[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76151-76191]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30356]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 234

December 7, 2015

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830. All documents in this docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Kim Teal, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Patrick Yellin, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

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

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

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities source category in our February 17, 2015 RTR
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source
category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source
category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities source category?
    D. What are the requirements during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities Source Category
    C. Legal Basis to Regulate Specialty Coatings
    D. Determination of Specialty Coating Limits and Definitions
    E. Specialty Coating Application Equipment Requirements
    F. Specialty Coating Inorganic HAP Control Requirements
    G. Complying With the Specialty Coating Limits
    H. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions
    J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates for the Amendments
    K. Standards for Cleaning Operations and Standards for Handling
and Storage of Waste
    L. Technical Corrections to the Aerospace NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

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

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by February 5, 2016. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also

provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the
rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC North Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. What is included in this final rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Aerospace NESHAP to
eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F.
3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established standards in this
rule that apply at all times. Table 1 to Subpart GG of Part 63 (General
Provisions applicability table) is being revised to change several
references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We
eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to
the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant
language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that
facilities in this source category can meet the applicable emission
standards in the Aerospace NESHAP at all times, including periods of
startup and shutdown; therefore, the EPA determined that no additional
standards are needed to address emissions during these periods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Legal Basis To Regulate Specialty Coatings

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

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

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

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

D. Determination of Specialty Coating Limits and Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Specialty Coating Application Equipment Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Specialty Coating Inorganic HAP Control Requirements

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

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

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

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

G. Complying With the Specialty Coating Limits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. Electronic Reporting Requirements

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

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

I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with