software. The direct computer-
to-computer electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA's CDX 
using the CEDRI. The CDX is the EPA's portal for submittal of 
electronic data using the EPA-provided ERT to generate electronic 
reports of performance tests and evaluations. The ERT generates an 
electronic report package that will be submitted using the CEDRI. The 
submitted report package will be stored in the CDX archive (the 
official copy of record) and the EPA's public database called WebFIRE. 
All stakeholders would have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE 
and accessing these reports and data will be very straightforward and 
easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). A 
description of the WebFIRE database is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. A description of the 
ERT and instructions

[[Page 76169]]

for using ERT can be found at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (http://www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The submission of performance test data electronically to the EPA 
applies only to those performance tests conducted using test methods 
that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific 
electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference 
methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the 
ERT is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is making no changes to the proposed electronic reporting 
requirements and they are being finalized as proposed.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comments were received regarding the proposed electronic reporting 
requirements and were generally supportive. The comments and our 
specific responses to those comments can be found in the comment 
summary and response document available in the docket for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and 
in the response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, 
we are finalizing the requirements for electronic reporting as 
proposed.

I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's 
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 
S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the EPA proposed to remove the SSM provisions 
and other changes so that standards in this rule would apply at all 
times. We also proposed several revisions to Table 1 to subpart GG of 
part 63 (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter referred 
to as the ``General Provisions table'') as explained in more detail 
below. For example, we proposed to eliminate the incorporation of the 
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We 
also proposed to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further 
described below.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA took into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, did 
not propose alternate standards for those periods. Information on 
periods of startup and shutdown received from the facilities through 
CAA section 114 questionnaire responses indicated that emissions during 
these periods do not exceed the emissions during normal operations. The 
facilities do not perform the regulated surface coating operations 
unless and until their control devices (e.g., spray booths or other 
types of control devices) are operating to fully control emissions. 
Therefore, we determined that separate standards for periods of startup 
and shutdown are not necessary.
    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. The EPA 
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during 
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 
112 standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new 
sources must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the 
best controlled similar source and, for existing sources, generally 
must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation 
``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the 
category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency 
to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the 
best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the D.C. 
Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing 
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' 
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. 
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions 
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the agency to consider 
malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be 
treated 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 
CAA section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards 
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types 
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and 
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might 
occur. As a result, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is 
not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. 
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of 
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources 
to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no 
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can 
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of 
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 
insanity and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 
administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for 
specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions 
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions 
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution 
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a 
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse 
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady-state type unit that 
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent 
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher 
than during normal operations and the emissions over a 4-day 
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source 
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for

[[Page 76170]]

malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and 
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA 
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions 
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation 
of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation.
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations.
a. 40 CFR 63.743(e) General Duty
    We proposed to revise the entry in the General Provisions table for 
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' 
Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. 
Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or 
appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We 
proposed instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 
63.743(e) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while 
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The 
former language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterized what the general 
duty entailed during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM 
exemption, there was no need to differentiate between normal operations 
and SSM events in describing the general duty. Therefore the language 
the EPA proposed for 40 CFR 63.743(e) does not include that language 
from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We also proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' 
Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposed requirements that are not necessary with 
the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general 
duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.743(e).
b. SSM Plan
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Generally, 
these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As 
noted, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, 
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such 
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure 
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance 
and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' The former 
language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempted sources from non-opacity 
standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in 
Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision 
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards 
apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA proposed to 
revise some standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.749(j) Performance Testing
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA instead 
proposed to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.749(j). 
The performance testing requirements we proposed to add differ from the 
General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. 
The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) 
that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and 
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes 
of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions 
specified that performance testing of controls must be conducted during 
representative operating conditions of the applicable source and may 
not take place during SSM periods of the applicable controlled surface 
coating operations, controlled chemical milling maskant application 
operations or controlled chemical depainting operations. As in 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not 
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions 
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA 
proposed to add language that requires the owner or operator to record 
the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the 
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the 
condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator upon 
request, but does not specifically require the information to be 
recorded. The regulatory text the EPA proposed to add to this provision 
builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record 
the information.
e. Monitoring
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a 
``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan 
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control 
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a 
quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
f. 40 CFR 63.752(a) Recordkeeping
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup 
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary 
because the EPA proposed that

[[Page 76171]]

recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply 
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions 
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown 
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup 
and shutdown periods.
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' 
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during 
a malfunction. The EPA proposed to add such requirements to 40 CFR 
63.752(a). The regulatory text we proposed to add differs from the 
General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions 
requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and 
duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and 
monitoring equipment. The EPA proposed that this requirement apply to 
any failure to meet an applicable standard and proposed to require that 
the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather 
than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA also proposed to add to 40 CFR 
63.752(a) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list 
of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize 
emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the 
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions. Examples of such methods include mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rate or 
control device efficiencies). The EPA proposed to require that sources 
keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate 
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure 
to meet a standard and to provide data that may document how the source 
met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed 
to meet an applicable standard.
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' When 
applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken 
during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. 
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no 
longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record 
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.752(a).
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' When 
applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken 
during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their 
SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans 
will no longer be required.
g. 40 CFR 63.753 Reporting
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for SSM periods. To 
replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA proposed 
to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.753(a). The replacement 
language added to 40 CFR 63.753(a) differs from the General Provisions 
requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone 
report. We proposed language that requires sources that fail to meet an 
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning 
such events in the semi-annual report already required under this rule. 
We proposed that the report must contain the number, date, time, 
duration and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if 
applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods include mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and 
control device efficiencies). The EPA proposed this requirement to 
ensure there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow 
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable 
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the 
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an 
applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans will no longer be required. The proposed amendments will, 
therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications will be 
no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    As discussed above, we proposed to revise the General Provisions 
table entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5), by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 
to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for 
SSM events when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did 
not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators 
to report when actions taken during a SSM event were not consistent 
with an SSM plan, because plans will no longer be required, and other 
reports and records will be used to allow the EPA to determine the 
severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard and to provide 
data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We have not changed any aspect of the SSM provisions for the 
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category since the 
proposal.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to remove 
the SSM exemptions for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities source category. The comments and our specific responses to 
those comments can be found in the comment summary and response 
document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0830).
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons provided above, provided in the preamble for the 
proposed rule and provided in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the 
Aerospace NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and 
removed or modified inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are finalizing our proposed 
determination that facilities comply with the standards at all times 
and no additional standards are needed to address emissions during 
startup or shutdown periods.

[[Page 76172]]

J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates for the Amendments

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed that the compliance date for the proposed 
amendments would be the effective date of those amendments (i.e., the 
date the final amendments are promulgated), with one exception. The EPA 
proposed a compliance date of 1 year after the effective date for the 
following standards for existing specialty coating affected sources: 40 
CFR 63.745(c)(5) and (6) (HAP and VOC content limits for specialty 
coatings); 40 CFR 63.745(f) (coating application equipment); and 40 CFR 
63.745(g) (control of inorganic HAP emissions).
2. What changed since proposal?
    The compliance date for existing specialty coating operations to 
comply with the amended requirements in 40 CFR 63.745 has been revised 
since proposal from 1 year from the effective date of this rule to 3 
years from the effective date of this rule.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comment: Several commenters argued that the EPA should provide a 3-
year compliance period for specialty coatings rather than the proposed 
1-year period. All commenters argued that additional time is needed to 
determine whether each coating is compliant, to engineer new coating 
formulations, to ensure the replacement specialty coatings meet the 
needed performance requirements specified by aircraft manufacturers, 
DoD, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA), or other countries' government agencies. 
They argued that additional time is also needed to incorporate the new 
formulation into the material specifications and add the coating to the 
qualified product list for the aircraft, and to implement changes to 
raw material supply chains, product lines, and distribution channels to 
ensure compliance by the deadline and to mitigate the effect of 
obsolete products and product information.
    One commenter noted that the EPA acknowledged the lengthy period of 
time needed to qualify new coatings with respect to the technology 
review performed for primer and topcoat operations. Another commenter 
argued that 1 year is shorter than compliance periods provided in any 
other surface coating NESHAP and in other RTR standards. The commenter 
noted that the CTG limits generally have been applied only to 
facilities in non-attainment areas, and facilities in attainment areas 
may be faced with the need to reformulate some coatings. The commenter 
also argued that the application equipment and spray booth filtration 
requirements for specialty coatings will also be new requirements for 
all facilities using specialty coatings, and additional time may be 
needed to revise title V operating permits for new or upgraded spray 
booths, or to allow for averaging or alternative compliance 
demonstrations. The commenter added that, because of the large number 
of specialty coatings, additional time is also needed to develop 
compliance systems (even for facilities that previously were required 
to comply with the primer and topcoat operation standards), determine 
the VOC and HAP content of these coatings, and setting up recordkeeping 
and reporting systems.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that, based on the 
additional information provided in their comments, a 3-year compliance 
period for existing sources is needed for specialty coating operations 
to comply with the new standards. A 3-year compliance period is the 
maximum amount of time allowed for an existing source compliance date 
under 40 CFR 63.6(c) of the General Provisions. Consistent with CAA 
section 112(i)(3), for standards developed under CAA section 112(d)(3) 
the EPA could provide up to a 3-year compliance date for existing 
sources. ``[S]ection 112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance period 
applies generally to `any emissions standard . . . promulgated under 
[section 112].' Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 
672(D.C. Cir. 2013).).
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons provided in the preamble for the proposed rule, in 
the comment responses in section IV.J.3 of this preamble, and in the 
comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are 
finalizing the proposal to require that all of the amendments in the 
final rule will be effective on December 7, 2015, with one exception. 
The one exception is the compliance date for existing specialty coating 
affected sources (i.e., existing on February 17, 2015) will be December 
7, 2018, for the reasons explained in section IV.J.3 of this preamble.

K. Standards for Cleaning Operations and Standards for Handling and 
Storage of Waste

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed no changes to the standards for cleaning 
operations in 40 CFR 63.744 and for the standards for the handling and 
storage of waste in 40 CFR 63.748.
2. What changed since proposal?
    Based on public comments received on the proposal, the EPA is 
clarifying the applicability of the requirements for the handling and 
storage of spent cleaning solvents and HAP-containing wastes in 40 CFR 
63.744(a) and 63.748 relative to subpart GG and the regulations in 40 
CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control 
requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) that implement the RCRA. 
These clarifying changes include the following:
     Removing and reserving 40 CFR 63.741(e);
     Revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) to specify that fresh and spent 
cleaning solvents, and solvent-laden applicators that are not handled 
and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including 
the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) 
must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) through 
(a)(4); and
     Revising 40 CFR 63.748 to specify that wastes that contain 
organic HAP from aerospace surface coating operations (primer, topcoat, 
specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, and chemical depainting 
operations) that are not handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR 
parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements 
in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) must be handled and stored as follows:
    (a) Conduct the handling and transfer of wastes that contain 
organic HAP to or from containers, tanks, vats, vessels, or piping 
systems in such a manner that minimizes spills during handling and 
transfer; and
    (b) Store all waste that contains organic HAP in closed containers.
3. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA may not exempt waste 
handling and storage operations from the technology review because 
doing so would violate CAA section 112(d)(6) and disagreed with the 
EPA's basis for not doing a technology review in the current 
rulemaking.
    First, the commenter argued that the CAA requires a review of the 
existing emission standards at least every 8 years after promulgation, 
including reviewing developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies. The commenter added that the EPA argued that ``there is 
no need to do a technology review'' in the current rulemaking because 
the EPA sets standards for

