3642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of state

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

The Administrator certifies that the

approval of the redesignation request

will not affect a substantial number of

small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing new

regulations. To comply with NTTAA,

the EPA must consider and use

‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS)

if available and applicable when

developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this proposed action.

Today’s action does not require the

public to perform activities conducive

to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: January 12, 2000.

Francis X. Lyons,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Dated: January 7, 2000.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 00–1555 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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

szykman.jim@epa.gov or

pagan.jaime@epa.gov.

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-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. 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

(§ 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

3644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 nonair 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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

3646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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-forprofit 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 costeffective 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 deregulatory 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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:

§ 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:

§ 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

3648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of the

Comment Period for the Columbian

Sharp-Tailed Grouse Status Review

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Status review; notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), provides notice of the

reopening of the comment period for the

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

(Tympanuchus phasianellus

columbianus) status review. The

comment period is reopened to

accommodate requests by various

federal and state wildlife resource

agencies for additional time to provide

input. Reopening of the comment period

will also allow further opportunity for

all interested parties to submit

additional information and written

comments to be considered by the

Service for this status review (see DATES

and ADDRESSES).

DATES: Written materials from all

interested parties must be received by

March 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments, data,

reports, map products, and other

information concerning this status

review should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Upper Columbia River Basin

Field Office, 11103 East Montgomery

Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Warren, at the address listed

above (telephone 509/891–6839;

facsimile 509/891–6748).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is

one of six recognized subspecies of

sharp-tailed grouse that occur in North

America (AOU 1957). Compared to the

other subspecies, Columbian sharptailed grouse are described as slightly

smaller with darker gray plumage.

Historically, Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse range extended westward from

the continental divide in Montana,

Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado to

northeastern California and eastern

Oregon and Washington; southward to

northern Nevada and central Utah; and

northward through central British

Columbia.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse rely on

a variety of native habitats within the

sagebrush-bunchgrass, meadow-steppe,

mountain shrub, and riparian zones of

the northwestern United States (Giesen

and Connelly 1993). Various upland

habitats, with a component of more

dense riparian or mountain shrub

habitat to provide escape cover, are

important to the subspecies from spring

to fall. The availability of suitable

wintering habitat, containing a

dominant component of deciduous trees

and shrubs, is also thought to be a key

element to healthy Columbian sharptailed grouse populations (Marks and

Marks 1987, Giesen and Connelly 1993).

In 1979, the range wide population

estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse was approximately 60,000 to

170,000 individuals, with roughly 60 to

80 percent occurring in British

Columbia (Miller and Graul 1980).

Miller and Graul (1980) also estimated

that the subspecies occupied less than

10 percent of its historic range in Idaho,

Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, 10 to 50

percent in Colorado and Washington,

and 80 percent or more in British

Columbia. The current minimum to

maximum range wide population

estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse is approximately 30,000 to

70,000 individuals, with roughly 60 to

70 percent occurring in southeastern

Idaho. The Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse has been extirpated from

California (circa 1920), Nevada (circa

1950), and Oregon (circa 1960) (Miller

and Graul 1980).

Declines in the overall abundance of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and the

extent of its occupied range have acted

to isolate various populations of the

subspecies. Three relatively large

populations of Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse still exist; one in northwestern

Colorado to south-central Wyoming, one

in southeastern Idaho to northern Utah,

and one in central British Columbia. To

varying degrees, the remaining areas

occupied by the subspecies are made up

of relatively small and isolated local

populations.

Much of the historic area used by

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse has been

converted for crop production and

affected by other influences including

rural and suburban development, dam

construction, minerals exploitation,

chaining, herbicide spraying, and fire

(Miller and Graul 1980, Wood 1991,

Giesen and Connelly 1993). In addition,

grazing practices over large portions of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range

may negatively impact native habitats

(Hart et al. 1950, Miller and Graul 1980,

Kessler and Bosch 1982, Giesen and

Connelly 1993). Intensive grazing

pressure may be especially detrimental

to nesting and wintering habitats used

by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations, primarily due to impacts

on their cover and food resources.

Much of the area currently and

potentially occupied by Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse is in private

ownership. Presently, large portions of

these privately owned lands are

withdrawn from crop production and

planted to native and non-native cover

under the Federal Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) (USDA 1998). CRP lands

have become very important to

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in

Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and

Washington. A number of CRP contracts

are scheduled to expire from 1999

through the year 2002. The potential net

changes that may occur under the CRP

vary considerably by the counties and

states occupied by Columbian sharptailed grouse. Presently, it is unclear

what affects these potential changes

may have on the subspecies’

populations.

Currently, Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse are hunted in Colorado, Idaho,

and British Columbia. Hunting is not

likely to have an additive affect over

natural mortality for relatively large,

stable populations of upland birds

under managed conditions (Braun et al.

1994). However, depending on the

status of the hunted population and

hunter access patterns, some areas may

act as population ‘‘sinks’’ and be

adversely impacted by additional

mortality. Incidental or illegal take of

the subspecies may also occur,

especially in areas hunted extensively

for other upland game (Hart et al. 1950,

Miller and Graul 1980).

Reintroduction efforts for Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse have taken place in

Washington, Montana, Oregon, Nevada,

and Idaho. Many early reintroduction

efforts conducted for prairie grouse

(including sharp-tailed grouse) failed to

produce self-sustaining populations or

to increase the size or distribution of

augmented populations (Toepfer et al.

1990). However, several recent efforts

have shown greater potential to be

effective as the techniques for

reintroductions have improved.

The Service published a notice in the

Federal Register on October 26, 1999,

announcing that a range wide status

review for the Columbian sharp-tailed