[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3642-3648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1557]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6526-8]
RIN 2060-A177


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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY:  This action proposes to amend the national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities to include a separate emission standard for exterior 
primers used for large commercial aircraft components (parts or 
assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing 
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft. We 
are proposing these amendments based on review of data that support 
significant technical concerns of an aircraft manufacturer's ability to 
achieve the current 350 grams per liter (g/L) (2.9 pounds per gallon 
(lb/gal)) hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and volatile organic compound 
(VOC) content limit requirements when using exterior primers.

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received by February 23, 
2000, unless a hearing is requested by February 3, 2000. If a hearing 
is requested, written comments must be received by March 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Comments: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket Number A-92-20, Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 
requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed 
below in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Comments may also be 
submitted electronically by following the instructions provided in 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Public Hearing: Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the 
EPA by February 3, 2000. If requested, a public hearing will be held 
February 7, 2000. If a public hearing is requested, the comment period 
will end 30 days after the date of the public hearing, in which case 
EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
hearing information and the extended comment period. If a public 
hearing is held, it will be held at the EPA's Office of Administration 
Auditorium. Persons interested in attending the hearing to present oral 
testimony should contact Ms. Dorothy Apple; Policy, Planning, and 
Standards Group (MD-13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-4487.
    Docket: Docket number A-92-20, containing information relevant to 
this proposed rulemaking, is available for public inspection between 
8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except for Federal 
holidays) at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 260-7548. The 
docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

[[Page 3643]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. James Szykman or Mr. Jaime Pagan; 
Policy, Planning, and Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2452 (Szykman) or (919) 541-
5340 (Pagan), electronic mail address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f98a838092949897d7939094b99c8998d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b48414250565a55155152567b5e4b5a155c544d">[email protected]</span></a> or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5929383e383777333830343c193c2938773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcacbdbbbdb2f2b6bdb5b1b99cb9acbdf2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    The regulated category and entities affected by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................  Facilities which are major sources
                                       of hazardous air pollutants and
                                       manufacture large commercial
                                       aircraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather, provides a 
guide for readers likely to be interested in the proposed amendments to 
the regulations affected by this action. If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of these proposed amendments to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

    These proposed amendments, the promulgated NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GG), and other background information are available in Docket 
Number A-92-20 or by request from the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center (ADDRESSES). These documents can also be 
accessed through the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. For 
further information and general questions regarding the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN) call Mr. Hersch Rorex (919) 541-5637. Electronic 
comments and data may be submitted by sending electronic mail (e-mail) 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9a8e4a8a7ade4bbe4ada6aaa2acbd89acb9a8a4a8a0a5e7acb9a8e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="debff3bfb0baf3acf3bab1bdb5bbaa9ebbaebfb3bfb7b2f0bbaebff0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>. Submit comments as an ASCII file, 
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 
Comments and data will also be accepted on diskette in Word Perfect 
5.1, 6.1, Corel 8, or ACSII file format. Identify all comments and data 
in electronic form by the docket number A-92-20. No Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail. 
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Why are we taking this action?
II. What provisions of the Aerospace NESHAP would these proposed 
amendments affect?
III. Whom would these proposed amendments affect?
IV. What are the administrative requirements for this proposal?
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

