National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Control Techniques Guideline Document for Source Categories: Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities

Federal RegisterMar 27, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUMMARY: This action finalizes several amendments to the national

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for aerospace

manufacturing and rework facilities proposed in the Federal Register on

October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55842). The amendments include: Corrections to

several references in the rule; revisions and additions to definitions;

clarification of the applicability of the cleaning operations

standards; clarification of the applicability of the rule to space

vehicles; addition of standards for Type I chemical milling maskants;

addition of a test method for determining the filtration efficiency of

dry particulate filters; revision of standards for new and existing

sources using dry particulate filters to control emissions from topcoat

and primer application and depainting operations; addition of an

exemption for certain water-reducible coatings; addition of an

exemption from inorganic HAP requirements for hand-held spray can

applications; addition of an essential use exemption for cleaning

solvents; clarification of compliance dates; clarification of the

applicability of new source MACT to spray booths; clarification and

addition of emissions averaging provisions; revision of the

requirements for new and existing primer and topcoat application

operations; clarification of monitoring requirements for dry

particulate filter usage; revision of the standard for depainting

operations; addition of a cross reference to requirements in the

General Provisions in subpart A of part 63; addition of appendix A to

this subpart containing definitions for specialty coatings;

miscellaneous changes to the proposed amendatory language; and minor

technical corrections, including correction of the OMB tracking number

in 40 CFR part 9 (Section 9.1), that were not part of the October 29,

1996 proposal. Today's action takes final action on all of these

amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Control Techniques Guideline. Copies of the final CTG may be

obtained from the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, NC

27711; telephone (919) 541-2777.

An electronic version of documents from the Office of Air and

Radiation (OAR) are 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 rule are located under the OAR Policy and Guidance

Information Web site, ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/'', under the

Recently Signed Rules section. If more information on the TTNWeb is

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this notice

and analyses performed in developing this rule, 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 number (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. For a listing of EPA regional contacts, see the

following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

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 of this part. Regulated categories include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry..................... Facilities that 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 that 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 it 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). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this

action to a particular entity, contact the appropriate regional

representative:

Region I

NESHAP (MACT) Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal

Building, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203-001, (617) 565-3438

Region II

Umesh Dholakia or Yue-On Chiu, U.S. EPA Region II, 290 Broadway Street,

New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4023 (Umesh), (212) 637-4065 (Yue-

On)

Region III

Bernard Turlinski, U.S. EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-2150

Region IV

Leonardo Ceron, U.S. EPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-9129

[[Page 15007]]

Region V

Emmett Keegan, U.S. EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

IL 60604-3507, (312) 886-0678

Region VI

Elvia Evering, U.S. EPA Region VI, First Interstate Bank Tower, @

Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX

75202-2733, (214) 665-7575

Region VII

Richard Tripp, U.S. EPA Region VII, Air Toxics Coordinator, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7566

Region VIII

Heather Rooney, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Air Toxics Coordinator, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6971

Region IX

Nikole Reaksecker, U.S. EPA Region IX, Air Division-6, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1187

Region X

Andrea Wullenweber, U.S. EPA Region X, Air Toxics Coordinator, 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8760

These amendments to the rule will not change the basic control

requirements of the rule or the level of health protection it provides.

The rule requires new and existing major sources to control emissions

of hazardous air pollutants to the level reflecting application of the

maximum achievable control technology.

In addition, the EPA announces the availability of a final control

techniques guideline (CTG) document for control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework

facilities. This document has been prepared in accordance with section

183(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the ``Act'') to

assist States in analyzing and determining reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for stationary sources of VOC emissions located

within ozone national ambient air quality standard nonattainment areas.

The final document recommends RACT for industries included in, but not

limited to, 10 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: SIC

3720, Aircraft and Parts; SIC 3721, Aircraft; SIC 3724, Aircraft

Engines and Engine Parts; SIC 3728, Aircraft Parts and Equipment; SIC

3760, Guided Missiles, Space Vehicles, and Parts; SIC 3761, Guided

Missiles and Space Vehicles; SIC 3764, Space Propulsion Units and

Parts; SIC 3769, Space Vehicle Equipment; SIC 4512, Scheduled Air

Transportation; and SIC 4581, Airports, Flying Fields, and Services.

(As of January 1, 1997, a new numerical coding system for

classifying industries has been implemented by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The new system is called the North American Industrial Classification

System--NAICS. The following list of affected industries was developed

as a cross-reference to the above SIC codes: NAICS 336411, Aircraft

Manufacturing; NAICS 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts

Manufacturing; NAICS 336413, Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary

Equipment Manufacturing; NAICS 336414, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle

Manufacturing; NAICS 336419, Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle

Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing; NAICS 481111, Scheduled

Passenger Air Transportation; and NAICS 481112, Scheduled Freight Air

Transportation.)

The information presented below is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Public Comment on the October 29, 1996 Proposal

B. Judicial Review

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

to the Rule

A. Corrections to References

B. Definitions

C. Cleaning Operations

D. Applicability to Space Vehicles

E. Standards for Type I Maskants

F. Test Method for Determining Filtration Efficiency

G. Standards for Dry Particulate Filters

H. Exemption for Waterborne Coatings

I. Exemption From Inorganic HAP Requirements for Hand-Held Spray

Can Applications

J. Essential Use Exemption for Cleaning Solvents

K. Compliance Dates

L. Requirements for New Affected Sources (Spray Booths)

M. Emissions Averaging

N. Requirements for New and Existing Primer and Topcoat

Application Operations

O. Monitoring Requirements for Dry Particulate Filter Usage

P. Depainting Operations

Q. Applicability of General Provisions

R. Specialty Coatings

S. Miscellaneous Changes

T. Technical Corrections

III. Control Techniques Guideline

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Submission to Congress

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Background

National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for

aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities were proposed under

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the ``Act'') 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).

After promulgation of the final rule, several issues were raised by

various industry representatives and affected parties. Based on

discussions with the commenters, the Agency proposed actions to amend

Secs. 63.741, 63.742, 63.743, 63.744, 63.745, 63.746, 63.747, 63.749,

63.750, 63.751, 63.752 and 63.753 of subpart GG of 40 CFR part 63.

