National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for aerospace

manufacturing and rework facilities proposed in the Federal Register on

March 27, 1998. Today's final changes involve new definitions for

general aviation and general aviation rework facility, separate coating

limits for primers and topcoats used at general aviation rework

facilities, and additional changes resulting from public comments on

previously proposed (October 29, 1996) amendments to the final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the

information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is

Docket No. A-92-20. This docket is available for public inspection

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal

holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M

Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket

is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground

floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

An electronic version of documents from the Office of Air and

Radiation (OAR) is available through EPA's OAR Technology Transfer

Network Web site (TTNWeb). The TTNWeb is a collection of related Web

sites containing information about many areas of air pollution science,

technology, regulation, measurement, and prevention. The TTNWeb is

directly accessible from the Internet via the World Wide Web at the

following address, ``http:/www.epa.gov/ttn''. Electronic versions of

this preamble and these amendments are located under the OAR Policy and

Guidance Information Website, ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/'', under

the Recently Signed Rules section. There is also an aerospace site on

the Unified Air Toxics Website at, ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/

aerosp/aeropg.html''. If more information on the TTNWeb is needed,

contact the Systems Operator at (919) 541-5384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the changes

to the standards, contact Ms. Barbara Driscoll, Policy Planning and

Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;

telephone (919) 541-0164. For implementation issues (guidance

documents), contact Ms. Ingrid Ward, Program Review Group, Information

Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12), U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number

(919) 541-0300. For information concerning applicability and rule

determinations, contact your State or local representative or the

appropriate EPA regional representative.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action are owners or

operators of facilities that are engaged, either in part or in whole,

in the manufacturing or rework of commercial, civil, or military

aerospace vehicles or components and that are major sources as defined

in Sec. 63.2. Regulated categories include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry............................... Facilities which are major sources of hazardous air pollutants and

manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft such as airplanes,

helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.

Federal Government..................... Federal facilities which are major sources of hazardous air pollutants

and manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft such as airplanes,

helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities that EPA is now aware could

potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your

facility [company, business, organization, etc.] is regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in

Sec. 63.741 of the NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and rework

facilities promulgated in the Federal Register on September 1, 1995 (60

FR 45948) and amended on March 27, 1998 (63 FR 15005). If you have

questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular

entity, contact your State or local representative or the appropriate

EPA regional representative.

The information presented below is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Public Comment on the March 27, 1998 Proposal

B. Judicial Review

II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes to the Proposed Amendments

to the Rule

A. Definitions

B. Standards for Primers and Topcoats

C. Clarification of Relationship Between NESHAP and Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations

D. Hand-Wipe Cleaning: Removal of References to Section 112(l)

and Equivalent Volume Reduction Demonstration

E. Exemption for Cleaning of Automated Spray Equipment Nozzle

Tips

F. Monitoring Parameters for Pumpless Waterwash Systems

G. Exclusion of Charged Media Certification Using Test Method

319

H. Technical and Miscellaneous Corrections

III. Control Techniques Guidelines

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Executive Order 12875

E. Executive Order 13084

F. Executive Order 13045

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for

aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities were proposed in the

Federal Register on June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29216). Public comments were

received regarding the standards and the final NESHAP was promulgated

in the Federal Register on September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45948). Amendments

to the final rule were promulgated on March 27, 1998 (63 FR 15005).

These additional amendments were proposed on that same date (63 FR

[[Page 46527]]

15034). This action finalizes these additional amendments to

Secs. 63.741, 63.742, 63.744, 63.745, 63.746, 63.750, 63.751, 63.752

and 63.753 of subpart GG of 40 CFR part 63 and Method 319 of appendix A

to part 63--TEST METHODS. These sections deal with applicability,

definitions, cleaning operations, topcoat and primer application

operations, depainting operations, monitoring requirements,

recordkeeping requirements, and reporting requirements.

The Agency set these standards for aerospace manufacturing and

rework facilities to address organic and inorganic HAP emissions. As

stated in the preamble to the rule as originally promulgated (60 FR

45952, September 1995), nationwide emissions of HAP from at least 2,869

major source aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities will be

reduced by approximately 112,600 Mg (123,700 tons). These changes to

the NESHAP will not result in any significant changes to the emission

reductions or cost impacts because (1) only a small number of general

aviation (GA) rework facilities will be considered major sources and

therefore subject to the NESHAP requirements and (2) only one or two

known aerospace facilities utilize pumpless waterwash systems for

controlling particulate emissions.

A. Public Comment on the March 27, 1998 Proposal

Eighteen comment letters were received on the March 27, 1998

Federal Register document that proposed changes to the rule. The

proposed changes covered a variety of issues and many of the comment

letters were supportive of the amendments. The significant issues

raised by the commenters and the changes to the proposed amendments are

summarized in the following sections of this preamble. More detailed

responses are provided in an addendum to the background information

document (BID) volume II which can be found in Docket A-92-20, document

No. EPA 453/R-97-003b.

B. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of today's

amendments to the NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and rework

facilities is available only on the filing of a petition for review in

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within

60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under section

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject to today's

notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

Based on the proposed and final alternative coating limits for

general aviation rework facilities (see paragraph II. B.), the EPA

proposed adding definitions for ``general aviation'' and ``general

aviation rework facility'' to Sec. 63.742. Two commenters supported the

proposed definition for ``general aviation'' and there were no comments

on the proposed definition of ``general aviation rework facility.''

However, a group of eight commenters recommended the following revised

definition for ``general aviation'' based on another EPA document

(Reference: EPA Air Transportation Industry Sector Notebook; EPA/310-R-

97-001):

General aviation (GA) means that segment of civil aviation that

encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers, commuters,

and military. General aviation includes charter and corporate-

executive transportation, instruction, rental, aerial application,

aerial observation, business, pleasure, and other special uses.

The Agency decided to change the definition of ``general aviation''

as suggested by the commenters and has included the revised definition

in today's final amendments. The revised definition still accurately

describes the segment of the aerospace industry involving smaller

aircraft for which the alternative primer and topcoat standards are

intended. The revised definition also has the advantage (as noted by

the commenters) of being consistent with another recent EPA document

addressing and describing this same segment of the aerospace industry.

The Agency is promulgating the definition of ``general aviation rework

facility'' as proposed (with the addition of the words ``general

aviation'' in the definition to describe the types of aerospace

vehicles or components.)

B. Standards for Primers and Topcoats

The Agency proposed alternative emission limits for topcoat and

primer applications on general aviation aircraft based on previous

comments made by GA aerospace rework industry representatives. Seven

commenters supported the alternative limits claiming that the

alternative limits will ``lift the restraints of the existing coating

limitations.'' Furthermore, the commenters stated that the higher HAP/

VOC limits are acceptable and encourage paint manufacturers to provide

quality primers and topcoats that give a quality finish acceptable to

the owners and operators of the GA aircraft. One commenter noted that

the higher HAP/VOC limits will have a minimal effect on the total

emissions from a GA facility, but will have a dramatic effect on the

final aircraft topcoat finish.

As noted by the Agency in the preamble to the proposed amendments

of March 27, 1998, many GA rework facilities would be area sources

emitting less than 10 tons per year (tons/yr) of any single HAP, and

less than 25 tons/yr of combined HAP. Nevertheless, GA rework

facilities do exist which are major sources. The Agency finds that the

coating (primer and topcoat) application operations are different for

GA rework facilities than those for commercial and military facilities

due to the variability in the types of coatings used and types of

aircraft serviced. Accordingly, the Agency decided to subcategorize GA

rework facilities and determined a separate MACT floor for primer and

topcoat application conducted at such facilities. The data from the GA

rework facilities in the Agency's data base resulted in the MACT floor

represented by the best five facilities having an overall facility

weighted average HAP and VOC content of 540 grams per liter (g/L) [4.5

pounds per gallon (lb/gal)] for both primers and topcoats.

Most, if not all, of the GA rework facilities that will have to

comply with the NESHAP limits are competing for business with

facilities that are nonmajor (area) sources. The NESHAP does not impact

area sources and allows them to continue their current painting and

depainting operations to meet customer requirements and expectations.

The Agency developed a separate MACT floor for GA rework facility

painting operations because of the differences between GA and

commercial/military facilities involving the number and variety of

coatings used, and customer requirements. Rework operations for

commercial and military aircraft are primarily a captive market within

their own market segments. These operations are more likely to involve

``standardized'' coating schemes (e.g., military specifications or

individual airline colors/design) and are conducted on a ``routine''

basis compared to the GA rework operations. Commercial paint systems

are designed to last 5 to 7 years and because of the additional weight/

cost impacts are intentionally made as thin (e.g., 3 to 5 mils) as

possible while still meeting the quality requirements. The GA industry

is typically more concerned with the final finish of the coating system

and

[[Page 46528]]

with corporate aircraft, a typical coating thickness of 6 to 18 mils

may be needed to obtain the required gloss and texture. The Agency

decided to set MACT at the floor because of the potential business

impacts that could put the major source GA facilities at a competitive

disadvantage with nonmajor and foreign GA facilities. The Agency is

therefore finalizing the MACT floor limits for primer and topcoat

application for GA rework facilities in Sec. 63.745(c)(1) through

(c)(4). The HAP limits for both primers and topcoats (including self-

priming topcoats) are equivalent: less than or equal to 540 g/L (4.5

lb/gal) of coating (less water) as applied. The VOC limits for both

primers and topcoats are also equivalent: less than or equal to 540 g/L

(4.5 lb/gal) of coating (less water and exempt solvents) as applied.

Another group of commenters agreed with the increased HAP/VOC

limits for GA rework facilities but also suggested that these limits be

extended to GA manufacturers as well. The commenters argued that

manufacturers have the same need for high quality finish and may be put

at a competitive disadvantage without the benefit of the higher limits.

In reviewing these comments, the Agency was not compelled by any

technical arguments or justifications to extend the alternative primer

and topcoat limits beyond what was proposed for GA rework facilities.