[[Page 76173]]

wastes not covered by RCRA and the EPA stated that ``[t]he practical 
effect of [this rule] is that all HAP-containing wastes generated by 
aerospace manufacturing and rework operations are subject to RCRA and 
are exempt from the requirements of 40 CFR 63.748.'' The commenter 
added that in 1994, for wastes that are not subject to the provisions 
of RCRA, the EPA promulgated standards that required HAP-containing 
waste to be handled in such a manner that spills are minimized for 
waste handling and storage operations. The commenter added that the EPA 
recognizes that it must perform the first required 8-year review of the 
1994 standards.
    In addition, the commenter argued that the EPA has not provided any 
data or other evidence showing that all aerospace waste is exempt from 
the current standards that apply to aerospace facilities, nor has it 
shown that aerospace waste and storage handling is actually regulated 
by RCRA. The commenter stated that the EPA cites no RCRA regulations 
that regulate the emissions of these operations, including their 
hazardous air emissions, much less any such regulations that do so 
effectively. The commenter argued that unless the EPA can show that all 
aerospace waste storage and handling operations' air emissions are 
appropriately regulated by RCRA, at least as stringently as CAA section 
112(d) and (f) require, then its refusal to review these standards is 
arbitrary and capricious.
    The commenter argued that the EPA's stated reason for originally 
exempting certain waste (that is subject to RCRA) from the CAA waste 
handling and storage standards conflicts with and does not support a 
refusal to do a CAA section 112(d)(6) review now. The commenter noted 
that the EPA states in the current rule preamble that it promulgated 
the original exemption to try to avoid creating ``potential conflicts'' 
with RCRA. However, the commenter argued that the agency's explanation 
for the original exemption was actually more nuanced as the EPA stated 
that it was promulgating the exemption ``so that the . . . standards 
would not require less strict handling and storage of waste than the 
RCRA requirements.'' The commenter argued that there is no indication 
that it would create ``potential conflicts'' for the EPA to review the 
existing CAA standards to see if there are ``developments'' that it 
should account for in revised standards, as the CAA requires, to assure 
stronger standards than currently apply under either CAA or RCRA. The 
commenter explained that it would be fully consistent with the 
originally stated objective of assuring sufficiently strict 
requirements for the EPA to perform the requisite review now and would 
allow the EPA to assess and determine whether the CAA standards are up 
to date and sufficiently stringent. The commenter added that if the EPA 
performs the requisite CAA review and finds that there are 
``developments'' in waste storage and handling, the EPA will then need 
to revise the standards to assure that they satisfy CAA section 112(d), 
including CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). As part of this analysis, the 
EPA can ensure the standards are not less stringent than what is 
required under RCRA, and thus avoid any potential conflicts, according 
to the commenter.
    The commenter argued that the reviews required by CAA sections 
112(d)(6) and (f)(2) are both necessary in part to assure that there 
are appropriate emission standards in place for HAP emitted by 
aerospace waste storage and handling operations. The commenter stated 
that the EPA has no authority to exempt major sources from CAA section 
112 standards. The commenter noted that the EPA acknowledged that it 
also may not set no control standards. The commenter added that these 
must meet a particular stringency test as defined by CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3). The commenter argued that the EPA may not evade 
these CAA responsibilities by referring to a different statute (i.e., 
RCRA) that does not include and cannot substitute for the CAA section 
112 requirements. The commenter argued that the EPA must ensure that 
the required CAA section 112(d)(6) review is satisfied and that any HAP 
emitted from waste storage and handling operations are subject to CAA 
section 112(d) standards that assure the ``maximum achievable'' degree 
of emission reductions.
    The commenter noted that it is unclear whether the EPA included 
waste handling and storage operations in its CAA section 112(f)(2) risk 
assessment. The commenter argued that the EPA did not state whether it 
included emissions from waste storage and handling operations in the 
CAA section 112(f)(2) review, which requires assessing risks to public 
health and the environment under the existing standards.
    Finally, the commenter argued that the EPA may not rely on the 
original exemption for certain waste operations because that, in turn, 
is unlawful under CAA section 112(c) and (d). Where Congress intended 
to allow the EPA to exempt sources from CAA section 112 standards based 
on the existence of standards under other statutes, it did so 
expressly, according to the commenter. See, e.g., CAA section 
7412(d)(9) (radionuclide emissions provision). The commenter added that 
there is no such exemption for aerospace sources, or any part of their 
emissions.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA is not 
exempting these waste handling operations from regulation under CAA 
section 112. In addition, as described in section IV.B.3 of this 
preamble, the EPA has completed a technology review for the standards 
for handling and storage of waste in 40 CFR 63.748 as required by CAA 
section 112(d)(6). Finally, the EPA has included these waste storage 
and handling operations in the risk assessment required under CAA 
section 112(f)(2).
    First, the EPA has established standards for waste storage and 
handling operations under 40 CFR 63.744 and 63.748 that are already not 
subject to requirements under RCRA.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) and (a)(2) require that 
spent cleaning solvent and spent solvent-laden materials (e.g., cloth 
or paper applicators) be stored in closed containers. The provisions 
under 40 CFR 63.744(a)(3) and 40 CFR 63.748 require that all handling 
and transfer of spent cleaning solvents or HAP containing wastes be 
done in a manner to minimize spills.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 63.741(e) provide that ``All wastes that 
are determined to be hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-580) (RCRA) as implemented by 40 
CFR parts 260 and 261, and that are subject to RCRA requirements as 
implemented in 40 CFR parts 262 through 268'' are not subject to the 
requirements of subpart GG. The EPA included this provision so that the 
standards in subpart GG would not potentially require less stringent 
handling and storage of waste than the RCRA requirements. At the same 
time, the EPA made a determination that, for wastes subject to RCRA, no 
more stringent controls for HAP air emissions were achievable. The 
hazardous waste storage requirements implemented in the RCRA 
requirements represented the most stringent controls achievable.
    However, the EPA recognizes that the inclusion of this language 
under 40 CFR 63.741(e) can lead to confusion over the materials and 
activities that are subject to the requirements of subpart GG, 
specifically 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748. The EPA believes that some 
entities could read this provision as exempting from subpart GG all 
waste materials and activities that are eventually subject to RCRA even 
before they are placed in RCRA-covered

[[Page 76174]]

containers for handling and storage, or before they are handled and 
stored according to RCRA requirements.
    Therefore, the EPA is removing and reserving 40 CFR 63.741(e), and 
revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 to clarify the requirements for 
the handling and storage of spent solvents and other wastes relative to 
subpart GG and RCRA. The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) to specify 
that fresh and spent cleaning solvents, and solvent-laden applicators 
that are not handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 
through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR 
part 265, subpart CC) must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.744(a)(1) through (a)(4).
    The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.748 to specify that wastes that 
contain organic HAP from aerospace surface coating operation wastes 
from primer, topcoat, specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, and 
chemical depainting operations that are not handled and stored in 
compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air 
emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) must be 
handled and stored as follows:
    (1) Conduct the handling and transfer of wastes that contain 
organic HAP to or from containers, tanks, vats, vessels, or piping 
systems in such a manner that minimizes spills during handling and 
transfer; and (2) store all waste that contains organic HAP in closed 
containers.
    The EPA has determined that these changes will ensure that all 
spent solvents and other wastes that contain organic HAP that are 
generated from aerospace surface coating operations are handled and 
stored so that emissions are minimized through the application of MACT 
controls (i.e., closed containers or closed transfer systems) either 
through the measures specified in subpart GG or because the spent 
solvent or waste handling is subject to regulation under RCRA, 
including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, 
subpart CC. The EPA has included 40 CFR 63.748(b) to clarify the 
requirements for handling of waste and to ensure uniform handling of 
organic HAP containing materials and consistency among the requirements 
of 40 CFR 63.744(a), 63.748, and the regulations implementing RCRA. The 
EPA is also making this addition in order to be responsive to 
commenter's concerns that 40 CFR 64.748 did not satisfy the 
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2); however, this provision reflects 
practices that are already employed by facilities to be compliant with 
40 CFR 63.744(a) and the RCRA regulations. The EPA did not intend to 
exempt RCRA hazardous wastes from all waste storage and handling 
requirements of the rule. Our intention was for RCRA 40 CFR parts 262 
through 268 to regulate the storage of RCRA wastes but also for 63.748 
to require the handling and transfer of the waste to or from RCRA-
controlled waste containers, tanks, vats, vessels, and piping systems 
in such a manner that minimizes spills and emissions from non-RCRA 
containers that may hold waste.
    The EPA conducted a technology review of the standards for cleaning 
operations in 40 CFR 63.744, and the results of that review were 
included in the docket for the proposed rulemaking. In that technology 
review, the EPA concluded that there were no new developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for cleaning operations. 
Those controls of air emissions from cleaning operations (i.e., the 
control of emissions from the handling and storage of spent solvent 
using closed containers and the housekeeping measures to minimize 
spills) are equally applicable to the storage and handling of waste. 
Therefore, the EPA concluded, at proposal, that there are no new 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the 
requirements for cleaning operation or the handling and transfer of 
waste. However, as discussed in section IV.B.3 of this preamble, the 
EPA has also completed a separate technology review, since proposal, 
for the storage and handling of waste, and that technology review is in 
the docket for this rulemaking. The technology review for storage and 
handling of waste also concluded that there were no new developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for air emissions from 
waste storage and handling operations.
    The EPA has also reviewed the requirements for the handling of 
waste under RCRA that would be applicable to RCRA wastes generated from 
aerospace surface coating operations, and the EPA has determined that 
there were no new developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies for the handling of waste from surface coating operations 
beyond the current requirements in RCRA, including the air emission 
control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC.
    With respect to the question of whether the EPA included waste 
handling and storage in the risk assessment required by CAA section 
112(f)(2), the risk assessment included data on emissions associated 
with waste handling operations. The EPA ICR that collected information 
in 2011 requested information from cleaning operations (including 
emissions from the handling and storage of spent cleaning solvent and 
solvent-laden materials) and information on emissions from any tanks 
associated with the cleaning, surface coating, or chemical depainting 
operations. These data encompass all of the potential sources of HAP 
emissions that would be associated with waste handling and storage 
associated with the cleaning operations or with other (non-cleaning) 
surface coating waste storage and handling. The EPA included these HAP 
emissions data in the inputs to the air quality modeling and risk 
assessment completed by the EPA in making the residual risk 
determination under CAA section 112(f)(2).
4. Rationale for Final Approach
    For the reasons provided above in section IV.K.3 of this preamble, 
we are revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 to clarify the relationship 
between the requirements for the handling and storage of spent cleaning 
solvent and waste in subpart GG relative to the regulations 
implementing RCRA.

L. Technical Corrections to the Aerospace NESHAP

1. Technical Corrections Included in the Proposed Rule
    The EPA proposed the following technical corrections to subpart GG:
     Revising 40 CFR 63.743(a)(2) to match the section title in 
40 CFR 63.5.
     Revising 40 CFR 63.743(a)(8) to correct the reference to 
paragraph 63.6(i)(12)(iii)(B) by changing the ``(1)'' to an ``(i).''
     Revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) to correct and clarify the 
format of the reference to 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) through (4).
     Correcting the ordering of 40 CFR 63.744(a)(3) and (4); 
currently paragraph (a)(4) is printed before (a)(3).
     Correcting the paragraph numbering for 40 CFR 
63.746(b)(4)(ii)(C) by changing paragraph (C) from a lower case to 
upper case ``C.''
     Correcting the numbering of the tables in 40 CFR 63.745 to 
account for the proposed addition of Table 1 to that section to include 
specialty coating limits.
     Revising 40 CFR 63.749(d)(4) to correct the references to 
40 CFR 63.749(d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(iv) and (e).
     Revising 40 CFR 63.750(g)(6)(i) to remove the letters 
``VR/FD'' that were inadvertently included.
    The EPA did not receive any comments on these proposed changes. 
Therefore, these changes have been incorporated into the final rule as 
proposed.

