Browse by Year
/ 1998
/ March
/ Friday, March 27, 1998
[Federal Register: March 27, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 59)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15005-15033]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27mr98-15]
[[Page 15005]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Control Techniques Guideline
Document for Source Categories; Final and Proposed Rules
[[Page 15006]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[AD-FRL-5978-4]
RIN 2060-AE02
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and
Control Techniques Guideline Document for Source Categories: Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule and release of final control techniques guideline
(CTG) document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes several amendments to the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for aerospace
manufacturing and rework facilities proposed in the Federal Register on
October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55842). The amendments include: Corrections to
several references in the rule; revisions and additions to definitions;
clarification of the applicability of the cleaning operations
standards; clarification of the applicability of the rule to space
vehicles; addition of standards for Type I chemical milling maskants;
addition of a test method for determining the filtration efficiency of
dry particulate filters; revision of standards for new and existing
sources using dry particulate filters to control emissions from topcoat
and primer application and depainting operations; addition of an
exemption for certain water-reducible coatings; addition of an
exemption from inorganic HAP requirements for hand-held spray can
applications; addition of an essential use exemption for cleaning
solvents; clarification of compliance dates; clarification of the
applicability of new source MACT to spray booths; clarification and
addition of emissions averaging provisions; revision of the
requirements for new and existing primer and topcoat application
operations; clarification of monitoring requirements for dry
particulate filter usage; revision of the standard for depainting
operations; addition of a cross reference to requirements in the
General Provisions in subpart A of part 63; addition of appendix A to
this subpart containing definitions for specialty coatings;
miscellaneous changes to the proposed amendatory language; and minor
technical corrections, including correction of the OMB tracking number
in 40 CFR part 9 (Section 9.1), that were not part of the October 29,
1996 proposal. Today's action takes final action on all of these
amendments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Control Techniques Guideline. Copies of the final CTG may be
obtained from the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone (919) 541-2777.
An electronic version of documents from the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) are available through EPA's OAR Technology Transfer
Network Web site (TTNWeb). The TTNWeb is a collection of related Web
sites containing information about many areas of air pollution science,
technology, regulation, measurement, and prevention. The TTNWeb is
directly accessible from the Internet via the World Wide Web at the
following address, ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn''. Electronic versions of
this preamble and rule are located under the OAR Policy and Guidance
Information Web site, ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/'', under the
Recently Signed Rules section. If more information on the TTNWeb is
needed, contact the Systems Operator at (919) 541-5384.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this notice
and analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Ms. Barbara
Driscoll, Policy Planning and Standards Group, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0164. For
implementation issues (guidance documents), contact Ms. Ingrid Ward,
Program Review Group, Information Transfer and Program Integration
Division (MD-12), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0300. For
information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact
your State or local representative or the appropriate EPA regional
representative. For a listing of EPA regional contacts, see the
following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are owners or
operators of facilities that are engaged, either in part or in whole,
in the manufacturing or rework of commercial, civil, or military
aerospace vehicles or components and that are major sources as defined
in Sec. 63.2 of this part. Regulated categories include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Facilities that are major sources of
hazardous air pollutants and
manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft
such as airplanes, helicopters,
missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.
Federal Government........... Federal facilities that are major sources
of hazardous air pollutants and
manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft
such as airplanes, helicopters,
missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather it provides a
guide for readers regarding entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
facility [company, business, organization, etc.] is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. 63.741 of the NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and rework
facilities promulgated in the Federal Register on September 1, 1995 (60
FR 45948). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, contact the appropriate regional
representative:
Region I
NESHAP (MACT) Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203-001, (617) 565-3438
Region II
Umesh Dholakia or Yue-On Chiu, U.S. EPA Region II, 290 Broadway Street,
New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4023 (Umesh), (212) 637-4065 (Yue-
On)
Region III
Bernard Turlinski, U.S. EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-2150
Region IV
Leonardo Ceron, U.S. EPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-9129
[[Page 15007]]
Region V
Emmett Keegan, U.S. EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
IL 60604-3507, (312) 886-0678
Region VI
Elvia Evering, U.S. EPA Region VI, First Interstate Bank Tower, @
Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX
75202-2733, (214) 665-7575
Region VII
Richard Tripp, U.S. EPA Region VII, Air Toxics Coordinator, 726
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7566
Region VIII
Heather Rooney, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Air Toxics Coordinator, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6971
Region IX
Nikole Reaksecker, U.S. EPA Region IX, Air Division-6, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1187
Region X
Andrea Wullenweber, U.S. EPA Region X, Air Toxics Coordinator, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8760
These amendments to the rule will not change the basic control
requirements of the rule or the level of health protection it provides.
The rule requires new and existing major sources to control emissions
of hazardous air pollutants to the level reflecting application of the
maximum achievable control technology.
In addition, the EPA announces the availability of a final control
techniques guideline (CTG) document for control of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework
facilities. This document has been prepared in accordance with section
183(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the ``Act'') to
assist States in analyzing and determining reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for stationary sources of VOC emissions located
within ozone national ambient air quality standard nonattainment areas.
The final document recommends RACT for industries included in, but not
limited to, 10 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: SIC
3720, Aircraft and Parts; SIC 3721, Aircraft; SIC 3724, Aircraft
Engines and Engine Parts; SIC 3728, Aircraft Parts and Equipment; SIC
3760, Guided Missiles, Space Vehicles, and Parts; SIC 3761, Guided
Missiles and Space Vehicles; SIC 3764, Space Propulsion Units and
Parts; SIC 3769, Space Vehicle Equipment; SIC 4512, Scheduled Air
Transportation; and SIC 4581, Airports, Flying Fields, and Services.
(As of January 1, 1997, a new numerical coding system for
classifying industries has been implemented by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The new system is called the North American Industrial Classification
System--NAICS. The following list of affected industries was developed
as a cross-reference to the above SIC codes: NAICS 336411, Aircraft
Manufacturing; NAICS 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing; NAICS 336413, Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary
Equipment Manufacturing; NAICS 336414, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle
Manufacturing; NAICS 336419, Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle
Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing; NAICS 481111, Scheduled
Passenger Air Transportation; and NAICS 481112, Scheduled Freight Air
Transportation.)
The information presented below is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Public Comment on the October 29, 1996 Proposal
B. Judicial Review
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes to the Proposed Amendments
to the Rule
A. Corrections to References
B. Definitions
C. Cleaning Operations
D. Applicability to Space Vehicles
E. Standards for Type I Maskants
F. Test Method for Determining Filtration Efficiency
G. Standards for Dry Particulate Filters
H. Exemption for Waterborne Coatings
I. Exemption From Inorganic HAP Requirements for Hand-Held Spray
Can Applications
J. Essential Use Exemption for Cleaning Solvents
K. Compliance Dates
L. Requirements for New Affected Sources (Spray Booths)
M. Emissions Averaging
N. Requirements for New and Existing Primer and Topcoat
Application Operations
O. Monitoring Requirements for Dry Particulate Filter Usage
P. Depainting Operations
Q. Applicability of General Provisions
R. Specialty Coatings
S. Miscellaneous Changes
T. Technical Corrections
III. Control Techniques Guideline
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Submission to Congress
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Background
National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities were proposed under
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the ``Act'') in
the Federal Register on June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29216). Public comments
were received regarding the standards and the final NESHAP was
promulgated in the Federal Register on September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45948).
After promulgation of the final rule, several issues were raised by
various industry representatives and affected parties. Based on
discussions with the commenters, the Agency proposed actions to amend
Secs. 63.741, 63.742, 63.743, 63.744, 63.745, 63.746, 63.747, 63.749,
63.750, 63.751, 63.752 and 63.753 of subpart GG of 40 CFR part 63.
These sections deal with applicability, definitions, general standards,
cleaning operations, topcoat and primer application operations,
depainting operations, chemical milling maskant application operations,
compliance dates and determinations, test methods and procedures,
monitoring requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and reporting
requirements. These changes provide additional flexibility to the
regulated community and in several instances, clarify/correct errors in
the regulatory text.
A. Public Comment on the October 29, 1996 Proposal
Eighteen comment letters were received on the October 29, 1996
Federal Register document that proposed changes to the rule. The
proposed changes covered a variety of issues and many of the comment
letters were supportive of the amendments. A few other comment letters
also included suggested editorial revisions to further clarify some
aspects of the proposed amendments or to address oversights in the
proposed amendments. The EPA considered these suggestions and, where
appropriate, made changes to the proposed amendments. The significant
issues raised and the changes to the proposed amendments are summarized
in this preamble. More detailed responses are provided in an addendum
to the background information document (BID) volume II which can be
found in Docket A-92-20, document No. EPA 453/R-97-003b. Some of the
comment letters also included numerous issues not covered in the
October 29, 1996 proposal. The EPA reviewed and responded to each of
these in the addendum to the BID; any resulting changes to the final
rule will
[[Page 15008]]
be proposed in a future Federal Register notice.
B. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of today's
amendments to the NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and rework
facilities is available only on the filing of a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within
60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject to today's
notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes to the Proposed
Amendments to the Rule
A. Corrections to References
In the September 1995 promulgated rule, there were several
references to Sec. 63.751(b)(7)(iii), which only existed in an earlier
draft of the promulgated rule. The EPA proposed the following revisions
in October 1996: Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(ii)(A) of the promulgated rule
references (b)(7)(iii)(A)(3), but should reference paragraph
(b)(6)(iii)(A)(2); Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii) references (b)(7)(iii)(A),
and (b)(7)(iii) (B) or (C), but should reference paragraphs
(b)(6)(iii)(A), and (b)(6)(iii) (B) or (C);
Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(A)(2) references (b)(7)(iii)(A)(1), but should
reference paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(A)(1); Sec. 63.751(b)(6)(iii)(D)
references (b)(7)(iii) (B) or (C), but should reference paragraph
(b)(6)(iii) (B) or (C). There were no comments on these proposed
revisions.
B. Definitions
The October 29, 1996 Federal Register notice contained several
definitions to be added to Sec. 63.742 and several to be revised, based
on additional information submitted to the Agency after promulgation of
the final rule. These changes are summarized below.