I. Why Are We Taking This Action?

    On September 1, 1995, we promulgated the NESHAP for Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (60 FR 45948). The NESHAP contains 
standards to control organic HAP and VOC emissions from primer 
application operations. These standards require the use of a primer 
with an organic HAP and VOC content level of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or 
less (40 CFR 63.745(c)(1),(2)) where no add-on control system is used, 
or the use of a control system to reduce the organic HAP and VOC 
emissions to the atmosphere by 81 percent or greater (Sec. 63.745(d)). 
We set these standards at the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) floor for new and existing sources.
    In the preamble to the proposed NESHAP (59 FR 29241), we explained 
the basis of the MACT floor for primer application operations. We 
established the MACT floor for existing facilities based on the 
weighted average VOC content that represented the average of the top 12 
percent of facilities. Because of the limited available data on the 
corresponding organic HAP content, we proposed a HAP content limit at 
the same level as the VOC content limit. Also, in applying these 
standards within the source category, we did not identify any technical 
reason to distinguish between the different types of market segments 
(commercial or military), or the work type (original equipment 
manufacture or rework). Therefore, we applied these standards to all 
market segments within the source category.
    In public comments received on the proposed rule, aircraft 
manufacturers raised concerns about the inclusion of exterior primers 
for large commercial aircraft in the data set for the MACT floor on 
primer operations. The industry expressed concerns about whether a 
suitable exterior primer would be available by the September 1, 1998 
NESHAP compliance deadline for existing sources. However, at that time, 
industry did not provide adequate supporting data to justify separate 
treatment of exterior primers for large commercial aircraft.
    Recently, an aircraft manufacturer raised these same concerns and 
submitted additional data indicating that it has not been able to find 
a satisfactory exterior primer for use in manufacturing and assembling 
large commercial aircraft that will meet the current HAP and VOC 
content limits in the NESHAP and their own performance needs. This 
aircraft manufacturer has stated that several factors exist that create 
a distinction between facilities that produce fully assembled large 
commercial aircraft and facilities that manufacture other types of 
aerospace components and vehicles. One of the primary differences is 
the annual utilization rates for large commercial aircraft versus other 
aircraft. Large commercial aircraft often remain in constant use with 
multiple take-offs and landings daily and much higher annual flight 
hours than other aircraft. The total flight time, flight frequency, and 
flight altitudes for large commercial aircraft are often much higher 
than for other types of aircraft, such as defense aircraft and general 
aviation aircraft. These higher utilization rates associated with large 
commercial aircraft create distinct stresses for the paint systems 
used. In addition, the largest of the commercial aircraft are often 
designed for overseas travel (transcontinental routes) which creates a 
greater exposure to salt, a strong corrosive agent. Finally, this 
aircraft manufacturer has stated that differing paint requirements, 
such as replicability of color and gloss, and differing maintenance 
requirements due to its large number of customers (200 plus), are also 
factors that can contribute to the acceptability of a paint system. 
This aircraft manufacturer expressed significant technical concern 
about its ability to find an exterior primer that would provide 
adequate protection to large commercial aircraft without pitting or 
peeling and that would meet the VOC and HAP content standards for 
primers. This aircraft manufacturer has stated that available low-VOC 
exterior primers have very different physical and chemical properties, 
such as the rheology and cross-link density of the coating, from the 
primers that were in use when the MACT floor was established in 1995. 
Primers that were in use at that time contained 1,1,1

[[Page 3644]]