[[Page 76175]]

2. Technical Corrections Included in the Final Rule
    The public comments on the proposed rule included requests for the 
following technical corrections to subpart GG in addition to those 
discussed directly above:
    One commenter recommended that the first full sentence of 40 CFR 
63.753(c) should be revised to include specialty coating application 
operations to clarify that this section applies to specialty coating 
applications. The EPA agrees with this comment and is making this 
clarifying change.
    One commenter requested that the EPA change the specialty coating 
category name for ``Corrosion Prevention System'' in Appendix A to 
subpart GG to ``Corrosion Prevention Compound'' to match the naming 
convention used in Table 1 to subpart GG. The EPA acknowledges this 
difference within subpart GG, but in the final rule is changing the 
name used in Table 1 to subpart GG to match the category definition in 
Appendix A to subpart GG because that definition specifically uses the 
word ``system,'' instead of ``compound,'' in the body of the 
definition.
    One commenter noted that the EPA should state in 40 CFR 63.752(a) 
that facilities are not required to keep records in accordance with 40 
CFR 63.10(d)(5), to be consistent with the removal of SSM requirements 
in 40 CFR 63.753(a) and Table 1 to subpart GG. The EPA agrees and has 
added 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to the list of paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.10 that 
do not apply.
    One commenter noted that the term ``affected unit'' should be 
changed to ``affected source'' in 40 CFR 63.752(a)(1) to (3) for 
consistency with other sections of the rule. The EPA agrees and has 
made this change.
    One commenter requested that the EPA clarify in the final rule if 
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vii) to (xiv) are applicable to the Aerospace 
NESHAP. The EPA acknowledges that in the version of Table 1 to subpart 
GG published in the Federal Register (80 FR 8438), the row for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(vii) to (xiv) in the amended Table 1 to subpart GG was 
inadvertently left blank in the second column, and this should have 
been marked ``Yes'' that these requirements still apply. The amendments 
to Table 1 to subpart GG changed only certain elements in Table 1 and 
those changes, including those to 40 CFR 63.10(b), were explained in 
the preamble. Before the amendments, all of 40 CFR 63.10(b) applied to 
subpart GG. Sub-paragraphs 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vii) to (xiv) are not 
being amended, and they still apply to subpart GG.
    In the final rule, the EPA is also correcting 40 CFR 
63.749(d)(3)(i) and (4)(i) to reference the applicable limits in 
63.745(c). At 40 CFR 63.749(d)(3)(i) and (4)(i), the rule referenced 
only the single primer and topcoat limits that were promulgated in 1995 
(60 FR 45948, September 1, 1995) and did not include the primer and 
topcoat limits that were added in 1998 (63 FR 46526, September 1, 1998) 
and 2000 (65 FR 76941, December 8, 2000). This change will resolve 
confusion over the applicable limits being referenced.
    The EPA is also correcting several references to ``spray cans'' and 
replacing those references with ``non-refillable aerosol containers'' 
because that is the term used elsewhere in the rule. Similarly, the EPA 
is also correcting several references to ``painting operations'' and 
replacing them with ``surface coating operations.''

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The EPA estimates, based on the responses to the 2011 ICR, that 
there are 144 major source facilities that are engaged in aerospace 
manufacturing and rework surface coating operations. Based on the 
responses to the 2011 ICR, the EPA estimates that 109 facilities likely 
would be affected by the final limits for specialty coatings and the 
requirements to use high-efficiency application equipment for specialty 
coatings.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from specialty coatings 
are about 360 tpy; inorganic HAP emissions are about 5 tpy, and the 
remainder are organic HAP. The estimated emission reductions are 58 
tons of HAP, which would be achieved from the regulation of specialty 
coatings. The EPA estimated that these emission reductions will result 
from the requirements to use high-efficiency application equipment and 
also from the application of the HAP content limits to specialty 
coatings.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The EPA estimates that the annual cost impacts will be about 
$590,000 per year for all affected facilities. The cost impacts are 
attributed to monitoring and recordkeeping costs for complying with the 
specialty coating HAP content limits. The cost per facility was 
estimated based on the number of specialty coatings used at each 
facility, as reported in the 2011 ICR. The costs are based on an 
assumption of 1 hour of technical labor for annual recordkeeping and 
reporting for each specialty coating used by a facility, plus 
additional management and clerical hours representing a fraction of the 
technical labor hours.
    The EPA does not have sufficient data from the 2011 ICR to estimate 
the total cost impacts for specialty coatings having to comply with the 
proposed high-efficiency application equipment requirement. Because 
high-efficiency application equipment generates less coating overspray 
than conventional equipment, the costs of upgrading to new equipment 
can be offset by cost savings from reduced coating consumption and 
reduced spray booth filter maintenance. For these reasons, many 
facilities are likely to have already switched to high-efficiency 
application methods for specialty coating operations, as they are 
already required to for primer and topcoat application operations. For 
example, the average volume of specialty coatings used per facility is 
3,000 gallons per year, based on the 2011 ICR data. The estimated 
purchase cost for a professional quality HVLP spray gun is $700 for the 
gun and hoses. If the average facility had to purchase three new spray 
guns, and the facility was spending an average of $30 per gallon of 
spray-applied coating, the facility would need to see a decrease in 
coating consumption of only 70 gallons per year (about a 3-percent 
reduction) to recover the initial cost of those three spray guns in 1 
year.
    The EPA expects some additional potential cost savings from the 
alternative compliance demonstration provision included in 40 CFR 
63.750(c), (e), (k), and (m), but we do not have sufficient data to 
estimate the cost savings associated with the alternative compliance 
demonstration. However, for comparison, the estimated cost to perform 
an analysis of VOC content according to EPA Method 24, based on 
published vendor data, is about $575 per sample. The costs for an 
analysis of HAP content using EPA Method 311 are expected to be at 
least several times higher. Because the alternative compliance 
demonstration will allow facilities to use coating manufacturers' 
documentation of HAP or VOC content based on coating composition, the 
cost of these coating analyses using EPA Method 24 or 311 would be 
avoided.
    The EPA's cost analyses are documented in the memorandum, 
Methodology for Estimating Control Costs for Specialty Coating 
Operations in the Aerospace Source Category,

[[Page 76176]]

January 2014, in the docket for this rulemaking.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets are 
also examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the 
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can 
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a 
rule.
    This rule applies to the surface coating and related operations at 
facilities that are major sources and are engaged, either in part or in 
whole, in the manufacture or rework of commercial, civil or military 
aerospace vehicles or components. The final rule adds recordkeeping and 
reporting provisions for specialty coating operations but does not 
change the compliance costs for operations already being regulated by 
the existing emission standards. The annual costs were calculated for 
only the 109 aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities that 
reported having specialty coating operations.
    The estimated annual costs for the final rule are less than $1 
million in the first year and in succeeding years (less than $850,000 
in the first year and less than $600,000 in succeeding years). These 
costs are estimated for the 109 facilities that, based on information 
reported by facilities, appear to have specialty coating operations. 
Thus, the average cost per facility is less than $10,000 per year. 
These costs are small compared to sales for the companies in aerospace 
manufacturing and reworking. For example, in 2012 the average annual 
value of shipments (a rough estimate of sales) for firms in the 
category of ``other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment 
manufacturing'' was almost $50 million (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 
2012 Economic Census for NAICS 336413 for 2012). In this case, the 
cost-to-sales estimate will be approximately 0.02 percent of sales for 
each firm. Costs this small will not have significant market impacts, 
whether they are absorbed by the firm or passed on as price increases.
    The EPA does not know of any firms that are small entities and 
using specialty coatings that are potentially subject to this final 
rule. Because no small firms face control costs, there is no 
significant impact on small entities. Therefore, these amendments will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

E. What are the benefits?

    We anticipate this rulemaking will reduce organic and inorganic HAP 
emissions by approximately 58 tons each year. These avoided emissions 
will result in improvements in air quality and reduced negative health 
effects associated with exposure to air pollution of these emissions.
    This rulemaking is not an ``economically significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we 
have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this 
rulemaking or a benefits analysis. While we expect that these avoided 
emissions will improve air quality and reduce health effects associated 
with exposure to air pollution associated with these emissions, we have 
not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions 
for this rulemaking.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by 
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies 
and activities on minority populations and low income populations in 
the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the 
integration of environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking 
efforts, including recommendations for the consideration and conduct of 
analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during 
the development of a rule.
    Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of 
the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a 
proximity analysis for aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities 
prior to proposal to identify any overrepresentation of minority, low 
income or indigenous populations. This analysis gives an indication of 
the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution 
from the sources. Further details concerning this analysis are 
presented in the memorandum titled, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Aerospace Facilities, a copy of which is available in the dockets for 
this action. The results of the analysis were summarized in Table 3 of 
the proposed rule preamble (see 80 FR 8414, February 17, 2015).
    The results of the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
baseline risk assessment indicated that emissions from the source 
category expose approximately 180,000 people to a cancer risk at or 
above 1-in-1 million and no one was predicted to have a chronic non-
cancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    The baseline analysis indicated that the percentages of the 
population exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 
million and living within 50 kilometers (km) of the 144 aerospace 
facilities is higher for minority populations, 36 percent exposed, 
versus the national minority population average of 28 percent. The 
specific demographics of the population within 50 km of the facilities 
indicate potential disparities in certain demographic groups, including 
the ``African American'' and ``Below the Poverty Level'' groups. 
However, the EPA's baseline analysis also showed that the estimated 
risks were within the ample margin of safety for all minority 
populations and low income populations. The EPA has also determined 
that the changes to this rule, which will reduce emissions of organic 
and inorganic HAP by 58 tpy, will lead to reduced risks to minority 
populations and low-income populations compared to the baseline 
analysis.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    As part of the health and risk assessments, as well as the 
proximity analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and 
children were assessed. These analyses are documented in the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
Source Category in Support of the January, 2015 Risk and Technology 
Review, and in the Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-
Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Aerospace Facilities, 
which are available in the docket for this action.
    The results of the proximity analysis show that children 17 years 
and younger as a percentage of the population in close proximity to 
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities and with an estimated 
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is similar to the 
percentage of the national population in this age group (26 percent 
versus 24 percent, respectively). The difference in the absolute number 
of percentage points of the population 17 years old and younger from 
the national average indicates a 2 percent over-representation near 
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. Consistent with the 
EPA's

[[Page 76177]]

Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children,\5\ we conducted 
inhalation and multipathway risk assessments for the Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facility source category considering risk to 
infants and children. Children are exposed to chemicals emitted to the 
atmosphere via two primary routes: Either directly via inhalation or 
indirectly via ingestion or dermal contact with various media that have 
been contaminated with the emitted chemicals. The EPA considers the 
possibility that children might be more sensitive than adults to toxic 
chemicals, including chemical carcinogens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2014. Available 
at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each carcinogenic HAP included in this assessment that has a 
potency estimate available, individual and population cancer risks were 
calculated by multiplying the corresponding lifetime average exposure 
estimate by the appropriate unit risk estimate (URE). This calculated 
cancer risk is defined as the upper-bound probability of developing 
cancer over a 70-year period (i.e., the assumed human lifespan) at that 
exposure. Because UREs for most HAP are upper-bound estimates, actual 
risks at a given exposure level may be lower than predicted, and could 
be zero.
    For the EPA's list of carcinogenic HAP that act by a mutagenic 
mode-of-action, we applied the EPA's Supplemental Guidance for 
Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens.\6\ 
This guidance has the effect of adjusting the URE by factors of 10 (for 
children aged 0-1), 3 (for children aged 2-15), or 1.6 (for 70 years of 
exposure beginning at birth), as needed in risk assessments. In this 
case, this has the effect of increasing the estimated lifetime risks 
for these pollutants by a factor of 1.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from 
Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-03/003F. 
March 2005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to other carcinogenic pollutants for which early-life 
susceptibility data are lacking, it is the Agency's long-standing 
science policy position that use of the linear low-dose extrapolation 
approach (without further adjustment) provides adequate public health 
conservatism in the absence of chemical-specific data indicating 
differential early-life susceptibility or when the mode of action is 
not mutagenicity. The basis for this methodology is also provided in 
the 2005 Supplemental Guidance.
    In the treatment of POM, the EPA expresses carcinogenic potency for 
compounds in this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, even 
though only a small fraction of the total POM emissions may be reported 
as individual compounds, based on evidence that carcinogenic POM have 
the same mutagenic mechanism of action as does benzo[a]pyrene. For this 
reason, the EPA implementation policy \7\ recommends applying the 
Supplemental Guidance to all carcinogenic PAHs (a subset of POM) for 
which risk estimates are based on relative potency. Accordingly, we 
applied the Supplemental Guidance to all unspeciated POM mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ US EPA, 2005. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 
Implementation Workgroup Communication I: Memo from W.H. Farland 
dated 4 October 2005 to Science Policy Council. http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/canguid1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike linear dose-response assessments for cancer, non-cancer 
health hazards generally are not expressed as a probability of an 
adverse occurrence. Instead, hazard of non-cancer effects is expressed 
by comparing an exposure to a reference level as a ratio. The HQ is the 
estimated exposure divided by a reference level (e.g., the reference 
concentration, RfC). For a given HAP, exposures at or below the 
reference level (HQ<=1) are not likely to cause adverse health effects. 
As exposures increase above the reference level (HQs increasingly 
greater than 1), the potential for adverse effects increases. For 
exposures predicted to be above the RfC, the risk characterization 
includes the degree of confidence ascribed to the RfC values for the 
compound(s) of concern (i.e., high, medium, or low confidence) and 
discusses the impact of this on possible health interpretations. The 
reference levels used to determine the HQ's incorporate generally 
conservative uncertainty factors that account for effects in the most 
susceptible populations including all life stages (e.g., infants and 
children).
    For our multipathway screening assessment (i.e., ingestion), we 
assessed risks for adults and various age groups of children. 
Children's exposures are expected to differ from exposures of adults 
due to differences in body weights, ingestion rates, dietary 
preferences and other factors. It is important, therefore, to evaluate 
the contribution of exposures during childhood to total lifetime risk 
using appropriate exposure factor values, applying age-dependent 
adjustment factors (ADAF) as appropriate. The EPA developed a health-
protective exposure scenario whereby the receptor, at various life 
stages, receives ingestion exposure via both the farm food chain and 
the fish ingestion pathways.
    Based on the analyses described above, the EPA has determined that 
the changes to this rule, which will reduce emissions of organic and 
inorganic HAP by 58 tpy, will lead to reduced risk to children and 
infants.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.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 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 rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1687.10. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emission standards. These 
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining 
compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Respondents are owners or operators of aerospace manufacturing and 
rework operations. The rule adds recordkeeping and reporting provisions 
for specialty coating operations, but does not change the recordkeeping 
and reporting provisions for any other types of operations. Therefore, 
of the 144 aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities subject to the 
Aerospace NESHAP, the annual costs for increased

