[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46526-46535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23322]



[[Page 46525]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



 40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 46526]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6154-1]
RIN 2060-AE02


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for aerospace 
manufacturing and rework facilities proposed in the Federal Register on 
March 27, 1998. Today's final changes involve new definitions for 
general aviation and general aviation rework facility, separate coating 
limits for primers and topcoats used at general aviation rework 
facilities, and additional changes resulting from public comments on 
previously proposed (October 29, 1996) amendments to the final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the 
information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is 
Docket No. A-92-20. This docket is available for public inspection 
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal 
holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket 
is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground 
floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
    An electronic version of documents from the Office of Air and 
Radiation (OAR) is available through EPA's OAR Technology Transfer 
Network Web site (TTNWeb). The TTNWeb is a collection of related Web 
sites containing information about many areas of air pollution science, 
technology, regulation, measurement, and prevention. The TTNWeb is 
directly accessible from the Internet via the World Wide Web at the 
following address, ``http:/www.epa.gov/ttn''. Electronic versions of 
this preamble and these amendments are located under the OAR Policy and 
Guidance Information Website, ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/'', under 
the Recently Signed Rules section. There is also an aerospace site on 
the Unified Air Toxics Website at, ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/
aerosp/aeropg.html''. If more information on the TTNWeb is needed, 
contact the Systems Operator at (919) 541-5384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the changes 
to the standards, contact Ms. Barbara Driscoll, Policy Planning and 
Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 
telephone (919) 541-0164. For implementation issues (guidance 
documents), contact Ms. Ingrid Ward, Program Review Group, Information 
Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12), U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-0300. For information concerning applicability and rule 
determinations, contact your State or local representative or the 
appropriate EPA regional representative.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are owners or 
operators of facilities that are engaged, either in part or in whole, 
in the manufacturing or rework of commercial, civil, or military 
aerospace vehicles or components and that are major sources as defined 
in Sec. 63.2. Regulated categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                                      Examples of regulated entities                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  Facilities which are major sources of hazardous air pollutants and     
                                          manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft such as airplanes,            
                                          helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.                   
Federal Government.....................  Federal facilities which are major sources of hazardous air pollutants 
                                          and manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft such as airplanes,        
                                          helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities that EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
facility [company, business, organization, etc.] is regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 
Sec. 63.741 of the NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and rework 
facilities promulgated in the Federal Register on September 1, 1995 (60 
FR 45948) and amended on March 27, 1998 (63 FR 15005). If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, contact your State or local representative or the appropriate 
EPA regional representative.
    The information presented below is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. Public Comment on the March 27, 1998 Proposal
    B. Judicial Review
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes to the Proposed Amendments 
to the Rule
    A. Definitions
    B. Standards for Primers and Topcoats
    C. Clarification of Relationship Between NESHAP and Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations
    D. Hand-Wipe Cleaning: Removal of References to Section 112(l) 
and Equivalent Volume Reduction Demonstration
    E. Exemption for Cleaning of Automated Spray Equipment Nozzle 
Tips
    F. Monitoring Parameters for Pumpless Waterwash Systems
    G. Exclusion of Charged Media Certification Using Test Method 
319
    H. Technical and Miscellaneous Corrections
III. Control Techniques Guidelines
IV. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Executive Order 12875
    E. Executive Order 13084
    F. Executive Order 13045
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

    National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for 
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities were proposed in the 
Federal Register on June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29216). Public comments were 
received regarding the standards and the final NESHAP was promulgated 
in the Federal Register on September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45948). Amendments 
to the final rule were promulgated on March 27, 1998 (63 FR 15005). 
These additional amendments were proposed on that same date (63 FR

[[Page 46527]]

15034). This action finalizes these additional amendments to 
Secs. 63.741, 63.742, 63.744, 63.745, 63.746, 63.750, 63.751, 63.752 
and 63.753 of subpart GG of 40 CFR part 63 and Method 319 of appendix A 
to part 63--TEST METHODS. These sections deal with applicability, 
definitions, cleaning operations, topcoat and primer application 
operations, depainting operations, monitoring requirements, 
recordkeeping requirements, and reporting requirements.
    The Agency set these standards for aerospace manufacturing and 
rework facilities to address organic and inorganic HAP emissions. As 
stated in the preamble to the rule as originally promulgated (60 FR 
45952, September 1995), nationwide emissions of HAP from at least 2,869 
major source aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities will be 
reduced by approximately 112,600 Mg (123,700 tons). These changes to 
the NESHAP will not result in any significant changes to the emission 
reductions or cost impacts because (1) only a small number of general 
aviation (GA) rework facilities will be considered major sources and 
therefore subject to the NESHAP requirements and (2) only one or two 
known aerospace facilities utilize pumpless waterwash systems for 
controlling particulate emissions.

A. Public Comment on the March 27, 1998 Proposal

    Eighteen comment letters were received on the March 27, 1998 
Federal Register document that proposed changes to the rule. The 
proposed changes covered a variety of issues and many of the comment 
letters were supportive of the amendments. The significant issues 
raised by the commenters and the changes to the proposed amendments are 
summarized in the following sections of this preamble. More detailed 
responses are provided in an addendum to the background information 
document (BID) volume II which can be found in Docket A-92-20, document 
No. EPA 453/R-97-003b.

B. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of today's 
amendments to the NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and rework 
facilities is available only on the filing of a petition for review in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 
60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under section 
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject to today's 
notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings 
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

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

A. Definitions

    Based on the proposed and final alternative coating limits for 
general aviation rework facilities (see paragraph II. B.), the EPA 
proposed adding definitions for ``general aviation'' and ``general 
aviation rework facility'' to Sec. 63.742. Two commenters supported the 
proposed definition for ``general aviation'' and there were no comments 
on the proposed definition of ``general aviation rework facility.'' 
However, a group of eight commenters recommended the following revised 
definition for ``general aviation'' based on another EPA document 
(Reference: EPA Air Transportation Industry Sector Notebook; EPA/310-R-
97-001):

    General aviation (GA) means that segment of civil aviation that 
encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers, commuters, 
and military. General aviation includes charter and corporate-
executive transportation, instruction, rental, aerial application, 
aerial observation, business, pleasure, and other special uses.

    The Agency decided to change the definition of ``general aviation'' 
as suggested by the commenters and has included the revised definition 
in today's final amendments. The revised definition still accurately 
describes the segment of the aerospace industry involving smaller 
aircraft for which the alternative primer and topcoat standards are 
intended. The revised definition also has the advantage (as noted by 
the commenters) of being consistent with another recent EPA document 
addressing and describing this same segment of the aerospace industry. 
The Agency is promulgating the definition of ``general aviation rework 
facility'' as proposed (with the addition of the words ``general 
aviation'' in the definition to describe the types of aerospace 
vehicles or components.)

B. Standards for Primers and Topcoats

    The Agency proposed alternative emission limits for topcoat and 
primer applications on general aviation aircraft based on previous 
comments made by GA aerospace rework industry representatives. Seven 
commenters supported the alternative limits claiming that the 
alternative limits will ``lift the restraints of the existing coating 
limitations.'' Furthermore, the commenters stated that the higher HAP/
VOC limits are acceptable and encourage paint manufacturers to provide 
quality primers and topcoats that give a quality finish acceptable to 
the owners and operators of the GA aircraft. One commenter noted that 
the higher HAP/VOC limits will have a minimal effect on the total 
emissions from a GA facility, but will have a dramatic effect on the 
final aircraft topcoat finish.
    As noted by the Agency in the preamble to the proposed amendments 
of March 27, 1998, many GA rework facilities would be area sources 
emitting less than 10 tons per year (tons/yr) of any single HAP, and 
less than 25 tons/yr of combined HAP. Nevertheless, GA rework 
facilities do exist which are major sources. The Agency finds that the 
coating (primer and topcoat) application operations are different for 
GA rework facilities than those for commercial and military facilities 
due to the variability in the types of coatings used and types of 
aircraft serviced. Accordingly, the Agency decided to subcategorize GA 
rework facilities and determined a separate MACT floor for primer and 
topcoat application conducted at such facilities. The data from the GA 
rework facilities in the Agency's data base resulted in the MACT floor 
represented by the best five facilities having an overall facility 
weighted average HAP and VOC content of 540 grams per liter (g/L) [4.5 
pounds per gallon (lb/gal)] for both primers and topcoats.
    Most, if not all, of the GA rework facilities that will have to 
comply with the NESHAP limits are competing for business with 
facilities that are nonmajor (area) sources. The NESHAP does not impact 
area sources and allows them to continue their current painting and 
depainting operations to meet customer requirements and expectations. 
The Agency developed a separate MACT floor for GA rework facility 
painting operations because of the differences between GA and 
commercial/military facilities involving the number and variety of 
coatings used, and customer requirements. Rework operations for 
commercial and military aircraft are primarily a captive market within 
their own market segments. These operations are more likely to involve 
``standardized'' coating schemes (e.g., military specifications or 
individual airline colors/design) and are conducted on a ``routine'' 
basis compared to the GA rework operations. Commercial paint systems 
are designed to last 5 to 7 years and because of the additional weight/
cost impacts are intentionally made as thin (e.g., 3 to 5 mils) as 
possible while still meeting the quality requirements. The GA industry 
is typically more concerned with the final finish of the coating system 
and

[[Page 46528]]

