67784 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

payments to a trust having more than

one beneficiary, see E–5 of this section

for the rules for determining the

designated beneficiary whose life

expectancy will be used to determine

the distribution period.

D–7. Q. If a trust is named as a

beneficiary of an employee, what

documentation must be provided to the

plan administrator so that the

beneficiaries of the trust who are

beneficiaries with respect to the trust’s

interest in the employee’s benefit are

identifiable to the plan administrator?

A. (a) Required distributions

commencing before death. In order to

satisfy the requirement of paragraph

(b)(4) of D–5A of this section for

distributions required under section

401(a)(9) to commence before the death

of an employee, the employee must

comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or

(2) of this D–7A:

(1) The employee provides to the plan

administrator a copy of the trust

instrument and agrees that if the trust

instrument is amended at any time in

the future, the employee will, within a

reasonable time, provide to the plan

administrator a copy of each such

amendment.

(2) The employee—

(i) Provides to the plan administrator

a list of all of the beneficiaries of the

trust (including contingent and

remainderman beneficiaries with a

description of the conditions on their

entitlement);

(ii) Certifies that, to the best of the

employee’s knowledge, this list is

correct and complete and that the

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (2),

and (3) of D–5A of this section are

satisfied;

(iii) Agrees to provide corrected

certifications to the extent that an

amendment changes any information

previously certified; and

(iv) Agrees to provide a copy of the

trust instrument to the plan

administrator upon demand.

(b) Required distributions after death.

In order to satisfy the documentation

requirement of this D–7 for required

distributions after death, by the end of

the ninth month beginning after the

death of the employee, the trustee of the

trust must either—

(1) Provide the plan administrator

with a final list of all of the beneficiaries

of the trust (including contingent and

remainderman beneficiaries with a

description of the conditions on their

entitlement) as of the date of death;

certify that, to the best of the trustee’s

knowledge, this list is correct and

complete and that the requirements of

paragraph (b)(1), (2), and (3) of D–5A of

this section are satisfied as of the date

of death; and agree to provide a copy of

the trust instrument to the plan

administrator upon demand; or

(2) Provide the plan administrator

with a copy of the actual trust document

for the trust that is named as a

beneficiary of the employee under the

plan as of the employee’s date of death.

(c) Relief for discrepancy between

trust instrument and employee

certifications or earlier trust

instruments. (1) If required distributions

are determined based on the

information provided to the plan

administrator in certifications or trust

instruments described in paragraph

(a)(1), (a)(2) or (b) of this D–7A, a plan

will not fail to satisfy section 401(a)(9)

merely because the actual terms of the

trust instrument are inconsistent with

the information in those certifications or

trust instruments previously provided to

the plan administrator, but only if the

plan administrator reasonably relied on

the information provided and the

minimum required distributions for

calendar years after the calendar year in

which the discrepancy is discovered are

determined based on the actual terms of

the trust instrument. For purposes of

determining whether the plan satisfies

section 401(a)(9) for calendar years after

the calendar year in which the

discrepancy is discovered, if the actual

beneficiaries under the trust instrument

are different from the beneficiaries

previously certified or listed in the trust

instrument previously provided to the

plan administrator, or the trust

instrument specifying the actual

beneficiaries does not satisfy the other

requirements of paragraph (b) of D–5A

of this section, the minimum required

distribution will be determined by

treating the beneficiaries of the

employee as having been changed in the

calendar year in which the discrepancy

was discovered to conform to the

corrected information and by applying

the change in beneficiary provisions of

E–5 of this section.

(2) For purposes of determining the

amount of the excise tax under section

4974, the minimum required

distribution is determined for any year

based on the actual terms of the trust in

effect during the year.

* * * * *

Michael P. Dolan,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 97–33393 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[AD–FRL–5942–1]

National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Automobile

Refinish Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On April 30, 1996, the EPA

proposed volatile organic compound

(VOC) emission standards for

automobile refinish coatings. In today’s

document, the EPA is proposing several

changes to the rule regarding

applicability, test methods, and multicolored topcoats.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before February 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), Attention:

Docket No. A–95–18, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Docket. Docket No. A–95–18 is

available for public inspection and

copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Monday through Friday, at the EPA’s

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M–1500, Ground Floor, 401 M

Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning this document,

contact Mr. Mark Morris at (919) 541–

5416, Organic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD-13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ground

level-ozone, a major component of

‘‘smog,’’ is formed in the atmosphere by

reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen

(NOX) in the presence of sunlight.