[[Page 76178]]

recordkeeping and reporting apply to only the 109 aerospace 
manufacturing and rework facilities that reported having specialty 
coating operations. Respondents must keep records of the specialty 
coatings used at the facility, including the name and VOC content of 
the coating, the HAP and VOC emitted per gallon of coating and the 
monthly volume of each coating used. Respondents must also submit 
semiannual reports of noncompliance. Recordkeeping and reporting of 
monitored parameters related to air pollution control technologies are 
required if controls are used to demonstrate compliance with the 
standards. The reports and records will be used to determine compliance 
with the standards.
    Respondents/affected entities: Aerospace manufacturing and rework 
facilities using specialty coatings.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 109 facilities using specialty 
coatings.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 6,914 hours (per year) for the responding 
facilities and 148 hours (per year) for the agency. These are estimates 
for the average annual burden for the first 3 years after the rule is 
final. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $695,570 (per year), which includes no 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, for the 
responding facilities and $8,740 (per year) for the agency. These are 
estimates for the average annual cost for the first 3 years after the 
rule is final.
    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. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. This action will not impose any costs on 
small entities. Although there are small entities subject to this final 
rule they are either not using specialty coatings or the specialty 
coatings they're using are already compliant with the limits in the 
rule. Therefore, no facilities meeting the Small Business 
Administration's definition of a small business will incur costs. The 
results of the economic impact analysis are summarized in section V.D 
of this preamble and can be found in the memorandum, Economic Impact 
Analysis for National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities. A copy of this memorandum is in the docket for 
this rulemaking. We have therefore concluded that this action will have 
no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

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. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
the aerospace manufacturing or rework surface coating operations that 
would be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities Source Category in Support of the November 2015 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action, and are discussed in section V.G of this preamble.

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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA is adding EPA 
Method 311 in the final rule to measure the organic HAP content of 
coatings subject to the rule. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA 
conducted a search to identify voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in 
addition to EPA Method 311. Two VCS were identified that were 
potentially applicable for EPA Method 311. These were American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6438 (1999)--Standard Test Method for 
Acetone, Methyl Acetate, and Parachlorobenzotrifluoride Content of 
Paints and Coatings by Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromotography, 
and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 310--Determination of 
Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic 
Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products. The EPA decided not to use 
either of these VCS because both methods are impractical as 
alternatives to EPA Method 311 because they target chemicals that are 
VOC and are not HAP. The search and review results have been documented 
and are placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed 
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, 
or indigenous populations because it increases the level of 
environmental protection for all affected populations. A summary of the 
results of this evaluation are contained in section IV.A of this 
preamble and

[[Page 76179]]

more detailed information is provided in the residual risk document, 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities Source Category in Support of the November 2015 Risk and 
Technology Review Final Rule in the docket for this rulemaking. A copy 
of this methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
included in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of 
Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Aerospace 
Facilities, which may be found in the docket for this rulemaking 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).

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 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 19, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart GG--National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities

0
2. Section 63.741 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) through (7) as paragraphs (c)(5) 
through (8).
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(4).
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(8).
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (e).
0
f. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.741  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (c) Affected sources. The affected sources to which the provisions 
of this subpart apply are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of 
this section. The activities subject to this subpart are limited to the 
manufacture or rework of aerospace vehicles or components as defined in 
this subpart. Where a dispute arises relating to the applicability of 
this subpart to a specific activity, the owner or operator shall 
demonstrate whether or not the activity is regulated under this 
subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) For organic HAP or VOC emissions, each specialty coating 
application operation, which is the total of all specialty coating 
applications at the facility.
* * * * *
    (8) For inorganic HAP emissions, each spray booth, portable 
enclosure, or hangar that contains a primer, topcoat, or specialty 
coating application operation subject to Sec.  63.745(g), or a 
depainting operation subject to Sec.  63.746(b)(4).
* * * * *
(e) [Reserved]
    (f) This subpart does not regulate research and development, 
quality control, and laboratory testing activities, chemical milling, 
metal finishing, electrodeposition (except for electrodeposition of 
paints), composites processing (except for cleaning and coating of 
composite parts or components that become part of an aerospace vehicle 
or component as well as composite tooling that comes in contact with 
such composite parts or components prior to cure), electronic parts and 
assemblies (except for cleaning and topcoating of completed 
assemblies), manufacture of aircraft transparencies, and wastewater 
operations at aerospace facilities. These requirements do not apply to 
the rework of aircraft or aircraft components if the holder of the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design approval, or the holder's 
licensee, is not actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft 
components. These requirements also do not apply to parts and 
assemblies not critical to the vehicle's structural integrity or flight 
performance. The requirements of this subpart do not apply to primers, 
topcoats, specialty coatings, chemical milling maskants, strippers, and 
cleaning solvents that meet the definition of non-HAP material, as 
determined from manufacturer's representations, such as in a material 
safety data sheet or product data sheet, or testing, except that if an 
owner or operator chooses to include one or more non-HAP primer, 
topcoat, specialty coating, or chemical milling maskant in averaging 
under Sec.  63.743(d), then the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  
63.752(c)(4) shall apply. The requirements of this subpart also do not 
apply to primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that meet the 
definition of ``classified national security information'' in Sec.  
63.742. Additional specific exemptions from regulatory coverage are set 
forth in paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of this section and 
Sec. Sec.  63.742, 63.744(a)(1), (b), (e), 63.745(a), (f)(3), (g)(4), 
63.746(a), (b)(5), 63.747(c)(3), and 63.749(d).
    (g) The requirements for primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, and 
chemical milling maskants in Sec. Sec.  63.745 and 63.747 do not apply 
to the use of low-volume coatings in these categories for which the 
annual total of each separate formulation used at a facility does not 
exceed 189 l (50 gal), and the combined annual total of all such 
primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, and chemical milling maskants 
used at a facility does not exceed 757 l (200 gal). Primers, topcoats, 
and specialty coatings exempted under paragraph (f) of this section and 
under Sec.  63.745(f)(3) and (g)(4) are not included in the 50 and 200 
gal limits. Chemical milling maskants exempted under Sec.  63.747(c)(3) 
are also not included in these limits.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.742 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a definition for ``Airless and air-assisted airless spray'' 
in alphabetical order.
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Chemical milling maskant''.

0
c. Adding a definition for ``Classified National Security Information'' 
in alphabetical order.
0
d. Revising the definition for ``Coating''.
0
e. Adding a definition for ``Non-HAP material'' in alphabetical order.
0
f. Revising the definition for ``Softener''.
0
g. Adding a definition for ``Spray-applied coating operation'' in 
alphabetical order.
0
h. Revising the definition for ``Stripper.''
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.742  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Airless and air-assisted airless spray mean any coating spray 
application technology that relies solely on the fluid pressure of the 
coating to create an atomized coating spray pattern and does not apply 
any atomizing compressed air to the coating before it leaves the spray

[[Page 76180]]

gun nozzle. Air-assisted airless spray uses compressed air to shape and 
distribute the fan of atomized coating, but still uses fluid pressure 
to create the atomized coating.
* * * * *
    Chemical milling maskant means a coating that is applied directly 
to aluminum components to protect surface areas when chemical milling 
the component with a Type I or Type II etchant. Type I chemical milling 
maskants are used with a Type I etchant and Type II chemical milling 
maskants are used with a Type II etchant. This definition does not 
include bonding maskants, critical use and line sealer maskants, and 
seal coat maskants. Additionally, maskants that must be used with a 
combination of Type I or II etchants and any of the above types of 
maskants (i.e., bonding, critical use and line sealer, and seal coat) 
are also not included in this definition. (See also Type I and Type II 
etchant definitions.)
* * * * *
    Classified National Security Information means information that has 
been determined pursuant to Executive Order 13526, ``Classified 
National Security Information,'' December 29, 2009 or any successor 
order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is 
marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form. The 
term ``Classified Information'' is an alternative term that may be used 
instead of ``Classified National Security Information.''
* * * * *
    Coating means a material that is applied to a substrate for 
decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, 
but are not limited to, paints, sealants, liquid plastic coatings, 
caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or 
functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, 
acids, bases, or any combination of these substances; paper film or 
plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the film 
manufacturer; or pre-impregnated composite sheets are not considered 
coatings for the purposes of this subpart. Materials in handheld non-
refillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, and marking pens are 
also not considered coatings for the purposes of this subpart. A liquid 
plastic coating means a coating made from fine particle-size polyvinyl 
chloride (PVC) in solution (also referred to as a plastisol).
* * * * *
    Non-HAP material means, for the purposes of this subpart, a primer, 
topcoat, specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, cleaning solvent, 
or stripper that contains no more than 0.1 percent by mass of any 
individual organic HAP that is an Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration-defined carcinogen as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) and no more than 1.0 percent by mass for any other 
individual HAP.
* * * * *
    Softener means a liquid that is applied to an aerospace vehicle or 
component to degrade coatings such as primers, topcoats, and specialty 
coatings specifically as a preparatory step to subsequent depainting by 
non-chemical based depainting equipment. Softeners may contain VOC but 
shall not contain any HAP as determined from MSDS's or manufacturer 
supplied information.
* * * * *
    Spray-applied coating operation means coatings that are applied 
using a device that creates an atomized mist of coating and deposits 
the coating on a substrate. For the purposes of this subpart, spray-
applied coatings do not include the following materials or activities:
    (1) Coatings applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup 
capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic 
centimeters) in which no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating is 
applied in a single application (i.e., the total volume of a single 
coating formulation applied during any one day to any one aerospace 
vehicle or component). Under this definition, the use of multiple small 
paint cups and the refilling of a small paint cup to spray apply more 
than 3.0 fluid ounces of a coating is a spray-applied coating 
operation. Under this definition, the use of a paint cup liner in a 
reusable holder or cup that is designed to hold a liner with a capacity 
of more than 3.0 fluid ounces is a spray-applied coating operation.
    (2) Application of coating using powder coating, hand-held non-
refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application technology, 
including but not limited to paint brushes, rollers, flow coating, dip 
coating, electrodeposition coating, web coating, coil coating, touch-up 
markers, marking pens, trowels, spatulas, daubers, rags, sponges, 
mechanically and/or pneumatic-driven syringes, and inkjet machines.
    (3) Application of adhesives, sealants, maskants, caulking 
materials, and inks.
* * * * *
    Stripper means a liquid that is applied to an aerospace vehicle or 
component to remove permanent coatings such as primers, topcoats, and 
specialty coatings.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.743 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(8), and (a)(10).
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3).
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(4) and (5).
0
e. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.743  Standards: General.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Sec.  63.5, Preconstruction review and notification 
requirements; and
* * * * *
    (8) For the purposes of this subpart, each owner or operator is to 
be provided 30 calendar days to present additional information to the 
Administrator after he/she is notified of the intended denial of a 
compliance extension request submitted under either Sec.  63.6(i)(4) or 
Sec.  63.6(i)(5), rather than 15 calendar days as provided for in Sec.  
63.6(i)(12)(iii)(B) and Sec.  63.6(i)(13)(iii)(B).
* * * * *
    (10) For the purposes of compliance with the requirements of Sec.  
63.5(b)(4) of the General Provisions and this subpart, owners or 
operators of existing primer, topcoat, or specialty coating application 
operations and depainting operations who construct or reconstruct a 
spray booth or hangar that does not have the potential to emit 10 tons/
yr or more of an individual inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all 
inorganic HAP combined shall only be required to notify the 
Administrator of such construction or reconstruction on an annual 
basis. Notification shall be submitted on or before March 1 of each 
year and shall include the information required in Sec. 63.5(b)(4) for 
each such spray booth or hangar constructed or reconstructed during the 
prior calendar year, except that such information shall be limited to 
inorganic HAP. No advance notification or written approval from the 
Administrator pursuant to Sec. 63.5(b)(3) shall be required for the 
construction or reconstruction of such a spray booth or hangar unless 
the booth or hangar has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of an 
individual inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all inorganic HAP 
combined.
(b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Each owner or operator of a new or existing source shall use 
any