with corporate aircraft, a typical coating thickness of 6 to 18 mils 
may be needed to obtain the required gloss and texture. The Agency 
decided to set MACT at the floor because of the potential business 
impacts that could put the major source GA facilities at a competitive 
disadvantage with nonmajor and foreign GA facilities. The Agency is 
therefore finalizing the MACT floor limits for primer and topcoat 
application for GA rework facilities in Sec. 63.745(c)(1) through 
(c)(4). The HAP limits for both primers and topcoats (including self-
priming topcoats) are equivalent: less than or equal to 540 g/L (4.5 
lb/gal) of coating (less water) as applied. The VOC limits for both 
primers and topcoats are also equivalent: less than or equal to 540 g/L 
(4.5 lb/gal) of coating (less water and exempt solvents) as applied.
    Another group of commenters agreed with the increased HAP/VOC 
limits for GA rework facilities but also suggested that these limits be 
extended to GA manufacturers as well. The commenters argued that 
manufacturers have the same need for high quality finish and may be put 
at a competitive disadvantage without the benefit of the higher limits. 
In reviewing these comments, the Agency was not compelled by any 
technical arguments or justifications to extend the alternative primer 
and topcoat limits beyond what was proposed for GA rework facilities.
    In comparing GA manufacturing and GA rework painting operations, 
the Agency found that manufacturing facilities typically deal with 
fewer types of coatings and fewer types of aircraft. One of the 
commenters stated there are less than 10 GA manufacturers in total and 
some of those will qualify as area sources. Each manufacturer produces 
a limited subset of the planes on the market. The GA manufacturers 
generally perform rework only on planes that they manufacture; GA 
rework facilities, in contrast, may work on planes from a variety of 
manufacturers. Thus, unlike GA rework facilities, GA manufacturing 
facilities have fairly predictable coating needs. This allows them to 
be more proficient in coating application and minimizes the variability 
of coating-related issues in their day-to-day operations. Because of 
these factors, GA manufacturers are better able than GA rework 
facilities to comply with the coating limits in the NESHAP as 
originally promulgated. Therefore, the Agency does not agree that the 
alternative coating limits for GA rework facilities will create an 
unfair business advantage/climate between GA rework and manufacturing 
operations. In fact, the data collected from the GA manufacturers 
during the past 2 years indicated that some sources that will be 
subject to the NESHAP coating limits are already using compliant 
coatings exclusively as part of their coating operations.

C. Clarification of Relationship Between NESHAP and Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) Regulations

    Several commenters raised the issue of potentially conflicting 
requirements between EPA and FAA regulations. The commenters suggested 
that chemicals containing HAP that are required to be used by an FAA 
Airworthiness Directive (AD) should be exempted from the NESHAP 
requirements. Some of the commenters stated that the long-term impact 
of alternative chemical usage on various aircraft structures is not 
consistent across various products and manufacturers. The EPA has 
continued to work closely with the FAA during the development of the 
final NESHAP and the amendments to the NESHAP for the aerospace 
manufacturing and rework source category. Both agencies recognize the 
importance of continuing airworthiness and the safety of the flying 
public as repair facilities modify their procedures to comply with the 
NESHAP. The EPA is committed to minimizing the impact on airworthiness 
while maximizing the reduction of HAP emissions under the NESHAP.
    Since promulgation of the NESHAP on September 1, 1995, many of the 
aircraft manufacturers (principally those manufacturing transport 
category aircraft) have made the necessary revisions to their 
maintenance manuals to provide for non-HAP materials (chemical 
strippers) to be used for depainting. Those revisions have been FAA 
approved or will be submitted for FAA approval, when required. For the 
other manufacturers (principally General Aviation manufacturers), once 
the necessary information (revised/updated maintenance manuals, service 
bulletins, and/or advisory circulars) is approved by the FAA and is 
distributed to the regulated community, the potential regulatory 
conflict should be at a minimum, and aerospace rework facilities will 
be able to use various products to comply with most EPA and FAA 
requirements. The EPA and FAA have determined that the potential 
problems and issues raised by the commenters can be and, in many cases 
already have been, resolved through the procedures established in the 
existing regulations, and no further changes are needed to the NESHAP.
    Because of the small numbers of aircraft affected and the 
considerable expense of testing alternative materials for use on 
antique aircraft (those over 30 years old), the March 27, 1998 
amendments to the final rule (NESHAP) contain an exemption for the 
rework of these aircraft. For the same reason, these final amendments 
to the NESHAP extend that exemption to rework of aircraft and aircraft 
components whose manufacturers are out of business. There were no 
comments on this specific issue. Therefore, the EPA is exempting rework 
of aircraft whose manufacturers are out of business by adding the 
following to Sec. 63.741(f):

    These requirements do not apply to the rework of aircraft or 
aircraft components if the holder of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) design approval, or that holder's licensee, is 
not actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft components.

    The FAA certifies that an aircraft, engine, propeller, or part 
design meets certain airworthiness requirements, and issues to the 
designer of that product a type certificate (TC), supplemental type 
certificate (STC), Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA), or 
Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). The procedures for issuing TC's, 
STC's, TSOA's, and PMA's are contained in FAA regulations at 14 CFR, 
part 21. The holder of one of these is a ``design approval holder.''
    Should any manufacturers still in business not revise their 
maintenance instructions to allow use of NESHAP-compliant materials, 
the FAA has committed to issue an advisory circular publicizing the 
process by which repair facilities can request approval for 
alternatives. In addition, many existing Airworthiness Directives 
(AD's), issued under part 39 of Title 14 of the CFR, specify the use of 
HAP. (AD's are regulations addressing safety of flight, and compliance 
with them is mandatory.) However, most AD's contain a provision for 
requesting an alternative means of compliance. The FAA Notice N8100.13, 
``Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOC) for Airworthiness Directives 
that Require the Use of Volatile Organic Compounds and/or Hazardous Air 
Pollutants,'' (dated January 26, 1998), addresses the process by which 
repair stations, mechanics and operators can obtain alternative means 
of compliance for other AD's for the purpose of approving substitution 
of non-HAP materials.

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

    Section 63.744(b)(3) of the amended NESHAP (requirements for hand-
wipe cleaning) refers to requirements of section 112(l) of the Clean 
Air Act.