Elevated levels of ozone can cause a

range of health effects including

respiratory symptoms (e.g. cough, chest

pain, shortness of breath, wheezing,

throat irritation), increased hospital

admissions and emergency room visits

for respiratory causes (e.g. aggravation

of asthma), decreased lung function;

inflammation of the lung, and possible

long-term damage to the lungs. Groups

at increased risk of experiencing acute

health effects from ozone include active

children, adults who regularly work or

exercise outside, and people with pre-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67785

existing respiratory disease. Elevated

ozone levels also can cause effects such

as agricultural crop loss, damage to

forests and ecosystems, and visible

injury to foliage of sensitive species.

In the 1990 Amendments to the Clean

Air Act (Act), Congress directed EPA to

issue standards to reduce emissions

from consumer and commercial

products because these products,

although individually small sources of

emissions, together contribute

significantly to the ozone pollution

problem. In 1990, consumer and

commercial products emitted

approximately 6 million tons of VOC

nationwide, or about 28 percent of all

man-made VOC.

Section 183(e) of the Act requires the

Administrator to study and report to

Congress on emissions of VOC into the

ambient air from consumer and

commercial products and their potential

to contribute to ozone nonattainment

levels. In addition, section 183(e)

requires the Administrator to list those

categories of consumer and commercial

products that account for at least 80

percent of the VOC emissions, on a

reactivity-adjusted basis, in ozone

nonattainment areas and establish

priorities for their regulation. The list is

to be divided into four groups, with one

group regulated every 2 years until all

four groups are regulated.

The EPA submitted the Report to

Congress on March 15, 1995, and on this

same date established the priority list

for future regulation of the consumer

and commercial products that account

for 80 percent of VOC emissions, on a

reactivity-adjusted basis, in

nonattainment areas (published on

March 23, 1995, at 56 FR 15264).

Automobile refinish coatings are in the

first group of products to be regulated.

On April 30, 1996, the EPA proposed

volatile organic compound emission

standards for automobile refinish

coatings.

In today’s supplemental notice, the

EPA is proposing several changes to the

rule regarding applicability, test

methods, and multi-colored topcoats.

The EPA welcomes comments on these

proposed changes.

Applicability

Components of Multiple Manufacturers

Regulated entities under the proposed

rule included only manufacturers and

importers of complete automobile

refinish coatings. The VOC content of an

automobile refinish coating depends,

however, on the VOC content levels of

all components that make up the

coating. Coating users sometimes

combine components made by multiple

manufacturers when preparing a

coating. Since components themselves

are not coatings, a manufacturer who

produces only hardeners, for example,

would not be subject to the proposed

rule. Such a manufacturer could

recommend that its hardener be

combined with components of other

manufacturers, possibly resulting in a

coating that exceeds the VOC content

standards of the rule. Such a situation

could essentially undermine the impact

of the proposed rule. In the preamble to

the proposed rule, the EPA stated that

the rule may need to apply to all

automobile refinish coating component

manufacturers and importers to be

effective. Commenters on the proposed

rule recommended that the EPA expand

the applicability of the rule to include

all component manufacturers and

importers to address the problem of

components that may result in

noncompliant coatings. No commenter

was opposed to expanding the

applicability.

At the time of the proposed rule, the

EPA had not addressed how to

determine compliance with the rule if

applicability were expanded to include

manufacturers and importers of coating

components; therefore, the EPA did not

propose a compliance mechanism for

the rule for coatings consisting of

components of multiple entities. The

EPA is proposing in this supplemental

notice to include as regulated entities all

manufacturers and importers of

automobile refinish coating

components. The EPA is thus also

proposing a mechanism for determining

compliance with the rule for coatings

consisting of components made or

imported by multiple entities.

For the purposes of this proposed

rulemaking, an automobile refinish

coating is defined to include any

combination of coating components

recommended for automobile

refinishing by the manufacturer or

importer of one or more of the coating

components. A recommendation for use

in automobile refinishing that appears

on a product container or in any

product literature shall constitute a

recommendation for automobile

refinishing use.