In comparing GA manufacturing and GA rework painting operations,

the Agency found that manufacturing facilities typically deal with

fewer types of coatings and fewer types of aircraft. One of the

commenters stated there are less than 10 GA manufacturers in total and

some of those will qualify as area sources. Each manufacturer produces

a limited subset of the planes on the market. The GA manufacturers

generally perform rework only on planes that they manufacture; GA

rework facilities, in contrast, may work on planes from a variety of

manufacturers. Thus, unlike GA rework facilities, GA manufacturing

facilities have fairly predictable coating needs. This allows them to

be more proficient in coating application and minimizes the variability

of coating-related issues in their day-to-day operations. Because of

these factors, GA manufacturers are better able than GA rework

facilities to comply with the coating limits in the NESHAP as

originally promulgated. Therefore, the Agency does not agree that the

alternative coating limits for GA rework facilities will create an

unfair business advantage/climate between GA rework and manufacturing

operations. In fact, the data collected from the GA manufacturers

during the past 2 years indicated that some sources that will be

subject to the NESHAP coating limits are already using compliant

coatings exclusively as part of their coating operations.

C. Clarification of Relationship Between NESHAP and Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Regulations

Several commenters raised the issue of potentially conflicting

requirements between EPA and FAA regulations. The commenters suggested

that chemicals containing HAP that are required to be used by an FAA

Airworthiness Directive (AD) should be exempted from the NESHAP

requirements. Some of the commenters stated that the long-term impact

of alternative chemical usage on various aircraft structures is not

consistent across various products and manufacturers. The EPA has

continued to work closely with the FAA during the development of the

final NESHAP and the amendments to the NESHAP for the aerospace

manufacturing and rework source category. Both agencies recognize the

importance of continuing airworthiness and the safety of the flying

public as repair facilities modify their procedures to comply with the

NESHAP. The EPA is committed to minimizing the impact on airworthiness

while maximizing the reduction of HAP emissions under the NESHAP.

Since promulgation of the NESHAP on September 1, 1995, many of the

aircraft manufacturers (principally those manufacturing transport

category aircraft) have made the necessary revisions to their

maintenance manuals to provide for non-HAP materials (chemical

strippers) to be used for depainting. Those revisions have been FAA

approved or will be submitted for FAA approval, when required. For the

other manufacturers (principally General Aviation manufacturers), once

the necessary information (revised/updated maintenance manuals, service

bulletins, and/or advisory circulars) is approved by the FAA and is

distributed to the regulated community, the potential regulatory

conflict should be at a minimum, and aerospace rework facilities will

be able to use various products to comply with most EPA and FAA

requirements. The EPA and FAA have determined that the potential

problems and issues raised by the commenters can be and, in many cases

already have been, resolved through the procedures established in the

existing regulations, and no further changes are needed to the NESHAP.

Because of the small numbers of aircraft affected and the

considerable expense of testing alternative materials for use on

antique aircraft (those over 30 years old), the March 27, 1998

amendments to the final rule (NESHAP) contain an exemption for the

rework of these aircraft. For the same reason, these final amendments

to the NESHAP extend that exemption to rework of aircraft and aircraft

components whose manufacturers are out of business. There were no

comments on this specific issue. Therefore, the EPA is exempting rework

of aircraft whose manufacturers are out of business by adding the

following to Sec. 63.741(f):

These requirements do not apply to the rework of aircraft or

aircraft components if the holder of the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) design approval, or that holder's licensee, is

not actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft components.

The FAA certifies that an aircraft, engine, propeller, or part

design meets certain airworthiness requirements, and issues to the

designer of that product a type certificate (TC), supplemental type

certificate (STC), Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA), or

Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). The procedures for issuing TC's,

STC's, TSOA's, and PMA's are contained in FAA regulations at 14 CFR,

part 21. The holder of one of these is a ``design approval holder.''

Should any manufacturers still in business not revise their

maintenance instructions to allow use of NESHAP-compliant materials,

the FAA has committed to issue an advisory circular publicizing the

process by which repair facilities can request approval for

alternatives. In addition, many existing Airworthiness Directives

(AD's), issued under part 39 of Title 14 of the CFR, specify the use of

HAP. (AD's are regulations addressing safety of flight, and compliance

with them is mandatory.) However, most AD's contain a provision for

requesting an alternative means of compliance. The FAA Notice N8100.13,

``Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOC) for Airworthiness Directives

that Require the Use of Volatile Organic Compounds and/or Hazardous Air

Pollutants,'' (dated January 26, 1998), addresses the process by which

repair stations, mechanics and operators can obtain alternative means

of compliance for other AD's for the purpose of approving substitution

of non-HAP materials.

D. Hand-Wipe Cleaning: Removal of References to Section 112(l) and

Equivalent Volume Reduction Demonstration

Section 63.744(b)(3) of the amended NESHAP (requirements for hand-

wipe cleaning) refers to requirements of section 112(l) of the Clean

Air Act.