[[Page 46529]]

Based on comments received on the October 29, 1996 proposed amendments 
to the final rule, the Agency proposed to remove the references to 
section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act. Requiring submittal and approval 
of each individual alternative plan under section 112(l) is unwarranted 
and contrary to the intent of section 112(l). Since there were no 
comments on this issue, the final (amended) requirements of 
Sec. 63.744(b)(3) no longer include the reference to ``section 112(l) 
of the Act.''
    Similarly, there were no comments regarding Sec. 63.744(b)(3) and 
the proposed new language on calculating the baseline volume (levels) 
of hand-wipe cleaning solvents used in cleaning operations. The 
requirement for demonstrating that the 60 percent volume reduction 
provides emission reductions equivalent to the solvent composition or 
vapor pressure compliance options was deleted. The Agency is finalizing 
the new language in Sec. 63.744(b)(3) regarding approval of baseline 
levels.

E. Exemption for Cleaning of Automated Spray Equipment Nozzle Tips

    The Agency proposed an exemption for cleaning of automated spray 
equipment nozzle tips because floor sources included in the development 
of the applicable requirements do not use any of the techniques in 
Sec. 63.744(c) for cleaning of these devices. This exemption was based 
on similar language included in other State rules covering the 
aerospace industry (e.g., California Rule 1124) and was referenced by 
the original commenters.
    One commenter agreed with the proposed exemption for owners or 
operators of aerospace cleaning operations from requirements for a 
closed container when cleaning the nozzle tips of automated spray 
equipment systems. The commenter states that, under the present NESHAP 
language, owners or operators are forced to disassemble the equipment 
for cleaning, which is economically unreasonable. The Agency decided to 
finalize the amendment to Sec. 63.744(c) as follows:

    (5) Cleaning of the nozzle tips of automated spray equipment 
systems, except for robotic systems that can be programmed to spray 
into a closed container, shall be exempt from the requirements of 
paragraph (c) of this section.

F. Monitoring Parameters for Pumpless Waterwash Systems

    The Agency proposed several amendatory revisions to the NESHAP 
(definitions, primer and topcoat application operations, monitoring 
requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and reporting requirements) 
involving pumpless waterwash systems. Based on earlier comments, the 
Agency learned that there are at least two types of pumpless waterwash 
systems currently being used by aerospace facilities. While a 
conventional waterwash system uses a pump to transfer the water to the 
top of the water curtain, a pumpless waterwash system uses a 
centrifugal fan to lift the mixture of water and paint laden air (from 
the exhaust stream) up through a series of entrainment ducts (baffles) 
separating air from the paint particles and from water droplets. There 
is no readily identifiable operating parameter that is common to both 
types of systems. Therefore, the Agency decided to use the ``generic'' 
approach as suggested by one of the commenters to include language such 
as ``monitor or measure and record a booth parameter recommended by the 
booth manufacturer.''
    In the proposed amendments, changes to several sections of the 
final rule were proposed to allow pumpless waterwash systems to be used 
for controlling particulate emissions from painting and depainting 
operations. The Agency also specified that the parameter(s) to be 
monitored on such systems are to be recommended by the booth operator 
(i.e., manometer or air gap). Since waterwash systems were included as 
part of the MACT floor requirements for controlling inorganic HAP 
emissions in the promulgated rule, this is not a technical change to 
the standard, but a clarification of the discussion of pumpless systems 
and the associated monitoring requirements.
    The only commenter that commented on this issue supported the 
proposed amendments involving the monitoring requirements for pumpless 
waterwash particulate control systems. The commenter stated that it 
would be impossible for pumpless waterwash systems to comply with the 
monitoring requirements as originally promulgated. The commenter fully 
supported EPA's efforts to address the unique challenges presented by 
pumpless waterwash systems. The Agency is therefore finalizing the 
changes associated with pumpless waterwash systems in: Secs. 63.742 
(definition of ``waterwash system''); 63.745(g)(2)(v); 63.751(c)(2); 
63.751(d); 63.752(d)(2) and (3); 63.752(e)(7); 63.753(c)(1)(vi); and 
63.753(d)(1)(vii).