[[Page 76181]]

combination of primers, topcoats (including self-priming topcoats), 
specialty coatings, Type I chemical milling maskants, or Type II 
chemical milling maskants such that the monthly volume-weighted average 
organic HAP and VOC contents of the combination of primers, topcoats, 
specialty coatings, Type I chemical milling maskants, or Type II 
chemical milling maskants, as determined in accordance with the 
applicable procedures set forth in Sec.  63.750, complies with the 
specified content limits in Sec. Sec.  63.745(c) and 63.747(c), unless 
the permitting agency specifies a shorter averaging period as part of 
an ambient ozone control program.
    (2) Averaging is allowed only for uncontrolled primers, topcoats 
(including self-priming topcoats), specialty coatings, Type I chemical 
milling maskants, or Type II chemical milling maskants.
    (3) Averaging is not allowed between specialty coating types 
defined in Appendix A to this subpart, or between the different types 
of coatings specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (vii) of this 
section.
    (i) Primers and topcoats (including self-priming topcoats).
    (ii) Type I and Type II chemical milling maskants.
    (iii) Primers and chemical milling maskants.
    (iv) Topcoats and chemical milling maskants.
    (v) Primers and specialty coatings.
    (vi) Topcoats and specialty coatings.
    (vii) Chemical milling maskants and specialty coatings.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (e) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or 
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels 
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination 
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and 
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

0
5. Section 63.744 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text to reads as follows:


Sec.  63.744  Standards: Cleaning operations.

    (a) Housekeeping measures. Each owner or operator of a new or 
existing cleaning operation subject to this subpart shall comply with 
the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section 
unless the cleaning solvent used is identified in Table 1 of this 
section or meets the definition of ``Non-HAP material'' in 63.742. The 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section do not 
apply to spent cleaning solvents, and solvent-laden applicators that 
are subject to and handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 
262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 
CFR part 265, subpart CC).
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.745 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 
introductory text.
0
b. Redesignating tables 1 through 4 as tables 2 through 5.
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and new Table 1.
0
d. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(1), (f) introductory 
text, (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), (f)(3)(iv), (f)(3)(v), and 
(f)(3)(vi).
0
e. Adding paragraphs (f)(3)(vii) and (f)(3)(viii).
0
f. Revising paragraphs (g) introductory text, (g)(1), (g)(2)(i)(A), 
(g)(2)(i)(C), (g)(2)(ii)(A), (g)(2)(ii)(B), (g)(2)(iii)(B), 
(g)(2)(iv)(C), (g)(2)(v), (g)(4)(ix), and (g)(4)(x).
0
g. Adding paragraph (g)(4)(xi).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.745  Standards: Primer, topcoat, and specialty coating 
application operations.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing primer, topcoat, or 
specialty coating application operation subject to this subpart shall 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section 
for those coatings that are uncontrolled (no control device is used to 
reduce organic HAP emissions from the operation), and in paragraph (d) 
of this section for those coatings that are controlled (organic HAP 
emissions from the operation are reduced by the use of a control 
device). Aerospace equipment that is no longer operational, intended 
for public display, and not easily capable of being moved is exempt 
from the requirements of this section.
    (b) Each owner or operator shall conduct the handling and transfer 
of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings to or from containers, 
tanks, vats, vessels, and piping systems in such a manner that 
minimizes spills.
    (c) Uncontrolled coatings--organic HAP and VOC content levels. Each 
owner or operator shall comply with the organic HAP and VOC content 
limits specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section for 
those coatings that are uncontrolled.
* * * * *
    (5) Organic HAP emissions from specialty coatings shall be limited 
to an organic HAP content level of no more than the HAP content limit 
specified in Table 1 of this section for each applicable specialty 
coating type.
    (6) VOC emissions from specialty coatings shall be limited to a VOC 
content level of no more than the VOC content limit specified in Table 
1 of this section for each applicable specialty coating type.

         Table 1--Specialty Coatings--HAP and VOC Content Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      HAP Limit g/L      VOC Limit g/L
           Coating Type              (lb/gallon) \1\    (lb/gallon) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ablative Coating..................          600 (5.0)          600 (5.0)
Adhesion Promoter.................          890 (7.4)          890 (7.4)
Adhesive Bonding Primers: Cured at          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
 250[deg]F or below...............
Adhesive Bonding Primers: Cured            1030 (8.6)         1030 (8.6)
 above 250[deg]F..................
Commercial Interior Adhesive......          760 (6.3)          760 (6.3)
Cyanoacrylate Adhesive............        1,020 (8.5)        1,020 (8.5)
Fuel Tank Adhesive................          620 (5.2)          620 (5.2)
Nonstructural Adhesive............          360 (3.0)          360 (3.0)
Rocket Motor Bonding Adhesive.....          890 (7.4)          890 (7.4)
Rubber-based Adhesive.............          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)

[[Page 76182]]

 
Structural Autoclavable Adhesive..           60 (0.5)           60 (0.5)
Structural Nonautoclavable                  850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
 Adhesive.........................
Antichafe Coating.................          660 (5.5)          660 (5.5)
Bearing Coating...................          620 (5.2)          620 (5.2)
Caulking and Smoothing Compounds..          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
Chemical Agent-Resistant Coating..          550 (4.6)          550 (4.6)
Clear Coating.....................          720 (6.0)          720 (6.0)
Commercial Exterior Aerodynamic             650 (5.4)          650 (5.4)
 Structure Primer.................
Compatible Substrate Primer.......          780 (6.5)          780 (6.5)
Corrosion Prevention System.......          710 (5.9)          710 (5.9)
Cryogenic Flexible Primer.........          645 (5.4)          645 (5.4)
Cryoprotective Coating............          600 (5.0)          600 (5.0)
Dry Lubricative Material..........          880 (7.3)          880 (7.3)
Electric or Radiation-Effect                800 (6.7)          800 (6.7)
 Coating..........................
Electrostatic Discharge and                 800 (6.7)          800 (6.7)
 Electromagnetic Interference
 (EMI) Coating....................
Elevated-Temperature Skydrol-               740 (6.2)          740 (6.2)
 Resistant Commercial Primer......
Epoxy Polyamide Topcoat...........          660 (5.5)          660 (5.5)
Fire-Resistant (interior) Coating.          800 (6.7)          800 (6.7)
Flexible Primer...................          640 (5.3)          640 (5.3)
Flight-Test Coatings: Missile or            420 (3.5)          420 (3.5)
 Single Use Aircraft..............
Flight-Test Coatings: All Other...          840 (7.0)          840 (7.0)
Fuel-Tank Coating.................          720 (6.0)          720 (6.0)
High-Temperature Coating..........          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
Insulation Covering...............          740 (6.2)          740 (6.2)
Intermediate Release Coating......          750 (6.3)          750 (6.3)
Lacquer...........................          830 (6.9)          830 (6.9)
Bonding Maskant...................       1,230 (10.3)       1,230 (10.3)
Critical Use and Line Sealer              1,020 (8.5)        1,020 (8.5)
 Maskant..........................
Seal Coat Maskant.................       1,230 (10.3)       1,230 (10.3)
Metallized Epoxy Coating..........          740 (6.2)          740 (6.2)
Mold Release......................          780 (6.5)          780 (6.5)
Optical Anti-Reflective Coating...          750 (6.3)          750 (6.3)
Part Marking Coating..............          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
Pretreatment Coating..............          780 (6.5)          780 (6.5)
Rain Erosion-Resistant Coating....          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
Rocket Motor Nozzle Coating.......          660 (5.5)          660 (5.5)
Scale Inhibitor...................          880 (7.3)          880 (7.3)
Screen Print Ink..................          840 (7.0)          840 (7.0)
Extrudable/Rollable/Brushable               280 (2.3)          280 (2.3)
 Sealant..........................
Sprayable Sealant.................          600 (5.0)          600 (5.0)
Silicone Insulation Material......          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
Solid Film Lubricant..............          880 (7.3)          880 (7.3)
Specialized Function Coating......          890 (7.4)          890 (7.4)
Temporary Protective Coating......          320 (2.7)          320 (2.7)
Thermal Control Coating...........          800 (6.7)          800 (6.7)
Wet Fastener Installation Coating.          675 (5.6)          675 (5.6)
Wing Coating......................          850 (7.1)          850 (7.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Coating limits for HAP are expressed in terms of mass (grams or
  pounds) of HAP per volume (liters or gallons) of coating less water.
  Coating limits for VOC are expressed in terms of mass (grams or
  pounds) of VOC per volume (liters or gallons) of coating less water
  and less exempt solvent.