These sections deal with applicability, definitions, general standards,

cleaning operations, topcoat and primer application operations,

depainting operations, chemical milling maskant application operations,

compliance dates and determinations, test methods and procedures,

monitoring requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and reporting

requirements. These changes provide additional flexibility to the

regulated community and in several instances, clarify/correct errors in

the regulatory text.

A. Public Comment on the October 29, 1996 Proposal

Eighteen comment letters were received on the October 29, 1996

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. A few other comment letters

also included suggested editorial revisions to further clarify some

aspects of the proposed amendments or to address oversights in the

proposed amendments. The EPA considered these suggestions and, where

appropriate, made changes to the proposed amendments. The significant

issues raised and the changes to the proposed amendments are summarized

in 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. Some of the

comment letters also included numerous issues not covered in the

October 29, 1996 proposal. The EPA reviewed and responded to each of

these in the addendum to the BID; any resulting changes to the final

rule will

[[Page 15008]]

be proposed in a future Federal Register notice.

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

Amendments to the Rule

A. Corrections to References

In the September 1995 promulgated rule, there were several

references to Sec. 63.751(b)(7)(iii), which only existed in an earlier

draft of the promulgated rule. The EPA proposed the following revisions

in October 1996: Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(ii)(A) of the promulgated rule

references (b)(7)(iii)(A)(3), but should reference paragraph

(b)(6)(iii)(A)(2); Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii) references (b)(7)(iii)(A),

and (b)(7)(iii) (B) or (C), but should reference paragraphs

(b)(6)(iii)(A), and (b)(6)(iii) (B) or (C);

Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(A)(2) references (b)(7)(iii)(A)(1), but should

reference paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(A)(1); Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(D)

references (b)(7)(iii) (B) or (C), but should reference paragraph

(b)(6)(iii) (B) or (C). There were no comments on these proposed

revisions.

B. Definitions

The October 29, 1996 Federal Register notice contained several

definitions to be added to Sec. 63.742 and several to be revised, based

on additional information submitted to the Agency after promulgation of

the final rule. These changes are summarized below.

The definition of cleaning solvent in the promulgated rule stated

that ``cleaning solvent'' did not include solutions that contained

``no'' HAP or VOC. Many aqueous cleaners contain negligible amounts of

HAP or VOC. The EPA wants to encourage the use of these aqueous

cleaners. Therefore, in October 1996 the EPA proposed the following

language to exclude cleaners containing de minimis levels of HAP or VOC

from the definition of cleaning solvent: ``Cleaning solvent means a

liquid material used for hand-wipe, spray gun, or flush cleaning. This

definition does not include solutions that contain HAP and VOC below

the de minimis levels specified in Sec. 63.741(f) (e.g., water or

acetone).'' The EPA also proposed to change the applicable portion of

Sec. 63.741(f) to read: ``The requirements of this subpart also do not

apply to primers, topcoats, chemical milling maskants, strippers, and

cleaning solvents containing HAP and VOC at a concentration less than

0.1 percent for carcinogens or 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens, as

determined from manufacturer's representations.'' One commenter stated

that not all HAP's are VOC's, nor are all VOC's HAP's. If the ``and''

is used, then one could read Sec. 63.741(f) to require both VOC's and

HAP's to be present for an exemption to apply. The commenter

recommended using ``and/or'' which is unacceptable because it would

create an exemption when both HAP and VOC were present, but only one

was below the specified level. It is not the Agency's position that

both HAP and VOC need be present for the exemption described in

Sec. 63.741(f) to apply.

The proposed definition also contained a parenthetical reference to

water or acetone as examples of substances that might be present at a

de minimis level. One commenter stated the parenthetical reference to

water or acetone is confusing and should be deleted. The EPA agreed and

has revised the definition as follows:

Cleaning solvent means a liquid material used for hand-wipe,

spray gun, or flush cleaning. This definition does not include

solutions that contain HAP and VOC below the de minimis levels

specified in Sec. 63.741(f).

The Agency also proposed adding a definition for antique aerospace

vehicle or component so that these vehicles and components would be

exempted from the regulation. One commenter supported the proposed

definition. Another commenter suggested revising the definition to

include those nonflight worthy aircraft intended for permanent display,

or used for static manufacturing technology demonstrations. The

commenter indicated that the definition in 14 CFR 45.22 is limited to

operational, flight worthy aircraft used in exhibitions (motion

pictures, television productions or air shows). The EPA believes that

the passage to which the commenter refers actually concerns

``exhibition'' rather than ``antique'' aircraft. It was not EPA's

intent to add an exemption for exhibition aircraft that do not meet the

``antique aircraft'' definition. In addition, EPA believes that it is

not necessary to expand the scope of the ``antique aircraft''

definition because the Agency interprets the definition as including

aircraft built at least 30 years ago that are not currently

flightworthy. Therefore, EPA is promulgating the definition of antique

aircraft as set forth in the proposal with some clarification (i.e.,

simplification) as follows:

Antique aerospace vehicle or component means an aircraft or

component thereof that was built at least 30 years ago. An antique

aerospace vehicle would not routinely be in commercial or military

service in the capacity for which it was designed.

Due to the proposed addition of a standard for Type I chemical

milling maskants, EPA proposed revising the definition for chemical

milling maskant. One commenter noted that in the proposed definition,

listed examples should be made identical to the listed names for these

maskants found in appendix A to subpart GG. Another commenter raised

the issue of exempting chemical milling maskants used for two different

types of chemical milling applications. The commenter stated the same

maskant can be used in aluminum chemical milling and titanium chemical

milling, but these applications are not used on the same part or

subassembly. A maskant used for both aluminum chemical milling and

titanium chemical milling could not meet the low VOC content limits. In

an existing plating shop which uses the same maskant tanks for two

chemical milling applications, the proposed definition and associated

maskant limits would require the addition of a new maskant tank to meet

the low VOC maskant limit and another tank to meet the critical use

applications. This might result in an increase in emissions since the

surface area of the maskant in the tanks would double. The EPA agreed

that the commenters' changes are reasonable because the purpose of the

rule is to reduce HAP emissions and that adding a new maskant tank

would likely increase HAP emissions in the aggregate. The definition

has been revised as follows:

Chemical milling maskant means a coating that is applied

directly to aluminum components to protect surface areas when

chemical milling the component with a Type I or Type II etchant.