G. Exclusion of Charged Media Certification Using Test Method 319

    In regard to the proposed exclusion of charged media from 
certification under Test Method 319, two commenters concurred with the 
proposed exclusion, two commenters opposed the exclusion, and one 
commenter suggested the Agency re-visit the issue and consider adding a 
new mechanism within Method 319 to evaluate paint arrestor performance 
after loading (and over a given time period).
    The Agency has decided that the proposed amendment to exclude 
electrostatically-charged filter media from Method 319 testing (based 
on the possibility that their efficiency in use will drop below that 
measured in Method 319 testing) will not be promulgated based on the 
fact that there are insufficient data at this time to warrant this 
exclusion. No data were submitted illustrating that electrostatically 
charged filter media will actually drop in efficiency during use in 
aerospace painting and depainting facilities. Furthermore, no data were 
submitted showing that, even if such drops in efficiency do occur, 
similar drops would not also occur in uncharged media (i.e., the drop 
in efficiency may not be solely due to a loss of electrostatic 
enhancement but may also be due to other physical changes in the media, 
which occur over time). The Agency recognizes that this is an area of 
current, active, and ongoing research. The Agency is also aware of 
studies conducted on electrostatically-charged filters used in general 
ventilation that do, for some charged-fiber filters under certain 
operating/exposure conditions, show drops in efficiency for 
electrostatically-charged media. However, the relevance of these 
findings to arrestors used in aerospace painting and depainting 
facilities is uncertain and is, therefore, insufficient to exclude, as 
a category of arrestors, electrostatically-charged media from Method 
319 testing.
    Two commenters suggested expanding Method 319 to include not only 
the initial efficiency, but also one or more steps of paint loading 
followed by a repeated filtration efficiency measurement after each 
step; by doing so, changes in electrostatically charged filtration 
efficiencies, if present, would be measured. One of the commenters 
recommended that Method 319 be expanded to include standard dust 
loading efficiency tests, or an additional fractional efficiency test 
using actual paint. These type of tests would need to account for the 
replacement frequency of the various stages in a multi-stage system, 
and load the filter with representative paint oversprays, as well as 
depainting-generated aerosols and ambient aerosols which may be drawn 
into a spray booth, perhaps with some

[[Page 46530]]

level of prefiltration. There are no standardized methods that 
adequately address these issues relative to conditioning or aerosol-
loading of multi-staged arrestors for the purposes of quantifying 
potential changes in fractional efficiency with use. In light of the 
Aerospace NESHAP compliance date of September 1, 1998, it is beyond the 
scope of this project at this time to continue modifications to Method 
319. Thus, use of Method 319, as stated in the final amendments to the 
aerospace rule published in the Federal Register on March 27, 1998 is 
retained.

H. Technical and Miscellaneous Corrections

    The following amendments are corrections that were not part of the 
March 27, 1998 proposal. These changes are being made as part of 
today's action as a matter of efficiency in rulemaking. Furthermore, 
these changes are noncontroversial and correct errors in the rule or 
clarify the Agency's intention. By promulgating these corrections 
directly as a final rule, the EPA is foregoing an opportunity for 
public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking. Section 553(b) of 
title V of the United States Code and section 307(d) of the CAA permit 
an agency to forego notice and comment when ``the agency for good cause 
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon 
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 
The EPA finds that notice and comment regarding these corrections are 
unnecessary due to their noncontroversial nature. The EPA finds that 
this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b) for a 
determination that the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking is 
unnecessary.
1. Correction of Sec. 63.741(i)
    The listing of exempted requirements in Sec. 63.741(i) for 
compliant waterborne coatings should read ``* * * 63.750(k)-(n), * * 
*'' instead of ``* * * 63.750(k)-(m), * * *'' as published in the March 
27, 1998 final amendments.
2. Clarification of Antique Aerospace Vehicle Exemption
    The final amendments published in the Federal Register on March 27, 
1998 included new language in Sec. 63.741(j) exempting antique 
aerospace vehicles or components from the requirements of the rule. 
Clarifying language is being added stating that regulated activities 
associated with antique aerospace vehicles or components are exempt 
from the NESHAP requirements.
3. Clarification of the Composition Requirements for Approved Cleaning 
Solvents in Table 1 of Sec. 63.744
    The composition requirements for hydrocarbon-based cleaning 
solvents in Table 1 of Sec. 63.744 were clarified to state ``* * * 
composed of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons and/or oxygenated 
hydrocarbons * * *'' instead of ``* * * composed of photochemically 
reactive hydrocarbons and oxygenated hydrocarbons * * *''. Table 1 was 
not properly designated in the final amendments published in the 
Federal Register on March 27. 1998. Today's final amendments also 
include proper designation of Table 1 of Sec. 63.744.
4. Clarification of Inorganic HAP Requirements in Sec. 63.746
    Several questions have been raised regarding the applicability of 
the alternative inorganic HAP emission requirements (added to 
Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(iii) in the March 27, 1998 final amendments) to the 
depainting requirements in Sec. 63.746. As noted in the preamble 
discussion of the October 29, 1996 proposed amendments (61 FR 55842), 
the Agency intended to make the alternative inorganic HAP requirements 
applicable to both painting and depainting operations because both 
types of operations are often conducted in the same spray booth or 
controlled area.
    The preamble language was very specific (see 61 FR 55850) to 
address this unique situation and stated ``* * * the Agency has 
provided these owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing or 
rework operations who have commenced construction or reconstruction of 
new spray booth or hanger for depainting operations, primer or topcoat 
operations, in which any of the coatings contain inorganic HAP's, prior 
to October 29, 1996 the flexibility to meet either the requirements of 
the promulgated regulation or the proposed amendments to the final 
regulation * * *'' [61 FR 55850 (October 29, 1996)]. When those 
amendments were finalized [63 FR 15006 (March 27, 1998)], only the 
language in Sec. 63.745 (primer and topcoat application operations) was 
changed. As part of today's final amendments, language was added in 
Sec. 63.746(b)(4)(ii)(C) to clarify that owners or operators of new 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after June 6, 
1994 but prior to October 29, 1996 may comply with the particulate 
(e.g., inorganic HAP) control requirements that were proposed on June 
6, 1994.
5. Correction of Equation To Determine the Composite Vapor Pressure in 
Sec. 63.750(b)(2)
    In the March 27, 1998 final amendments, a summation sign was added 
in front of the second term of the denominator (involving 
``We'') of the equation used to determine the composite 
vapor pressure of hand-wipe cleaning solvents. The summation sign 
should be in front of the second term, instead of being placed with the 
numerator of the second term as published in the Federal Register.
6. Correction of Emission Reduction Equation in Sec. 63.750(I)(2)(iv)
    The term ``E3'' should be ``Ea.''
7. Clarification of Monitoring Requirements in 
Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(D)
    Additional language was added to the alternative monitoring 
requirements for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers in 
Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(D) to resolve the alternative/overlapping 
monitoring requirements. As a result, Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iv) is being 
redesignated (e.g., renumbered) as Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(v). The new 
language states that the owner or operator may monitor the VOC or HAP 
concentration of the adsorber exhaust daily, or at intervals no greater 
than 20 percent of the design carbon replacement interval, whichever is 
greater, or at a frequency determined by the owner or operator and 
approved by the Administrator. Clarifying language was also added in 
the new Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iv) involving a site-specific operating 
parameter for the carbon replacement time interval.
8. Correction of Equation to Determine the 100 Percent Penetration 
Value (P100) in Method 319 of Appendix A to Part 63--Test 
Methods
    The symbol for sigma ``'' was incorrectly printed as ``o'' 
in the explanation of the terms used in the P100 equation in 
Method 319. The language should read:

 = sample standard deviation
CV = coefficient of variation = /mean.

III. Control Techniques Guidelines

    Notice of final issuance of the control techniques guidelines (CTG) 
for coating operations at aerospace manufacturing and rework operations 
was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 1998. There was no 
mention of the relevant ``effective dates'' for States to use in 
developing their VOC rules. The following language is provided to 
clarify the adoption and implementation dates for the coating category 
VOC limits, application techniques, and equipment

[[Page 46531]]

requirements identified as reasonably available control technology 
(RACT) in the CTG.
    The CTG for control of VOC emissions from coating operations in the 
aerospace industry is available to assist States in analyzing and 
determining RACT for aerospace manufacturing and rework operations 
located within ozone national ambient air quality standards 
nonattainment areas. Any State with a moderate or above nonattainment 
area that has not adopted a RACT regulation for the source category 
addressed by the aerospace CTG must submit a RACT regulation for these 
sources not later than March 27, 1999. For any State with a moderate or 
above nonattainment area that has adopted a RACT regulation for the 
source category addressed by the aerospace CTG, Section 182(b)(2) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires these States to submit a revision to 
the applicable implementation plan, to include provisions consistent 
with the CTG. This revision shall be submitted to the EPA not later 
than March 27, 1999. Furthermore, as specified in the CTG, the RACT 
regulations must require sources to implement the required limitations 
and work practices not later than September 1, 1999.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all of the 
information submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the 
development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file, since 
material is added throughout the rulemaking development. The docketing 
system is intended to allow members of the public and the industries 
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and promulgated 
standards and the EPA responses to significant comments, the content of 
the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial review (except 
for interagency review materials) (Sec. 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The amendments do not impose any new information collection 
requirements and result in no change to the currently approved 
collection. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in the NESHAP for 
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned 
OMB control number 2060-0314. (EPA ICR No. 1687.03).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Today's amendments should have no impact on the information 
collection burden estimates made previously. Today's action does not 
impose any additional information collection requirements. 
Consequently, the ICR has not been revised for purposes of today's 
action.

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735 [October 4, 1993]), 
the EPA is required to determine whether a regulation is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
requirements of this E.O. The E.O. defines ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary 
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal 
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
within the meaning of the E.O.

D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates. 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that

[[Page 46532]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does 
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines: (1) 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve 
decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may 
disproportionately affect children.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. These final rule 
amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities because the overall impact of these amendments is a 
net decrease in requirements on all entities including small entities.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded 
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the 
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule 
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Section 203 requires the 
Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing, 
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely affected by a proposed intergovernmental mandate. Section 
204 requires the Agency to develop a process to allow elected State, 
local, and Tribal government officials to provide input in the 
development of any proposal containing a significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandate.
    Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must 
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why 
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative 
is inconsistent with law. The EPA has determined that these amendments 
do not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Small governments will 
not be uniquely impacted by these amendments. Therefore, the 
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective September 1, 1998.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 25, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter 
I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart GG--[Amended]

    2. In Sec. 63.741 paragraph (f) is amended by adding a new sentence 
after the second sentence and revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(i) and paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.741  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (f) * * * These requirements do not apply to the rework of aircraft 
or aircraft components if the holder of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) design approval, or the holder's licensee, is not 
actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft components. * * *
* * * * *
    (i) Any waterborne coating for which the manufacturer's supplied 
data demonstrate that organic HAP and VOC contents are less than or 
equal to the organic HAP and VOC content limits for its coating type, 
as specified in Secs. 63.745(c) and 63.747(c), is exempt from the 
following requirements of this subpart: Secs. 63.745(d) and (e), 
63.747(d) and (e), 63.749(d) and (h), 63.750(c) through (h) and (k) 
through (n), 63.752(c) and (f), and 63.753(c) and (e).* * *
* * * * *
    (j) Regulated activities associated with the rework of antique 
aerospace vehicles or components are exempt from the requirements of 
this subpart.
    3. Section 63.742 is amended by revising the definition for 
``waterwash system'' and adding in alphabetical order definitions for 
``general aviation''

[[Page 46533]]

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


Sec. 63.742  Definitions.