[[Page 46529]]

Based on comments received on the October 29, 1996 proposed amendments

to the final rule, the Agency proposed to remove the references to

section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act. Requiring submittal and approval

of each individual alternative plan under section 112(l) is unwarranted

and contrary to the intent of section 112(l). Since there were no

comments on this issue, the final (amended) requirements of

Sec. 63.744(b)(3) no longer include the reference to ``section 112(l)

of the Act.''

Similarly, there were no comments regarding Sec. 63.744(b)(3) and

the proposed new language on calculating the baseline volume (levels)

of hand-wipe cleaning solvents used in cleaning operations. The

requirement for demonstrating that the 60 percent volume reduction

provides emission reductions equivalent to the solvent composition or

vapor pressure compliance options was deleted. The Agency is finalizing

the new language in Sec. 63.744(b)(3) regarding approval of baseline

levels.

E. Exemption for Cleaning of Automated Spray Equipment Nozzle Tips

The Agency proposed an exemption for cleaning of automated spray

equipment nozzle tips because floor sources included in the development

of the applicable requirements do not use any of the techniques in

Sec. 63.744(c) for cleaning of these devices. This exemption was based

on similar language included in other State rules covering the

aerospace industry (e.g., California Rule 1124) and was referenced by

the original commenters.

One commenter agreed with the proposed exemption for owners or

operators of aerospace cleaning operations from requirements for a

closed container when cleaning the nozzle tips of automated spray

equipment systems. The commenter states that, under the present NESHAP

language, owners or operators are forced to disassemble the equipment

for cleaning, which is economically unreasonable. The Agency decided to

finalize the amendment to Sec. 63.744(c) as follows:

(5) Cleaning of the nozzle tips of automated spray equipment

systems, except for robotic systems that can be programmed to spray

into a closed container, shall be exempt from the requirements of

paragraph (c) of this section.

F. Monitoring Parameters for Pumpless Waterwash Systems

The Agency proposed several amendatory revisions to the NESHAP

(definitions, primer and topcoat application operations, monitoring

requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and reporting requirements)

involving pumpless waterwash systems. Based on earlier comments, the

Agency learned that there are at least two types of pumpless waterwash

systems currently being used by aerospace facilities. While a

conventional waterwash system uses a pump to transfer the water to the

top of the water curtain, a pumpless waterwash system uses a

centrifugal fan to lift the mixture of water and paint laden air (from

the exhaust stream) up through a series of entrainment ducts (baffles)

separating air from the paint particles and from water droplets. There

is no readily identifiable operating parameter that is common to both

types of systems. Therefore, the Agency decided to use the ``generic''

approach as suggested by one of the commenters to include language such

as ``monitor or measure and record a booth parameter recommended by the

booth manufacturer.''

In the proposed amendments, changes to several sections of the

final rule were proposed to allow pumpless waterwash systems to be used

for controlling particulate emissions from painting and depainting

operations. The Agency also specified that the parameter(s) to be

monitored on such systems are to be recommended by the booth operator

(i.e., manometer or air gap). Since waterwash systems were included as

part of the MACT floor requirements for controlling inorganic HAP

emissions in the promulgated rule, this is not a technical change to

the standard, but a clarification of the discussion of pumpless systems

and the associated monitoring requirements.

The only commenter that commented on this issue supported the

proposed amendments involving the monitoring requirements for pumpless

waterwash particulate control systems. The commenter stated that it

would be impossible for pumpless waterwash systems to comply with the

monitoring requirements as originally promulgated. The commenter fully

supported EPA's efforts to address the unique challenges presented by

pumpless waterwash systems. The Agency is therefore finalizing the

changes associated with pumpless waterwash systems in: Secs. 63.742

(definition of ``waterwash system''); 63.745(g)(2)(v); 63.751(c)(2);

63.751(d); 63.752(d)(2) and (3); 63.752(e)(7); 63.753(c)(1)(vi); and

63.753(d)(1)(vii).

G. Exclusion of Charged Media Certification Using Test Method 319

In regard to the proposed exclusion of charged media from

certification under Test Method 319, two commenters concurred with the

proposed exclusion, two commenters opposed the exclusion, and one

commenter suggested the Agency re-visit the issue and consider adding a

new mechanism within Method 319 to evaluate paint arrestor performance

after loading (and over a given time period).

The Agency has decided that the proposed amendment to exclude

electrostatically-charged filter media from Method 319 testing (based

on the possibility that their efficiency in use will drop below that

measured in Method 319 testing) will not be promulgated based on the

fact that there are insufficient data at this time to warrant this

exclusion. No data were submitted illustrating that electrostatically

charged filter media will actually drop in efficiency during use in

aerospace painting and depainting facilities. Furthermore, no data were

submitted showing that, even if such drops in efficiency do occur,

similar drops would not also occur in uncharged media (i.e., the drop

in efficiency may not be solely due to a loss of electrostatic

enhancement but may also be due to other physical changes in the media,

which occur over time). The Agency recognizes that this is an area of

current, active, and ongoing research. The Agency is also aware of

studies conducted on electrostatically-charged filters used in general

ventilation that do, for some charged-fiber filters under certain

operating/exposure conditions, show drops in efficiency for

electrostatically-charged media. However, the relevance of these

findings to arrestors used in aerospace painting and depainting

facilities is uncertain and is, therefore, insufficient to exclude, as

a category of arrestors, electrostatically-charged media from Method

319 testing.