Type I chemical milling maskants are used with a Type I etchant and

Type II chemical milling maskants are used with a Type II etchant.

This definition does not include bonding maskants, critical use and

line sealer maskants, and seal coat maskants. Additionally, maskants

that must be used with a combination of Type I or Type II etchants

and any of the above types of maskants (i.e., bonding, critical use

and line sealer, and seal coat) are also exempt from this subpart.

(See also Type I and Type II etchant definitions.)

[[Page 15009]]

To further clarify the types of chemical milling maskants that are

covered by the final rule, the Agency is providing the following

separate definitions for Type I and Type II etchants:

Type I etchant means a chemical milling etchant that contains

varying amounts of dissolved sulfur and does not contain amines.

Type II etchant means a chemical milling etchant that is a

strong sodium hydroxide solution containing amines.

A commenter provided example scenarios in which the current

definition of self-priming topcoat is overly restrictive. The commenter

further stated that self-priming topcoats should be recognized as

topcoats and the topcoat VOC/HAP limits should apply, not the primer

limits. The Agency did not agree that the described scenarios are

likely to present any problems in determining the appropriate coating

category. However, the Agency did agree that removing the last sentence

from the definition which stated: ``The coating is not subsequently

topcoated with any other product formulation'' does clarify the

definition of self-priming topcoat and makes it more consistent with

the definition of topcoat.

Based on additional information received from industry, the EPA

proposed in October 1996 to change or add the following definitions:

Aircraft transparency means the aircraft windshield, canopy,

passenger windows, lenses, and other components that are constructed

of transparent materials.

Chemical milling maskant application operation means application

of chemical milling maskant for use with Type I or Type II chemical

milling etchants.

Closed-cycle depainting system means a dust-free, automated

process that removes permanent coating in small sections at a time,

and maintains a continuous vacuum around the area(s) being depainted

to capture emissions.

High volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment means spray

equipment that is used to apply coating by means of a spray gun that

operates at 10.0 psig of atomizing air pressure or less at the air

cap.

Specialty coating means a coating that, even though it meets the

definition of a primer, topcoat, or self-priming topcoat, has

additional performance criteria beyond those of primers, topcoats,

and self-priming topcoats for specific applications. These

performance criteria may include, but are not limited to,

temperature or fire resistance, substrate compatibility,

antireflection, temporary protection or marking, sealing, adhesively

joining substrates, or enhanced corrosion protection. Individual

specialty coatings are defined in appendix A to this subpart and in

the CTG for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations (Document

No. EPA 453/R-97-004).

Waterborne (water-reducible) coating means any coating that

contains more than 5 percent water by weight as applied in its

volatile fraction.

No comments were received on these proposed definitions.

Section 63.741(f) has also been modified to include Sec. 63.742

(Definitions) in the list of additional specific exemptions from

regulatory coverage.

C. Cleaning Operations

Under the promulgated rule, the standards for cleaning operations

could be read to apply to all cleaning operations at a facility, not

only to cleaning operations that involve aerospace vehicles,

components, or coating equipment. In order to clarify the applicability

of the standards for cleaning operations, the Agency proposed to revise

Sec. 63.741(c) to limit the applicability of the final rule to the

manufacture or rework of aerospace vehicles or components. Other

nonaerospace activities (e.g., general facility cleaning) are not

subject to the requirements of this rule. No comments were received on

this issue and EPA is promulgating the revisions as proposed.

The EPA proposed to replace the word ``solvent'' with the defined

term ``cleaning solvent'' for clarity and consistency in Sec. 63.744,

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e). The EPA has also changed the

cleaning rag storage requirement by rewording the first sentence of

Sec. 63.744(a)(1) as follows:

Place cleaning solvent-laden cloth, paper, or any other

absorbent applicators used for cleaning in bags or other closed

containers upon completing their use.

As originally promulgated, this NESHAP required that cleaning rags

be stored immediately after use. In October 1996, EPA proposed to

remove the word ``immediately'' from the sentence to make the rule more

consistent from a temporal standpoint with the storage requirements

contained in the California SIP-approved rules that were the basis for

this requirement. No comments were received on these revisions.

Accordingly, EPA decided to promulgate this change.

In addition, the EPA has changed the requirements for flush

cleaning to cover the situation in which an operator is cleaning

multiple items at the same station, without leaving the station. The

change to Sec. 63.744(d) is as follows: ``* * * empty the used cleaning

solvent each time aerospace parts or assemblies, or components of a

coating unit (with the exception of spray guns) are flush cleaned * * *

.'' This change will better carry out the Agency's intent in regulating

flush cleaning. No comments were received on this change.

Based on information from industry, the EPA proposed a modification

to the exemption in Sec. 63.744(e)(10). The revised text reads as

follows:

Cleaning of aircraft transparencies, polycarbonate, or glass

substrates.

No comments were received on this revision.

D. Applicability to Space Vehicles

Space vehicles (i.e., vehicles designed to travel beyond the limit

of the earth's atmosphere) are specifically exempted from the

requirements of this rule, except for the standards for depainting

operations. The EPA proposed (1) removing the reference to these

vehicles in Sec. 63.741(f) and (2) adding an additional specific

exemption in a new paragraph, Sec. 63.741(h), to clarify the exemption.

The EPA proposed Sec. 63.741(h) as follows:

Regulated activities associated with space vehicles designed to

travel beyond the limit of the earth's atmosphere, including but not

limited to satellites, space stations, and the Space Shuttle System

(including orbiter, external tanks, and solid rocket boosters), are

exempt from the requirements of this subpart, except for depainting

operations found in Sec. 63.746.

One commenter concurred with this revision as an important

clarification of the applicability of the rule for aerospace

organizations. The EPA decided to promulgate this change to the final

rule.

E. Standards for Type I Maskants

The EPA proposed to establish an emission limitation for Type I

maskants and to include Type I maskants within the definition of

chemical milling maskants. Pursuant to section 114 of the Act,

information regarding maskants was requested from nine companies that

own or operate aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities.

Information was requested for all types of maskants, including total

quantity used, formulation data, VOC and organic HAP content as

received and as applied, substrate category and the composition of the

metal alloy on which the maskant is applied, a listing of the type of

parts or specific aircraft surfaces on which the maskant is used, VOC

and HAP emissions from maskant application operations, and type(s) of

controls (if any). The information received on Type I maskants was used

to calculate a MACT floor. The MACT floor was determined to be the

weighted (by usage volume) average HAP emissions from the sources, 622

grams per liter [g/L] (5.2 pounds per gallon [lb/gal]).

