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

SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for aerospace

manufacturing and rework facilities and are amended in a final rule

published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Today's proposed

changes involve new definitions for general aviation and general

aviation rework facility, separate coating limits for primers and

topcoats used on general aviation aircraft, and additional changes

resulting from public comments on previously proposed (October 29,

1996) amendments to the final rule.

DATES: Comments. Comments on these proposed changes must be received on

or before May 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in

duplicate, if possible) on the proposed changes to the NESHAP to: Air

and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), (LE-131),

Attention, Docket No. A-92-20, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments on the proposed

changes to the NESHAP may also be submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected].

Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments will

also be accepted on diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 (or 6.1) or ASCII file

format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by the

docket number A-92-20. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed

online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Docket. Docket No. A-92-

20, containing the proposed regulatory text and other materials related

to this rulemaking used in developing the NESHAP, is available for

public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. to noon, and from 1 and

3 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying. The docket for the NESHAP is available for public

inspection and copying at the Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

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 the proposed amendments to the final 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 the

proposed 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.

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) the amendments in a final rule published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register.

The information presented below is organized as follows:

I. Background

II. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Rule Changes

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

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform 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 (60 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 appear in another part of today's Federal Register.

This action proposes additional amendments to Secs. 63.741, 63.742,

[[Page 15035]]

63.745, 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, topcoat and primer application

operations, monitoring requirements, record-keeping 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 final rule (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 proposed changes to the final rule

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.

II. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Rule Changes

A. Definitions

The EPA proposes adding the following definitions to Sec. 63.742:

General aviation (GA) means the segment of the aerospace

industry involving noncommercial and nonmilitary aircraft designed

to carry 19 passengers or less. This definition is meant to include

most smaller corporate jets and privately owned aircrafts.

General aviation rework facility means an aerospace facility

with the majority of its revenues resulting from the reconstruction,

repair, maintenance, repainting, conversion, or alteration or

aerospace vehicles or components.

As discussed next (in paragraph II. B.), the Agency is proposing

separate standards for primer and topcoat applications for GA rework

facilities. Based on public comments received and information received

by the Agency at industry roundtable meetings, the Agency believes that

the proposed definition for GA will accurately describe the segment of

the aerospace industry servicing those smaller aircraft for which the

alternative primer and topcoat standards are intended.

B. Standards for Primers and Topcoats

Based on information presented at a roundtable meeting held on

March 13-14, 1996 and in public comments on the aerospace standard, the

Agency has developed alternative emission limits for topcoat and primer

applications on general aviation aircraft. These limits were developed

in light of the assertions made by GA aerospace rework industry

representatives that the coatings applied to GA aircraft are

significantly thicker (typically 7mm) than coatings applied

to most commercial aircraft (typically around 3mm). According to GA

rework industry representatives, GA customers typically require thicker

coatings (relative to commercial aircraft) to enhance the appearance of

their aircraft. Furthermore, these industry representatives stated that

the business climate for GA aircraft rework operations is such that if

GA rework facilities located in the U.S. are unable to provide the

customer-specified coatings (in terms of thickness and appearance),

they will lose customers who would readily have their aircraft painted

at other U.S. facilities not subject to the NESHAP requirements (i.e.,

nonmajor sources) or outside of the U.S., at facilities located in

areas with nonexistent or less stringent air emissions standards.

The Agency also notes that, based on available information on this

segment of the industry, 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. For these facilities the

Agency finds that the coating (primer and topcoat) application

operations are different for GA rework facilities than commercial and

military facilities. Accordingly, the Agency proposes to subcategorize

GA rework facilities and to determine a separate MACT floor for primer

and topcoat application conducted at such facilities.

Based on the best information available to the Agency, there are

less than 30 GA rework facilities that would be considered major

sources of HAP emissions and therefore subject to the NESHAP

requirements. Since there are less than 30 sources, the MACT floor for

primer and topcoat (including self-priming topcoat) rework application

to GA aircraft was based on the average of the best performing five

sources found in the Agency's data base on GA sources. The data from

the GA rework facilities in the Agency's data base were ranked

according to the average HAP content of all coatings, weighted by

annual usage volume. The best five facilities were identified as 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 minor (area) sources. The NESHAP does not impact

minor sources and allows them to continue their current painting and

depainting operations to meet customer requirements and expectations.