The definition of cleaning solvent in the promulgated rule stated
that ``cleaning solvent'' did not include solutions that contained
``no'' HAP or VOC. Many aqueous cleaners contain negligible amounts of
HAP or VOC. The EPA wants to encourage the use of these aqueous
cleaners. Therefore, in October 1996 the EPA proposed the following
language to exclude cleaners containing de minimis levels of HAP or VOC
from the definition of cleaning solvent: ``Cleaning solvent means a
liquid material used for hand-wipe, spray gun, or flush cleaning. This
definition does not include solutions that contain HAP and VOC below
the de minimis levels specified in Sec. 63.741(f) (e.g., water or
acetone).'' The EPA also proposed to change the applicable portion of
Sec. 63.741(f) to read: ``The requirements of this subpart also do not
apply to primers, topcoats, chemical milling maskants, strippers, and
cleaning solvents containing HAP and VOC at a concentration less than
0.1 percent for carcinogens or 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens, as
determined from manufacturer's representations.'' One commenter stated
that not all HAP's are VOC's, nor are all VOC's HAP's. If the ``and''
is used, then one could read Sec. 63.741(f) to require both VOC's and
HAP's to be present for an exemption to apply. The commenter
recommended using ``and/or'' which is unacceptable because it would
create an exemption when both HAP and VOC were present, but only one
was below the specified level. It is not the Agency's position that
both HAP and VOC need be present for the exemption described in
Sec. 63.741(f) to apply.
The proposed definition also contained a parenthetical reference to
water or acetone as examples of substances that might be present at a
de minimis level. One commenter stated the parenthetical reference to
water or acetone is confusing and should be deleted. The EPA agreed and
has revised the definition as follows:
Cleaning solvent means a liquid material used for hand-wipe,
spray gun, or flush cleaning. This definition does not include
solutions that contain HAP and VOC below the de minimis levels
specified in Sec. 63.741(f).
The Agency also proposed adding a definition for antique aerospace
vehicle or component so that these vehicles and components would be
exempted from the regulation. One commenter supported the proposed
definition. Another commenter suggested revising the definition to
include those nonflight worthy aircraft intended for permanent display,
or used for static manufacturing technology demonstrations. The
commenter indicated that the definition in 14 CFR 45.22 is limited to
operational, flight worthy aircraft used in exhibitions (motion
pictures, television productions or air shows). The EPA believes that
the passage to which the commenter refers actually concerns
``exhibition'' rather than ``antique'' aircraft. It was not EPA's
intent to add an exemption for exhibition aircraft that do not meet the
``antique aircraft'' definition. In addition, EPA believes that it is
not necessary to expand the scope of the ``antique aircraft''
definition because the Agency interprets the definition as including
aircraft built at least 30 years ago that are not currently
flightworthy. Therefore, EPA is promulgating the definition of antique
aircraft as set forth in the proposal with some clarification (i.e.,
simplification) as follows:
Antique aerospace vehicle or component means an aircraft or
component thereof that was built at least 30 years ago. An antique
aerospace vehicle would not routinely be in commercial or military
service in the capacity for which it was designed.
Due to the proposed addition of a standard for Type I chemical
milling maskants, EPA proposed revising the definition for chemical
milling maskant. One commenter noted that in the proposed definition,
listed examples should be made identical to the listed names for these
maskants found in appendix A to subpart GG. Another commenter raised
the issue of exempting chemical milling maskants used for two different
types of chemical milling applications. The commenter stated the same
maskant can be used in aluminum chemical milling and titanium chemical
milling, but these applications are not used on the same part or
subassembly. A maskant used for both aluminum chemical milling and
titanium chemical milling could not meet the low VOC content limits. In
an existing plating shop which uses the same maskant tanks for two
chemical milling applications, the proposed definition and associated
maskant limits would require the addition of a new maskant tank to meet
the low VOC maskant limit and another tank to meet the critical use
applications. This might result in an increase in emissions since the
surface area of the maskant in the tanks would double. The EPA agreed
that the commenters' changes are reasonable because the purpose of the
rule is to reduce HAP emissions and that adding a new maskant tank
would likely increase HAP emissions in the aggregate. The definition
has been revised as follows:
Chemical milling maskant means a coating that is applied
directly to aluminum components to protect surface areas when
chemical milling the component with a Type I or Type II etchant.
Type I chemical milling maskants are used with a Type I etchant and
Type II chemical milling maskants are used with a Type II etchant.
This definition does not include bonding maskants, critical use and
line sealer maskants, and seal coat maskants. Additionally, maskants
that must be used with a combination of Type I or Type II etchants
and any of the above types of maskants (i.e., bonding, critical use
and line sealer, and seal coat) are also exempt from this subpart.
(See also Type I and Type II etchant definitions.)
[[Page 15009]]
To further clarify the types of chemical milling maskants that are
covered by the final rule, the Agency is providing the following
separate definitions for Type I and Type II etchants:
Type I etchant means a chemical milling etchant that contains
varying amounts of dissolved sulfur and does not contain amines.
Type II etchant means a chemical milling etchant that is a
strong sodium hydroxide solution containing amines.
A commenter provided example scenarios in which the current
definition of self-priming topcoat is overly restrictive. The commenter
further stated that self-priming topcoats should be recognized as
topcoats and the topcoat VOC/HAP limits should apply, not the primer
limits. The Agency did not agree that the described scenarios are
likely to present any problems in determining the appropriate coating
category. However, the Agency did agree that removing the last sentence
from the definition which stated: ``The coating is not subsequently
topcoated with any other product formulation'' does clarify the
definition of self-priming topcoat and makes it more consistent with
the definition of topcoat.
Based on additional information received from industry, the EPA
proposed in October 1996 to change or add the following definitions:
Aircraft transparency means the aircraft windshield, canopy,
passenger windows, lenses, and other components that are constructed
of transparent materials.
Chemical milling maskant application operation means application
of chemical milling maskant for use with Type I or Type II chemical
milling etchants.
Closed-cycle depainting system means a dust-free, automated
process that removes permanent coating in small sections at a time,
and maintains a continuous vacuum around the area(s) being depainted
to capture emissions.
High volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment means spray
equipment that is used to apply coating by means of a spray gun that
operates at 10.0 psig of atomizing air pressure or less at the air
cap.
Specialty coating means a coating that, even though it meets the
definition of a primer, topcoat, or self-priming topcoat, has
additional performance criteria beyond those of primers, topcoats,
and self-priming topcoats for specific applications. These
performance criteria may include, but are not limited to,
temperature or fire resistance, substrate compatibility,
antireflection, temporary protection or marking, sealing, adhesively
joining substrates, or enhanced corrosion protection. Individual
specialty coatings are defined in appendix A to this subpart and in
the CTG for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations (Document
No. EPA 453/R-97-004).
Waterborne (water-reducible) coating means any coating that
contains more than 5 percent water by weight as applied in its
volatile fraction.
No comments were received on these proposed definitions.
Section 63.741(f) has also been modified to include Sec. 63.742
(Definitions) in the list of additional specific exemptions from
regulatory coverage.
C. Cleaning Operations
Under the promulgated rule, the standards for cleaning operations
could be read to apply to all cleaning operations at a facility, not
only to cleaning operations that involve aerospace vehicles,
components, or coating equipment. In order to clarify the applicability
of the standards for cleaning operations, the Agency proposed to revise
Sec. 63.741(c) to limit the applicability of the final rule to the
manufacture or rework of aerospace vehicles or components. Other
nonaerospace activities (e.g., general facility cleaning) are not
subject to the requirements of this rule. No comments were received on
this issue and EPA is promulgating the revisions as proposed.
The EPA proposed to replace the word ``solvent'' with the defined
term ``cleaning solvent'' for clarity and consistency in Sec. 63.744,
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e). The EPA has also changed the
cleaning rag storage requirement by rewording the first sentence of
Sec. 63.744(a)(1) as follows:
Place cleaning solvent-laden cloth, paper, or any other
absorbent applicators used for cleaning in bags or other closed
containers upon completing their use.
As originally promulgated, this NESHAP required that cleaning rags
be stored immediately after use. In October 1996, EPA proposed to
remove the word ``immediately'' from the sentence to make the rule more
consistent from a temporal standpoint with the storage requirements
contained in the California SIP-approved rules that were the basis for
this requirement. No comments were received on these revisions.
Accordingly, EPA decided to promulgate this change.
In addition, the EPA has changed the requirements for flush
cleaning to cover the situation in which an operator is cleaning
multiple items at the same station, without leaving the station. The
change to Sec. 63.744(d) is as follows: ``* * * empty the used cleaning
solvent each time aerospace parts or assemblies, or components of a
coating unit (with the exception of spray guns) are flush cleaned * * *
.'' This change will better carry out the Agency's intent in regulating
flush cleaning. No comments were received on this change.
Based on information from industry, the EPA proposed a modification
to the exemption in Sec. 63.744(e)(10). The revised text reads as
follows:
Cleaning of aircraft transparencies, polycarbonate, or glass
substrates.
No comments were received on this revision.
D. Applicability to Space Vehicles
Space vehicles (i.e., vehicles designed to travel beyond the limit
of the earth's atmosphere) are specifically exempted from the
requirements of this rule, except for the standards for depainting
operations. The EPA proposed (1) removing the reference to these
vehicles in Sec. 63.741(f) and (2) adding an additional specific
exemption in a new paragraph, Sec. 63.741(h), to clarify the exemption.
The EPA proposed Sec. 63.741(h) as follows:
Regulated activities associated with space vehicles designed to
travel beyond the limit of the earth's atmosphere, including but not
limited to satellites, space stations, and the Space Shuttle System
(including orbiter, external tanks, and solid rocket boosters), are
exempt from the requirements of this subpart, except for depainting
operations found in Sec. 63.746.
One commenter concurred with this revision as an important
clarification of the applicability of the rule for aerospace
organizations. The EPA decided to promulgate this change to the final
rule.
E. Standards for Type I Maskants
The EPA proposed to establish an emission limitation for Type I
maskants and to include Type I maskants within the definition of
chemical milling maskants. Pursuant to section 114 of the Act,
information regarding maskants was requested from nine companies that
own or operate aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities.
Information was requested for all types of maskants, including total
quantity used, formulation data, VOC and organic HAP content as
received and as applied, substrate category and the composition of the
metal alloy on which the maskant is applied, a listing of the type of
parts or specific aircraft surfaces on which the maskant is used, VOC
and HAP emissions from maskant application operations, and type(s) of
controls (if any). The information received on Type I maskants was used
to calculate a MACT floor. The MACT floor was determined to be the
weighted (by usage volume) average HAP emissions from the sources, 622
grams per liter [g/L] (5.2 pounds per gallon [lb/gal]).
[[Page 15010]]
The EPA proposed revising Sec. 63.747(c) to include organic HAP and
VOC content limits of 622 grams per liter (g/L) (5.2 pounds per gallon
[lb/gal]) as the standard for uncontrolled Type I chemical milling
maskants. The EPA proposed revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to
specify that the organic HAP and VOC limits of 160 g/L (1.3 lb/gal)
apply only to Type II chemical milling maskants. One commenter
supported EPA's proposed limits and stated the proposed Type I limit
recognizes that some chemical etching applications require the use of
solvent-based maskants, while still achieving a significant reduction
in VOC and HAP emissions from masking operations.