Determining compliance for coatings

consisting of components made or

imported by one regulated entity is

relatively easy. In general, determining

compliance with the proposed rule

would consist of ‘‘spot checking,’’

where the EPA would obtain coating

components, mix the components in the

ratios recommended by the regulated

entity (on the containers or in any

product literature), and analyze the

resulting coating using Reference

Method 24. The EPA considered

requiring regulated entities to perform

VOC testing of their coatings on a

regular basis (e.g., every nth batch) to

demonstrate compliance with the rule,

but believes that such a requirement

would be economically infeasible. The

EPA believes that random spot checks

will be adequate to encourage regulated

entities to assure that all of their coating

batches are compliant; however, the

EPA welcomes comments on other ways

to demonstrate compliance.

Determining the compliance of

coatings that consist of components

made or imported by multiple regulated

entities is more difficult. The EPA

considered several options for

determining compliance in these cases.

The EPA considered requiring regulated

entities (that recommend the use of their

components with those of other

regulated entities) to use Reference

Method 24 to test the coatings resulting

from their recommendations. Using this

information, the entities would establish

the maximum allowable VOC content of

their components, and the EPA would

spot check components to determine

compliance. However, the EPA has no

standard method for determining the

VOC content of components. Also, the

VOC content of a coating is not simply

the sum of the VOC contents its

components, so component VOC

content is not necessarily an indicator of

the VOC content of the overall coating.

Therefore, the EPA believes it is

technically infeasible to determine

compliance using component VOC

content information.

Because of the technical infeasibility

of the approach described above, the

EPA has concluded that the

responsibility for coatings should be

based on product recommendations. In

other words, if an entity recommends a

combination of components (made or

imported by one or more regulated

entities), then that entity is responsible

for the compliance of the resulting

coating. There may be cases where a

coating resulting from an entity’s

recommendation is noncompliant

because of the components of other

entities. Since this occurrence may be

beyond the control of the

recommending entity in some

circumstances, the EPA considered

allowing the entity to provide the EPA

with new or existing Reference Method

24 test data demonstrating the

compliance of the coating resulting from

their recommendation. This option is

technically feasible, and is the most

appealing since compliance is

determined in essentially the same way

for all regulated entities. It is this option

that the EPA is proposing in today’s
67786 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

notice to address coatings consisting of

components of multiple regulated

entities.

It is important to note that regulated

entities would be liable only for those

coatings they recommend. For example,

if a regulated entity recommends that

three of its coating components be

combined and used in automobile

refinishing, it is responsible for the

coating that results from that

combination. If a regulated entity

recommends the substitution of one of

its components for that of another

regulated entity, the former entity is

responsible for the resulting coating. A

regulated entity is not responsible for

coatings resulting from the

recommendations of others, even if such

recommendations involve the use of

components of that regulated entity. The

EPA solicits comments on the

compliance mechanism proposed in

today’s notice.

Touch-Up Coatings

Two commenters on the proposed

rule recommended exempting touch-up

coatings from the rule. The commenters

stated that such coatings are sold in

small containers, are applied by brush,

and are used only for minor scratches or

nicks that do not require more extensive

repair.

Touch-up coatings differ from typical

refinish topcoats in that they are

typically used by automobile owners to

repair minor scratches or nicks, require

no mixing prior to application, and are

sold in small containers. Since the EPA

has already exempted coatings supplied

in nonrefillable aerosol containers from

the proposed rule, aerosol touch-up

coatings are already exempted under the

proposed rule. In this notice, the EPA is

proposing to exempt all touch-up

coatings because they are a relatively

insignificant emissions source. The EPA

is proposing the following definition for

touch-up coatings, obtained from South

Coast Air Quality Management District

Rule 1151:

Touch-up coatings are coatings applied by

brush, air-brush, or non-refillable aerosol can

to cover minor surface damage and dispensed

in containers of no more than eight ounces.

The EPA welcomes comments on the

definition and exemption of touch-up

coatings proposed in today’s document.