* * * * *
    (e) Compliance methods. Compliance with the organic HAP and VOC 
content limits specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 
section shall be accomplished by using the methods specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section either by themselves or in 
conjunction with one another.
    (1) Use primers, topcoats (including self-priming topcoats), and 
specialty coatings with HAP and VOC content levels equal to or less 
than the limits specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 
section; or
* * * * *
    (f) Application equipment. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) 
of this section, each owner or operator of a new or existing primer, 
topcoat (including self-priming topcoat), or specialty coating 
application operation subject to this subpart in which any of the 
coatings contain organic HAP or VOC shall comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
    (1) All spray applied primers, topcoats (including self-priming 
topcoats), and specialty coatings shall be applied using one or more of 
the spray application techniques specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 
through (f)(1)(v) of this section.
    (i) High volume low pressure (HVLP) spraying;
    (ii) Electrostatic spray application;
    (iii) Airless spray application;
    (iv) Air-assisted airless spray application; or
    (v) Any other coating spray application methods that achieve 
emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better 
than HVLP spray, electrostatic spray, airless spray, or air-assisted 
airless spray application methods as determined

[[Page 76183]]

according to the requirements in Sec. 63.750(i).
    (2) All coating spray application devices used to apply primers, 
topcoats (including self-priming topcoats), or specialty coatings shall 
be operated according to company procedures, local specified operating 
procedures, and/or the manufacturer's specifications, whichever is most 
stringent, at all times. Spray application equipment modified by the 
facility shall maintain a transfer efficiency equivalent to HVLP spray, 
electrostatic spray, airless spray, or air-assisted airless spray 
application techniques.
    (3) * * *
    (i) Any situation that normally requires an extension on the spray 
gun to properly reach limited access spaces;
    (ii) The application of coatings that contain fillers that 
adversely affect atomization with HVLP spray guns;
* * * * *
    (iv) The use of airbrush application methods for stenciling, 
lettering, and other identification markings, and the spray application 
of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a single application 
(i.e., the total volume of a single coating formulation applied during 
any one day to any one aerospace vehicle or component) from a hand-held 
device with a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 
fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). Using multiple small paint cups or 
refilling a small paint cup to apply more than 3.0 fluid ounces under 
the requirements of this paragraph is prohibited. If a paint cup liner 
is used in a reusable holder or cup, then the holder or cup must be 
designed to hold a liner with a capacity of no more than 3.0 fluid 
ounces. For example, a 3.0 ounce liner cannot be used in a holder that 
can also be used with a 6.0 ounce liner under the requirements of this 
paragraph;
    (v) The use of hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers;
    (vi) Touch-up and repair operations;
    (vii) Adhesives, sealants, maskants, caulking materials, and inks; 
and
    (viii) The application of coatings that contain less than 20 grams 
of VOC per liter of coating.
    (g) Inorganic HAP emissions. Except as provided in paragraph (g)(4) 
of this section, each owner or operator of a new or existing primer, 
topcoat, or specialty coating application operation subject to this 
subpart in which any of the coatings that are spray-applied (as defined 
in Sec. 63.742) and contain inorganic HAP, shall comply with the 
applicable requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Apply these coatings in a booth, hangar, or portable enclosure 
in which air flow is directed downward onto or across the part or 
assembly being coated and exhausted through one or more outlets.
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream 
through a dry particulate filter system certified using the methods 
described in Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data 
points in Tables 2 and 3 of this section; or

Table 2--Two-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge for Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Aerodynamic
          Filtration efficiency requirement, %             particle size
                                                           range, [mu]m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>90.....................................................            >5.7
>50.....................................................            >4.1
>10.....................................................            >2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3--Two-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge for Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Aerodynamic
          Filtration efficiency requirement, %             particle size
                                                           range, [mu]m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>90.....................................................            >8.1
>50.....................................................            >5.0
>10.....................................................            >2.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (C) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream 
through an air pollution control system that meets or exceeds the 
efficiency data points in Tables 2 and 3 of this section and is 
approved by the permitting authority.
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream 
through a dry particulate filter system certified using the methods 
described in Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data 
points in Tables 4 and 5 of this section; or

  Table 4--Three-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge for New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Aerodynamic
          Filtration efficiency requirement, %             particle size
                                                           range, [mu]m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>95.....................................................            >2.0
>80.....................................................            >1.0
>65.....................................................           >0.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5--Three-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge for New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Aerodynamic
          Filtration efficiency requirement, %             particle size
                                                           range, [mu]m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>95.....................................................            >2.5
>85.....................................................            >1.1
>75.....................................................           >0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream 
through an air pollution control system that meets or exceeds the 
efficiency data points in Tables 4 and 5 of this section and is 
approved by the permitting authority.
    (iii) * * *
    (B) If the primer, topcoat, or specialty coating contains chromium 
or cadmium, control shall consist of a HEPA filter system, three-stage 
filter system, or other control system equivalent to the three-stage 
filter system as approved by the permitting agency.
    (iv) * * *
    (C) Continuously monitor the pressure drop across the filter and 
read and record the pressure drop once per shift, or install an 
interlock system that will automatically shut down the coating spray 
application system if the pressure drop exceeds or falls below the 
filter manufacturer's recommended limit(s); and
* * * * *
    (v) If a conventional waterwash system is used, continuously 
monitor the water flow rate and read and record the water flow rate 
once per shift, or install an interlock system that will automatically 
shut down the coating spray application system if the water flow rate 
falls below or exceeds the limit(s) specified by the booth manufacturer 
or in locally prepared operating procedures. If a pumpless system is 
used, continuously monitor the booth parameter(s) that indicate 
performance of the booth per the manufacturer's recommendations to 
maintain the booth within the acceptable operating efficiency range and 
read and record the parameters once per shift, or install an interlock 
system that will automatically shut down the coating spray application 
system if the booth parameters are outside the parameter range in the 
manufacturer's recommendations.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ix) Spray application of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings 
in an area identified in a title V permit, where the permitting 
authority has determined

[[Page 76184]]

that it is not technically feasible to spray apply coatings to the 
parts in a booth;
    (x) The use of hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers; and
    (xi) The spray application of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of 
coating in a single application (i.e., the total volume of a single 
coating formulation applied during any one day to any one aerospace 
vehicle or component) from a hand-held device with a paint cup capacity 
that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). 
Using multiple small paint cups or refilling a small paint cup to apply 
more than 3.0 fluid ounces under the requirements of this paragraph is 
prohibited. If a paint cup liner is used in a reusable holder or cup, 
then the holder or cup must be designed to hold a liner with a capacity 
of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces. For example, under the requirements 
of this paragraph, a 3.0 ounce liner cannot be used in a holder that 
can also be used with a 6.0 ounce liner.

0
7. Section 63.746 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B).
0
b. Redesignating the first paragraph (c) (beginning ``Owners or 
operators of new sources . . .'') as paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.746   Standards: Depainting operations.

    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii)(A) For existing sources, pass any air stream removed from the 
enclosed area or closed-cycle depainting system through a dry 
particulate filter system, certified using the method described in 
Sec.  63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 
2 and 3 of Sec.  63.745, through a baghouse, or through a waterwash 
system before exhausting it to the atmosphere.
    (B) For new sources, pass any air stream removed from the enclosed 
area or closed-cycle depainting system through a dry particulate filter 
system certified using the method described in Sec.  63.750(o) to meet 
or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 4 and 5 of Sec.  63.745 
or through a baghouse before exhausting it to the atmosphere.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.748 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.748   Standards: Handling and storage of waste.

    (a) The owner or operator of each facility subject to this subpart 
that produces a waste that contains organic HAP from aerospace primer, 
topcoat, specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, or chemical 
depainting operations must be handled and stored as specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. The requirements of 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section do not apply to spent 
wastes that contain organic HAP that are subject to and handled and 
stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the 
air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC).
    (1) Conduct the handling and transfer of the waste to or from 
containers, tanks, vats, vessels, and piping systems in such a manner 
that minimizes spills.
    (2) Store all waste that contains organic HAP in closed containers.
(b) [Reserved]

0
9. Section 63.749 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), the heading for paragraph (d), 
paragraphs (d)(3) introductory text, (d)(3)(i), (d)(4) introductory 
text, (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(iii)(A), (d)(4)(iii)(B), (e) introductory text, 
and (h)(3) introductory text.
0
b. Adding new paragraph (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.749   Compliance dates and determinations.

    (a) Compliance dates. (1) Each owner or operator of an existing 
affected source subject to this subpart shall comply with the 
requirements of this subpart by September 1, 1998, except as specified 
in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section. Owners or operators of 
new affected sources subject to this subpart shall comply on the 
effective date or upon startup, whichever is later. In addition, each 
owner or operator shall comply with the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.6(b) and (c) as indicated in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (2) Owners or operators of existing primer, topcoat, or specialty 
coating application operations and depainting operations who construct 
or reconstruct a spray booth or hangar must comply with the new source 
requirements for inorganic HAP specified in Sec. Sec.  63.745(g)(2)(ii) 
and 63.746(b)(4) for that new spray booth or hangar upon startup. Such 
sources must still comply with all other existing source requirements 
by September 1, 1998.
    (3) Each owner or operator of a specialty coating application 
operation that begins construction or reconstruction after February 17, 
2015 shall be in compliance with the requirements of this subpart on 
December 7, 2015 or upon startup, whichever is later. Each owner or 
operator of a specialty coating application operation that is existing 
on February 17, 2015 shall be in compliance with the requirements of 
this subpart on or before December 7, 2018.
    (b) General. Each facility subject to this subpart shall be 
considered in noncompliance if the owner or operator uses a control 
device, other than one specified in this subpart, that has not been 
approved by the Administrator, as required by Sec.  63.743(c).
* * * * *
    (d) Organic HAP and VOC content levels--primer, topcoat, and 
specialty coating application operations-- * * *
* * * * *
    (3) The primer application operation is considered in compliance 
when the conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through 
(d)(3)(iv) of this section, as applicable, and in paragraph (e) of this 
section are met. Failure to meet any one of the conditions identified 
in these paragraphs shall constitute noncompliance. The compliance 
demonstration for a primer may be based on the organic HAP content or 
the VOC content of the primer; demonstrating compliance with both the 
HAP content limit and the VOC content limit is not required. If a 
primer contains HAP solvents that are exempt from the definition of VOC 
in Sec.  63.741 and 40 CFR 51.100, then the HAP content must be used to 
demonstrate compliance.
    (i) For all uncontrolled primers, all values of Hi and 
Ha (as determined using the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.750(c) and (d)) are less than or equal to the applicable HAP content 
limit in Sec. 63.745(c)(1), and all values of Gi and 
Ga (as determined using the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.750(e) and (f)) are less than or equal to the applicable VOC content 
limit in Sec.  63.745(c)(2).
* * * * *
    (4) The topcoat or specialty coating application operation is 
considered in compliance when the conditions specified in paragraphs 
(d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(iv) of this section, as applicable, and in 
paragraph (e) of this section are met. Failure to meet any of the 
conditions identified in these paragraphs shall constitute 
noncompliance.
    (i) The topcoat application operation is considered in compliance 
when the conditions specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section 
are met. The specialty coating application operation is considered in 
compliance when the conditions specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(B) are 
met. The compliance demonstration for a topcoat or a specialty coating 
may be based on the organic HAP content or the VOC content of the 
coating; demonstrating

[[Page 76185]]

compliance with both the HAP content limit and the VOC content limit is 
not required. If a topcoat or specialty coating contains HAP solvents 
that are exempt from the definition of VOC in Sec.  63.741 and 40 CFR 
51.100, then the HAP content must be used to demonstrate compliance.
    (A) For all uncontrolled topcoats, all values of Hi and 
Ha (as determined using the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.750(c) and (d)) are less than or equal to the applicable HAP content 
limit in Sec.  63.745(c)(3), and all values of Gi and 
Ga (as determined using the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.750(e) and (f)) are less than or equal to the applicable VOC content 
limit in Sec.  63.745(c)(4).
    (B) For all uncontrolled specialty coatings, all values of 
Hi and Ha (as determined using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.750(c) and (d)) are less than or equal to the HAP 
content limits specified in Table 1 to Sec.  63.745 for the applicable 
specialty coating types (less water) as applied, and all values of 
Gi and Ga (as determined using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.750(e) and (f)) are less than or equal to the VOC 
content limits specified in Table 1 to Sec.  63.745 for the applicable 
specialty coating types (less water and exempt solvents) as applied.
* * * * *
    (iii)(A) Uses an application technique specified in Sec.  
63.745(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv); or
    (B) Uses an alternative application technique, as allowed under 
Sec.  63.745(f)(1)(v), such that the emissions of both organic HAP and 
VOC for the implementation period of the alternative application method 
are less than or equal to the emissions generated using HVLP spray, 
electrostatic spray, airless spray, or air-assisted airless spray 
application methods, as determined using the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.750(i).
* * * * *
    (e) Inorganic HAP emissions--primer, topcoat, and specialty coating 
application operations. For each primer, topcoat, or specialty coating 
application operation that emits inorganic HAP, the operation is in 
compliance when:
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) The chemical milling maskant application operation is 
considered in compliance when the conditions specified in paragraphs 
(i)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section are met. The compliance 
demonstration for a chemical milling maskant may be based on the 
organic HAP content or the VOC content of the chemical milling maskant; 
demonstrating compliance with both the HAP content limit and the VOC 
content limit is not required. If a chemical milling maskant contains 
HAP solvents that are exempt from the definition of VOC in Sec.  63.741 
and 40 CFR 51.100, then the HAP content must be used to demonstrate 
compliance.
* * * * *
    (j) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and 
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable 
subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or 
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may 
be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.