Due to the addition of a standard for Type I chemical milling
maskants, EPA also proposed removing the definition of Type I maskants
from the list of specialty coatings in appendix A of this subpart and
revising the definition for chemical milling maskant in Sec. 63.742 of
the promulgated rule. No comments were received on deletion of the
definition for Type I maskants from Appendix A, and comments received
on the definition for chemical milling maskant are discussed under
definitions in Section II.B of this preamble.
F. Test Method for Determining Filtration Efficiency
The Agency proposed a test method, Method 319, for the
determination of filtration efficiency for paint overspray arresters
(also referred to as particulate filters). The Agency proposed that
this method be used by filter manufacturers to certify their filter
efficiency. Commenters raised several issues related to the technical
validity of proposed Method 319 and who could run the test. Based on
these comments, the Agency has modified Sec. 63.750(o) to state that
this method can be used by filter manufacturers or distributors, paint/
depainting booth suppliers, or owners or operators of affected sources
to certify the efficiency of their filters for meeting the dry
particulate filter requirements in today's amendments.
The EPA also proposed filter efficiency tables (Tables 1, 2, 3, and
4 of Sec. 63.745) and one commenter recommended adding descriptive
language to the table headings. The EPA added ``for existing sources''
or ``for new sources'' to each of the table headings in response to the
comment.
Table 1 of Sec. 63.745.--Two-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge for
Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>90........................................ >5.7
>50........................................ >4.1
>10........................................ >2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 of Sec. 63.745.--Two-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge for
Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>90........................................ >8.1
>50........................................ >5.0
>10........................................ >2.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 of Sec. 63.745.--Three-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge
for New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>95........................................ >2.0
>80........................................ >1.0
>65........................................ >0.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 of Sec. 63.745.--Three-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge
for New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>95........................................ >2.5
>85........................................ >1.1
>75........................................ >0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three commenters raised several issues related to test Method 319
and disagreed with specifics of the test method. All of the issues are
addressed in the Agency's documented responses in Section 2.9 of the
Addendum to the BID (Volume II), Document No. EPA 453/R-97-003b. In
summary, Method 319 will retain use of oleic acid and potassium
chloride (KCl) challenge aerosols. By selecting oleic acid and KCl as
simulants for wet and dry overspray, the amount of testing needed is
reduced because only two challenge materials are used, particle sizing
accuracy is maintained, and safety and handling issues associated with
volatile paint components are avoided.
The method has been revised to allow additional flexibility for
alternate duct configurations. The 180 degree bend in the duct has been
made optional thereby allowing use of a straight duct. Also, the
measurement procedures have been revised to allow the use of two
particle counters to allow simultaneous sampling (one sampling upstream
and one sampling downstream). Additionally, the NESHAP retains equal
requirements for ``paint overspray arrestors'' under Sec. 63.745 Primer
and Topcoat Application Operations, and ``particulate'' filters under
Sec. 63.746 Depainting Operations.
G. Standards for Dry Particulate Filters
The Agency proposed to revise MACT requirements for the control of
inorganic particulates from certain primer, topcoat, and depainting
operations. Based on a review of the available data, the EPA proposed
requiring existing sources using particulate filters in depainting as
well as topcoat and primer operations, in which any of the coatings
contain inorganic HAP, to meet the filtration efficiency established
for the two-stage system that was tested. Specifically, the Agency
proposed requiring owners or operators of existing sources to use
particulate filters that are certified under Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or
exceed the efficiency data in Tables 1 and 2 of Sec. 63.745 (developed
from the two-stage filter testing). The Agency has modified this
language to indicate certification must be consistent with
Sec. 63.750(o); therefore, this method can be used by filter
manufacturers or distributors, paint/depainting booth suppliers, and/or
owners or operators of affected sources to certify the efficiency of
their filters.
The Agency also proposed that new sources meet the filtration
efficiency data points for the three-stage system that was tested.
Specifically, the Agency proposed requiring owners or operators of new
sources to use particulate filters that are certified under
Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data in Tables 3 and 4
of Sec. 63.745 (developed from the three-stage filter testing). These
new filtration requirements reflect a performance based standard rather
than specified equipment, thus allowing more flexibility for affected
sources to comply with the NESHAP.
One commenter believed that test Method 319 is flawed and therefore
questioned the filter efficiency limits
[[Page 15011]]
developed using testing based on Method 319. The Agency disagrees with
the commenter and believes the filter efficiency limits to be
technically based as equivalent to MACT. The test method is based on
several years of work performed for EPA and culminated in testing of
the two- and three-stage paint arrestors determined to represent MACT
for the aerospace industry.
In announcing these revised MACT requirements for particulate
emissions, the Agency realizes that there are unique circumstances in
which owners and operators have commenced construction or
reconstruction of a new spray booth or hangar after the proposed
regulation (June 4, 1994) and have had to comply with the requirements
in the promulgated rule (September 1, 1995). For these owners or
operators of aerospace manufacturing or rework operations who have
commenced construction or reconstruction of new spray booth or hanger
for inorganic HAP depainting operations, primer, or topcoat operations
after June 4, 1994 but prior to October 29, 1996, the EPA has provided
the flexibility to meet either the requirements for new sources under
Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(ii) of the amendments to the final regulation found
in today's notice or the requirements for new sources under
Sec. 63.45(g)(2)(iv) of the September 1, 1995 promulgated rule which
are found in Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(iii) in the amended rule. Sources that
commenced construction prior to June 4, 1994 are still required to meet
the existing source requirements for depainting operations and painting
(topcoat or primer application) operations found in the final amended
rule.
H. Exemption for Waterborne Coatings
The EPA proposed that any waterborne coating for which the
manufacturer's supplied data demonstrate that the coating meets the
organic HAP and VOC content limits for its coating type as specified in
the regulation be exempt from many of the organic HAP and VOC related
requirements of this regulation. If the manufacturer's supplied data
indicate that the waterborne coating meets the organic HAP and VOC
content emission limits for its coating type, as specified in
Secs. 63.745(c) and 63.747(c), then the owner or operator would not be
required to demonstrate compliance for these coatings using the test
method specified in Sec. 63.750(c). However, the owner or operator
would still be required to maintain purchase records and manufacturer's
supplied data sheets for exempt coatings. Owners or operators of
facilities using waterborne coatings would also be required to handle
and transfer these coatings in a manner that minimizes spills, apply
these coatings using one or more of the specified application
techniques, and comply with inorganic HAP emission requirements. This
exemption was added as Sec. 63.741(i) as follows:
Any waterborne coating for which the manufacturer's supplied
data demonstrate that organic HAP and VOC contents are less than or
equal to the organic HAP and VOC content limits for its coating
type, as specified in Secs. 63.745(c) and 63.747(c), is exempt from
the following requirements of this subpart: Secs. 63.745(d)-(e),
63.747(d)-(e), 63.749(d) and (h), 63.750(c)-(h) and (k)-(m),
63.752(c) and (f), and 63.753(c) and (e). A facility shall maintain
the manufacturer's supplied data and annual purchase records for
each exempt waterborne coating readily available for inspection and
review, and shall retain these data for 5 years.
Section 63.741(f) was also modified to include Sec. 63.741(i) in the
list of additional specific exemptions from regulatory coverage.
The Agency proposed this exemption to streamline and simplify the
requirements for owners and operators of facilities using these
coatings and to encourage the use of waterborne coatings which may
result in lower emissions than other coating types. No comments were
received on this issue and EPA decided to promulgate this change.
I. Exemption From Inorganic HAP Requirements for Hand-Held Spray Can
Applications
Two commenters noted that the final rule created a point of
confusion over the absence of an exemption from inorganic HAP
requirements for the use of hand-held spray cans used outside a paint
booth or hangar (i.e., touch-up operations). The Agency noted that such
an exemption currently exists under Sec. 63.745(f)(3)(v) for primers
and topcoats containing organic HAP or VOC, and the requirements for
touch-up operations would also provide an exemption for these
activities when conducted outside of the hangar or paint booth.
However, the Agency agreed with the commenters that potential confusion
could result in the absence of a clear exemption under the inorganic
HAP requirements. Therefore, the Agency has added the following
paragraph (x) to the list of operations in Sec. 63.745(g)(4) not
subject to the requirements of paragraphs 63.745 (g)(1) through (g)(3):
(x) The use of hand-held spray can application methods.
J. Essential Use Exemption for Cleaning Solvents
In accordance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer (``Montreal Protocol''), EPA has granted essential use
allowances for limited applications of ozone depleting substances
(ODS's). The EPA proposed that an essential use exemption be added to
this rule for cleaning operations that have been identified as
essential uses. The proposed language has been revised slightly for
greater consistency with the stratospheric ozone regulations. The
exemption was added as Sec. 63.744(e)(13) as follows:
Cleaning operations identified as essential uses under the
Montreal Protocol for which the Administrator has allocated
essential use allowances or exemptions in 40 CFR 82.4.
One commenter concurred with EPA on this added exemption and EPA
decided to promulgate this change.
K. Compliance Dates
The EPA wishes to clarify an inconsistency between the preamble to
the final rule and the regulation. The preamble to the final aerospace
NESHAP states, ``Owners or operators of new commercial, civil, or
military aerospace OEM and rework operations with initial startup after
September 1, 1998 will be required to comply with all requirements upon
startup.'' This statement is incorrect. The text of the promulgated
regulation correctly states that new sources, with initial startup on
or after September 1, 1995, must comply with all requirements upon
startup. In October 1996, the EPA also proposed to clarify that the
deadline for approval of an alternate control device is 120 days prior
to the compliance date. This clarification, mistakenly omitted from the
published final rule, is now reflected in Sec. 63.743(c). No comments
were received on this issue and, thus, EPA decided to promulgate this
change.
L. Requirements for New Affected Sources (Spray Booths)
The Agency has clarified the requirements for new affected sources.
An affected source is an emission unit, process, or operation
identified in the NESHAP that is part of the entire facility, but is
not necessarily a major source. In today's action the Agency is
clarifying its intent that for inorganic HAP emissions, each spray
booth or hangar that contains a primer or topcoat application operation
subject to Sec. 63.745(g) or a depainting operation
[[Page 15012]]
subject to Sec. 63.746(b)(4) is considered an affected source and has
added this description under Sec. 63.741(c). To avoid any
inconsistency, the Agency has also added the words ``For organic HAP or
VOC emissions'' at the beginning of Sec. 63.741(c) (2), (3), and (4).