Two commenters suggested expanding Method 319 to include not only

the initial efficiency, but also one or more steps of paint loading

followed by a repeated filtration efficiency measurement after each

step; by doing so, changes in electrostatically charged filtration

efficiencies, if present, would be measured. One of the commenters

recommended that Method 319 be expanded to include standard dust

loading efficiency tests, or an additional fractional efficiency test

using actual paint. These type of tests would need to account for the

replacement frequency of the various stages in a multi-stage system,

and load the filter with representative paint oversprays, as well as

depainting-generated aerosols and ambient aerosols which may be drawn

into a spray booth, perhaps with some

[[Page 46530]]

level of prefiltration. There are no standardized methods that

adequately address these issues relative to conditioning or aerosol-

loading of multi-staged arrestors for the purposes of quantifying

potential changes in fractional efficiency with use. In light of the

Aerospace NESHAP compliance date of September 1, 1998, it is beyond the

scope of this project at this time to continue modifications to Method

319. Thus, use of Method 319, as stated in the final amendments to the

aerospace rule published in the Federal Register on March 27, 1998 is

retained.

H. Technical and Miscellaneous Corrections

The following amendments are corrections that were not part of the

March 27, 1998 proposal. These changes are being made as part of

today's action as a matter of efficiency in rulemaking. Furthermore,

these changes are noncontroversial and correct errors in the rule or

clarify the Agency's intention. By promulgating these corrections

directly as a final rule, the EPA is foregoing an opportunity for

public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking. Section 553(b) of

title V of the United States Code and section 307(d) of the CAA permit

an agency to forego notice and comment when ``the agency for good cause

finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons

therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon

are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''

The EPA finds that notice and comment regarding these corrections are

unnecessary due to their noncontroversial nature. The EPA finds that

this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b) for a

determination that the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking is

unnecessary.

1. Correction of Sec. 63.741(i)

The listing of exempted requirements in Sec. 63.741(i) for

compliant waterborne coatings should read ``* * * 63.750(k)-(n), * *

*'' instead of ``* * * 63.750(k)-(m), * * *'' as published in the March

27, 1998 final amendments.

2. Clarification of Antique Aerospace Vehicle Exemption

The final amendments published in the Federal Register on March 27,

1998 included new language in Sec. 63.741(j) exempting antique

aerospace vehicles or components from the requirements of the rule.

Clarifying language is being added stating that regulated activities

associated with antique aerospace vehicles or components are exempt

from the NESHAP requirements.

3. Clarification of the Composition Requirements for Approved Cleaning

Solvents in Table 1 of Sec. 63.744

The composition requirements for hydrocarbon-based cleaning

solvents in Table 1 of Sec. 63.744 were clarified to state ``* * *

composed of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons and/or oxygenated

hydrocarbons * * *'' instead of ``* * * composed of photochemically

reactive hydrocarbons and oxygenated hydrocarbons * * *''. Table 1 was

not properly designated in the final amendments published in the

Federal Register on March 27. 1998. Today's final amendments also

include proper designation of Table 1 of Sec. 63.744.

4. Clarification of Inorganic HAP Requirements in Sec. 63.746

Several questions have been raised regarding the applicability of

the alternative inorganic HAP emission requirements (added to

Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(iii) in the March 27, 1998 final amendments) to the

depainting requirements in Sec. 63.746. As noted in the preamble

discussion of the October 29, 1996 proposed amendments (61 FR 55842),

the Agency intended to make the alternative inorganic HAP requirements

applicable to both painting and depainting operations because both

types of operations are often conducted in the same spray booth or

controlled area.

The preamble language was very specific (see 61 FR 55850) to

address this unique situation and stated ``* * * the Agency has

provided these owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing or

rework operations who have commenced construction or reconstruction of

new spray booth or hanger for depainting operations, primer or topcoat

operations, in which any of the coatings contain inorganic HAP's, prior

to October 29, 1996 the flexibility to meet either the requirements of

the promulgated regulation or the proposed amendments to the final

regulation * * *'' [61 FR 55850 (October 29, 1996)]. When those

amendments were finalized [63 FR 15006 (March 27, 1998)], only the

language in Sec. 63.745 (primer and topcoat application operations) was

changed. As part of today's final amendments, language was added in

Sec. 63.746(b)(4)(ii)(C) to clarify that owners or operators of new

sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after June 6,

1994 but prior to October 29, 1996 may comply with the particulate

(e.g., inorganic HAP) control requirements that were proposed on June

6, 1994.

5. Correction of Equation To Determine the Composite Vapor Pressure in

Sec. 63.750(b)(2)

In the March 27, 1998 final amendments, a summation sign was added

in front of the second term of the denominator (involving

``We'') of the equation used to determine the composite

vapor pressure of hand-wipe cleaning solvents. The summation sign

should be in front of the second term, instead of being placed with the

numerator of the second term as published in the Federal Register.