0
10. Section 63.750 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory 
text, (c)(2), (d) introductory text, (d)(1)(iii), (e) introductory 
text, (f) introductory text, (f)(1)(iii), (i)(1), (i)(2)(i), 
(i)(2)(iii), (i)(3) introductory text, (k) introductory text, (m) 
introductory text, and (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.750  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (c) Organic HAP content level determination--compliant primers, 
topcoats, and specialty coatings. For those uncontrolled primers, 
topcoats, and specialty coatings complying with the primer, topcoat, or 
specialty coating organic HAP content limits specified in Sec.  
63.745(c) without being averaged, the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section shall be used to determine the mass of 
organic HAP emitted per volume of coating (less water) as applied. As 
an alternative to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of 
this section, an owner or operator may use the coating manufacturer's 
supplied data to demonstrate that organic HAP emitted per volume of 
coating (less water), as applied, is less than or equal to the 
applicable organic HAP limit specified in Sec.  63.745(c). Owners and 
operators that use the coating manufacturer's supplied data to 
demonstrate compliance based on the HAP content of the coating may add 
non-HAP solvent to those coatings provided that the owner or operator 
also maintains records of the non-HAP solvent added to the coating.
* * * * *
    (2) For each coating formulation as applied, determine the organic 
HAP weight fraction, water weight fraction (if applicable), and density 
from manufacturer's data. If the value for organic HAP weight fraction 
cannot be determined using the manufacturer's data, the owner or 
operator shall use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or submit 
an alternative procedure for determining the value for approval by the 
Administrator. If the values for water weight fraction (if applicable) 
and density cannot be determined using the manufacturer's data, the 
owner or operator shall submit an alternative procedure for determining 
their values for approval by the Administrator. Recalculation is 
required only when a change occurs in the coating formulation. If there 
is a discrepancy between the manufacturer's formulation data and the 
results of the Method 311 analysis, compliance shall be based on the 
results from the Method 311 analysis.
* * * * *
    (d) Organic HAP content level determination--averaged primers, 
topcoats, and specialty coatings. For those uncontrolled primers, 
topcoats, and specialty coatings that are averaged together in order to 
comply with the primer, topcoat, and specialty coating organic HAP 
content limits specified in Sec.  63.745(c), the following procedure 
shall be used to determine the monthly volume-weighted average mass of 
organic HAP emitted per volume of coating (less water) as applied, 
unless the permitting agency specifies a shorter averaging period as 
part of an ambient ozone control program.
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Manufacturer's formulation data may be used to determine the 
total organic HAP content of each coating and any ingredients added to 
the coating prior to its application. If the total organic HAP content 
cannot be determined using the manufacturer's data, the owner or 
operator shall use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A for 
determining the total organic HAP weight fraction, or shall submit an 
alternative procedure for determining the total organic HAP weight 
fraction for approval by the Administrator. If there is a discrepancy 
between the manufacturer's formulation data and the results of the 
Method 311 analysis,

[[Page 76186]]

compliance shall be based on the results from the Method 311 analysis.
* * * * *
    (e) VOC content level determination--compliant primers, topcoats, 
and specialty coatings. For those uncontrolled primers, topcoats, and 
specialty coatings complying with the primer, topcoat, and specialty 
coating VOC content levels specified in Sec.  63.745(c) without being 
averaged, the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 
section shall be used to determine the mass of VOC emitted per volume 
of coating (less water and exempt solvents) as applied. As an 
alternative to the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 
section, an owner or operator may use coating manufacturer's supplied 
data to demonstrate that VOC emitted per volume of coating (less water 
and exempt solvents), as applied, is less than or equal to the 
applicable VOC limit specified in Sec.  63.745(c).
* * * * *
    (f) VOC content level determination--averaged primers, topcoats, 
and specialty coatings. For those uncontrolled primers, topcoats, and 
specialty coatings that are averaged within their respective coating 
category in order to comply with the primer, topcoat, and specialty 
coating VOC content limits specified in Sec.  63.745(c)(2), (c)(4), and 
(c)(6), the following procedure shall be used to determine the monthly 
volume-weighted average mass of VOC emitted per volume of coating (less 
water and exempt solvents) as applied, unless the permitting agency 
specifies a shorter averaging period as part of an ambient ozone 
control program.
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Determine the VOC content of each primer, topcoat, and 
specialty coating formulation (less water and exempt solvents) as 
applied using EPA Method 24 or from manufacturer's data.
* * * * *
    (i)(1) Alternative application method--primers, topcoats, and 
specialty coatings. (i) Each owner or operator seeking to use an 
alternative application method (as allowed in Sec.  63.745(f)(1)(v)) in 
complying with the standards for primers and topcoats shall use the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (ii) or (i)(2)(iii) of 
this section to determine the organic HAP and VOC emission levels of 
the alternative application technique as compared to either HVLP, 
electrostatic spray application methods, air-assisted airless 
application methods, or airless application methods.
    (ii) For specialty coatings, an owner or operator may use any other 
coating application method capable of achieving emission reductions or 
a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that provided by 
HVLP, electrostatic spray, air-assisted airless, or airless 
application. Any owner or operator using an application method pursuant 
to this paragraph (i)(2)(ii) shall maintain records demonstrating the 
transfer efficiency achieved.
    (2)(i) For the process or processes for which the alternative 
application method is to be used, the total organic HAP and VOC 
emissions shall be determined for an initial 30-day period, the period 
of time required to apply coating to five completely assembled 
aircraft, or a time period approved by the permitting agency. During 
this initial period, only HVLP, electrostatic spray application 
methods, air-assisted airless application methods, or airless 
application methods shall be used. The emissions shall be determined 
based on the volumes, organic HAP contents (less water), and VOC 
contents (less water and exempt solvents) of the coatings as applied.
* * * * *
    (iii) Test the proposed application method against either HVLP, 
electrostatic spray application methods, air-assisted airless 
application methods, or airless application methods in a laboratory or 
pilot production area, using parts and coatings representative of the 
process(es) where the alternative method is to be used. The laboratory 
test will use the same part configuration(s) and the same number of 
parts for both the proposed method and the HVLP, electrostatic spray 
application methods, air-assisted airless application methods, or 
airless application methods.
* * * * *
    (3) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate that an 
alternative application method achieves emission reductions equivalent 
to HVLP, electrostatic spray application methods, air-assisted airless 
application methods, or airless application methods shall comply with 
the following:
* * * * *
    (k) Organic HAP content level determination--compliant chemical 
milling maskants. For those uncontrolled chemical milling maskants 
complying with the chemical milling maskant organic HAP content limit 
specified in Sec.  63.747(c)(1) without being averaged, the procedure 
in paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall be used to determine the mass 
of organic HAP emitted per unit volume of coating (chemical milling 
maskant) i as applied (less water), Hi (lb/gal). As an 
alternative to the procedures in paragraph (k)(1) of this section, an 
owner or operator may use coating manufacturer's supplied data to 
demonstrate that organic HAP emitted per volume of coating (less 
water), as applied, is less than or equal to the applicable organic HAP 
limit specified in Sec.  63.747(c). Owners and operators that use the 
coating manufacturer's supplied data to demonstrate compliance based on 
the HAP content of the coating may add non-HAP solvent to those 
coatings provided that the owner or operator also maintains records of 
the non-HAP solvent added to the coating.
* * * * *
    (m) VOC content level determination--compliant chemical milling 
maskants. For those uncontrolled chemical milling maskants complying 
with the chemical milling maskant VOC content limit specified in Sec.  
63.747(c)(2) without being averaged, the procedure specified in 
paragraphs (m)(1) and (2) of this section shall be used to determine 
the mass of VOC emitted per volume of chemical milling maskant (less 
water and exempt solvents) as applied. As an alternative to the 
procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) and (2) of this section, an owner or 
operator may use coating manufacturer's supplied data to demonstrate 
that VOC emitted per volume of coating (less water and exempt 
solvents), as applied, is less than or equal to the applicable VOC 
limit specified in Sec.  63.747(c).
* * * * *
    (o) Inorganic HAP emissions--dry particulate filter certification 
requirements. Dry particulate filters used to comply with Sec. Sec.  
63.745(g)(2) or 63.746(b)(4) must be certified by the filter 
manufacturer or distributor, paint/depainting booth supplier, and/or 
the facility owner or operator using method 319 in appendix A of this 
part, to meet or exceed the efficiency data points found in Tables 2 
and 3, or 4 and 5 of Sec.  63.745 for existing or new sources 
respectively.

0
11. Section 63.751 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.751  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Dry particulate filter, HEPA filter, and waterwash systems--
primer, topcoat, and specialty coating application operations. (1) Each 
owner or operator using a dry particulate filter system to meet the 
requirements of Sec.  63.745(g)(2) shall, while primer, topcoat, and 
specialty coating application operations are occurring, continuously 
monitor the pressure drop

[[Page 76187]]

across the system and read and record the pressure drop once per shift 
following the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.752(d), or install 
an interlock system as specified in Sec.  63.745(g)(2)(iv)(C).
    (2) Each owner or operator using a conventional waterwash system to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  63.745(g)(2) shall, while primer or 
topcoat application operations are occurring, continuously monitor the 
water flow rate through the system and read and record the water flow 
rate once per shift following the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  
63.752(d), or install an interlock system as specified in Sec.  
63.745(g)(2)(v). Each owner or operator using a pumpless waterwash 
system to meet the requirements of Sec.  63.745(g)(2) shall, while 
primer, topcoat, and specialty coating application operations are 
occurring, measure and record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth 
manufacturer that indicate booth performance once per shift, following 
the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.752(d), or install an 
interlock system as specified in Sec.  63.745(g)(2)(v).
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.752 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c) 
introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(4) 
introductory text, (c)(5) introductory text, (c)(6) introductory text, 
the heading of paragraph (d), and paragraphs (d)(1) and (f) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.752  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) General. Each owner or operator of a source subject to this 
subpart shall fulfill all recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  
63.10(a), (b), (d), and (f), except Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i), (iv) and (v). 
Each owner or operator must also record and maintain according to Sec.  
63.10(b)(1) the information specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the 
date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.743(e), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (c) Primer, topcoat, and specialty coating application operations--
organic HAP and VOC. Each owner or operator required to comply with the 
organic HAP and VOC content limits specified in Sec.  63.745(c) shall 
record the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of 
this section, as appropriate. Each owner and operator using coating 
manufacturer's supplied data to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable organic HAP or VOC limit specified in Sec.  63.745(c) may 
retain the manufacturer's documentation and annual purchase records in 
place of the records specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this 
section. Owners and operators using the coating manufacturer's supplied 
data to demonstrate compliance based on the HAP content of the coating, 
and adding non-HAP solvent to those coatings, must also maintain 
records of the non-HAP solvent added to the coating.
    (1) The name and VOC content as received and as applied of each 
primer, topcoat, and specialty coating used at the facility.
    (2) For uncontrolled primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that 
meet the organic HAP and VOC content limits in Sec.  63.745(c)(1) 
through (c)(6) without averaging:
* * * * *
    (4) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings complying with 
the organic HAP or VOC content level by averaging:
* * * * *
    (5) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that are 
controlled by a control device other than a carbon adsorber:
* * * * *
    (6) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that are 
controlled by a carbon adsorber:
* * * * *
    (d) Primer, topcoat, and specialty coating application operations--
inorganic HAP emissions. (1) Each owner or operator complying with 
Sec.  63.745(g) for the control of inorganic HAP emissions from primer, 
topcoat, and specialty coating application operations through the use 
of a dry particulate filter system or a HEPA filter system shall record 
the pressure drop across the operating system once each shift during 
which coating operations occur.
* * * * *
    (f) Chemical milling maskant application operations. Each owner or 
operator seeking to comply with the organic HAP and VOC content limits 
for the chemical milling maskant application operation, as specified in 
Sec.  63.747(c), or the control system requirements specified in Sec.  
63.747(d), shall record the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (4) of this section, as appropriate. Each owner and operator 
using coating manufacturer's supplied data to demonstrate compliance 
with the applicable organic HAP or VOC limit specified in Sec.  
63.747(c) may retain the manufacturer's documentation and annual 
purchase records in place of the records specified in paragraph (f)(1) 
of this section. Owners and operators using the coating manufacturer's 
supplied data to demonstrate compliance based on the HAP content of the 
coating, and adding non-HAP solvent to those coatings, must also 
maintain records of the non-HAP solvent added to the coating.