If such an affected source is constructed or reconstructed after
October 29, 1996, then that spray booth or hangar must comply with the
applicable inorganic HAP control requirements. Construction or
reconstruction of a new spray booth or hangar at a facility with an
existing coating or depainting operation will not cause the existing
operation to be subject to any other new source standards; only the new
spray booth or hangar will be subject to the applicable new source
requirements for inorganic HAP and will need to comply upon the
effective date of the requirements or startup, whichever is later. The
EPA is also making this clarification in Sec. 63.749(a), the compliance
dates and determinations section of the final rule.
In addition, EPA also clarified that Sec. 63.5(b)(3) of the General
Provisions, which requires advance notice and approval by the Agency
prior to construction or reconstruction of a major affected source,
shall apply to the construction or reconstruction of a new spray booth
or hangar at a facility for an existing coating or depainting operation
only if the booth or hangar has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or
more of an individual inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all
inorganic HAP combined. Owners or operators of an existing coating or
depainting operation who construct or reconstruct a new booth or hangar
that emit or have the potential to emit less than 10/25 tons/yr of
inorganic HAP's will only be required to submit an annual notification
on or before March 1 of each year. This annual notification shall
include all of the information required in Sec. 63.5(b)(4) for each
such booth or hangar constructed or reconstructed in the prior calendar
year, except that the information shall be limited to the inorganic
HAP's from the new booth or hangar. Of course, any owner or operator
that constructs or reconstructs a new spray booth or hangar at a
facility at which there is no existing coating or depainting operation
will be required to comply with all of the applicable notice and
advance approval requirements of Sec. 63.5.
M. Emissions Averaging
Under the September 1, 1995 promulgated rule the averaging of
emissions was permitted to occur within coating types (i.e., topcoats,
primers, or maskants). The EPA also indicated at that time in the 1995
background information document that EPA would be investigating options
with respect to implementing a broad-based averaging scheme as a
compliance option for the Aerospace NESHAP. Based on additional
discussion in roundtable meetings, the EPA proposed in the October 29,
1996 amendments to consolidate the language dealing with the averaging
of emissions as it applies to the aerospace industry. Paragraphs
63.745(e)(2) and 63.747(e)(2) were consolidated into a new
Sec. 63.743(d), which, if promulgated as proposed, would have permitted
averaging across coating types.
In response to the October 1996 proposal, the EPA received two
comments that supported the changes to the averaging provisions. One
commenter indicated that introductory text was needed to clarify the
intent of Sec. 63.743(d), which is where the averaging provisions are
now located. The EPA agrees with the commenter and has added
introductory language to Sec. 63.743(d). Another commenter wanted the
averaging provisions to be expanded to include controlled operations
(i.e., those with control devices). The EPA believes that as currently
allowed, the averaging of uncontrolled coatings will encourage
development and use of lower HAP and VOC content coatings in the
aerospace industry. In order to preserve the environmental benefit of
pollution prevention, EPA will not extend the averaging system to
include controlled coatings.
With regards to an expanded emissions averaging scheme, the EPA
looked at various ways to expand the averaging provisions in the
September 1995 promulgated rule so as to allow averaging between
certain coating types. In designing emissions trading and averaging
systems, EPA believes that it is important to consider the effect that
trading or averaging is likely to have on facilities' actual emissions,
as well as the effect on facilities' maximum allowable emissions. A
workable scheme for averaging across coating types was not developed
because the format of the coating limits in the rule as originally
promulgated creates inherent difficulties in making equitable
comparisons/calculations of actual emissions from coating categories
with different limits. In order to include effective emissions
averaging provisions for different coating categories (e.g., primers,
topcoats, and maskants) or other emission sources, the format of the
entire rule would have to be overhauled. Such changes are now beyond
the scope of the work involved in finalizing these amendments to the
aerospace rule.
N. Requirements for New and Existing Primer and Topcoat Application
Operations
The September 1, 1995 promulgated NESHAP requires owners or
operators of primer and topcoat application operations who wish to use
an alternative application method (other than HVLP or electrostatic
spray) to demonstrate that the emissions generated during the initial
30-day period, the period of time required to apply primer to five
completely assembled aircraft, or a time period approved by the
permitting agency are less than or equal to the emissions generated
using HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods. Since
promulgation, the Agency has received comments from industry concerning
the test method for alternative spray equipment application requiring
actual production trials. Those concerns involved the use of
ineffective application equipment on actual production parts or
assemblies which could lead to product quality and safety issues with
significant cost to the manufacturer. The Agency has acknowledged those
concerns and provided additional flexibility to owners or operators of
primer and topcoat application operations seeking to use alternative
application methods.
The October 1996, proposed amendments to the final NESHAP in
Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(ii) allowed owners or operators an alternative
approach whereby the proposed application method is tested against
either HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods in a laboratory
or pilot production area, using parts and coatings representative of
the process(es) in which the alternative method is to be used. Under
this alternative, the laboratory test will use the same part
configuration(s) and the same number of parts for both the proposed
method and the HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods. The
Agency intended to make the laboratory test an additional option
instead of replacing the production evaluation in the final rule.
Therefore, since no comments were received on the proposed revision to
Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(ii), the Agency decided to promulgate this change by
designating the proposed Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(ii) as
Sec. 63.750(i)(2)(iii). For consistency, this change has also been made
to Sec. 63.749 (d)(3)(iii)(B) and (d)(4)(iii)(B).
O. Monitoring Requirements for Dry Particulate Filter Usage
The Agency proposed to clarify the monitoring requirements for
owners or operators of depainting and painting
[[Page 15013]]
operations using dry particulate filters and HEPA filters to comply
with this NESHAP. The EPA proposed to add language to Sec. 63.751(c)(1)
to clarify that owners or operators are required to read and record
monitoring (i.e., pressure drop) data only once per shift.
One commenter requested that the phrase ``continuously monitor'' in
Sec. 63.745(g)(2)(v) be changed to ``monitor once per shift'' to avoid
confusion with the Agency's clarification of monitoring requirements in
other sections of the final rule. Past experience with such control
systems indicates that reading the designated operating parameter once
per shift is sufficient for this system to be considered continuously
monitored. The Agency believes that the systems should be continuously
monitored by some mechanism, but that reading and recording the data
should be required only once per shift. Therefore, the EPA has changed
the cited text in Sec. 63.745 (g)(2)(iv)(C) and (g)(2)(v) to match
monitoring requirements in other sections of the final rule.
P. Depainting Operations
Based on numerous comments on the depainting operation standard,
the EPA proposed a clarification to Sec. 63.746. The promulgated
standard was presented in terms of volume (gallons) of organic HAP-
containing chemical strippers per aircraft. Because the NESHAP is
specific to HAP, in October 1996 the EPA proposed changing the units of
the standard and stating the requirements in terms of weight (pounds)
of organic HAP per aircraft. The proposed standard was meant to be
equivalent in terms of actual HAP emissions to the atmosphere and was
based on assumptions concerning typical HAP contents of chemical
strippers. The proposed limits allowed greater flexibility to the owner
or operator of a new or existing depainting operation in selecting
materials to perform spot stripping and decal removal.
Based on comments involving technical arguments both for and
against the different units for the spot stripping and decal removal
allowance, the EPA decided to include both types of units and allow
operators to decide which units they want to use and document their
decision in their initial notification and/or operating permit.
Accordingly, the EPA is promulgating the spot stripping and decal
removal allowance in Sec. 63.746(b)(3) as follows:
Each owner or operator of a new or existing depainting operation
shall not, on an annual average basis, use more than 26 gallons of
organic-HAP containing chemical strippers or alternatively 190
pounds of organic HAP per commercial aircraft depainted; or more
than 50 gallons of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers or
alternatively 365 pounds of organic HAP per military aircraft
depainted for spot stripping and decal removal.
One commenter noted an apparent error in the proposed revision of
Equation 20 and provided corrected definitions for the revised terms in
the corrected equation. The EPA has incorporated those corrections in
the final rule, as well as provided both equations to calculate the
average annual volume of organic HAP-containing chemical stripper
(Equation 20) or average annual weight of organic HAP (newly designated
Equation 21) used for spot stripping and decal removal.
Accordingly, the EPA has also revised Equation 21 in
Sec. 63.750(j)(3) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.000
Where:
C=annual average weight (lb per aircraft) of organic HAP (chemical
stripper) used for spot stripping and decal removal.
m=number of organic HAP contained in each chemical stripper, as
applied.
n=number of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers used in the
annual period.
W<INF>hi</INF>=weight fraction (expressed as a decimal) of each organic
HAP (i) contained in the chemical stripper, as applied, for each
aircraft depainted.
D<INF>hi</INF>=density (lb/gal) of each organic HAP-containing chemical
stripper (i) used in the annual period.
V<INF>si</INF>=volume (gal) of organic HAP-containing chemical stripper
(i) used during the annual period.
A=number of aircraft for which depainting operations began during the
annual period.
Another commenter noted a typographical error in the proposed
revision to the spot stripping and decal removal allowance in
Sec. 63.749(f)(3)(ii)(A). The Agency has incorporated the corrected
text into the final amendment.
Q. Applicability of General Provisions
The EPA proposed in October 1996 the addition of Table 1: General
Provisions' Applicability to subpart GG, in order to clarify the
applicability of the General Provisions to this rule. Table 1 is
referenced in Sec. 63.741 and is located at the end of the final rule
text. No comments were provided on this issue.
R. Specialty Coatings
In appendix A to this subpart, the EPA proposed to revise the last
sentence of the definition of adhesive bonding primer to state: ``There
are two categories of adhesive bonding primers: primers with a design
cure at 250 deg.F or below and primers with a design cure above
250 deg.F.'' This revision is a clarification that was omitted in the
final rule.
Two commenters suggested that the specialty coating definitions be
reviewed and one of the commenters further suggested that the following
specialty coating categories be added:
Bearing coating--a coating applied to an antifriction bearing, a
bearing housing, or the area adjacent to such a bearing in order to
facilitate bearing function or to protect base material from
excessive wear. A material shall not be classified as a bearing
coating if it can also be classified as a dry lubricative material
or a solid film lubricant.
Dry lubricative material--a coating consisting of lauric acid,
cetyl alcohol, waxes, or other non-cross linked or resin-bound
materials which acts as a dry lubricant.
Caulking and smoothing compounds--semi-solid materials which are
applied by hand application methods and are used to aerodynamically
smooth exterior vehicle surfaces or fill cavities such as bolt hole
accesses. A material shall not be classified as a caulking and
smoothing compound if it can also be classified as a sealant.
