[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15034-15040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7007]



  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 15034]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5978-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed amendments.

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

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