6. Correction of Emission Reduction Equation in Sec. 63.750(I)(2)(iv)

The term ``E3'' should be ``Ea.''

7. Clarification of Monitoring Requirements in

Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(D)

Additional language was added to the alternative monitoring

requirements for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers in

Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(D) to resolve the alternative/overlapping

monitoring requirements. As a result, Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iv) is being

redesignated (e.g., renumbered) as Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(v). The new

language states that the owner or operator may monitor the VOC or HAP

concentration of the adsorber exhaust daily, or at intervals no greater

than 20 percent of the design carbon replacement interval, whichever is

greater, or at a frequency determined by the owner or operator and

approved by the Administrator. Clarifying language was also added in

the new Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iv) involving a site-specific operating

parameter for the carbon replacement time interval.

8. Correction of Equation to Determine the 100 Percent Penetration

Value (P100) in Method 319 of Appendix A to Part 63--Test

Methods

The symbol for sigma ``'' was incorrectly printed as ``o''

in the explanation of the terms used in the P100 equation in

Method 319. The language should read:

= sample standard deviation

CV = coefficient of variation = /mean.

III. Control Techniques Guidelines

Notice of final issuance of the control techniques guidelines (CTG)

for coating operations at aerospace manufacturing and rework operations

was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 1998. There was no

mention of the relevant ``effective dates'' for States to use in

developing their VOC rules. The following language is provided to

clarify the adoption and implementation dates for the coating category

VOC limits, application techniques, and equipment

[[Page 46531]]

requirements identified as reasonably available control technology

(RACT) in the CTG.

The CTG for control of VOC emissions from coating operations in the

aerospace industry is available to assist States in analyzing and

determining RACT for aerospace manufacturing and rework operations

located within ozone national ambient air quality standards

nonattainment areas. Any State with a moderate or above nonattainment

area that has not adopted a RACT regulation for the source category

addressed by the aerospace CTG must submit a RACT regulation for these

sources not later than March 27, 1999. For any State with a moderate or

above nonattainment area that has adopted a RACT regulation for the

source category addressed by the aerospace CTG, Section 182(b)(2) of

the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires these States to submit a revision to

the applicable implementation plan, to include provisions consistent

with the CTG. This revision shall be submitted to the EPA not later

than March 27, 1999. Furthermore, as specified in the CTG, the RACT

regulations must require sources to implement the required limitations

and work practices not later than September 1, 1999.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all of the

information submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file, since

material is added throughout the rulemaking development. The docketing

system is intended to allow members of the public and the industries

involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can

effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the

statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and promulgated

standards and the EPA responses to significant comments, the content of

the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial review (except

for interagency review materials) (Sec. 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The amendments do not impose any new information collection

requirements and result in no change to the currently approved

collection. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the

information collection requirements contained in the NESHAP for

aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned

OMB control number 2060-0314. (EPA ICR No. 1687.03).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Today's amendments should have no impact on the information

collection burden estimates made previously. Today's action does not

impose any additional information collection requirements.

Consequently, the ICR has not been revised for purposes of today's

action.

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735 [October 4, 1993]),

the EPA is required to determine whether a regulation is

``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the

requirements of this E.O. The E.O. defines ``significant regulatory

action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely

affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2)

create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action

taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal

or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's

priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been

determined that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action''

within the meaning of the E.O.

D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory policies on matters that

[[Page 46532]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does

not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive

Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines: (1)

``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule

has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action

meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled

``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve

decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may

disproportionately affect children.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The

EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities. These final rule

amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number

of small entities because the overall impact of these amendments is a

net decrease in requirements on all entities including small entities.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded

Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the

Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Section 203 requires the

Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by a proposed intergovernmental mandate. Section

204 requires the Agency to develop a process to allow elected State,

local, and Tribal government officials to provide input in the

development of any proposal containing a significant Federal

intergovernmental mandate.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must

identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives

before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must

be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why

this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative

is inconsistent with law. The EPA has determined that these amendments

do not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Small governments will

not be uniquely impacted by these amendments. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is

not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be

effective September 1, 1998.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards

are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA

to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA

did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 25, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter

I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart GG--[Amended]

2. In Sec. 63.741 paragraph (f) is amended by adding a new sentence

after the second sentence and revising the first sentence of paragraph

(i) and paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.741 Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *

(f) * * * These requirements do not apply to the rework of aircraft

or aircraft components if the holder of the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) design approval, or the holder's licensee, is not

actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft components. * * *

* * * * *

(i) Any waterborne coating for which the manufacturer's supplied

data demonstrate that organic HAP and VOC contents are less than or

equal to the organic HAP and VOC content limits for its coating type,

as specified in Secs. 63.745(c) and 63.747(c), is exempt from the

following requirements of this subpart: Secs. 63.745(d) and (e),

63.747(d) and (e), 63.749(d) and (h), 63.750(c) through (h) and (k)

through (n), 63.752(c) and (f), and 63.753(c) and (e).* * *

* * * * *

(j) Regulated activities associated with the rework of antique

aerospace vehicles or components are exempt from the requirements of

this subpart.