These coating categories have been used by the San Diego and/or
South Coast (California) Air Quality Management Districts in their
aerospace coating regulations. Therefore, the Agency has incorporated
these definitions into appendix A to subpart GG (and has also
incorporated the suggested definitions and the corresponding VOC limits
into the final CTG document). The Agency has also deleted the
definitions for conformal coatings, protective oils/waxes, and space
vehicle coatings from appendix A to subpart GG to be consistent with
the CTG. Other commenters found typographical errors or areas for
clarification involving the definitions of ``electric or radiation-
effect coating,'' ``pretreatment coatings,'' and ``wet fastener
installation coating'' which have been corrected in these final
amendments.
S. Miscellaneous Changes
The EPA also made a number of minor changes to several sections of
the October 1996 proposal based on public comments. One commenter
requested the removal of the prohibition on use of ozone-depleting
substances from Sec. 63.744. The control of HAP and ozone-depleting
substances are under two
[[Page 15014]]
separate programs; hence, the EPA has deleted the reference to ozone-
depleting substances in Table 1 of Sec. 63.744.
Another commenter noted that the table numbering in proposed
Sec. 63.750(o) was incorrect. The Agency has corrected the text to
state ``* * * found in Tables 1 and 2, or 3 and 4 of Sec. 63.745 for
existing and new sources respectively.''
Two commenters noted there should be a reference to the term
``H<INF>i</INF>'' in Sec. 63.750(k) since Sec. 63.749(h)(3)(i) cites
this section for the method to determine H<INF>i</INF>. The Agency has
clarified Sec. 63.750(k) by adding the term H<INF>i</INF> to the stated
definition at the end of the paragraph.
T. Technical Corrections
The following amendments are technical corrections that were not
part of the October 29, 1996 proposal. These changes are being made as
part of today's action as a matter of efficiency in rulemaking.
Furthermore, these changes are noncontroversial and do not
substantively change the requirements of the rule. By promulgating
these technical corrections directly as a final rule, the EPA is
foregoing an opportunity for public comment on a notice of proposed
rulemaking. Section 553(b) of title V of the United States Code and
section 307(b) of the CAA permit an agency to forego notice and comment
when ``the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' The EPA finds that notice and
comment regarding these technical corrections are unnecessary due to
their noncontroversial nature and because they do not change the
requirements of the final rule. The EPA finds that this constitutes
good cause under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b) for a determination that the
issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary.
1. Clarification of the Definition of Coating
The word ``protective'' was added to the definition of ``coating''
in Sec. 63.742 to be consistent with other surface coating regulations
and CTG's.
2. Addition of the Definition of Recovery Device
Two commenters requested that the term ``dedicated solvent recovery
device'' be defined in the rule so that proper test procedures may be
followed. The Agency has included the following definition for
``recovery device'' in Sec. 63.742 which is based on the definition
from the HON:
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment capable of
and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel
value, use, or reuse. Examples of equipment that may be recovery
devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water
separators, or organic-water separator or organic removal devices
such as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units.
A dedicated solvent recovery device refers to such control equipment
(as described/defined above) that is specific to a given process or
control system.
3. Correction of Cited Reference to Table 1 of this Section in
Sec. 63.744(a), (b)(1), and (d)
The numbering format for several tables in the promulgated rule was
erroneous and confusing. The table reference in Sec. 63.744(a),(b)(1),
and (d) has been corrected to read: ``Table 1 of this section.''
4. Clarification of Requirements in Sec. 63.744(c)
Several questions have been raised related to spray gun cleaning
using water as the cleaning solvent. Language was added to the
introductory text at the end of Sec. 63.744(c) stating that spray gun
cleaning operations using cleaning solvent solutions that contain HAP
and VOC below the de minimis levels specified in Sec. 63.741(f) are
exempt from the subsequent requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(4).
5. Clarifications to Sec. 63.745(e) and (f)
All references to topcoat(s) or topcoat application operations
include self-priming topcoats. The parenthetical phrase ``(including
self-priming topcoats)'' was added to all applicable paragraphs in
Sec. 63.745 (e) and (f) for clarification and consistency with
Sec. 63.745(c)(3) and (c)(4). In Sec. 63.745(f)(1), the reference to
application techniques specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through
(f)(1)(viii) has been corrected to read ``(f)(1)(i) through
(f)(1)(ix).''
6. Clarification to Sec. 63.746(a)
The words ``or rework'' were added to the last sentence in
Sec. 63.746(a) to clarify that all aerospace facilities (manufacturing
or rework) that depaint six or less completed aerospace vehicles in a
calendar year are exempt from this section.
7. Clarification of Language in Sec. 63.746(c)(1)
The wording in Sec. 63.746(c)(1) was changed to three separate
paragraphs (paragraphs (c) (2) and (3) were added) to clarify the
procedures to be used in determining compliance with the control
efficiency (<gr-thn-eq>95 percent) for new control systems. The
language has been clarified to describe how the control efficiencies
are determined involving the capture and destruction or removal
efficiencies and may take into account the volume of chemical stripper
used (relative to baseline applications) and is consistent with the
example provided.
8. Correction of Equation to Determine the Composite Vapor Pressure in
Sec. 63.750(b)(2)
A summation sign was added in front of the second term of the
denominator (involving ``W<INF>e</INF>'') of the equation used to
determine the composite vapor pressure of hand-wipe cleaning solvents.
9. Correction of OMB Tracking Number
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
technical correction amends the table that lists the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers issued under the PRA for
this final rule.
The EPA is today amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 (Section 9.1)
of currently approved information collection request (ICR) control
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations. The affected regulations
are codified at 40 CFR part 63 subpart GG, sections 63.752 and 63.753
(recordkeeping and reporting requirements, respectively). The correct
OMB control (tracking) number for this final rule is 2060-0314.
This ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause''
under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to
the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be
unnecessary.
III. Control Techniques Guideline
Today's action includes the final issuance of the control
techniques guideline(CTG) whose availability in draft form was
announced in the Federal Register on October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55842).
There were several comments involving the draft CTG submitted with
other comments on the proposed NESHAP amendments. Most of those
comments involved specialty coating category definitions and their
associated VOC limits. One commenter who suggested adding three new
coating category definitions (discussed previously in section Q) also
raised several other concerns involving the proposed definitions and/or
associated limits for clear coatings, lacquers, and specialized
function coatings. Since the specialty coating limits are meant to
[[Page 15015]]
reflect baseline levels nationwide, and will have no significant impact
on emission reductions, the EPA has decided to maintain the proposed
definitions and associated limits for these coating categories.
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the ``Act''), State
implementation plans (SIP's) for ozone nonattainment areas (except
marginal areas) must be revised to require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for sources for which the EPA publishes a CTG between
November 15, 1990 and the date an area achieves attainment status (the
Act, Sec. 182(b)(2), (c), (d), (e)). The EPA has defined RACT as ``the
lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility'' (44 FR
53761, 53762, September 17, 1979).
The CTG's review current knowledge and data concerning the
technology and costs of various emissions control techniques. The CTG's
are intended to provide State and local air pollution authorities with
an information base for proceeding with their own analyses of RACT to
meet statutory requirements.
Each CTG contains a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific
source category, based on the EPA's evaluation of the capabilities and
problems general to the category. Where applicable, the EPA recommends
that States adopt requirements consistent with the presumptive norm.
However, the presumptive norm is only a recommendation. States may
choose to develop their own RACT requirements on a case-by-case basis,
considering the emission reductions needed to achieve the national
ambient air quality standards and the economic and technical
circumstances of the individual source.
This CTG is issued pursuant to Clean Air Act Sec. 183(b)(3), which
requires issuance of a CTG to reduce VOC emissions from aerospace
coatings and solvents. It addresses RACT for control of VOC emissions
from aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. Volatile organic
compound emissions from primer, topcoat, and ``specialty'' coating
applications, maskant applications, sealing, adhesives, and cleaning
operations are addressed. Emission limits for processes also addressed
in the NESHAP are identical to the NESHAP limits. Those revisions to
the NESHAP amendments described in this preamble and relevant to the
CTG have been incorporated into the final CTG document. Many of the
steps in aerospace manufacturing and rework operations involve the use
of organic solvents and are sources of VOC emissions. The sources,
mechanisms, and control of these VOC emissions are described in the
CTG.
The coating category VOC limits, application techniques, and
equipment requirements identified as RACT in the CTG were assumed to
represent RACT requirements 1 year after the major sources have met the
NESHAP (MACT) requirements, and therefore, will be effective on
September 1, 1999. (The NESHAP compliance date for existing sources is
September 1, 1998). The EPA estimates that State and local regulations
developed pursuant to this CTG will affect about 2,869 facilities.
Since the only new requirements in the CTG (requirements that are not
included in the NESHAP) concern sealants, adhesives, and specialty
coatings, which represent only about 3 percent of all VOC emissions
from aerospace operations, the additional costs and emission reductions
resulting from the CTG will be negligible. Further information on costs
is presented in the CTG document and in the July 1995 BID on the NESHAP
for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all of the
information submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the
development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file, since
material is added throughout the rulemaking development. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of the public and the involved
industries to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and promulgated
standards and the EPA responses to significant comments, the content of
the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial review (except
for interagency review materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The amendments do not impose any new information collection
requirements and result in no change to the currently approved
collection. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in the NESHAP for
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned
OMB control No. 2060-0314. (EPA ICR No. 1687.03). A copy of the
Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Regulatory Information Division; EPA; 401 M Street, S.W., (Mail Code
2137); Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by person to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data searches; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulation are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Today's amendments should have no impact on the information
collection burden estimates made previously. Today's action does not
impose any additional information collection requirements. The reduced
recordkeeping associated with cleaning solvents used for nonaerospace
manufacturing/rework activities represents a 6 percent reduction in the
burden estimated for the final rule. Consequently, the ICR has not been
revised for purposes of today's action.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735 [October 4, 1993]),
the EPA is required to determine whether a regulation is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of this E.O. to prepare a regulatory impact analysis
(RIA). The E.O. defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or
[[Page 15016]]
planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the E.O.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the E.O.