[[Page 15010]]

The EPA proposed revising Sec. 63.747(c) to include organic HAP and

VOC content limits of 622 grams per liter (g/L) (5.2 pounds per gallon

[lb/gal]) as the standard for uncontrolled Type I chemical milling

maskants. The EPA proposed revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to

specify that the organic HAP and VOC limits of 160 g/L (1.3 lb/gal)

apply only to Type II chemical milling maskants. One commenter

supported EPA's proposed limits and stated the proposed Type I limit

recognizes that some chemical etching applications require the use of

solvent-based maskants, while still achieving a significant reduction

in VOC and HAP emissions from masking operations.

Due to the addition of a standard for Type I chemical milling

maskants, EPA also proposed removing the definition of Type I maskants

from the list of specialty coatings in appendix A of this subpart and

revising the definition for chemical milling maskant in Sec. 63.742 of

the promulgated rule. No comments were received on deletion of the

definition for Type I maskants from Appendix A, and comments received

on the definition for chemical milling maskant are discussed under

definitions in Section II.B of this preamble.

F. Test Method for Determining Filtration Efficiency

The Agency proposed a test method, Method 319, for the

determination of filtration efficiency for paint overspray arresters

(also referred to as particulate filters). The Agency proposed that

this method be used by filter manufacturers to certify their filter

efficiency. Commenters raised several issues related to the technical

validity of proposed Method 319 and who could run the test. Based on

these comments, the Agency has modified Sec. 63.750(o) to state that

this method can be used by filter manufacturers or distributors, paint/

depainting booth suppliers, or owners or operators of affected sources

to certify the efficiency of their filters for meeting the dry

particulate filter requirements in today's amendments.

The EPA also proposed filter efficiency tables (Tables 1, 2, 3, and

4 of Sec. 63.745) and one commenter recommended adding descriptive

language to the table headings. The EPA added ``for existing sources''

or ``for new sources'' to each of the table headings in response to the

comment.

Table 1 of Sec. 63.745.--Two-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge for

Existing Sources

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

Aerodynamic particle size

Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, m

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2 of Sec. 63.745.--Two-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge for

Existing Sources

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

Aerodynamic particle size

Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, m

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

>90........................................ >8.1

>50........................................ >5.0

>10........................................ >2.6

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

Table 3 of Sec. 63.745.--Three-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge

for New Sources

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

Aerodynamic particle size

Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, m

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4 of Sec. 63.745.--Three-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge

for New Sources

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

Aerodynamic particle size

Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, m

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

>95........................................ >2.5

>85........................................ >1.1

>75........................................ >0.70

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

Three commenters raised several issues related to test Method 319

and disagreed with specifics of the test method. All of the issues are

addressed in the Agency's documented responses in Section 2.9 of the

Addendum to the BID (Volume II), Document No. EPA 453/R-97-003b. In

summary, Method 319 will retain use of oleic acid and potassium

chloride (KCl) challenge aerosols. By selecting oleic acid and KCl as

simulants for wet and dry overspray, the amount of testing needed is

reduced because only two challenge materials are used, particle sizing

accuracy is maintained, and safety and handling issues associated with

volatile paint components are avoided.

The method has been revised to allow additional flexibility for

alternate duct configurations. The 180 degree bend in the duct has been

made optional thereby allowing use of a straight duct. Also, the

measurement procedures have been revised to allow the use of two

particle counters to allow simultaneous sampling (one sampling upstream

and one sampling downstream). Additionally, the NESHAP retains equal

requirements for ``paint overspray arrestors'' under Sec. 63.745 Primer

and Topcoat Application Operations, and ``particulate'' filters under

Sec. 63.746 Depainting Operations.

G. Standards for Dry Particulate Filters

The Agency proposed to revise MACT requirements for the control of

inorganic particulates from certain primer, topcoat, and depainting

operations. Based on a review of the available data, the EPA proposed

requiring existing sources using particulate filters in depainting as

well as topcoat and primer operations, in which any of the coatings

contain inorganic HAP, to meet the filtration efficiency established

for the two-stage system that was tested. Specifically, the Agency

proposed requiring owners or operators of existing sources to use

particulate filters that are certified under Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or

exceed the efficiency data in Tables 1 and 2 of Sec. 63.745 (developed

from the two-stage filter testing). The Agency has modified this

language to indicate certification must be consistent with

Sec. 63.750(o); therefore, this method can be used by filter

manufacturers or distributors, paint/depainting booth suppliers, and/or

owners or operators of affected sources to certify the efficiency of

their filters.

The Agency also proposed that new sources meet the filtration

efficiency data points for the three-stage system that was tested.

Specifically, the Agency proposed requiring owners or operators of new

sources to use particulate filters that are certified under

Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data in Tables 3 and 4

of Sec. 63.745 (developed from the three-stage filter testing). These

new filtration requirements reflect a performance based standard rather

than specified equipment, thus allowing more flexibility for affected

sources to comply with the NESHAP.

One commenter believed that test Method 319 is flawed and therefore

questioned the filter efficiency limits

[[Page 15011]]

developed using testing based on Method 319. The Agency disagrees with

the commenter and believes the filter efficiency limits to be

technically based as equivalent to MACT. The test method is based on

several years of work performed for EPA and culminated in testing of

the two- and three-stage paint arrestors determined to represent MACT

for the aerospace industry.

In announcing these revised MACT requirements for particulate

emissions, the Agency realizes that there are unique circumstances in

which owners and operators have commenced construction or

reconstruction of a new spray booth or hangar after the proposed

regulation (June 4, 1994) and have had to comply with the requirements

in the promulgated rule (September 1, 1995). For these owners or

operators of aerospace manufacturing or rework operations who have

commenced construction or reconstruction of new spray booth or hanger

for inorganic HAP depainting operations, primer, or topcoat operations

after June 4, 1994 but prior to October 29, 1996, the EPA has provided

the flexibility to meet either the requirements for new sources under

Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(ii) of the amendments to the final regulation found

in today's notice or the requirements for new sources under

Sec. 63.45(g)(2)(iv) of the September 1, 1995 promulgated rule which

are found in Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(iii) in the amended rule. Sources that

commenced construction prior to June 4, 1994 are still required to meet

the existing source requirements for depainting operations and painting

(topcoat or primer application) operations found in the final amended

rule.

