Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the EPA proposed to remove the SSM provisions
and other changes so that standards in this rule would apply at all
times. We also proposed several revisions to Table 1 to subpart GG of
part 63 (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter referred
to as the ``General Provisions table'') as explained in more detail
below. For example, we proposed to eliminate the incorporation of the
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We
also proposed to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further
described below.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA took into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, did
not propose alternate standards for those periods. Information on
periods of startup and shutdown received from the facilities through
CAA section 114 questionnaire responses indicated that emissions during
these periods do not exceed the emissions during normal operations. The
facilities do not perform the regulated surface coating operations
unless and until their control devices (e.g., spray booths or other
types of control devices) are operating to fully control emissions.
Therefore, we determined that separate standards for periods of startup
and shutdown are not necessary.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new
sources must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the
best controlled similar source and, for existing sources, generally
must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation
``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the
category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency
to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the
best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the D.C.
Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be
treated in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that
occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As a result, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is
not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources
to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the
administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for
specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady-state type unit that
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher
than during normal operations and the emissions over a 4-day
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for

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

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

J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates for the Amendments

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

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

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

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

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.

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,

January 2014, in the docket for this rulemaking.

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

E. What are the benefits?

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

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.741  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.742  Definitions.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.743  Standards: General.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.744  Standards: Cleaning operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.746   Standards: Depainting operations.

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

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

Sec.  63.748   Standards: Handling and storage of waste.

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

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

Sec.  63.749   Compliance dates and determinations.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.750  Test methods and procedures.

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

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