Under E.O. 12866, the final CTG document for aerospace
manufacturing and rework facilities is not considered a ``regulatory
action,'' defined as ``any substantive action by an agency * * * that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation.'' This CTG document is not a regulatory action by EPA,
rather it provides information to States to aid them in developing
rules.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The
EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule makes
minor amendments to the Aerospace NESHAP, including changes to
definitions, applicability provisions, and several minor changes to the
standards (emission limits) and the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. In addition, this notice includes a standard
for Type I chemical milling maskants and a test method for determining
filtration efficiency of dry particulate filters. The overall impact of
these amendments is a net decrease in requirements on all entities
affected by this rule, including small entities. Therefore these
amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
E. Submission to Congress
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Section 203 requires the
Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by a proposed intergovernmental mandate. Section
204 requires the Agency to develop a process to allow elected state,
local, and Tribal government officials to provide input in the
development of any proposal containing a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law. The EPA has determined that these amendments
do not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Small governments will
not be uniquely impacted by these amendments. Therefore, the
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 10, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671g, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by revising the entry ``63.752-
63.753'' to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories
* * * * *
63.752-63.753.............................................. 2060-0314
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 63--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart GG--[Amended]
4. Section 63.741 is amended by revising paragraph (b), paragraph
(c) introductory text, paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and the last
three sentences of paragraph (f); and adding paragraphs (c)(7), (h),
(i), and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.741 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
* * * * *
(b) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part, except
as specified in Sec. 63.743(a) and Table 1 of this subpart.
(c) Affected sources. The affected sources to which the provisions
of this subpart apply are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of
this section. The activities subject to this subpart are limited to the
manufacture or rework of aerospace vehicles or components as defined in
this subpart. Where a dispute arises relating to the applicability of
this subpart to a specific activity, the owner or operator shall
demonstrate whether or not the activity is regulated under this
subpart.
* * * * *
[[Page 15017]]
(2) For organic HAP or VOC emissions, each primer application
operation, which is the total of all primer applications at the
facility.
(3) For organic HAP or VOC emissions, each topcoat application
operation, which is the total of all topcoat applications at the
facility.
(4) For organic HAP or VOC emissions, each depainting operation,
which is the total of all depainting at the facility.
* * * * *
(7) For inorganic HAP emissions, each spray booth or hangar that
contains a primer or topcoat application operation subject to
Sec. 63.745(g) or a depainting operation subject to Sec. 63.746(b)(4).
* * * * *
(f) * * * These requirements also do not apply to parts and
assemblies not critical to the vehicle's structural integrity or flight
performance. The requirements of this subpart also do not apply to
primers, topcoats, chemical milling maskants, strippers, and cleaning
solvents containing HAP and VOC at concentrations less than 0.1 percent
for carcinogens or 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens, as determined from
manufacturer's representations. Additional specific exemptions from
regulatory coverage are set forth in paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i) and
(j) of this section and Secs. 63.742, 63.744(a)(1), (b), (e),
63.745(a), (f)(3), (g)(4), 63.746(a), (b)(5), 63.747(c)(3), and
63.749(d).
* * * * *
(h) Regulated activities associated with space vehicles designed to
travel beyond the limit of the earth's atmosphere, including but not
limited to satellites, space stations, and the Space Shuttle System
(including orbiter, external tanks, and solid rocket boosters), are
exempt from the requirements of this subpart, except for depainting
operations found in Sec. 63.746.
(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)-(e), 63.747(d)-
(e), 63.749(d) and (h), 63.750(c)-(h) and (k)-(m), 63.752(c) and (f),
and 63.753(c) and (e). A facility shall maintain the manufacturer's
supplied data and annual purchase records for each exempt waterborne
coating readily available for inspection and review and shall retain
these data for 5 years.
(j) This subpart does not apply to rework operations performed on
antique aerospace vehicles or components.
5. Section 63.742 is amended by revising the definitions for
``aircraft transparency,'' ``chemical milling maskant,'' ``chemical
milling maskant application operation,'' ``cleaning solvent,''
``coating,'' ``high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment,'' and
``specialty coating''; by removing the parenthetical text from the end
of the definition of ``Type II etchant''; by removing the last sentence
from the definition of ``self-priming topcoat''; and by adding in
alphabetical order definitions for ``antique aerospace vehicle or
component,'' ``closed-cycle depainting system,'' ``recovery device,''
``Type I etchant,'' and ``waterborne (water-reducible) coating'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.742 Definitions.
* * * * *
Aircraft transparency means the aircraft windshield, canopy,
passenger windows, lenses, and other components which are constructed
of transparent materials.
Antique aerospace vehicle or component means an aircraft or
component thereof that was built at least 30 years ago. An antique
aerospace vehicle would not routinely be in commercial or military
service in the capacity for which it was designed.
* * * * *
Chemical milling maskant means a coating that is applied directly
to aluminum components to protect surface areas when chemical milling
the component with a Type I or Type II etchant. Type I chemical milling
maskants are used with a Type I etchant and Type II chemical milling
maskants are used with a Type II etchant. This definition does not
include bonding maskants, critical use and line sealer maskants, and
seal coat maskants. Additionally, maskants that must be used with a
combination of Type I or II etchants and any of the above types of
maskants (i.e., bonding, critical use and line sealer, and seal coat)
are also exempt from this subpart. (See also Type I and Type II etchant
definitions.)
Chemical milling maskant application operation means application of
chemical milling maskant for use with Type I or Type II chemical
milling etchants.
* * * * *
Cleaning solvent means a liquid material used for hand-wipe, spray
gun, or flush cleaning. This definition does not include solutions that
contain HAP and VOC below the de minimis levels specified in
Sec. 63.741(f).
Closed-cycle depainting system means a dust-free, automated process
that removes permanent coating in small sections at a time and
maintains a continuous vacuum around the area(s) being depainted to
capture emissions.
Coating means a material that is applied to the surface of an
aerospace vehicle or component to form a decorative, protective, or
functional solid film, or the solid film itself.
* * * * *
High volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment means spray
equipment that is used to apply coating by means of a spray gun that
operates at 10.0 psig of atomizing air pressure or less at the air cap.
* * * * *
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment capable of
and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel
value, use, or reuse. Examples of equipment that may be recovery
devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water
separators, or organic-water separators or organic removal devices such
as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units.
* * * * *
Specialty coating means a coating that, even though it meets the
definition of a primer, topcoat, or self-priming topcoat, has
additional performance criteria beyond those of primers, topcoats, and
self-priming topcoats for specific applications. These performance
criteria may include, but are not limited to, temperature or fire
resistance, substrate compatibility, antireflection, temporary
protection or marking, sealing, adhesively joining substrates, or
enhanced corrosion protection. Individual specialty coatings are
defined in appendix A to this subpart and in the CTG for Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Operations (EPA 453/R-97-004).
* * * * *
Type I etchant means a chemical milling etchant that contains
varying amounts of dissolved sulfur and does not contain amines.
* * * * *
Waterborne (water-reducible) coating means any coating that
contains more than 5 percent water by weight as applied in its volatile
fraction.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.743 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (b) introductory text, and (c), and by adding
paragraphs (a)(10) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.743 Standards: General.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(10) of this
section and in Table 1 of this subpart, each owner
[[Page 15018]]
or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart is also
subject to the following sections of subpart A of this part:
* * * * *
(10) For the purposes of compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.5(b)(4) of the General Provisions and this subpart, owners or
operators of existing primer or topcoat application operations and
depainting operations who construct or reconstruct a spray booth or
hangar that does not have the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of
an individual inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all inorganic HAP
combined shall only be required to notify the Administrator of such
construction or reconstruction on an annual basis. Notification shall
be submitted on or before March 1 of each year and shall include the
information required in Sec. 63.5(b)(4) for each such spray booth or
hangar constructed or reconstructed during the prior calendar year,
except that such information shall be limited to inorganic HAP's. No
advance notification or written approval from the Administrator
pursuant to Sec. 63.5(b)(3) shall be required for the construction or
reconstruction of such a spray booth or hangar unless the booth or
hangar has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of an individual
inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all inorganic HAP combined.
(b) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Each owner or operator
that uses an air pollution control device or equipment to control HAP
emissions shall prepare and operate in accordance with a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan in accordance with Sec. 63.6. Dry
particulate filter systems operated per the manufacturer's instructions
are exempt from a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. A startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan shall be prepared for facilities using
locally prepared operating procedures. In addition to the information
required in Sec. 63.6, this plan shall also include the following
provisions:
* * * * *
(c) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device
or equipment not listed in this subpart shall submit a description of
the device or equipment, test data verifying the performance of the
device or equipment in controlling organic HAP and/or VOC emissions, as
appropriate, and specific operating parameters that will be monitored
to establish compliance with the standards to the Administrator for
approval not later than 120 days prior to the compliance date.
(d) Instead of complying with the individual coating limits in
Secs. 63.745 and 63.747, a facility may choose to comply with the
averaging provisions specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(6) of
this section.
(1) Each owner or operator of a new or existing source shall use
any combination of primers, topcoats (including self-priming topcoats),
Type I chemical milling maskants, or Type II chemical milling maskants
such that the monthly volume-weighted average organic HAP and VOC
contents of the combination of primers, topcoats, Type I chemical
milling maskants, or Type II chemical milling maskants, as determined
in accordance with the applicable procedures set forth in Sec. 63.750,
complies with the specified content limits in Secs. 63.745(c) and
63.747(c), unless the permitting agency specifies a shorter averaging
period as part of an ambient ozone control program.
(2) Averaging is allowed only for uncontrolled primers, topcoats
(including self-priming topcoats), Type I chemical milling maskants, or
Type II chemical milling maskants.
(3) Averaging is not allowed between primers and topcoats
(including self-priming topcoats).
(4) Averaging is not allowed between Type I and Type II chemical
milling maskants.
(5) Averaging is not allowed between primers and chemical milling
maskants, or between topcoats and chemical milling maskants.
(6) Each averaging scheme shall be approved in advance by the
permitting agency and adopted as part of the facility's title V permit.
7. Section 63.744 is amended by revising the text of paragraph (a)
introductory text, and paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b) introductory
text, (b)(1), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(9),
(e)(10), and (e)(11) and by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(e)(12) and replacing it with ``; and''; by adding a sentence to (6)
introductory text, and paragraph (e)(13); and by redesignating Table 3
as Table 1 and revising it and transferring it from paragraph (a) to
the end of this section as follows:
Sec. 63.744 Standards: Cleaning operations.
(a) Housekeeping measures. Each owner or operator of a new or
existing cleaning operation subject to this subpart shall comply with
the requirements in these paragraphs unless the cleaning solvent used
is identified in Table 1 of this section or contains HAP and VOC below
the de minimis levels specified in Sec. 63.741(f).
(1) Place cleaning solvent-laden cloth, paper, or any other
absorbent applicators used for cleaning in bags or other closed
containers upon completing their use. Ensure that these bags and
containers are kept closed at all times except when depositing or
removing these materials from the container. Use bags and containers of
such design so as to contain the vapors of the cleaning solvent.