Test Methods

One commenter on the proposed rule

stated that the EPA had not designated

a reliable test method for determining

the acid content of pretreatment wash

primers. The proposed method, ASTM

Test Method D 1613–91, covers the

determination of total acidity in organic

compound and hydrocarbon mixtures

used in paints and other substances.

This method consists of a titration using

a color indicator to determine the

endpoint of the titration. The EPA

agrees that since some pretreatment

wash primers are pigmented, tests using

color indicators may not work.

However, the proposed method can be

used to determine the acid content of

the acid-containing component of the

primer.

Pretreatment wash primers typically

consist of two components: a ‘‘base’’

coating and a catalyst. The base contains

the pigment, and the catalyst contains

the acid. The catalyst is a mixture of

organic compounds that contains acid;

therefore, it is in the scope of the

proposed method. The EPA is proposing

in this notice that the proposed test

method be used to determine the acid

content of the catalyst, and that

calculations involving the acid content

of the catalyst and the mixing ratio of

the base to the catalyst be performed to

determine the overall weight percent of

acid in a primer.

In the proposed rule, anti-glare/safety

coatings were included in the specialty

coating category, and were defined as

coatings that do not reflect light. One

commenter stated that anti-glare

coatings do reflect some light, and that

it would be more appropriate to call

such coatings ‘‘low gloss coatings’’ and

specify a gloss value to delineate them

from other coatings. The EPA agrees,

and is proposing in this notice to

replace ‘‘anti-glare/safety coatings’’ with

‘‘low-gloss coatings,’’ defined as

topcoats with specular gloss values of

25 or less with a 60° gloss meter. The

EPA is proposing that ASTM Test

Method D 523–89 be used for the

determination of specular gloss of

coatings. This method is used by

industry for this purpose. The EPA

requests comments on the

appropriateness of both of the test

methods described above.

Multi-Colored Topcoats

One commenter on the proposed rule

suggested the addition of a coating

category for multi-colored topcoats,

which are wear-resistant and durable

coatings used mainly for lining the

cargo beds of pickup trucks and other

utility vehicles. The commenter stated

that the South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule

1151 has a separate category and VOC

content standard for multi-colored

topcoats, and recommended the EPA

either include a separate category for

these coatings or include them in the

definition of specialty coatings.

The EPA did not specifically address

multi-colored topcoats in the proposed

rule. Since the EPA has no information

indicating that such coatings can meet

the topcoat standard, and because of

their special use as protective coatings,

the EPA is proposing in today’s notice

to include multi-colored topcoats in the

specialty coating category. The EPA is

proposing in today’s notice to define

multi-colored topcoats as topcoats

which exhibit more than one color, are

packaged in a single container, and are

applied in a single coat. The EPA

solicits comments on this proposed

definition of multi-colored topcoats, and

the addition of such topcoats to the

specialty coatings category.

Administrative Requirements

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approved the information

collection requirements contained in the

April 30, 1996, proposed rule (61 FR

19005) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and assigned OMB control

number 2060–0353. The EPA estimated

there were thirty regulated entities

under that proposed rule. In today’s

supplemental proposal, the EPA is

proposing to expand applicability;

however, this expansion of applicability

serves mainly to elucidate which entity

is responsible for a given coating. The

EPA does not expect a significant

increase in the number of regulated

entities as a result of today’s action

because most entities that make or

import coatings also make or import

coating components. Therefore, the

EPA’s original estimate of regulated

entities accounts for the entities that

would be subject as a result of today’s

supplemental proposal.

Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the EPA must

determine whether a regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

this Executive Order to prepare a

regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may (1) have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or more

or adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities; (2) create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially alter the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67787

budgetary impact of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the executive order. Today’s

supplemental proposal is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of the executive order.

Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 on October 26,

1993, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership. In

particular, this executive order is

designed to require agencies to assess

the effects of regulations that are not

required by statute and that create

mandates upon State, local, or tribal

governments. This regulation does not

create mandates upon State, local, or

tribal governments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice-and-comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

The EPA performed an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

to determine the extent of any impacts

under the proposed rule. This IRFA was

included in the docket for the proposed

rule. In this supplemental proposal, the

EPA is proposing to expand the class of

regulated entities to include all

automobile refinish coating component

manufacturers and importers. For the

purposes of this supplemental proposal,

the EPA is now updating the IFRA.