The Agency is therefore proposing 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.

C. Clarification of Relationship Between NESHAP and Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Regulations

The EPA has worked closely with the FAA during the development of

the final 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 FAA and the EPA

are committed to minimizing the impact on airworthiness while

maximizing the reduction of HAP emissions under the NESHAP.

In industry roundtable meetings subsequent to the promulgation

date, commenters noted that there appeared to be conflicts between the

NESHAP requirements and existing FAA regulations, which primarily

affect the General Aviation segment of the industry. The EPA and FAA

both recognize that there exists a potential for conflict involving

regulations concerning the use of HAP-containing chemical strippers.

The NESHAP does not allow HAP-containing chemical strippers (e.g.,

methylene chloride based strippers) to be used for depainting aircraft

(except for spot stripping and decal removal), and some aircraft

manufacturers' maintenance manuals specify that only certain materials

(e.g., methylene chloride based strippers) may be used for depainting.

The FAA regulations require that maintenance be performed in an FAA-

acceptable manner, which normally requires the procedures in the

manufacturer's manual be followed. If those procedures are not

followed, aircraft airworthiness could be jeopardized.

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

aircraft manufacturers (principally those manufacturing transport

category

[[Page 15036]]

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 will be

eliminated, and aerospace rework facilities will be able to use various

products to comply with most EPA and FAA requirements.

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 October 29, 1996

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

rework of these aircraft. For the same reason, these proposed revisions

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

components whose manufacturers are out of business.

Specifically, the EPA is proposing to exempt 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 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 TCs,

STCs, TSOAs, and PMAs 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 a notice publicizing the process by

which repair facilities can request approval for alternatives

(currently a very time-consuming and resource-intensive process). 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.) An FAA notice will address the process by which repair

stations, mechanics and operators can obtain alternative means of

compliance for those AD's, for the purpose of approving substitution of

non-HAP materials.

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

Equipment 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. Based on comments received on the October 29, 1996 amendments

to the final rule, the Agency is proposing 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). Therefore, the proposed

requirements of Sec. 63.744(b)(3) no longer include the reference to

``section 112(l) of the Act.''

There were additional comments regarding Sec. 63.744(b)(3) and

establishing a baseline volume of hand-wipe cleaning solvents used in

cleaning operations. The commenters suggested deleting the requirement

for demonstrating that the 60 percent volume reduction provides

emission reductions equivalent to the solvent composition or vapor

pressure compliance options. The Agency agrees that the equivalency

demonstration is confusing and is proposing new language in

Sec. 63.744(b)(3) regarding approval of baseline levels.

E. Exemption for Cleaning of Automated Spray Equipment Nozzle Tips

Two commenters suggested that the Agency exempt owners or operators

of aerospace cleaning operations from requirements for a closed

container when cleaning the nozzle tips of automated spray equipment

systems. As explained below, the Agency agrees with the commenters and

is proposing an 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.

In proposing this exemption from cleaning requirements for the

nozzle tips of automated spray equipment systems, the Agency agrees

with the commenters that such an exemption was found necessary for at

least one State air pollution prevention standard [South Coast Air

Quality Management District (California) Rule 1171. Solvent Cleaning

Operations, last revised September 13, 1996]. The Agency notes that

such automated spray equipment cannot be easily disassembled. Such

nonrobotic spray equipment is typically constructed on a moving track

to spray when a part is positioned in front of the spray gun, and to

shut off when no part is sensed. These nonrobotic spray guns typically

cannot be programmed to move away from the parts to spray cleaning

solvent into some type of closed container. Cleaning of these spray

guns without disassembly can only occur by manually spraying cleaning

solvent from the spray gun into the open air of the booth.