Cotton-tipped swabs used for very small cleaning operations are exempt
from this requirement.
(2) Store fresh and spent cleaning solvents, except semi-aqueous
solvent cleaners, used in aerospace cleaning operations in closed
containers.
* * * * *
(b) Hand-wipe cleaning. Each owner or operator of a new or existing
hand-wipe cleaning operation (excluding cleaning of spray gun equipment
performed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section) subject to
this subpart shall use cleaning solvents that meet one of the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this
section. Cleaning solvent solutions that contain HAP and VOC below the
de minimis levels specified in Sec. 63.741(f) are exempt from the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section.
(1) Meet one of the composition requirements in Table 1 of this
section;
* * * * *
(c) * * * Spray gun cleaning operations using cleaning solvent
solutions that contain HAP and VOC below the de minimis levels
specified in Sec. 63.741(f) are exempt from the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
(1) * * *
(ii) If leaks are found during the monthly inspection required in
Sec. 63.751(a), repairs shall be made as soon as practicable, but no
later than 15 days after the leak was found. If the leak is not
repaired by the 15th day after detection, the cleaning solvent shall be
removed, and the enclosed cleaner shall be shut down until the leak is
repaired or its use is permanently discontinued.
(2) Nonatomized cleaning. Clean the spray gun by placing cleaning
solvent in the pressure pot and forcing it through the gun with the
atomizing cap in place. No atomizing air is to be used. Direct the
cleaning solvent from the spray gun into a vat, drum, or other waste
container that is closed when not in use.
* * * * *
(4) Atomizing cleaning. Clean the spray gun by forcing the cleaning
solvent through the gun and direct the resulting atomized spray into a
waste
[[Page 15019]]
container that is fitted with a device designed to capture the atomized
cleaning solvent emissions.
(d) Flush cleaning. Each owner or operator of a flush cleaning
operation subject to this subpart (excluding those in which Table 1 or
semi-aqueous cleaning solvents are used) shall empty the used cleaning
solvent each time aerospace parts or assemblies, or components of a
coating unit (with the exception of spray guns) are flush cleaned into
an enclosed container or collection system that is kept closed when not
in use or into a system with equivalent emission control.
(e) * * *
(1) Cleaning during the manufacture, assembly, installation,
maintenance, or testing of components of breathing oxygen systems that
are exposed to the breathing oxygen;
(2) Cleaning during the manufacture, assembly, installation,
maintenance, or testing of parts, subassemblies, or assemblies that are
exposed to strong oxidizers or reducers (e.g., nitrogen tetroxide,
liquid oxygen, or hydrazine);
* * * * *
(9) Cleaning of metallic and nonmetallic materials used in
honeycomb cores during the manufacture or maintenance of these cores,
and cleaning of the completed cores used in the manufacture of
aerospace vehicles or components;
(10) Cleaning of aircraft transparencies, polycarbonate, or glass
substrates;
(11) Cleaning and cleaning solvent usage associated with research
and development, quality control, and laboratory testing;
* * * * *
(13) Cleaning operations identified as essential uses under the
Montreal Protocol for which the Administrator has allocated essential
use allowances or exemptions in 40 CFR 82.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning solvent type Composition requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aqueous...................... Cleaning solvents in which water is the
primary ingredient (<gr-thn-eq>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 oxygenated hydrocarbons and have a
maximum vapor pressure of 7 mm Hg at 20
deg.C (3.75 in. H<INF>2O at 68 deg.F). These
cleaners also contain no HAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Section 63.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2),
(f) introductory text, (f)(1) introductory text, the first sentence of
(f)(2), (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii); removing paragraph
(g)(2)(iv); redesignating paragraphs (g)(2)(v) and (g)(2)(vi) as
(g)(2)(iv) and (g)(2)(v), respectively; revising the newly designated
paragraphs (g)(2)(iv) and (g)(2)(v); removing the word ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (g)(4)(viii); revising the punctuation ``.'' at the
end of paragraph (g)(4)(ix) to read ``; and''; and adding paragraph
(g)(4)(x) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.745 Standards: Primer and topcoat application operations.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Use primers and topcoats (including self-priming topcoats) with
HAP and VOC content levels equal to or less than the limits specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section; or
(2) Use the averaging provisions described in Sec. 63.743(d).
(f) Application equipment. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3)
of this section, each owner or operator of a new or existing primer or
topcoat (including self-priming topcoat) application operation subject
to this subpart in which any of the coatings contain organic HAP or VOC
shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) of this section.
(1) All primers and topcoats (including self-priming topcoats)
shall be applied using one or more of the application techniques
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(ix) of this section. *
* *
* * * * *
(2) All application devices used to apply primers or topcoats
(including self-priming topcoats) shall be operated according to
company procedures, local specified operating procedures, and/or the
manufacturer's specifications, whichever is most stringent, at
alltimes. * * *
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For existing sources, the owner or operator must choose one of
the following:
(A) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream
through a dry particulate filter system certified using the methods
described in Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data
points in Tables 1 and 2 of this section; or
Table 1.--Two-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge for Existing
Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>90........................................ >5.7
>50........................................ >4.1
>10........................................ >2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Two-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge for Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>90........................................ >8.1
>50........................................ >5.0
>10........................................ >2.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream
through a waterwash system that shall remain in operation during all
coating application operations; or
(C) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream
through an air pollution control system that meets or exceeds the
efficiency data points in Tables 1 and 2 of this section
[[Page 15020]]
and is approved by the permitting authority.
(ii) For new sources, either:
(A) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream
through a dry particulate filter system certified using the methods
described in Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data
points in Tables 3 and 4 of this section; or
Table 3.--Three-Stage Arrestor; Liquid Phase Challenge for New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>95........................................ >2.0
>80........................................ >1.0
>65........................................ >0.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Three-Stage Arrestor; Solid Phase Challenge for New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic particle size
Filtration efficiency requirement, % range, <greek-m>m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>95........................................ >2.5
>85........................................ >1.1
>75........................................ >0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream
through an air pollution control system that meets or exceeds the
efficiency data points in Tables 3 and 4 of this section and is
approved by the permitting authority.
(iii) 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 (g)(2)(ii) of this section:
(A) Pass the air stream through either a two-stage dry particulate
filter system or a waterwash system before exhausting it to the
atmosphere.
(B) If the primer or topcoat 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 filter system as
approved by the permitting agency.
(iv) If a dry particulate filter system is used, the following
requirements shall be met:
(A) Maintain the system in good working order;
(B) Install a differential pressure gauge across the filter banks;
(C) Continuously monitor the pressure drop across the filter and
read and record the pressure drop once per shift; and
(D) Take corrective action when the pressure drop exceeds or falls
below the filter manufacturer's recommended limit(s).
(v) If a waterwash system is used, continuously monitor the water
flow rate and read and record the water flow rate once per shift.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(x) The use of hand-held spray can application methods.
9. Section 63.746 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (a) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii),
(b)(4)(iii)(C), (b)(4)(iv), the second sentence of paragraph (b)(4)(v),
and (c)(1); and adding paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.746 Standards: Depainting operations.
(a) * * * This section does not apply to an aerospace manufacturing
or rework facility that depaints six or less completed aerospace
vehicles in a calendar year.
* * * * *
(b)(1) HAP emissions--non-HAP chemical strippers and technologies.
Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section,
each owner or operator of a new or existing aerospace depainting
operation subject to this subpart shall emit no organic HAP from
chemical stripping formulations and agents or chemical paint softeners.
* * * * *
(3) Each owner or operator of a new or existing depainting
operation shall not, on an annual average basis, use more than 26
gallons of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers or alternatively
190 pounds of organic HAP per commercial aircraft depainted; or more
than 50 gallons of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers or
alternatively 365 pounds of organic HAP per military aircraft depainted
for spot stripping and decal removal.
(4) * * *
(i) Perform the depainting operation in an enclosed area, unless a
closed-cycle depainting system is used.
(ii)(A) For existing sources pass any air stream removed from the
enclosed area or closed-cycle depainting system through a dry
particulate filter system, certified using the method described in
Sec. 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 1
and 2 of Sec. 63.745, through a baghouse, or through a waterwash system
before exhausting it to the atmosphere.
(B) For new sources pass any air stream removed from the enclosed
area or closed-cycle depainting system through a dry particulate filter
system certified using the method described in Sec. 63.750(o) to meet
or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 3 and 4 of Sec. 63.745
or through a baghouse before exhausting it to the atmosphere.
(iii) * * *
(C) Continuously monitor the pressure drop across the filter, and
read and record the pressure drop once per shift; and
* * * * *
(iv) If a waterwash system is used, continuously monitor the water
flow rate, and read and record the water flow rate once per shift.
(v) * * * If the water path in the waterwash system fails the
visual continuity/flow characteristics check, as recorded pursuant to
Sec. 63.752(e)(7), or the water flow rate, as recorded pursuant to
Sec. 63.752(d)(2), exceeds the limit(s) specified by the booth
manufacturer or in locally prepared operating procedures, or the booth
manufacturer's or locally prepared maintenance procedures for the
filter or waterwash system have not been performed as scheduled, shut
down the operation immediately and take corrective action. * * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) All organic HAP emissions from the operation shall be reduced
by the use of a control system. Each control system that was installed
before the effective date shall reduce the operations' organic HAP
emissions to the atmosphere by 81 percent or greater, taking into
account capture and destruction or removal efficiencies.
(2) Each control system installed on or after the effective date
shall reduce organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere by 95 percent or
greater. Reduction shall take into account capture and destruction or
removal efficiencies, and may take into account the volume of chemical
stripper used relative to baseline levels (e.g., the 95 percent
efficiency may be achieved by controlling emissions at 81 percent
efficiency with a control system and using 74 percent less stripper
than in baseline applications). The baseline shall be calculated using
data from 1996 and 1997, which shall be on a usage per aircraft or
usage per square foot of surface basis.
(3) The capture and destruction or removal efficiencies are to be
[[Page 15021]]
determined using the procedures in Sec. 63.750(g) when a carbon
adsorber is used and those in Sec. 63.750(h) when a control device
other than a carbon adsorber is used.
10. Section 63.747 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)
and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.747 Standards: Chemical milling maskant application
operations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Organic HAP emissions from chemical milling maskants shall be
limited to organic HAP content levels of no more than 622 grams of
organic HAP per liter (5.2 lb/gal) of Type I chemical milling maskant
(less water) as applied, and no more than 160 grams of organic HAP per
liter (1.3 lb/gal) of Type II chemical milling maskant (less water) as
applied.