* * * * *
    General aviation (GA) means that segment of civil aviation that 
encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers, commuters, and 
military. General aviation includes charter and corporate-executive 
transportation, instruction, rental, aerial application, aerial 
observation, business, pleasure, and other special uses.
    General aviation rework facility means any aerospace facility with 
the majority of its revenues resulting from the reconstruction, repair, 
maintenance, repainting, conversion, or alteration of general aviation 
aerospace vehicles or components.
* * * * *
    Waterwash system means a control system that utilizes flowing water 
(i.e., a conventional waterwash system) or a pumpless system to remove 
particulate emissions from the exhaust air stream in spray coating 
application or dry media blast depainting operations.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.744 is amended by removing the last sentence in 
paragraph (b)(3) and adding three sentences in its place, adding 
paragraph (c)(5), and revising Table 1 to read as follows:


Sec. 63.744  Standards: Cleaning operations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * * Demonstrate that the volume of hand-wipe cleaning 
solvents used in cleaning operations has been reduced by at least 60 
percent from a baseline adjusted for production. The baseline shall be 
calculated using data from 1996 and 1997, or as otherwise agreed upon 
by the Administrator or delegated State Authority. The baseline shall 
be approved by the Administrator or delegated State Authority and shall 
be included as part of the facility's title V or part 70 permit.
    (c) * * *
    (5) Cleaning of the nozzle tips of automated spray equipment 
systems, except for robotic systems that can be programmed to spray 
into a closed container, shall be exempt from the requirements of 
paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *

                        Table 1.--Composition Requirements for Approved Cleaning Solvents                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Cleaning solvent type                                   Composition requirements                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aqueous................................  Cleaning solvents in which water is the primary ingredient (80 percent of cleaning solvent solution as applied must be water). 
                                          Detergents, surfactants, and bioenzyme mixtures and nutrients may be  
                                          combined with the water along with a variety of additives, such as    
                                          organic solvents (e.g., high boiling point alcohols), builders,       
                                          saponifiers, inhibitors, emulsifiers, pH buffers, and antifoaming     
                                          agents. Aqueous solutions must have a flash point greater than 93 deg.
                                          C (200 deg. F) (as reported by the manufacturer), and the solution    
                                          must be miscible with water.                                          
Hydrocarbon-based......................  Cleaners that are composed of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons and/
                                          or oxygenated hydrocarbons and have a maximum vapor pressure of 7 mm  
                                          Hg at 20 deg. C (3.75 in. H2O and 68 deg. F). These cleaners also     
                                          contain no HAP.                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Section 63.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), 
(c)(3), (c)(4), and (g)(2)(v) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.745  Standards: Primer and topcoat application operations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Organic HAP emissions from primers shall be limited to an 
organic HAP content level of no more than: 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of 
primer (less water) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less 
water) as applied for general aviation rework facilities.
    (2) VOC emissions from primers shall be limited to a VOC content 
level of no more than: 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less water and 
exempt solvents) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less 
water and exempt solvents) as applied for general aviation rework 
facilities.
    (3) Organic HAP emissions from topcoats shall be limited to an 
organic HAP content level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of 
coating (less water) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of coating 
(less water) as applied for general aviation rework facilities. Organic 
HAP emissions from self-priming topcoats shall be limited to an organic 
HAP content level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of self-priming 
topcoat (less water) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of self-priming 
topcoat (less water) as applied for general aviation rework facilities.
    (4) VOC emissions from topcoats shall be limited to a VOC content 
level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of coating (less water and 
exempt solvents) as applied or 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of coating (less 
water and exempt solvents) as applied for general aviation rework 
facilities. VOC emissions from self-priming topcoats shall be limited 
to a VOC content level of no more than: 420 g/L (3.5 lb/gal) of self-
priming topcoat (less water and exempt solvents) as applied or 540 g/L 
(4.5 lb/gal) of self-priming topcoat (less water) as applied for 
general aviation rework facilities.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) If a conventional waterwash system is used, continuously 
monitor the water flow rate and read and record the water flow rate 
once per shift. If a pumpless system is used, continuously monitor the 
booth parameter(s) that indicate performance of the booth per the 
manufacturer's recommendations to maintain the booth within the 
acceptable operating efficiency range and read and record the 
parameters once per shift.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.746 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.746  Standards: Depainting operations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (c) Owners or operators of new sources that have commenced 
construction or reconstruction after June 6, 1994 but prior to October 
29, 1996 may comply with the following requirements in lieu of the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section:
    (1) Pass the air stream through either a two-stage dry particulate 
filter system or a waterwash system before exhausting it to the 
atmosphere.
    (2) If the coating being removed contains chromium or cadmium, 
control shall consist of a HEPA filter system, three-stage filter 
system, or other control system equivalent to the three-stage

[[Page 46534]]

filter system as approved by the permitting agency.
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.750 is amended by revising the equation in paragraph 
(b)(2) and equation 19 in paragraph (i)(2)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.750  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01SE98.000
    