3. Section 63.742 is amended by revising the definition for

``waterwash system'' and adding in alphabetical order definitions for

``general aviation''

[[Page 46533]]

and ``general aviation rework facility'' to read as follows:

Sec. 63.742 Definitions.

* * * * *

General aviation (GA) means that segment of civil aviation that

encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers, commuters, and

military. General aviation includes charter and corporate-executive

transportation, instruction, rental, aerial application, aerial

observation, business, pleasure, and other special uses.

General aviation rework facility means any aerospace facility with

the majority of its revenues resulting from the reconstruction, repair,

maintenance, repainting, conversion, or alteration of general aviation

aerospace vehicles or components.

* * * * *

Waterwash system means a control system that utilizes flowing water

(i.e., a conventional waterwash system) or a pumpless system to remove

particulate emissions from the exhaust air stream in spray coating

application or dry media blast depainting operations.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.744 is amended by removing the last sentence in

paragraph (b)(3) and adding three sentences in its place, adding

paragraph (c)(5), and revising Table 1 to read as follows:

Sec. 63.744 Standards: Cleaning operations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * * Demonstrate that the volume of hand-wipe cleaning

solvents used in cleaning operations has been reduced by at least 60

percent from a baseline adjusted for production. The baseline shall be

calculated using data from 1996 and 1997, or as otherwise agreed upon

by the Administrator or delegated State Authority. The baseline shall

be approved by the Administrator or delegated State Authority and shall

be included as part of the facility's title V or part 70 permit.

(c) * * *

(5) Cleaning of the nozzle tips of automated spray equipment

systems, except for robotic systems that can be programmed to spray

into a closed container, shall be exempt from the requirements of

paragraph (c) of this section.

* * * * *

Table 1.--Composition Requirements for Approved Cleaning Solvents

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

Cleaning solvent type Composition requirements

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

Aqueous................................ Cleaning solvents in which water is the primary ingredient (80 percent of cleaning solvent solution as applied must be water).

Detergents, surfactants, and bioenzyme mixtures and nutrients may be

combined with the water along with a variety of additives, such as

organic solvents (e.g., high boiling point alcohols), builders,

saponifiers, inhibitors, emulsifiers, pH buffers, and antifoaming

agents. Aqueous solutions must have a flash point greater than 93 deg.

C (200 deg. F) (as reported by the manufacturer), and the solution

must be miscible with water.

Hydrocarbon-based...................... Cleaners that are composed of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons and/

or oxygenated hydrocarbons and have a maximum vapor pressure of 7 mm

Hg at 20 deg. C (3.75 in. H2O and 68 deg. F). These cleaners also

contain no HAP.

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

5. Section 63.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2),

(c)(3), (c)(4), and (g)(2)(v) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.745 Standards: Primer and topcoat application operations.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Organic HAP emissions from primers shall be limited to an

organic HAP content level of no more than: 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of

primer (less water) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less

water) as applied for general aviation rework facilities.

(2) VOC emissions from primers shall be limited to a VOC content

level of no more than: 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less water and

exempt solvents) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less

water and exempt solvents) as applied for general aviation rework

facilities.

(3) Organic HAP emissions from topcoats shall be limited to an

organic HAP content level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of

coating (less water) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of coating

(less water) as applied for general aviation rework facilities. Organic

HAP emissions from self-priming topcoats shall be limited to an organic

HAP content level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of self-priming

topcoat (less water) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of self-priming

topcoat (less water) as applied for general aviation rework facilities.

(4) VOC emissions from topcoats shall be limited to a VOC content

level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of coating (less water and

exempt solvents) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of coating (less

water and exempt solvents) as applied for general aviation rework

facilities. VOC emissions from self-priming topcoats shall be limited

to a VOC content level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of self-

priming topcoat (less water and exempt solvents) as applied or 540 g/L

(4.5 lb/gal) of self-priming topcoat (less water) as applied for

general aviation rework facilities.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(v) If a conventional waterwash system is used, continuously

monitor the water flow rate and read and record the water flow rate

once per shift. If a pumpless system is used, continuously monitor the

booth parameter(s) that indicate performance of the booth per the

manufacturer's recommendations to maintain the booth within the

acceptable operating efficiency range and read and record the

parameters once per shift.

* * * * *

6. Section 63.746 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C) to

read as follows:

Sec. 63.746 Standards: Depainting operations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) * * *

(c) Owners or operators of new sources that have commenced

construction or reconstruction after June 6, 1994 but prior to October

29, 1996 may comply with the following requirements in lieu of the

requirements in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section:

(1) Pass the air stream through either a two-stage dry particulate

filter system or a waterwash system before exhausting it to the

atmosphere.

(2) If the coating being removed contains chromium or cadmium,

control shall consist of a HEPA filter system, three-stage filter

system, or other control system equivalent to the three-stage

[[Page 46534]]

filter system as approved by the permitting agency.