F. Monitoring Parameters for Pumpless Waterwash Systems

Two commenters on the proposed amendments requested that the Agency

address potential problems with the monitoring requirements for

waterwash particulate control systems found in the final rule. Pumpless

waterwash systems are considered to be part of the MACT floor involving

waterwash particulate control systems but were overlooked in the

regulatory text detailing the associated standards, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The commenters specifically

requested that the Agency incorporate monitoring requirements for

pumpless waterwash systems. The Agency agrees with the commenters that

clarifications to the monitoring requirements are needed in order to

provide for the use of this control technology. The Agency was not

aware of all the various types of systems involved with this control

technology when the final standards were promulgated. The Agency is

therefore proposing the following changes:

In Sec. 63.742, revise the following definition:

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.

In Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(v), modify the paragraph as follows:

(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) which 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.

In Sec. 63.751(c)(2), modify the paragraph as follows:

[[Page 15037]]

(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 or topcoat applications operations are occurring, measure and

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

indicate booth performance once per shift, following the recordkeeping

requirements of Sec. 63.752(d).

In Sec. 63.751(d), modify the paragraph as follows:

(d) 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 which indicate

booth performance once per shift, following the recordkeeping

requirements of Sec. 63.752(e).

In Sec. 63.752(d)(2), modify the paragraph as follows:

(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 which

indicate the performance of the booth once each shift during which

coating operations occur.

In Sec. 63.752(d)(3), modify the paragraph as follows:

(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) which indicate the booth

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

manufacturer or in locally prepared operating procedures.

In Sec. 63.752(e)(7), modify the paragraph as follows:

(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 which 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 as

specified by the filter manufacturer, the visual continuity of the

water curtain and water flow rate for conventional waterwash

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

performance for pumpless systems as specified by the booth

manufacturer or in locally prepared operating procedures.

In Sec. 63.753(c)(1)(vi), modify the paragraph as follows:

(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) which 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;

In Sec. 63.753(d)(1)(vii), modify the paragraph as follows:

(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;

G. Exclusion of Charged Media Certification Using Test Method 319

One commenter questioned whether test Method 319 can be used to

certify charged media (filters). Previous evaluations of charged-fiber

media indicated nontypical filtration efficiency curves over short time

periods because of the rapid accumulation of paint overspray. Based on

this historical information and test data, the Agency is proposing to

not allow arrestors composed of charged-fiber media to be certified by

Method 319. The Agency specifically requests comment on this issue and

performance data using Method 319 or other evaluation results using

criteria that can be correlated to Method 319 (i.e., maintaining the

key elements described in Section 6.1.2 of Method 319).

III. 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

These proposed 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). A

copy of the 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 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 proposed amendments should have no impact on the

information collection burden estimates made previously. Today's action

does

[[Page 15038]]

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. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the Agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule would 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. Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

E. 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.

Dated: March 10, 1998.

List of Subject in 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, part 63 of title 40, chapter

I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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 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 aircraft or aircraft components. * * *

3. Section 63.742 is amended by revising the definition for

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

``general aviation'' and ``general aviation rework facility'' to read

as follows:

Sec. 63.742 Definitions.

* * * * *

General aviation (GA) means the segment of the aerospace industry

involving noncommercial and nonmilitary aircraft designed to carry 19

passengers or less. (This definition is meant to include most smaller

corporate jets and privately owned aircraft.)

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 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 revising the last sentence in

paragraph (b)(3) and adding paragraph (c)(5) 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.

* * * * *

[[Page 15039]]

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) which 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 63.751 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)

to read as follows:

Sec. 63.751 Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

(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 which

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 which indicate booth performance once per shift, following

the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 63.752(e).

* * * * *

7. 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 which 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) which 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 which

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 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) which indicate the booth performance for pumpless systems

as specified by the booth manufacturer or in locally prepared operating

procedures.

* * * * *

8. 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) which

indicate the booth performance for pumpless systems, as appropriate,

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

[[Page 15040]]

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;

* * * * *

9. In Appendix A to part 63, Method 319 is amended by adding a new

sentence to the end of section 1.1 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 319: Determination of Filtration Efficiency for Paint Overspray

Arrestors

* * * * *

1.0 * * *

1.1 * * * Due to the potential for paint overspray accumulation

to decrease the filtration efficiency of charged-fiber media,

arrestors composed of charged-fiber media shall not be tested by

this method.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-7007 Filed 3-26-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P