trichloroethane (TCA) but TCA has since been phased out due to its 
adverse effect on the stratospheric ozone layer. New TCA-free, high 
solids/low-VOC primers represent a distinct technology from the 
previous TCA primer technology. The manufacturer has stated that this 
has resulted in changes to the performance characteristics of the 
primer, particularly the adhesion, flexibility, and impact resistance, 
which have resulted in a greater chance of the coatings peeling and 
pitting. This aircraft manufacturer provided summary test data on the 
50 exterior primers tested since the Aerospace NESHAP was promulgated.
    The compliance date for the NESHAP was September 1, 1998. We have 
granted compliance extensions based on this issue; however, these 
extensions expired September 1, 1999.
    Today, we are proposing to amend the current emission limits 
contained in 40 CFR 63.745(c)(1) and (2) for primer operations with no 
add-on control systems by proposing a separate emission limit of 650 g/
L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC for exterior primers as 
applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) 
or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected 
sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft; and an 
emission limit of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC 
for exterior primers as applied to large commercial aircraft components 
(parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at 
new affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial 
aircraft. Our bases for these amendments are data recently submitted to 
us by a manufacturer of large commercial aircraft and a reevaluation of 
the original data used to establish the MACT floor for primer 
application operations. Also based on the fact that TCA-based primer is 
no longer available, as previously discussed, we reevaluated the 
original data used to establish the MACT floor for primer application 
operations of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC.
    In order to determine if a separate limit should be established for 
exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft at existing 
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft, we 
considered whether these facilities are distinct from other segments of 
the industry. Because large commercial aircraft often have much higher 
annual utilization rates and greater exposure to corrosive 
environments, creating the need for higher performance coating systems, 
and the manufacturer of such aircraft has many different customer 
specifications it must satisfy, we determined that a separate limit 
should be established for these facilities. We then re-evaluated the 
original data only for facilities that manufactured fully assembled 
large commercial aircraft. In our re-evaluation of the data, we 
identified four facilities which manufactured fully assembled large 
commercial aircraft. To account for the fact that TCA-based primer is 
no longer available, we removed all TCA-based primer data. The data 
from these four facilities on the annual usage of primers used in the 
primer operations for large commercial aircraft had a VOC content that 
ranged from 650 g/L (5.3 lb/gal) to 670 g/L (5.6 lb/gal). A more 
detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in the Docket (No. A-
92-20) within the document titled, ``MACT Floor for Aerospace 
Commercial Aircraft Original Equipment Operations--Interior and 
Exterior Primers.''
    The Clean Air Act requires that emission standards for HAP 
established under section 112(d)(2) be based on ``* * * the maximum 
degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants 
subject to this section * * * that the Administrator, taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing sources in 
the category or subcategory to which such emission standards applies * 
* *.'' This basis is commonly referred to as MACT.
    Section 112(d)(3) further clarifies the minimum acceptable 
stringency for the MACT level of emission reduction. For new sources, 
MACT shall be no ``* * * less stringent than the emission control that 
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as 
determined by the Administrator.'' For existing sources, MACT ``* * * 
shall not be less stringent, and may be more stringent than--
    (A) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 
12 percent of the existing sources * * * in the category or subcategory 
for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or
    (B) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 
five sources * * * in the category or subcategory for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.''
    In prior rulemaking where fewer than five sources exist, we have 
based the MACT floor for existing sources on the average emission 
limitation achieved by all the sources. Use of the arithmetic average 
would result in a VOC content of 655 g/L. This method for calculating 
the MACT floor yields a number that does not correspond to an actual 
VOC content of primer used at these facilities. Therefore, we 
determined the MACT floor for these four facilities based on the median 
VOC content for primer operations at these facilities. The MACT floor 
for primer operations at these facilities is 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or 
less of organic HAP and VOC. This represents the existing source MACT 
floor for all primer operations at facilities that manufacture fully 
assembled large commercial aircraft.
    We then considered exterior versus interior primers. The data 
recently submitted to us by the aircraft manufacturer relate only to 
technical problems concerning the use of ``exterior'' primers at 
existing facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial 
aircraft. We do not have any data indicating that similar problems 
exist with the use of interior primers at these facilities. We believe 
that the 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) level has already been demonstrated to be 
an achievable level of control for interior primers used at facilities 
that manufacture fully assembled large commercial aircraft. Therefore, 
we propose to go beyond the MACT floor level of control (650 g/L (2.9 
lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC to 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less 
of organic HAP and VOC for interior primer operations used at existing 
and new facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial 
aircraft.
    We are not proposing to establish MACT at a level beyond the MACT 
floor for exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft at 
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft. This 
is because we believe that meeting a standard more stringent than a 650 
g/L level is not technically achievable for all existing commercial 
production facilities that manufacture and assemble large commercial 
aircraft at this time. However, the manufacturer in question has stated 
that it will continue to test and evaluate exterior primers, used to 
manufacture and assemble large commercial aircraft, with the goal of 
achieving the current content limit of 350 g/L. Should this 
manufacturer find an exterior primer that meets its specifications and 
is lower than the proposed content limit of 650 g/L prior to 
promulgation of these proposed amendments, we intend to promulgate an 
emission limit for exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft 
at facilities that manufacture fully