H. Exemption for Waterborne Coatings

The EPA proposed that any waterborne coating for which the

manufacturer's supplied data demonstrate that the coating meets the

organic HAP and VOC content limits for its coating type as specified in

the regulation be exempt from many of the organic HAP and VOC related

requirements of this regulation. If the manufacturer's supplied data

indicate that the waterborne coating meets the organic HAP and VOC

content emission limits for its coating type, as specified in

Secs. 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 specified in Sec. 63.750(c). However, the owner or operator

would still be required to maintain purchase records and manufacturer's

supplied data sheets for exempt coatings. Owners or operators of

facilities using waterborne coatings would also 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. This

exemption was added as Sec. 63.741(i) as follows:

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)-(e),

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

63.752(c) and (f), and 63.753(c) and (e). A facility shall maintain

the manufacturer's supplied data and annual purchase records for

each exempt waterborne coating readily available for inspection and

review, and shall retain these data for 5 years.

Section 63.741(f) was also modified to include Sec. 63.741(i) in the

list of additional specific exemptions from regulatory coverage.

The Agency proposed this exemption to streamline and simplify the

requirements for owners and operators of facilities using these

coatings and to encourage the use of waterborne coatings which may

result in lower emissions than other coating types. No comments were

received on this issue and EPA decided to promulgate this change.

I. Exemption From Inorganic HAP Requirements for Hand-Held Spray Can

Applications

Two commenters noted that the final rule created a point of

confusion over the absence of an exemption from inorganic HAP

requirements for the use of hand-held spray cans used outside a paint

booth or hangar (i.e., touch-up operations). The Agency noted that such

an exemption currently exists under Sec. 63.745(f)(3)(v) for primers

and topcoats containing organic HAP or VOC, and the requirements for

touch-up operations would also provide an exemption for these

activities when conducted outside of the hangar or paint booth.

However, the Agency agreed with the commenters that potential confusion

could result in the absence of a clear exemption under the inorganic

HAP requirements. Therefore, the Agency has added the following

paragraph (x) to the list of operations in Sec. 63.745(g)(4) not

subject to the requirements of paragraphs 63.745 (g)(1) through (g)(3):

(x) The use of hand-held spray can application methods.

J. Essential Use Exemption for Cleaning Solvents

In accordance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete

the Ozone Layer (``Montreal Protocol''), EPA has granted essential use

allowances for limited applications of ozone depleting substances

(ODS's). The EPA proposed that an essential use exemption be added to

this rule for cleaning operations that have been identified as

essential uses. The proposed language has been revised slightly for

greater consistency with the stratospheric ozone regulations. The

exemption was added as Sec. 63.744(e)(13) as follows:

Cleaning operations identified as essential uses under the

Montreal Protocol for which the Administrator has allocated

essential use allowances or exemptions in 40 CFR 82.4.

One commenter concurred with EPA on this added exemption and EPA

decided to promulgate this change.

K. Compliance Dates

The EPA wishes to clarify an inconsistency between the preamble to

the final rule and the regulation. The preamble to the final aerospace

NESHAP states, ``Owners or operators of new commercial, civil, or

military aerospace OEM and rework operations with initial startup after

September 1, 1998 will be required to comply with all requirements upon

startup.'' This statement is incorrect. The text of the promulgated

regulation correctly states that new sources, with initial startup on

or after September 1, 1995, must comply with all requirements upon

startup. In October 1996, the EPA also proposed to clarify that the

deadline for approval of an alternate control device is 120 days prior

to the compliance date. This clarification, mistakenly omitted from the

published final rule, is now reflected in Sec. 63.743(c). No comments

were received on this issue and, thus, EPA decided to promulgate this

change.

L. Requirements for New Affected Sources (Spray Booths)

The Agency has clarified the requirements for new affected sources.

An affected source is an emission unit, process, or operation

identified in the NESHAP that is part of the entire facility, but is

not necessarily a major source. In today's action the Agency is

clarifying its intent that for inorganic HAP emissions, each spray

booth or hangar that contains a primer or topcoat application operation

subject to Sec. 63.745(g) or a depainting operation

[[Page 15012]]

subject to Sec. 63.746(b)(4) is considered an affected source and has

added this description under Sec. 63.741(c). To avoid any

inconsistency, the Agency has also added the words ``For organic HAP or

VOC emissions'' at the beginning of Sec. 63.741(c) (2), (3), and (4).

If such an affected source is constructed or reconstructed after

October 29, 1996, then that spray booth or hangar must comply with the

applicable inorganic HAP control requirements. Construction or

reconstruction of a new spray booth or hangar at a facility with an

existing coating or depainting operation will not cause the existing

operation to be subject to any other new source standards; only the new

spray booth or hangar will be subject to the applicable new source

requirements for inorganic HAP and will need to comply upon the

effective date of the requirements or startup, whichever is later. The

EPA is also making this clarification in Sec. 63.749(a), the compliance

dates and determinations section of the final rule.

In addition, EPA also clarified that Sec. 63.5(b)(3) of the General

Provisions, which requires advance notice and approval by the Agency

prior to construction or reconstruction of a major affected source,

shall apply to the construction or reconstruction of a new spray booth

or hangar at a facility for an existing coating or depainting operation

only if the booth or hangar has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or

more of an individual inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all

inorganic HAP combined. Owners or operators of an existing coating or

depainting operation who construct or reconstruct a new booth or hangar

that emit or have the potential to emit less than 10/25 tons/yr of

inorganic HAP's will only be required to submit an annual notification

on or before March 1 of each year. This annual notification shall

include all of the information required in Sec. 63.5(b)(4) for each

such booth or hangar constructed or reconstructed in the prior calendar

year, except that the information shall be limited to the inorganic

HAP's from the new booth or hangar. Of course, any owner or operator

that constructs or reconstructs a new spray booth or hangar at a

facility at which there is no existing coating or depainting operation

will be required to comply with all of the applicable notice and

advance approval requirements of Sec. 63.5.