(2) VOC emissions from chemical milling maskants shall be limited
to VOC content levels of no more than 622 grams of VOC per liter (5.2
lb/gal) of Type I chemical milling maskant (less water and exempt
solvents) as applied, and no more than 160 grams of VOC per liter (1.3
lb/gal) of Type II chemical milling maskant (less water and exempt
solvents) as applied.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Use the averaging provisions described in Sec. 63.743(d).
11. Section 63.749 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
(d)(3)(iii)(B), (d)(4)(iii), (f)(3)(ii)(A), and (h)(3)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.749 Compliance dates and determinations.
(a) Compliance dates. (1) Each owner or operator of an existing
affected source subject to this subpart shall comply with the
requirements of this subpart by September 1, 1998, except as specified
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Owners or operators of new
affected sources subject to this subpart shall comply on the effective
date or upon startup, whichever is later. In addition, each owner or
operator shall comply with the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.6(b) and (c).
(2) Owners or operators of existing primer or topcoat application
operations and depainting operations who construct or reconstruct a
spray booth or hangar must comply with the new source requirements for
inorganic HAP specified in Secs. 63.745(g)(2)(ii) and 63.746(b)(4) for
that new spray booth or hangar upon startup. Such sources must still
comply with all other existing source requirements by September 1,
1998.
(b) General. Each facility subject to this subpart shall be
considered in noncompliance if the owner or operator fails to submit a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as required by Sec. 63.743(b)
or uses a control device other than one specified in this subpart that
has not been approved by the Administrator, as required by
Sec. 63.743(c).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Uses an alternative application technique, as allowed under
Sec. 63.745(f)(1)(ix), such that the emissions of both organic HAP and
VOC for the implementation period of the alternative application method
are less than or equal to the emissions generated using HVLP or
electrostatic spray application methods as determined using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.750(i).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) Uses an application technique specified in Sec. 63.745
(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(viii); or
(B) Uses an alternative application technique, as allowed under
Sec. 63.745(f)(1)(ix), such that the emissions of both organic HAP and
VOC for the implementation period of the alternative application method
are less than or equal to the emissions generated using HVLP or
electrostatic spray application methods as determined using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.750(i).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) For any spot stripping and decal removal, the value of C, as
determined using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.750(j), is less
than or equal to 26 gallons of organic HAP-containing chemical stripper
or 190 pounds of organic HAP per commercial aircraft depainted
calculated on a yearly average; and is less than or equal to 50 gallons
of organic HAP-containing chemical stripper or 365 pounds of organic
HAP per military aircraft depainted calculated on a yearly average; and
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) For all uncontrolled chemical milling maskants, all values of
H<INF>i</INF> and H<INF>a</INF> (as determined using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.750 (k) and (l)) are less than or equal to 622
grams of organic HAP per liter (5.2 lb/gal) of Type I chemical milling
maskant as applied (less water), and 160 grams of organic HAP per liter
(1.3 lb/gal) of Type II chemical milling maskant as applied (less
water). All values of G<INF>i</INF> and G<INF>a</INF> (as determined
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.750 (m) and (n)) are less
than or equal to 622 grams of VOC per liter (5.2 lb/gal) of Type I
chemical milling maskant as applied (less water and exempt solvents),
and 160 grams of VOC per liter (1.3 lb/gal) of Type II chemical milling
maskant (less water and exempt solvents) as applied.
* * * * *
12. Section 63.750 is amended by revising the equation in paragraph
(b)(2); paragraphs (c)(1), (e)(1), equation 7 (``Eq. 7'') in (e)(2),
(g)(3)(ii), (g)(9)(i), (i)(1), (i)(2)(iii), (j) introductory text,
(j)(1), (j)(3), (k) introductory text, (k)(1), (l)(4), and (n)(3); and
by adding paragraphs (i)(2)(iv) and (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.750 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.001
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For coatings that contain no exempt solvents, determine the
total organic HAP content using manufacturer's supplied data or Method
24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine the VOC content. The VOC
content shall be used as a surrogate for total HAP content for coatings
that contain no exempt solvent. If there is a discrepancy between the
manufacturer's formulation data and the results of the Method 24
analysis, compliance shall be based on the results from the Method 24
analysis.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Determine the VOC content of each formulation (less water and
exempt solvents) as applied using manufacturer's supplied data or
Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine the VOC content.
The VOC content shall be used as a surrogate for total HAP content for
coatings that contain no exempt solvent. If there is a discrepancy
between the manufacturer's formulation data and the results of the
Method 24 analysis, compliance shall be based on the results from the
Method 24 analysis.
[[Page 15022]]
(2) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.002
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Assure that all HAP emissions from the affected HAP emission
point(s) are segregated from gaseous emission points not affected by
this subpart and that the emissions can be captured for measurement, as
described in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) (A) and (B) of this section;
* * * * *
(9) * * *
(i) When either EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A is to be used in
the determination of the efficiency of a fixed-bed carbon adsorption
system with a common exhaust stack for all the individual carbon
adsorber vessels pursuant to paragraph (g) (2) or (4) of this section,
the test shall consist of three separate runs, each coinciding with one
or more complete sequences through the adsorption cycles of all of the
individual carbon adsorber vessels.
* * * * *
(i)(1) Alternative application method--primers and topcoats. Each
owner or operator seeking to use an alternative application method (as
allowed in Sec. 63.745(f)(1)(ix)) in complying with the standards for
primers and topcoats shall use the procedures specified in paragraphs
(i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) or (i)(2)(iii) of this section to determine
the organic HAP and VOC emission levels of the alternative application
technique as compared to either HVLP or electrostatic spray application
methods.
(2) * * *
(iii) Test the proposed application method against either HVLP or
electrostatic spray application methods in a laboratory or pilot
production area, using parts and coatings representative of the
process(es) where the alternative method is to be used. The laboratory
test will use the same part configuration(s) and the same number of
parts for both the proposed method and the HVLP or electrostatic spray
application methods.
(iv) Whenever the approach in either paragraph (i)(2)(ii) or
(i)(2)(iii) of this section is used, the owner or operator shall
calculate both the organic HAP and VOC emission reduction using
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.003
where:
P=organic HAP or VOC emission reduction, percent.
E<INF>b</INF>=organic HAP or VOC emissions, in pounds, before the
alternative application technique was implemented, as determined under
paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section.
E<INF>a</INF>=organic HAP of VOC emissions, in pounds, after the
alternative application technique was implemented, as determined under
paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(j) Spot stripping and decal removal. Each owner or operator
seeking to comply with Sec. 63.746(b)(3) shall determine the volume of
organic HAP-containing chemical strippers or alternatively the weight
of organic HAP used per aircraft using the procedure specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(3) of this section.
(1) For each chemical stripper used for spot stripping and decal
removal, determine for each annual period the total volume as applied
or the total weight of organic HAP using the procedure specified in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Calculate the annual average volume of organic HAP-containing
chemical stripper or weight of organic HAP used for spot stripping and
decal removal per aircraft using equation 20 (volume) or equation 21
(weight):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.004
where:
C=annual average volume (gal per aircraft) of organic HAP-containing
chemical stripper used for spot stripping and decal removal.
n=number of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers used in the
annual period.
V<INF>si</INF>=volume (gal) of organic HAP-containing chemical stripper
(i) used during the annual period.
A=number of aircraft for which depainting operations began during the
annual period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.005
where:
C = annual average weight (lb per aircraft) of organic HAP (chemical
stripper) used for spot stripping and decal removal.
m = number of organic HAP contained in each chemical stripper, as
applied.
n = number of organic HAP-containing chemical strippers used in the
annual period.
W<INF>hi</INF> = weight fraction (expressed as a decimal) of each
organic HAP (i) contained in the chemical stripper, as applied, for
each aircraft depainted.
D<INF>hi</INF> = density (lb/gal) of each organic HAP-containing
chemical stripper (i), used in the annual period.
V<INF>si</INF> = volume (gal) of organic HAP-containing chemical
stripper (i) used during the annual period.
A = number of aircraft for which depainting operations began during the
annual period.
(k) Organic HAP content level determination--compliant chemical
milling maskants. For those uncontrolled chemical milling maskants
complying with the chemical milling maskant organic HAP content limit
specified in Sec. 63.747(c)(1) without being averaged, the following
procedures shall be used to determine the mass of organic HAP emitted
per unit volume of coating (chemical milling maskant) i as applied
(less water), H<INF>i</INF> (lb/gal).
(1) For coatings that contain no exempt solvents, determine the
total organic HAP content using manufacturer's supplied data or Method
24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to determine the VOC content. The VOC
content shall be used as a surrogate for total HAP content for coatings
that contain no exempt solvent. If there is a discrepancy between the
manufacturer's formulation data and the results of the Method 24
analysis, compliance shall be based on the results from the Method 24
analysis.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(4) Calculate the volume-weighted average mass of organic HAP
emitted per unit volume (lb/gal) of chemical milling maskant (less
water) as applied for all chemical milling maskants during each 30-day
period using equation 22:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.006
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(3) Calculate the volume-weighted average mass of VOC emitted per
unit volume (lb/gal) of chemical milling maskant (less water and exempt
solvents) as applied during each 30-day period using equation 23:
[[Page 15023]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27MR98.007
* * * * *
(o) Inorganic HAP emissions--dry particulate filter certification
requirements. Dry particulate filters used to comply with
Sec. 63.745(g)(2) or Sec. 63.746(b)(4) must be certified by the filter
manufacturer or distributor, paint/depainting booth supplier, and/or
the facility owner or operator using method 319 in appendix A of
subpart A of this part, to meet or exceed the efficiency data points
found in Tables 1 and 2, or 3 and 4 of Sec. 63.745 for existing or new
sources respectively.
13. Section 63.751 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A), (b)(6)(iii) introductory text, and the first
sentence of paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(A)(2) introductory text and
paragraphs (b)(6)(iii)(D), (c)(1), (c)(2) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.751 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Except as allowed by paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(A)(2) of this
section, all continuous emission monitors shall comply with performance
specification (PS) 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as appropriate
depending on whether VOC or HAP concentration is being measured. * * *
* * * * *
(iii) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.745(d),
Sec. 63.746(c), or Sec. 63.747(d) through the use of a control device
and establishing a site-specific operating parameter in accordance with
paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall fulfill the requirements of
paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(A) of this section and paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B)
or (C) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) * * *
(2) For owners or operators using a nonregenerative carbon
adsorber, in lieu of using continuous emission monitors as specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(A)(1) of this section, the owner or operator may
use a portable monitoring device to monitor total HAP or VOC
concentration at the inlet and outlet or the outlet of the carbon
adsorber as appropriate. * * *
* * * * *
(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 |