[[Page 3645]]

assembled large commercial aircraft that would be at this lower level.
    For new sources, section 112(d)(3) states that MACT ``* * * shall 
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the 
Administrator.''
    Based on our reevaluation of these original data, the new source 
MACT floor for primer operations used on large commercial aircraft at 
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft is 
650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC. This represents 
the ``best controlled similar source'' from these four facilities. 
Since the original data were collected, new high-solids chemistry, 
without TCA, has been employed to achieve the 350 g/L levels. Some 
existing sources may not be able to use this new technology, combined 
with other changes to low-HAP and low-VOC topcoats and new application 
techniques, because of design constraints in their overall operation. 
The use of this technology may only be feasible for facilities with 
maximum flexibility in physical plant, climate control, contaminant 
control (keeping the surface clean prior to primer application), etc. 
However, for a new source that manufactures fully assembled large 
commercial aircraft, the operation as a whole could be designed to 
accommodate the new high-solids technology. Indeed, at least one large 
commercial aircraft facility is currently using this technology (Boeing 
Long Beach facility, formerly the McDonnell Douglas facility). This is 
new information that is not in the original data set used to determine 
the MACT floor.
    Based on the recent data provided, EPA concludes that although 
technological problems exist at the 350 g/L level for most of the 
existing facilities, manufacturers can design new facilities with this 
new technology in mind. Thus, we believe that it is appropriate to set 
MACT above the floor for new facilities. As a result, we propose to set 
the limit for exterior primer used on large commercial aircraft at new 
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft at 
350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC.
    Although we are not addressing other sectors of the industry, such 
as the military, in today's proposal, we reviewed the data from the 
remainder of the responses to section 114 questionnaires for these 
sectors of the aerospace manufacturing and rework industry that perform 
primer operations. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the MACT 
floor for these sectors of the industry would also be in the range of 
650 g/L, assuming that we removed the TCA-based data from the data set. 
However, even if the floor for these sectors were to change, we would 
see no reason not to adopt the current 350 g/L limit as an above-the-
floor requirement. We have received no information indicating that this 
limit is not achievable for these sectors of the industry. In addition, 
on September 1, 1998, we issued amendments to the Aerospace NESHAP (63 
FR 46533) that set new standards for the control of organic HAP and VOC 
emissions from primer and topcoat application operations for general 
aviation rework facilities. We believe that those standards resolved 
any similar problems for the general aviation rework facilities. 
Therefore, the proposed organic HAP and VOC emission limit of 650 g/L 
(5.4 lb/gal) or less for exterior primers applies only to large 
commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled 
large commercial aircraft at existing affected sources that produce 
fully assembled large commercial aircraft.
    In deciding how to define ``large commercial aircraft,'' we 
evaluated several different criteria. A review of current Federal 
Aviation Agency (FAA) regulations revealed two definitions of large 
aircraft in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 (-) Aeronautics 
and Space. Under title 14, part 1, general definitions are provided 
which are applicable for the majority of FAA regulations, sub-chapters 
A through K. Part 1.1 of title 14 defines large aircraft as ``an 
aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certified take-off 
weight.'' Under 14 CFR 268.1, which is a regulation applicable to air 
carriers known as air taxi operators and commuter air carrier 
operations, large aircraft is defined as ``any aircraft designed to 
have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum 
payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds.'' These definitions 
suggest the use of maximum certified take-off weight, maximum payload 
capacity, or maximum passenger capacity as possible criteria to define 
large aircraft. However, factors cited in the data submitted by the 
aircraft manufacturer indicated that total flight time, flight 
frequency and flight altitudes were distinguishing criteria which 
create more demanding performance characteristics for exterior primers 
used to manufacture and assemble large commercial aircraft. This 
suggests that one or all of these criteria could serve as another 
possible alternative for defining large commercial aircraft.
    Based on our review of the data, we believe that the weight of the 
aircraft is the best defining factor. Greater weight frequently is 
related to aircraft that are designed to have greater flight time, 
flight frequency and flight altitude. After reviewing the FAA 
definitions of large aircraft, we believe that maximum take-off weight 
would be an appropriate criterion to define large commercial aircraft. 
The maximum take-off weight is well known and documented within the 
industry. However, based on the data received, the current definition 
within FAA regulations (a maximum take-off weight of 12,500 lbs) does 
not characterize the size of the aircraft where we believe the problems 
exist for exterior primers.
    With respect to the second part of this definition, ``commercial,'' 
this manufacturer has not indicated that this is a problem for the 
large military aircraft it manufactures. Therefore, we are defining the 
term commercial to exclude large aircraft manufactured for military 
use.
    We are proposing to define a large commercial aircraft as an 
aircraft of more than 110,000 pounds, maximum certified take-off weight 
manufactured for non-military use. We are requesting comments on this 
definition along with the use of the other criteria discussed for 
defining large commercial aircraft.