The EPA estimates there are about 20–

25 companies producing automobile

refinish coating components. At least 10

of these are large companies that have

the majority of the industry market

share. The EPA believes that the

remaining 10–15 companies have fewer

than 500 employees and are therefore

small entities in accordance with Small

Business Administration regulations.

Several of the small companies produce

only thinners and reducers. The

thinners/reducers used in low-VOC

coatings are not significantly different

from those used in conventional

coatings; therefore, the proposed rule

will not have a significant impact on

manufacturers of thinners/reducers

because little, if any, reformulation of

these components will be necessary

under the proposed rule. Some of the

remaining small companies already

produce low-VOC coating components

because they operate in areas that

already have State or local automobile

refinish rules in effect. Most State and

local rules are at least as stringent as the

proposed national rule. The EPA

concludes, therefore, that the proposed

rule would not have a significant impact

on these companies.

The remaining small companies will

be impacted by the proposed rule, but

the EPA believes that the impact will

not be significant. The impacts of the

proposed rule are from process

modifications, training, and reporting

requirements, as discussed in the IRFA.

Process modifications are those changes

that may be necessary for the

production of low-VOC (high-solids)

coatings, including the use of different

mixing and pumping equipment. Some

manufacturers affected by State and

local rules have already complied with

those rules by changing the

recommended mixing ratios of

components and have not changed the

components themselves in a significant

way; therefore, few process

modifications have likely been

necessary in these cases. Where process

modifications are necessary, their

impact will not be significant; when

such impacts are examined assuming

that they will be passed on to the user

(as was done in the IFRA), the impacts

do not significantly affect the cost of

coatings or refinish jobs.

The EPA believes that the impacts

from training and reporting

requirements will be minimal. Many

States have developed automobile

refinish rules since the time the impacts

analysis for the proposed national rule

was performed, and the regulated

entities have already taken steps to

comply with such regulations. It is

likely that most, if not all, regulated

entities are already familiar with lowVOC coatings; therefore, the need for

training (and, thus, training costs) are

likely overstated in the analysis for the

proposed rule. Training was estimated

to cost less than $500 per individual for

the proposed rule. For small entities

with few employees needing training,

this cost would not be significant.

Reporting requirements of the proposed

rule consist of an initial report that

provides the EPA with basic

information about regulated entities

(name, location, etc.), and periodic

reports (if necessary) to explain any date

codes that regulated entities may use to

indicate the manufacture date of

components. Given the limited nature of

the reporting requirements, the EPA

believes that the impact of the reporting

requirements will not be significant.

The EPA does not have data sufficient

to quantify precisely the impact of the

proposed rule by measures such as

percentage of sales, but the nature of the

impacts are such that the impacts will

be small. The EPA bases this conclusion

upon the information that was

reasonably available to Agency, and

hereby solicits further relevant

information regarding the cost of

compliance with the proposed rule.

There are several aspects of the

proposed rule which the EPA has

instituted to minimize any impacts to

small entities. First, the EPA has

proposed not to require a regulated

entity to perform initial VOC testing of

its coating components or any of the

coatings that might result from the

combination of the entity’s components

with those of other regulated entities.

The EPA believes that such an approach

would have required regulated entities

to perform numerous tests which, in the

aggregate, could have imposed

significant costs upon regulated entities.

The EPA believes that such a

requirement would have had a

disproportionate impact upon small

entities. Instead, the EPA has proposed

to link responsibility for a coating’s

compliance with the regulated entity’s

recommendations for use. The EPA will

assure compliance by ‘‘spot-checking’’

the VOC content of the coatings that

result from such recommendations.

Second, the EPA has proposed not to

require a regulated entity to perform

periodic VOC testing of its coating

component batches. The EPA

considered requiring regulated entities

to periodically test batches of their

components to ensure that the VOC

content of coatings resulting from the

combination of such components would

be compliant. As discussed above,

compliance with the proposed rule will

be determined by the spot-checking of

coatings. Regulated entities may rely on

formulation data only to assure

themselves of their compliance, or they

may decide to perform some VOC

testing for this purpose, but the EPA is

not requiring batch testing. The EPA

believes that not requiring batch testing

will limit the impact upon regulated

entities and, in particular, will help to

alleviate impacts upon small entities.

