[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: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
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