M. Emissions Averaging

Under the September 1, 1995 promulgated rule the averaging of

emissions was permitted to occur within coating types (i.e., topcoats,

primers, or maskants). The EPA also indicated at that time in the 1995

background information document that EPA would be investigating options

with respect to implementing a broad-based averaging scheme as a

compliance option for the Aerospace NESHAP. Based on additional

discussion in roundtable meetings, the EPA proposed in the October 29,

1996 amendments to consolidate the language dealing with the averaging

of emissions as it applies to the aerospace industry. Paragraphs

63.745(e)(2) and 63.747(e)(2) were consolidated into a new

Sec. 63.743(d), which, if promulgated as proposed, would have permitted

averaging across coating types.

In response to the October 1996 proposal, the EPA received two

comments that supported the changes to the averaging provisions. One

commenter indicated that introductory text was needed to clarify the

intent of Sec. 63.743(d), which is where the averaging provisions are

now located. The EPA agrees with the commenter and has added

introductory language to Sec. 63.743(d). Another commenter wanted the

averaging provisions to be expanded to include controlled operations

(i.e., those with control devices). The EPA believes that as currently

allowed, the averaging of uncontrolled coatings will encourage

development and use of lower HAP and VOC content coatings in the

aerospace industry. In order to preserve the environmental benefit of

pollution prevention, EPA will not extend the averaging system to

include controlled coatings.

With regards to an expanded emissions averaging scheme, the EPA

looked at various ways to expand the averaging provisions in the

September 1995 promulgated rule so as to allow averaging between

certain coating types. In designing emissions trading and averaging

systems, EPA believes that it is important to consider the effect that

trading or averaging is likely to have on facilities' actual emissions,

as well as the effect on facilities' maximum allowable emissions. A

workable scheme for averaging across coating types was not developed

because the format of the coating limits in the rule as originally

promulgated creates inherent difficulties in making equitable

comparisons/calculations of actual emissions from coating categories

with different limits. In order to include effective emissions

averaging provisions for different coating categories (e.g., primers,

topcoats, and maskants) or other emission sources, the format of the

entire rule would have to be overhauled. Such changes are now beyond

the scope of the work involved in finalizing these amendments to the

aerospace rule.

N. Requirements for New and Existing Primer and Topcoat Application

Operations

The September 1, 1995 promulgated NESHAP requires owners or

operators of primer and topcoat application operations who wish to use

an alternative application method (other than HVLP or electrostatic

spray) to demonstrate that the emissions generated during the initial

30-day period, the period of time required to apply primer to five

completely assembled aircraft, or a time period approved by the

permitting agency are less than or equal to the emissions generated

using HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods. Since

promulgation, the Agency has received comments from industry concerning

the test method for alternative spray equipment application requiring

actual production trials. Those concerns involved the use of

ineffective application equipment on actual production parts or

assemblies which could lead to product quality and safety issues with

significant cost to the manufacturer. The Agency has acknowledged those

concerns and provided additional flexibility to owners or operators of

primer and topcoat application operations seeking to use alternative

application methods.

The October 1996, proposed amendments to the final NESHAP in

Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(ii) allowed owners or operators an alternative

approach whereby the proposed application method is tested against

either HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods in a laboratory

or pilot production area, using parts and coatings representative of

the process(es) in which the alternative method is to be used. Under

this alternative, the laboratory test will use the same part

configuration(s) and the same number of parts for both the proposed

method and the HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods. The

Agency intended to make the laboratory test an additional option

instead of replacing the production evaluation in the final rule.

Therefore, since no comments were received on the proposed revision to

Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(ii), the Agency decided to promulgate this change by

designating the proposed Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(ii) as

Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(iii). For consistency, this change has also been made

to Sec. 63.749 (d)(3)(iii)(B) and (d)(4)(iii)(B).

O. Monitoring Requirements for Dry Particulate Filter Usage

The Agency proposed to clarify the monitoring requirements for

owners or operators of depainting and painting

[[Page 15013]]

operations using dry particulate filters and HEPA filters to comply

with this NESHAP. The EPA proposed to add language to Sec. 63.751(c)(1)

to clarify that owners or operators are required to read and record

monitoring (i.e., pressure drop) data only once per shift.

One commenter requested that the phrase ``continuously monitor'' in

Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(v) be changed to ``monitor once per shift'' to avoid

confusion with the Agency's clarification of monitoring requirements in

other sections of the final rule. Past experience with such control

systems indicates that reading the designated operating parameter once

per shift is sufficient for this system to be considered continuously

monitored. The Agency believes that the systems should be continuously

monitored by some mechanism, but that reading and recording the data

should be required only once per shift. Therefore, the EPA has changed

the cited text in Sec. 63.745 (g)(2)(iv)(C) and (g)(2)(v) to match

monitoring requirements in other sections of the final rule.

P. Depainting Operations

Based on numerous comments on the depainting operation standard,

the EPA proposed a clarification to Sec. 63.746. The promulgated

standard was presented in terms of volume (gallons) of organic HAP-

containing chemical strippers per aircraft. Because the NESHAP is

specific to HAP, in October 1996 the EPA proposed changing the units of

the standard and stating the requirements in terms of weight (pounds)

of organic HAP per aircraft. The proposed standard was meant to be

equivalent in terms of actual HAP emissions to the atmosphere and was

based on assumptions concerning typical HAP contents of chemical

strippers. The proposed limits allowed greater flexibility to the owner

or operator of a new or existing depainting operation in selecting

materials to perform spot stripping and decal removal.

Based on comments involving technical arguments both for and

against the different units for the spot stripping and decal removal

allowance, the EPA decided to include both types of units and allow

operators to decide which units they want to use and document their

decision in their initial notification and/or operating permit.

Accordingly, the EPA is promulgating the spot stripping and decal

removal allowance in Sec. 63.746(b)(3) as follows:

Each owner or operator of a new or existing depainting operation

shall not, on an annual average basis, use more than 26 gallons of

organic-HAP containing chemical strippers or alternatively 190

pounds of organic HAP per commercial aircraft depainted; or more

than 50 gallons of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers or

alternatively 365 pounds of organic HAP per military aircraft

depainted for spot stripping and decal removal.

