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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76152 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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: teal.kim@epa.gov. 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: palma.ted@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the NESHAP to a particular entity, 

contact Patrick Yellin, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, (202) 564–2970, 

yellin.patrick@epa.gov. 

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 ‘‘trackchanges’’ version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the changes 

in this action is available in the docket. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 Rework Facilities Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities.336411, 336412, 336413, 336414, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76154 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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.’’). 

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). 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76155 

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. 

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. 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 nonspray 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 HAPcontaining 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 CAArequired 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 noncancer 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

Maximum individual 

cancer risk 

(-in-1 million) a

Estimated population at increased risk 

levels of cancer 

Estimated 

annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic 

non-cancer 

TOSHI b

Maximum screening acute 

non-cancer HQ c

Actual Emissions 

10 .............................. ≥ 1-in-1 million: 180,000 ........................... 0.02 0.5 HQREL = 2 (ethylene glycol ethyl ether 

acetate). 

≥ 10-in-1 million: 1,500.

≥ 100-in-1 million: 0.

Allowable Emissions d

10 .............................. ≥ 1-in-1 million: 180,000 ........................... 0.02 0.5 

≥ 10-in-1 million: 2,000.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76159 

TABLE 2—AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING AND REWORK FACILITIES INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS—Continued 

Maximum individual 

cancer risk 

(-in-1 million) a

Estimated population at increased risk 

levels of cancer 

Estimated 

annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic 

non-cancer 

TOSHI b

Maximum screening acute 

non-cancer HQ c

≥ 100-in-1 million: 0.

aEstimated 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. cSee 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. dThe 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 PBHAP, 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3For 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 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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76161 

4Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 

March 13, 2007). 

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). 

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 atthe-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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 sprayapplied 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76164 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonspray 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 highefficiency 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 nonspray 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 sprayapplied 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 nonspray 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76166 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ‘‘sprayapplied 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 ‘‘sprayapplied 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 ‘‘sprayapplied coating operation’’ in subpart 

HHHHHH, including the following: 

Powder coating, hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers, and nonatomizing 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 sprayapplied 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76168 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 §63.743(d), then 

the recordkeeping requirements of 

§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 precoated 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-tocomputer electronic transfer using EPAprovided software. The direct computerto-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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76170 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 crossreferences 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76172 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonattainment 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76174 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76176 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 SocioEconomic 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76177 

5Policy 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/ 

1995lchildrenslhealthlpolicylstatement.pdf. 

6Supplemental 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/ 

childrenslsupplementlfinal.pdf. 

7US 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 

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. 

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-ofaction, 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. 

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. 

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 noncancer 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/lawsregulations/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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

■ 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 

■ 2. Section 63.741 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text. 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) 

through (7) as paragraphs (c)(5) through 

(8). 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(4). 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(8). 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e). 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 63.745(g), or a 

depainting operation subject to 

§ 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 

§ 63.743(d), then the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 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 § 63.742. 

Additional specific exemptions from 

regulatory coverage are set forth in 

paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of this 

section and §§ 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 §§ 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 § 63.745(f)(3) and 

(g)(4) are not included in the 50 and 200 

gal limits. Chemical milling maskants 

exempted under § 63.747(c)(3) are also 

not included in these limits. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.742 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a definition for ‘‘Airless and 

air-assisted airless spray’’ in 

alphabetical order. 

■ b. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Chemical milling maskant’’. 

■ c. Adding a definition for ‘‘Classified 

National Security Information’’ in 

alphabetical order. 

■ d. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Coating’’. 

■ e. Adding a definition for ‘‘Non-HAP 

material’’ in alphabetical order. 

■ f. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Softener’’. 

■ g. Adding a definition for ‘‘Sprayapplied coating operation’’ in 

alphabetical order. 

■ h. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Stripper.’’ 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 precoated 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 Administrationdefined 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 nonrefillable aerosol containers, or nonatomizing 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.743 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(8), 

and (a)(10). 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b). 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and 

(3). 

■ d. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(d)(4) and (5). 

■ e. Adding paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.743 Standards: General. 

(a) * * * 

(2) § 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 § 63.6(i)(4) or 

§ 63.6(i)(5), rather than 15 calendar days 

as provided for in § 63.6(i)(12)(iii)(B) 

and § 63.6(i)(13)(iii)(B). 