Finally, the EPA has proposed not to

require recordkeeping by regulated

entities. The EPA considered requiring

regulated entities to maintain records

containing information on coating

component batches but determined that

such records would not aid significantly

in the enforcement of the standard. As
67788 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

stated above, the only reporting

requirements are an initial report that

allows the EPA to determine the

universe of regulated entities, and

reports that explain date codes if such

codes are used to indicate the date of

manufacture. The EPA believes that

minimization of recordkeeping and

reporting requirements will help to

decrease impacts upon small entities.

For the foregoing reasons, the EPA

anticipates that the proposed rule will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The EPA believes that this conclusion is

appropriate with respect to all entities

to be regulated under the proposed rule,

including the component manufacturers

and importers encompassed by this

supplemental proposal.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

The EPA has determined that today’s

action does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to either

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector.

Therefore, the requirements of section

202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do

not apply to this action.

Electronic Submission of Comments

Comments may be submitted

electronically by sending electronic

mail (e-mail) to: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments will also be accepted on

diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 or ASCII file

format. All comments in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

A–95–18. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments

may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Automobile refinish

coatings, Consumer and commercial

products, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 9, 1997.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–33963 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[FRL–5941–4]

Total Mercury and Particulate

Continuous Emissions Monitoring

Systems; Measurement of Low Level

Particulate Emissions; Implementation

at Hazardous Waste Combustors;

Proposed Rule—Notice of Data

Availability and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This announcement is a

notice of data availability and invitation

for comment on the following reports

pertaining to total mercury and

particulate continuous emissions

monitoring systems: DRAFT: Total

Mercury CEMS Demonstration,

Summary Table, dated December 1997;

and DRAFT: Particulate Matter CEMS

Demonstration, Volume I (with

appendices), dated December 1997. EPA

proposed requiring these monitors for

hazardous waste combustors in the

hazardous waste combustor proposed

rule published on April 19, 1996. In

addition, this document discusses

topics for implementing particulate

matter continuous emissions monitoring

systems at hazardous waste combustors.

Readers should note that only

comments about new information

discussed in this document will be

considered. Issues related to the April

19, 1996, proposed rule and subsequent

documents that are not directly affected

by the documents or data referenced in

this Notice of Data Availability are not

open for further comment.

DATES: Written comments on these

documents and this document must be

submitted by January 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an

original and two copies of their

comments referencing Docket Number

F–97–CS6A–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA,

HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

D.C. 20460. Comments may also be

submitted electronically through the

Internet to: rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments in

electronic format should also be

identified by the docket number F–97–

CS6A–FFFFF. All electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption.

Commenters should not submit

electronically any confidential business

information (CBI). An original and two

copies of the CBI must be submitted

under separate cover to: RCRA CBI

Document Control Officer, OSW

(5305W), 401 M Street, SW, Washington

D.C. 20460.

For other information regarding

submitting comments electronically,

viewing the comments received, and

supporting information, please refer to

the proposed rule (61 FR 17358 (April

19, 1996)). The RCRA Information

Center is located at Crystal Gateway

One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,

First Floor, Arlington, Virginia and is

open for public inspection and copying

of supporting information for RCRA

rules from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday, except for

Federal holidays. The public must make

an appointment to view docket

materials by calling (703) 603–9230. The

public may copy a maximum of 100

pages from any regulatory document at

no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15

per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, call the RCRA

Hotline at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired)

including directions on how to access

some of the documents and data

referred to in this notice electronically.

Callers within the Washington

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). The RCRA Hotline is open

Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

Eastern Time.

The documents referred to in this

notice are available over the Internet.

The documents can be accessed by

typing the following universal resource

locator (URL):

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/

hazwaste/combust/cems

This URL provides a home page

through which all electronically

available documents can be

downloaded. The Technology Transfer

Network (TTN) also provides a link to

this page. CEMS information is available

on TTN at the following URL:

http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/html/

emtic/cem.htm

The home page contains links to the

files that are available electronically.

The files are in an executable,

compressed format to facilitate