0
13. Section 63.753 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(2).
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (5).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), 
and (e)(1).
0
d. Adding paragraph (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.753  Reporting requirements.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this 
section, each owner or operator subject to this subpart shall fulfill 
the requirements contained in Sec.  63.9(a) through (e) and (h) through 
(j), Notification requirements, and Sec.  63.10(a), (b), (d), and (f), 
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, of the General Provisions, 40 
CFR part 63, subpart A, and that the initial notification for existing 
sources required in Sec.  63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted not later than 
September 1, 1997, or as specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2). In addition to 
the requirements of Sec.  63.9(h), the notification of compliance 
status shall include:
* * * * *
    (2) The initial notification for existing sources, required in 
Sec.  63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted no later than September 1, 1997, or 
as specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2). For the purposes of this subpart, a 
title V or part 70 permit application may be used in lieu of the 
initial notification required under Sec.  63.9(b)(2), provided the same 
information is contained in the permit application as required by Sec.  
63.9(b)(2), and the State to which the permit application has been 
submitted has an approved operating permit program under part 70 of 
this chapter and has received delegation of authority from the EPA. 
Permit applications shall

[[Page 76188]]

be submitted by the same due dates as those specified for the initial 
notifications.
* * * * *
    (4) Each owner or operator subject to this subpart is not required 
to comply with Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v), and (d)(5).
    (5) If a source fails to meet an applicable standard specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.744 through 63.748, report such events in the semiannual 
report:
    (i) The number of failures to meet an applicable standard.
    (ii) For each instance, report the date, time, and duration of each 
failure.
    (iii) For each failure the report must include a list of the 
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description 
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (c) Primer, topcoat, and specialty coating application operations. 
Each owner or operator of a primer or topcoat application operation 
subject to this subpart shall submit the following information:
    (1) * * *
    (i) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings where compliance 
is not being achieved through the use of averaging or a control device, 
the HAP or VOC content in manufacturer's supplied data as recorded 
under Sec.  63.752(c), or each value of Hi and 
Gi, as recorded under Sec.  63.752(c)(2)(i), that exceeds 
the applicable organic HAP or VOC content limit specified in Sec.  
63.745(c);
    (ii) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings where compliance 
is being achieved through the use of averaging, each value of 
Ha and Ga, as recorded under Sec.  
63.752(c)(4)(i), that exceeds the applicable organic HAP or VOC content 
limit specified in Sec.  63.745(c);
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) For chemical milling maskants where compliance is not being 
achieved through the use of averaging or a control device, the HAP or 
VOC content in manufacturer's supplied data as recorded under Sec.  
63.752(f), or each value of Hi and Gi, as 
recorded under Sec.  63.752(f)(1)(i), that exceeds the applicable 
organic HAP or VOC content limit specified in Sec.  63.747(c);
* * * * *
    (f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance tests following the procedure 
specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the time of the test, 
you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/)). Performance test data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language 
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site. If you claim that some 
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (f).
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.

0
14. Revise table 1 to subpart GG of part 63 to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart GG of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                               Subpart GG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference             affected sources         Comment
                                  in subpart GG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(2)....................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(3)....................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(4)....................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(5)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.1(a)(6)....................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(7)....................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(8)....................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(9)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.1(a)(10)...................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(11)...................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(12)...................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(13)...................  Yes..............
63.1(a)(14)...................  Yes..............
63.1(b)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.1(b)(2)....................  Yes..............
63.1(b)(3)....................  Yes..............
63.1(c)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.1(c)(2)....................  Yes..............  Subpart GG does not
                                                    apply to area
                                                    sources.
63.1(c)(3)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.1(c)(4)....................  Yes..............
63.1(c)(5)....................  Yes..............
63.1(d).......................  No...............  Reserved.
63.1(e).......................  Yes..............
63.2..........................  Yes..............

[[Page 76189]]

 
63.3..........................  Yes..............
63.4(a)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.4(a)(2)....................  Yes..............
63.4(a)(3)....................  Yes..............
63.4(a)(4)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.4(a)(5)....................  Yes..............
63.4(b).......................  Yes..............
63.4(c).......................  Yes..............
63.5(a).......................  Yes..............
63.5(b)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.5(b)(2)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.5(b)(3)....................  Yes..............
63.5(b)(4)....................  Yes..............
63.5(b)(5)....................  Yes..............
63.5(b)(6)....................  Yes..............
63.5(c).......................  No...............  Reserved.
63.5(d)(1)(i).................  Yes..............
63.5(d)(1)(ii)(A)-(H).........  Yes..............
63.5(d)(1)(ii)(I).............  No...............  Reserved.
63.5(d)(1)(ii)(J).............  Yes..............
63.5(d)(1)(iii)...............  Yes..............
63.5(d)(2)-(4)................  Yes..............
63.5(e).......................  Yes..............
63.5(f).......................  Yes..............
63.6(a).......................  Yes..............
63.6(b)(1)-(5)................  Yes..............  Sec.   63.749(a)
                                                    specifies compliance
                                                    dates for new
                                                    sources.
63.6(b)(6)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.6(b)(7)....................  Yes..............
63.6(c)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.6(c)(2)....................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG are
                                                    promulgated under
                                                    section 112(d) of
                                                    the Act.
63.6(c)(3)-(4)................  No...............  Reserved.
63.6(c)(5)....................  Yes..............
63.6(d).......................  No...............  Reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i).................  No...............  See Sec.   63.743(e)
                                                    for general duty
                                                    requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  No...............
63.6(e)(2)....................  No...............  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)....................  No...............
63.6(f)(1)....................  No...............
63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3).............  Yes..............
63.6(g).......................  Yes..............
63.6(h).......................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.6(i)(1)-(3)................  Yes..............
63.6(i)(4)(i)(A)..............  Yes..............
63.6(i)(4)(i)(B)..............  No...............  Sec.   63.743(a)(4)
                                                    specifies that
                                                    requests for
                                                    extension of
                                                    compliance must be
                                                    submitted no later
                                                    than 120 days before
                                                    an affected source's
                                                    compliance date.
63.6(i)(4)(ii)................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG are
                                                    promulgated under
                                                    section 112(d) of
                                                    the Act.
63.6(i)(5)-(12)...............  Yes..............
63.6(i)(13)...................  Yes..............
63.6(i)(14)...................  Yes..............
63.6(i)(15)...................  No...............  Reserved.
63.6(i)(16)...................  Yes..............
63.6(j).......................  Yes..............
63.7(a)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.7(a)(2)(i)-(vi)............  Yes..............
63.7(a)(2)(vii)-(viii)........  No...............  Reserved.
63.7(a)(2)(ix)................  Yes..............
63.7(a)(3)....................  Yes..............
63.7(b).......................  Yes..............
63.7(c).......................  Yes..............
63.7(d).......................  Yes..............
63.7(e)(1)....................  No...............  See Sec.   63.749(j).
63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Yes..............
63.7(f).......................  Yes..............
63.7(g)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.7(g)(2)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.7(g)(3)....................  Yes..............
63.7(h).......................  Yes..............
63.8(a)(1)-(2)................  Yes..............

[[Page 76190]]

 
63.8(a)(3)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.8(a)(4)....................  Yes..............
63.8(b).......................  Yes..............
63.8(c)(1)(i).................  No...............
63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  Yes..............
63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  No...............
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2).............  Yes..............
63.8(d)(3)....................  No...............
63.8(e)(1)-(4)................  Yes..............
63.8(e)(5)(i).................  Yes..............
63.8(e)(5)(ii)................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.8(f)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.8(f)(2)(i)-(vii)...........  Yes..............
63.8(f)(2)(viii)..............  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.8(f)(2)(ix)................  Yes..............
63.8(f)(3)-(6)................  Yes..............
63.8(g).......................  Yes..............
63.9(a).......................  Yes..............
63.9(b)(1)....................  Yes..............
63.9(b)(2)....................  Yes..............  Sec.   63.753(a)(1)
                                                    requires submittal
                                                    of the initial
                                                    notification at
                                                    least 1 year prior
                                                    to the compliance
                                                    date; Sec.
                                                    63.753(a)(2) allows
                                                    a title V or part 70
                                                    permit application
                                                    to be substituted
                                                    for the initial
                                                    notification in
                                                    certain
                                                    circumstances.
63.9(b)(3)....................  Yes..............
63.9(b)(4)....................  Yes..............
63.9(b)(5)....................  Yes..............
63.9(c).......................  Yes..............
63.9(d).......................  Yes..............
63.9(e).......................  Yes..............
63.9(f).......................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.9(g)(1)....................  No...............
63.9(g)(2)....................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.9(g)(3)....................  No...............
63.9(h)(1)-(3)................  Yes..............  Sec.   63.753(a)(1)
                                                    also specifies
                                                    additional
                                                    information to be
                                                    included in the
                                                    notification of
                                                    compliance status.
63.9(h)(4)....................  No...............  Reserved.
63.9(h)(5)-(6)................  Yes..............
63.9(i).......................  Yes..............
63.9(j).......................  Yes..............
63.10(a)......................  Yes..............
63.10(b)(1)...................  Yes..............
63.10(b)(2)(i)................  No...............
63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  No...............  See Sec.   63.752(a)
                                                    for recordkeeping of
                                                    (1) date, time, and
                                                    duration; (2)
                                                    listing of affected
                                                    source or equipment,
                                                    and an estimate of
                                                    the quantity of each
                                                    regulated pollutant
                                                    emitted over the
                                                    standard; and (3)
                                                    actions to minimize
                                                    emissions and
                                                    correct the failure.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Yes..............
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  No...............
63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Yes..............
63.10(b)(2)(vi)(A)-(C)........  No...............  Sec.
                                                    63.10(b)(vii)(A),
                                                    (B) and (C) do not
                                                    apply because
                                                    subpart GG does not
                                                    require the use of
                                                    CEMS.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)........
63.10(b)(3)...................  Yes..............
63.10(c)(1)...................  No...............
63.10(c)(2)-(4)...............  No...............  Reserved.
63.10(c)(5)-(6)...............  No...............
63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Yes..............
63.10(c)(9)...................  No...............  Reserved.
63.10(c)(10)-(13).............  No...............
63.10(c)(14)..................  No...............  Sec.   63.8(d) does
                                                    not apply to this
                                                    subpart.
63.10(c)(15)..................  No...............
63.10(d)(1)-(2)...............  Yes..............
63.10(d)(3)...................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.10(d)(4)...................  Yes..............
63.10(d)(5)...................  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.753(a)(5) for
                                                    malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.
63.(10)(e)(1).................  No...............
63.10(e)(2)(i)................  No...............
63.10(e)(2)(ii)...............  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.10(e)(3)...................  No...............
63.10(e)(4)...................  No...............  The standards in
                                                    subpart GG do not
                                                    include opacity
                                                    standards.
63.10(f)......................  Yes..............

[[Page 76191]]

 
63.11.........................  Yes..............
63.12.........................  Yes..............
63.13.........................  Yes..............
63.14.........................  Yes..............
63.15.........................  Yes..............
63.16.........................  Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
15. Appendix A to subpart GG of part 63 is amended by revising 
definitions for ``Electric or radiation-effect coating'' and 
``Electrostatic discharge and electromagnetic interference (EMI) 
coating'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart GG of Part 63--Specialty Coating Definitions

* * * * *
    Electric or radiation-effect coating--A coating or coating 
system engineered to interact, through absorption or reflection, 
with specific regions of the electromagnetic energy spectrum, such 
as the ultraviolet, visible, infrared, or microwave regions. Uses 
include, but are not limited to, lightning strike protection, 
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) protection, and radar avoidance. 
Coatings that have been designated as ``Classified National Security 
Information'' by the Department of Defense are exempt.
    Electrostatic discharge and electromagnetic interference (EMI) 
coating--A coating applied to aerospace vehicles and components to 
disperse static energy or reduce electromagnetic interference.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. 2015-30356 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P