* * * * * 

(10) For the purposes of compliance 

with the requirements of § 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 §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 

§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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

§ 63.750, complies with the specified 

content limits in §§ 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. 

■ 5. Section 63.744 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to reads as follows: 

§ 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). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.745 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) introductory 

text. 

■ b. Redesignating tables 1 through 4 as 

tables 2 through 5. 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and 

new Table 1. 

■ 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). 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (f)(3)(vii) and 

(f)(3)(viii). 

■ 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). 

■ g. Adding paragraph (g)(4)(xi). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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

Coating Type HAP Limit g/L 

(lb/gallon) 1

VOC Limit g/L 

(lb/gallon) 1

Ablative Coating ........................................................................................................................................... 600 (5.0) 600 (5.0) 

Adhesion Promoter ...................................................................................................................................... 890 (7.4) 890 (7.4) 

Adhesive Bonding Primers: Cured at 250°F or below ................................................................................ 850 (7.1) 850 (7.1) 

Adhesive Bonding Primers: Cured above 250°F ........................................................................................ 1030 (8.6) 1030 (8.6) 

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) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SPECIALTY COATINGS—HAP AND VOC CONTENT LIMITS—Continued 

Coating Type HAP Limit g/L 

(lb/gallon) 1

VOC Limit g/L 

(lb/gallon) 1

Structural Autoclavable Adhesive ................................................................................................................ 60 (0.5) 60 (0.5) 

Structural Nonautoclavable Adhesive .......................................................................................................... 850 (7.1) 850 (7.1) 

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 Structure Primer .................................................................................. 650 (5.4) 650 (5.4) 

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 Coating ............................................................................................................ 800 (6.7) 800 (6.7) 

Electrostatic Discharge and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Coating .................................................. 800 (6.7) 800 (6.7) 

Elevated-Temperature Skydrol-Resistant Commercial Primer .................................................................... 740 (6.2) 740 (6.2) 

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 Single Use Aircraft .................................................................................... 420 (3.5) 420 (3.5) 

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 Maskant ......................................................................................................... 1,020 (8.5) 1,020 (8.5) 

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 Sealant ....................................................................................................... 280 (2.3) 280 (2.3) 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76183 

according to the requirements in 

§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 airassisted 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 nonrefillable 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 §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 

§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

Filtration efficiency 

requirement, % 

Aerodynamic 

particle size 

range, μm 

>90 ........................................ >5.7 

>50 ........................................ >4.1 

>10 ........................................ >2.2 

TABLE 3—TWO-STAGE ARRESTOR; 

SOLID PHASE CHALLENGE FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Filtration efficiency 

requirement, % 

Aerodynamic 

particle size 

range, μm 

>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 

§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

Filtration efficiency 

requirement, % 

Aerodynamic 

particle size 

range, μm 

>95 ........................................ >2.0 

>80 ........................................ >1.0 

>65 ........................................ >0.42 

TABLE 5—THREE-STAGE ARRESTOR; 

SOLID PHASE CHALLENGE FOR NEW

SOURCES

Filtration efficiency 

requirement, % 

Aerodynamic 

particle size 

range, μm 

>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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

that it is not technically feasible to spray 

apply coatings to the parts in a booth; 

(x) The use of hand-held nonrefillable 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. 

■ 7. Section 63.746 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) 

and (B). 

■ b. Redesignating the first paragraph (c) 

(beginning ‘‘Owners or operators of new 

sources . . .’’) as paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the 

efficiency data points in Tables 2 and 3 

of § 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 

§ 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the 

efficiency data points in Tables 4 and 5 

of § 63.745 or through a baghouse before 

exhausting it to the atmosphere. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.748 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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] 

■ 9. Section 63.749 is amended by: 

■ 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. 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (j). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.750(c) 

and (d)) are less than or equal to the 

applicable HAP content limit in 

§63.745(c)(1), and all values of Gi and Ga

(as determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.750(e) and (f)) are less 

than or equal to the applicable VOC 

content limit in § 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

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

§ 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 § 63.750(c) 

and (d)) are less than or equal to the 

applicable HAP content limit in 

§ 63.745(c)(3), and all values of Gi and 

Ga (as determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.750(e) and (f)) are less 

than or equal to the applicable VOC 

content limit in § 63.745(c)(4). 