* * * * *

7. Section 63.750 is amended by revising the equation in paragraph

(b)(2) and equation 19 in paragraph (i)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.750 Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01SE98.000

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01SE98.001

* * * * *

8. Section 63.751 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(6)(iv)

as (b)(6)(v) and revising paragraphs (b)(6)(iii)(D), (c)(2), (d), and

adding a new paragraph (b)(6)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.751 Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) * * *

(iii) * * *

(D) If complying with Sec. 63.745(d), Sec. 63.746(c), or

Sec. 63.747(d) through the use of a nonregenerative carbon adsorber, in

lieu of the requirements of paragraph (b)(6)(iii) (B) or (C) of this

section, the owner or operator may monitor the VOC or HAP concentration

of the adsorber exhaust daily, at intervals no greater than 20 percent

of the design carbon replacement interval, whichever is greater, or at

a frequency as determined by the owner or operator and approved by the

Administrator.

(iv) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.745(d),

Sec. 63.746(c), or Sec. 63.747(d) through the use of a nonregenerative

carbon adsorber and establishing a site-specific operating parameter

for the carbon replacement time interval in accordance with paragraph

(b)(2) shall replace the carbon in the carbon adsorber system with

fresh carbon at the predetermined time interval as determined in the

design evaluation.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Each owner or operator using a conventional waterwash system to

meet the requirements of Sec. 63.745(g)(2) shall, while primer or

topcoat application operations are occurring, continuously monitor the

water flow rate through the system and read and record the water flow

rate once per shift following the recordkeeping requirements of

Sec. 63.752(d). Each owner or operator using a pumpless waterwash

system to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.745(g)(2) shall, while

primer and topcoat application operations are occurring, measure and

record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth manufacturer that

indicate booth performance once per shift, following the recordkeeping

requirements of Sec. 63.752(d).

(d) Particulate filters and waterwash booths--depainting

operations. Each owner or operator using a dry particulate filter or a

conventional waterwash system in accordance with the requirements of

Sec. 63.746(b)(4) shall, while depainting operations are occurring,

continuously monitor the pressure drop across the particulate filters

or the water flow rate through the conventional waterwash system and

read and record the pressure drop or the water flow rate once per shift

following the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 63.752(e). Each owner

or operator using a pumpless waterwash system to meet the requirements

of Sec. 63.746(b)(4) shall, while depainting operations are occurring,

measure and record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth

manufacturer that indicate booth performance once per shift, following

the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 63.752(e).

* * * * *

9. Section 63.752 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)

introductory text, (d)(2), (d)(3), and (e)(7) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.752 Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) For uncontrolled primers and topcoats that meet the organic HAP

and VOC content limits in Sec. 63.745(c)(1) through (c)(4) without

averaging:

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) Each owner or operator complying with Sec. 63.745(g) through

the use of a conventional waterwash system shall record the water flow

rate through the operating system once each shift during which coating

operations occur. Each owner or operator complying with Sec. 63.745(g)

through the use of a pumpless waterwash system shall record the

parameter(s) recommended by the booth manufacturer that indicate the

performance of the booth once each shift during which coating

operations occur.

(3) This log shall include the acceptable limit(s) of pressure

drop, water flow rate, or for the pumpless waterwash booth, the booth

manufacturer recommended parameter(s) that indicate the booth

performance, as applicable, as specified by the filter or booth

manufacturer or in locally prepared operating procedures.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(7) Inorganic HAP emissions. Each owner or operator shall record

the actual pressure drop across the particulate filters or the visual

continuity of the water curtain and water flow rate for conventional

waterwash systems once each shift in which the depainting process is in

operation. For pumpless waterwash systems, the owner or operator shall

record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth manufacturer that

indicate the performance of the booth once per shift in which the

depainting process is in operation. This log shall include the

acceptable limit(s) of the pressure drop

[[Page 46535]]

as specified by the filter manufacturer, the visual continuity of the

water curtain and the water flow rate for conventional waterwash

systems, or the recommended parameter(s) that indicate the booth

performance for pumpless systems as specified by the booth manufacturer

or in locally prepared operating procedures.

* * * * *

10. Section 63.753 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and

(d)(1)(vii) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.753 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(vi) All times when a primer or topcoat application operation was

not immediately shut down when the pressure drop across a dry

particulate filter or HEPA filter system, the water flow rate through a

conventional waterwash system, or the recommended parameter(s) that

indicate the booth performance for pumpless systems, as appropriate,

was outside the limit(s) specified by the filter or booth manufacturer

or in locally prepared operating procedures;

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(vii) All periods where a nonchemical depainting operation subject

to Sec. 63.746(b)(2) and (b)(4) for the control of inorganic HAP

emissions was not immediately shut down when the pressure drop, water

flow rate, or recommended booth parameter(s) was outside the limit(s)

specified by the filter or booth manufacturer or in locally prepared

operational procedures;

* * * * *

11. In appendix A to part 63, Method 319 is amended by revising the

equation terms ``'' and ``CV'' in section 12.2.1 to read as

follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 319: DETERMINATION OF FILTRATION EFFICIENCY FOR PAINT OVERSPRAY

ARRESTORS

* * * * *

12.0 * * *

12.2 * * *

12.2.1 * * *

= sample standard deviation

CV = coefficient of variation = /mean

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-23322 Filed 8-31-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P