II. What Provisions of the Aerospace NESHAP Would These Proposed 
Amendments Affect?

    We are proposing to amend section 63.745(c)(1) and (2) of the 
NESHAP by adding a separate HAP and VOC content limit of 650 g/L for 
exterior primers applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts 
or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing 
affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial 
aircraft.

III. Whom Would These Proposed Amendments Affect?

    These proposed amendments would affect you if you are the owner or 
operator of an existing or new exterior primer application operation at 
a facility that, either in part or in whole, manufactures and assembles 
large commercial aircraft and is a major source as defined in 40 CFR 
63.2.

IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposal?

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulator Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must

[[Page 3646]]

determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in 
standards that may:
    (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, 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 Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined 
under Executive Order 12866, and concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance 
and not on health or safety risks.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    These proposed amendments would not impose any new information 
collection requirements would result in no change to the currently 
approved collection. The OMB has approved the information collection 
requirements contained in the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities NESHAP under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0314.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business that has less than 1,500 employees; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. These proposed amendments will not impose any requirements on 
small entities. They affect only manufacturers of large commercial 
aircraft. There are no small-entity manufacturers of large commercial 
aircraft.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's proposed amendments contain no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. These proposed amendments 
would amend certain existing emission limits in a de-regulatory manner 
and would not impose any new enforceable duty on any State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's proposed 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA. The EPA has determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not subject to 
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance

[[Page 3647]]

costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the 
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the 
tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA 
complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide 
to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, 
a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's proposed amendments do not significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
these proposed amendments.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

H. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State 
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    These proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These proposed 
amendments would amend portions of an existing rule, the Aerospace 
NESHAP, in a de-regulatory manner. They would not impose any 
obligations on State or local governments. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: January 11, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart GG--National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities

    2. Section 63.742 is amended by adding in alphabetical order 
definitions for ``Exterior primer'' and ``Large commercial aircraft'' 
to read as follows:


Sec. 63.742  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Exterior primer means the first layer and any subsequent layers of 
identically formulated coating applied to the exterior surface of an 
aerospace vehicle or component where the component is used on the 
exterior of the aerospace vehicle. Exterior primers are typically used 
for corrosion prevention, protection from the environment, functional 
fluid resistance, and adhesion of subsequent exterior topcoats. 
Coatings that are defined as specialty coatings are not included under 
this definition.
* * * * *
    Large commercial aircraft means an aircraft of more than 110,000 
pounds, maximum certified take-off weight manufactured for non-military 
use.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(c)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.745  Standards: Primer and topcoat application operations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Organic HAP emissions from primers shall be limited to an 
organic HAP content level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of 
primer (less water), as applied, for general aviation rework 
facilities, or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water), as 
applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) 
or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected 
sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft, or 350 
g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less water), as applied.
    (2) VOC emissions from primers shall be limited to a VOC content 
level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less water and 
exempt solvents), as applied, for general aviation rework facilities, 
or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water and exempt 
solvents), as applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts 
or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing 
affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial 
aircraft, or 350 g/L (2.9

[[Page 3648]]

lb/gal) of primer (less water and exempt solvents), as applied.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-1557 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>