One commenter noted an apparent error in the proposed revision of

Equation 20 and provided corrected definitions for the revised terms in

the corrected equation. The EPA has incorporated those corrections in

the final rule, as well as provided both equations to calculate the

average annual volume of organic HAP-containing chemical stripper

(Equation 20) or average annual weight of organic HAP (newly designated

Equation 21) used for spot stripping and decal removal.

Accordingly, the EPA has also revised Equation 21 in

Sec. 63.750(j)(3) as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.000

Where:

C=annual average weight (lb per aircraft) of organic HAP (chemical

stripper) used for spot stripping and decal removal.

m=number of organic HAP contained in each chemical stripper, as

applied.

n=number of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers used in the

annual period.

Whi=weight fraction (expressed as a decimal) of each organic

HAP (i) contained in the chemical stripper, as applied, for each

aircraft depainted.

Dhi=density (lb/gal) of each organic HAP-containing chemical

stripper (i) used in the annual period.

Vsi=volume (gal) of organic HAP-containing chemical stripper

(i) used during the annual period.

A=number of aircraft for which depainting operations began during the

annual period.

Another commenter noted a typographical error in the proposed

revision to the spot stripping and decal removal allowance in

Sec. 63.749(f)(3)(ii)(A). The Agency has incorporated the corrected

text into the final amendment.

Q. Applicability of General Provisions

The EPA proposed in October 1996 the addition of Table 1: General

Provisions' Applicability to subpart GG, in order to clarify the

applicability of the General Provisions to this rule. Table 1 is

referenced in Sec. 63.741 and is located at the end of the final rule

text. No comments were provided on this issue.

R. Specialty Coatings

In appendix A to this subpart, the EPA proposed to revise the last

sentence of the definition of adhesive bonding primer to state: ``There

are two categories of adhesive bonding primers: primers with a design

cure at 250 deg.F or below and primers with a design cure above

250 deg.F.'' This revision is a clarification that was omitted in the

final rule.

Two commenters suggested that the specialty coating definitions be

reviewed and one of the commenters further suggested that the following

specialty coating categories be added:

Bearing coating--a coating applied to an antifriction bearing, a

bearing housing, or the area adjacent to such a bearing in order to

facilitate bearing function or to protect base material from

excessive wear. A material shall not be classified as a bearing

coating if it can also be classified as a dry lubricative material

or a solid film lubricant.

Dry lubricative material--a coating consisting of lauric acid,

cetyl alcohol, waxes, or other non-cross linked or resin-bound

materials which acts as a dry lubricant.

Caulking and smoothing compounds--semi-solid materials which are

applied by hand application methods and are used to aerodynamically

smooth exterior vehicle surfaces or fill cavities such as bolt hole

accesses. A material shall not be classified as a caulking and

smoothing compound if it can also be classified as a sealant.

These coating categories have been used by the San Diego and/or

South Coast (California) Air Quality Management Districts in their

aerospace coating regulations. Therefore, the Agency has incorporated

these definitions into appendix A to subpart GG (and has also

incorporated the suggested definitions and the corresponding VOC limits

into the final CTG document). The Agency has also deleted the

definitions for conformal coatings, protective oils/waxes, and space

vehicle coatings from appendix A to subpart GG to be consistent with

the CTG. Other commenters found typographical errors or areas for

clarification involving the definitions of ``electric or radiation-

effect coating,'' ``pretreatment coatings,'' and ``wet fastener

installation coating'' which have been corrected in these final

amendments.

S. Miscellaneous Changes

The EPA also made a number of minor changes to several sections of

the October 1996 proposal based on public comments. One commenter

requested the removal of the prohibition on use of ozone-depleting

substances from Sec. 63.744. The control of HAP and ozone-depleting

substances are under two

[[Page 15014]]

separate programs; hence, the EPA has deleted the reference to ozone-

depleting substances in Table 1 of Sec. 63.744.

Another commenter noted that the table numbering in proposed

Sec. 63.750(o) was incorrect. The Agency has corrected the text to

state ``* * * found in Tables 1 and 2, or 3 and 4 of Sec. 63.745 for

existing and new sources respectively.''

Two commenters noted there should be a reference to the term

``Hi'' in Sec. 63.750(k) since Sec. 63.749(h)(3)(i) cites

this section for the method to determine Hi. The Agency has

clarified Sec. 63.750(k) by adding the term Hi to the stated

definition at the end of the paragraph.

T. Technical Corrections

The following amendments are technical corrections that were not

part of the October 29, 1996 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 do not

substantively change the requirements of the rule. By promulgating

these technical 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(b) 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 technical corrections are unnecessary due to

their noncontroversial nature and because they do not change the

requirements of the final rule. 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. Clarification of the Definition of Coating

The word ``protective'' was added to the definition of ``coating''

in Sec. 63.742 to be consistent with other surface coating regulations

and CTG's.

2. Addition of the Definition of Recovery Device

Two commenters requested that the term ``dedicated solvent recovery

device'' be defined in the rule so that proper test procedures may be

followed. The Agency has included the following definition for

``recovery device'' in Sec. 63.742 which is based on the definition

from the HON:

Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment capable of

and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel

value, use, or reuse. Examples of equipment that may be recovery

devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water

separators, or organic-water separator or organic removal devices

such as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units.

A dedicated solvent recovery device refers to such control equipment

(as described/defined above) that is specific to a given process or

control system.

3. Correction of Cited Reference to Table 1 of this Section in

Sec. 63.744(a), (b)(1), and (d)

The numbering format for several tables in the promulgated rule was

erroneous and confusing. The table reference in Sec. 63.744(a),(b)(1),

and (d) has been corrected to read: ``Table 1 of this section.''

4. Clarification of Requirements in Sec. 63.744(c)

Several questions have been raised related to spray gun cleaning

using water as the cleaning solvent. Language was added to the

introductory text at the end of Sec. 63.744(c) stating that spray gun

cleaning operations using cleaning solvent solutions that contain HAP

and VOC below the de minimis levels specified in Sec. 63.741(f) are

exempt from the subsequent requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(4).

5. Clarifications to Sec. 63.745(e) and (f)

All references to topcoat(s) or topcoat application operations

include self-priming topcoats. The parenthetical phrase ``(including

self-priming topcoats)'' was added to all applicable paragraphs in

Sec. 63.745 (e) and (f) for clarification and consistency with

Sec. 63.745(c)(3) and (c)(4). In Sec. 63.745(f)(1), the reference to

application techniques specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through

(f)(1)(viii) has been corrected to read ``(f)(1)(i) through

(f)(1)(ix).''