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01SE98.001
    
* * * * *
    8. Section 63.751 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(6)(iv) 
as (b)(6)(v) and revising paragraphs (b)(6)(iii)(D), (c)(2), (d), and 
adding a new paragraph (b)(6)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.751  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) If complying with Sec. 63.745(d), Sec. 63.746(c), or 
Sec. 63.747(d) through the use of a nonregenerative carbon adsorber, in 
lieu of the requirements of paragraph (b)(6)(iii) (B) or (C) of this 
section, the owner or operator may monitor the VOC or HAP concentration 
of the adsorber exhaust daily, at intervals no greater than 20 percent 
of the design carbon replacement interval, whichever is greater, or at 
a frequency as determined by the owner or operator and approved by the 
Administrator.
    (iv) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.745(d), 
Sec. 63.746(c), or Sec. 63.747(d) through the use of a nonregenerative 
carbon adsorber and establishing a site-specific operating parameter 
for the carbon replacement time interval in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(2) shall replace the carbon in the carbon adsorber system with 
fresh carbon at the predetermined time interval as determined in the 
design evaluation.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Each owner or operator using a conventional waterwash system to 
meet the requirements of Sec. 63.745(g)(2) shall, while primer or 
topcoat application operations are occurring, continuously monitor the 
water flow rate through the system and read and record the water flow 
rate once per shift following the recordkeeping requirements of 
Sec. 63.752(d). Each owner or operator using a pumpless waterwash 
system to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.745(g)(2) shall, while 
primer and topcoat application operations are occurring, measure and 
record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth manufacturer that 
indicate booth performance once per shift, following the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec. 63.752(d).
    (d) Particulate filters and waterwash booths--depainting 
operations. Each owner or operator using a dry particulate filter or a 
conventional waterwash system in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.746(b)(4) shall, while depainting operations are occurring, 
continuously monitor the pressure drop across the particulate filters 
or the water flow rate through the conventional waterwash system and 
read and record the pressure drop or the water flow rate once per shift 
following the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 63.752(e). Each owner 
or operator using a pumpless waterwash system to meet the requirements 
of Sec. 63.746(b)(4) shall, while depainting operations are occurring, 
measure and record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth 
manufacturer that indicate booth performance once per shift, following 
the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 63.752(e).
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.752 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) 
introductory text, (d)(2), (d)(3), and (e)(7) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.752  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) For uncontrolled primers and topcoats that meet the organic HAP 
and VOC content limits in Sec. 63.745(c)(1) through (c)(4) without 
averaging:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Each owner or operator complying with Sec. 63.745(g) through 
the use of a conventional waterwash system shall record the water flow 
rate through the operating system once each shift during which coating 
operations occur. Each owner or operator complying with Sec. 63.745(g) 
through the use of a pumpless waterwash system shall record the 
parameter(s) recommended by the booth manufacturer that indicate the 
performance of the booth once each shift during which coating 
operations occur.
    (3) This log shall include the acceptable limit(s) of pressure 
drop, water flow rate, or for the pumpless waterwash booth, the booth 
manufacturer recommended parameter(s) that indicate the booth 
performance, as applicable, as specified by the filter or booth 
manufacturer or in locally prepared operating procedures.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (7) Inorganic HAP emissions. Each owner or operator shall record 
the actual pressure drop across the particulate filters or the visual 
continuity of the water curtain and water flow rate for conventional 
waterwash systems once each shift in which the depainting process is in 
operation. For pumpless waterwash systems, the owner or operator shall 
record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth manufacturer that 
indicate the performance of the booth once per shift in which the 
depainting process is in operation. This log shall include the 
acceptable limit(s) of the pressure drop

[[Page 46535]]

as specified by the filter manufacturer, the visual continuity of the 
water curtain and the water flow rate for conventional waterwash 
systems, or the recommended parameter(s) that indicate the booth 
performance for pumpless systems as specified by the booth manufacturer 
or in locally prepared operating procedures.
* * * * *
    10. Section 63.753 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and 
(d)(1)(vii) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.753  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) All times when a primer or topcoat application operation was 
not immediately shut down when the pressure drop across a dry 
particulate filter or HEPA filter system, the water flow rate through a 
conventional waterwash system, or the recommended parameter(s) that 
indicate the booth performance for pumpless systems, as appropriate, 
was outside the limit(s) specified by the filter or booth manufacturer 
or in locally prepared operating procedures;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vii) All periods where a nonchemical depainting operation subject 
to Sec. 63.746(b)(2) and (b)(4) for the control of inorganic HAP 
emissions was not immediately shut down when the pressure drop, water 
flow rate, or recommended booth parameter(s) was outside the limit(s) 
specified by the filter or booth manufacturer or in locally prepared 
operational procedures;
* * * * *
    11. In appendix A to part 63, Method 319 is amended by revising the 
equation terms ``'' and ``CV'' in section 12.2.1 to read as 
follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 319: DETERMINATION OF FILTRATION EFFICIENCY FOR PAINT OVERSPRAY 
ARRESTORS

* * * * *
12.0 * * *
12.2 * * *
12.2.1 * * *

= sample standard deviation
CV = coefficient of variation = /mean
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-23322 Filed 8-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P