(B) For all uncontrolled specialty 

coatings, all values of Hi and Ha (as 

determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.750(c) and (d)) are less 

than or equal to the HAP content limits 

specified in Table 1 to § 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 § 63.750(e) and 

(f)) are less than or equal to the VOC 

content limits specified in Table 1 to 

§ 63.745 for the applicable specialty 

coating types (less water and exempt 

solvents) as applied. 

* * * * * 

(iii)(A) Uses an application technique 

specified in § 63.745(f)(1)(i) through 

(f)(1)(iv); or 

(B) Uses an alternative application 

technique, as allowed under 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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. 

■ 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: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 63.745(c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(6), the 

following procedure shall be used to 

determine the monthly volumeweighted 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 63.747(c). 

* * * * * 

(o) Inorganic HAP emissions—dry 

particulate filter certification 

requirements. Dry particulate filters 

used to comply with §§ 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 

§ 63.745 for existing or new sources 

respectively. 

■ 11. Section 63.751 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 63.745(g)(2) shall, while primer, 

topcoat, and specialty coating 

application operations are occurring, 

continuously monitor the pressure drop 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76187 

across the system and read and record 

the pressure drop once per shift 

following the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.752(d), or install an 

interlock system as specified in 

§ 63.745(g)(2)(iv)(C). 

(2) Each owner or operator using a 

conventional waterwash system to meet 

the requirements of § 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 

§ 63.752(d), or install an interlock 

system as specified in § 63.745(g)(2)(v). 

Each owner or operator using a 

pumpless waterwash system to meet the 

requirements of § 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 

§ 63.752(d), or install an interlock 

system as specified in § 63.745(g)(2)(v). 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 63.752 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) General. Each owner or operator of 

a source subject to this subpart shall 

fulfill all recordkeeping requirements 

specified in § 63.10(a), (b), (d), and (f), 

except § 63.10(b)(2)(i), (iv) and (v). Each 

owner or operator must also record and 

maintain according to § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 63.747(c), or the control system 

requirements specified in § 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 

§ 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. 

■ 13. Section 63.753 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) 

introductory text and (a)(2). 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (5). 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) 

introductory text, (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and 

(e)(1). 

■ d. Adding paragraph (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 63.9(a) 

through (e) and (h) through (j), 

Notification requirements, and 

§ 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 § 63.9(b)(2) shall be 

submitted not later than September 1, 

1997, or as specified in § 63.9(b)(2). In 

addition to the requirements of 

§ 63.9(h), the notification of compliance 

status shall include: 

* * * * * 

(2) The initial notification for existing 

sources, required in § 63.9(b)(2) shall be 

submitted no later than September 1, 

1997, or as specified in § 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 § 63.9(b)(2), provided 

the same information is contained in the 

permit application as required by 

§ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§§ 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 

§ 63.752(c), or each value of Hi and Gi, 

as recorded under § 63.752(c)(2)(i), that 

exceeds the applicable organic HAP or 

VOC content limit specified in 

§ 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 § 63.752(c)(4)(i), that 

exceeds the applicable organic HAP or 

VOC content limit specified in 

§ 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 § 63.752(f), or each 

value of Hi and Gi, as recorded under 

§ 63.752(f)(1)(i), that exceeds the 

applicable organic HAP or VOC content 

limit specified in § 63.747(c); 

* * * * * 

(f) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 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 § 63.13. 

■ 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 

Reference Applies to affected 

sources in subpart GG Comment 

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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76189 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GG OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART GG—Continued 

Reference Applies to affected 

sources in subpart GG Comment 

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 .............................. § 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 § 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 ............................... § 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 § 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

76190 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GG OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART GG—Continued 

Reference Applies to affected 

sources in subpart GG Comment 

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 .............................. § 63.753(a)(1) requires submittal of the initial notification at least 1 year prior 

to the compliance date; § 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 .............................. § 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 § 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 ............................... § 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 ............................... § 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 § 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76191 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GG OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART GG—Continued 

Reference Applies to affected 

sources in subpart GG Comment 

63.11 ..................................................... Yes.

63.12 ..................................................... Yes.

63.13 ..................................................... Yes.

63.14 ..................................................... Yes.

63.15 ..................................................... Yes.

63.16 ..................................................... Yes.

■ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3