6. Clarification to Sec. 63.746(a)

The words ``or rework'' were added to the last sentence in

Sec. 63.746(a) to clarify that all aerospace facilities (manufacturing

or rework) that depaint six or less completed aerospace vehicles in a

calendar year are exempt from this section.

7. Clarification of Language in Sec. 63.746(c)(1)

The wording in Sec. 63.746(c)(1) was changed to three separate

paragraphs (paragraphs (c) (2) and (3) were added) to clarify the

procedures to be used in determining compliance with the control

efficiency (95 percent) for new control systems. The

language has been clarified to describe how the control efficiencies

are determined involving the capture and destruction or removal

efficiencies and may take into account the volume of chemical stripper

used (relative to baseline applications) and is consistent with the

example provided.

8. Correction of Equation to Determine the Composite Vapor Pressure in

Sec. 63.750(b)(2)

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.

9. Correction of OMB Tracking Number

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this

technical correction amends the table that lists the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers issued under the PRA for

this final rule.

The EPA is today amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 (Section 9.1)

of currently approved information collection request (ICR) control

numbers issued by OMB for various regulations. The affected regulations

are codified at 40 CFR part 63 subpart GG, sections 63.752 and 63.753

(recordkeeping and reporting requirements, respectively). The correct

OMB control (tracking) number for this final rule is 2060-0314.

This ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior

to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause''

under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to

the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be

unnecessary.

III. Control Techniques Guideline

Today's action includes the final issuance of the control

techniques guideline(CTG) whose availability in draft form was

announced in the Federal Register on October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55842).

There were several comments involving the draft CTG submitted with

other comments on the proposed NESHAP amendments. Most of those

comments involved specialty coating category definitions and their

associated VOC limits. One commenter who suggested adding three new

coating category definitions (discussed previously in section Q) also

raised several other concerns involving the proposed definitions and/or

associated limits for clear coatings, lacquers, and specialized

function coatings. Since the specialty coating limits are meant to

[[Page 15015]]

reflect baseline levels nationwide, and will have no significant impact

on emission reductions, the EPA has decided to maintain the proposed

definitions and associated limits for these coating categories.

Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the ``Act''), State

implementation plans (SIP's) for ozone nonattainment areas (except

marginal areas) must be revised to require reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for sources for which the EPA publishes a CTG between

November 15, 1990 and the date an area achieves attainment status (the

Act, Sec. 182(b)(2), (c), (d), (e)). 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'' (44 FR

53761, 53762, September 17, 1979).

The CTG's review current knowledge and data concerning the

technology and costs of various emissions control techniques. The CTG's

are intended to provide State and local air pollution authorities with

an information base for proceeding with their own analyses of RACT to

meet statutory requirements.

Each CTG contains a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific

source category, based on the EPA's evaluation of the capabilities and

problems general to the category. Where applicable, the EPA recommends

that States adopt requirements consistent with the presumptive norm.

However, the presumptive norm is only a recommendation. States may

choose to develop their own RACT requirements on a case-by-case basis,

considering the emission reductions needed to achieve the national

ambient air quality standards and the economic and technical

circumstances of the individual source.

This CTG is issued pursuant to Clean Air Act Sec. 183(b)(3), which

requires issuance of a CTG to reduce VOC emissions from aerospace

coatings and solvents. It addresses RACT for control of VOC emissions

from aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. Volatile organic

compound emissions from primer, topcoat, and ``specialty'' coating

applications, maskant applications, sealing, adhesives, and cleaning

operations are addressed. Emission limits for processes also addressed

in the NESHAP are identical to the NESHAP limits. Those revisions to

the NESHAP amendments described in this preamble and relevant to the

CTG have been incorporated into the final CTG document. Many of the

steps in aerospace manufacturing and rework operations involve the use

of organic solvents and are sources of VOC emissions. The sources,

mechanisms, and control of these VOC emissions are described in the

CTG.

The coating category VOC limits, application techniques, and

equipment requirements identified as RACT in the CTG were assumed to

represent RACT requirements 1 year after the major sources have met the

NESHAP (MACT) requirements, and therefore, will be effective on

September 1, 1999. (The NESHAP compliance date for existing sources is

September 1, 1998). The EPA estimates that State and local regulations

developed pursuant to this CTG will affect about 2,869 facilities.

Since the only new requirements in the CTG (requirements that are not

included in the NESHAP) concern sealants, adhesives, and specialty

coatings, which represent only about 3 percent of all VOC emissions

from aerospace operations, the additional costs and emission reductions

resulting from the CTG will be negligible. Further information on costs

is presented in the CTG document and in the July 1995 BID on the NESHAP

for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities.

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 involved

industries 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) (section 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 No. 2060-0314. (EPA ICR No. 1687.03). A copy of the

Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Regulatory Information Division; EPA; 401 M Street, S.W., (Mail Code

2137); Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by person 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 searches; 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

regulation 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. The reduced

recordkeeping associated with cleaning solvents used for nonaerospace

manufacturing/rework activities represents a 6 percent reduction in the

burden estimated for the final rule. 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. to prepare a regulatory impact analysis

(RIA). 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

[[Page 15016]]

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.

Under E.O. 12866, the final CTG document for aerospace

manufacturing and rework facilities is not considered a ``regulatory

action,'' defined as ``any substantive action by an agency * * * that

promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule

or regulation.'' This CTG document is not a regulatory action by EPA,

rather it provides information to States to aid them in developing

rules.

D. 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. This final rule makes

minor amendments to the Aerospace NESHAP, including changes to

definitions, applicability provisions, and several minor changes to the

standards (emission limits) and the monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements. In addition, this notice includes a standard

for Type I chemical milling maskants and a test method for determining

filtration efficiency of dry particulate filters. The overall impact of

these amendments is a net decrease in requirements on all entities

affected by this rule, including small entities. Therefore these

amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

E. Submission to Congress

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

F. 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.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 10, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 40,

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,

1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,

300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,

300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671g, 7542,

9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by revising the entry ``63.752-

63.753'' to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

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

OMB control

40 CFR citation No.

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

* * * * *

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source