[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76941-76945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31331]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6913-9]
RIN 2060-A177


National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On September 1, 1995, we promulgated the National Emission 
Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities. On January 
24, 2000, we proposed to amend the standards to include a separate 
emission limit for exterior primers used for large commercial aircraft 
at existing facilities that produce fully assembled, large commercial 
aircraft. This action finalizes those proposed amendments.
    In addition, we are making a minor correction to the monitoring 
requirements section of the aerospace emission standards. The amendment 
helps correct regulatory language that erroneously made reference to a 
list of requirements for initial compliance demonstrations when using 
incinerators and carbon adsorbers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-92-20 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 
in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected 
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 number (919) 541-5340, facsimile (919) 541-0942, 
electronic mail address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef9f8e888e81c1858e86828aaf8a9f8ec1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9feffef8fef1b1f5fef6f2fadffaeffeb1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category.......................  SIC <SUP>a</SUP>...........  NAICS <SUP>b</SUP>.........  Regulated entities.
Industry.......................  3721............  336411..........  Facilities which are major source of
                                                                      hazardous air pollutants and manufacture
                                                                      large commercial aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Information Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

Technical Support Document

    A summary of the public comments received on the proposed 
amendments and our response to those comments is included in a 
memorandum in the docket for this rule (Docket No. A-92-20). The title 
of the memorandum is ``Summary of Comments and Responses for the 
Proposed Amendments to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities NESHAP.''

Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of 
these final amendments is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit by February 6,

[[Page 76942]]

2001. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these 
amendments which was raised with reasonable specificity during the 
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. 
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by today's final action may not be challenged separately in 
any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce these 
requirements.

I. What Is the Background for the Amendments?

    On September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45948), we promulgated the National 
Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart GG) under section 112(d) of the CAA. The rule 
includes standards to control organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from primers with an 
organic HAP and VOC content level of 350 grams per liter (g/L) (2.9 
pounds per gallon (lb/gal)) or less (Sec. 63.745(c)(1) and (2)). These 
limits applied where no add-on control systems were used. 
Alternatively, an affected source could use a control system to reduce 
the organic HAP and VOC emissions to the atmosphere by 81 percent or 
greater (Sec. 63.745(d)).
    On January 24, 2000, we proposed to amend the promulgated emission 
limits contained in Sec. 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 (65 FR 3642). Our basis for the proposed amendments was data 
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 (e.g., the primer containing 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA) that was evaluated and included in the floor 
determination is no longer available).
    Today's action finalizes those amendments based on comments 
received on the proposed amendments and our response to those comments. 
Five comment letters were received on the proposed amendments. Two of 
the comment letters were supportive of the proposal and the decisions 
we made with respect to the applicability, definitions and the revised 
HAP and VOC content limits. One commenter submitted information on the 
potential use of a chemical in coating formulations to meet organic HAP 
and VOC content limits. Another commenter disagreed with our proposal 
by stating that there is add-on control technology available to help 
reduce emissions to the currently required levels. Finally, one 
commenter expressed the opinion that the proposal should apply to both 
original equipment manufacturers and rework facilities, and that a 
definition of large commercial aircraft components should be added to 
the standards.
    We carefully considered each of the public comments and concluded 
that no changes to the proposed amendments were warranted. A complete 
summary of the public comments received on the proposed amendments and 
our responses to those comments is included in a memorandum in the 
docket (Docket No A-92-20). Our responses to the public comments are 
briefly summarized here. First, with regard to new coating 
formulations, we appreciate the information and encourage the 
development of new coatings, but the coatings described by the first 
commenter are still in the testing and development stages for aerospace 
applications. With regard to the information on add-on controls 
provided by the second commenter, we did not change our decisions about 
the basis for the standards; but the standards do still provide for the 
option to use add-on controls to meet the emission limitations. 
Likewise, we were not persuaded based on information from the third 
commenter that the amendments should be extended to rework operations, 
especially given supportive comments from a company with similar 
operations. Lastly, we considered adding a definition of ``large 
commercial aircraft components''. The term ``large commercial 
aircraft'' was already defined in the proposal, but we were unable to 
create a definition of ``aircraft components'' that is all inclusive 
and that would not be subject to change in the future. Further, we 
believe that the definition of exterior primer included in the 
amendments provides a clear explanation of where the primer is to be 
applied.
    In addition to the amendments described above, we are making a 
minor correction to the monitoring requirements section of the 
aerospace emission standards. This revision helps correct regulatory 
language that erroneously made reference to a list of requirements for 
initial compliance demonstrations when using incinerators and carbon 
adsorbers. In Sec. 63.751, requirements for initial compliance 
demonstrations are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (12). The 
introductory language of paragraph (b) indicates that the requirements 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) apply when using carbon adsorbers. 
Then, the introductory language in paragraph (b) incorrectly indicates 
that paragraphs (b)(9) through (12) apply when using incinerators. The 
revision that we are making in this action clarifies the paragraph to 
correctly state that paragraphs (b)(8) through (12) apply when using 
incinerators.
    Although the revision to Sec. 63.751 described above was not part 
of the proposal in 65 FR 3642, section 553 of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for 
good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, 
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a 
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. 
The EPA has determined that there is good cause for finalizing this 
revision without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the 
change corrects an inadvertent mistake in an introductory paragraph 
referencing a list of requirements for initial compliance 
demonstrations. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The 
EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

II. What Are the Impacts Associated With These Amendments?

    This action will not significantly affect the estimated emissions 
reductions or the control costs for the standards promulgated for 
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. Only one company has 
been identified as being affected by the proposed amendments. These 
amendments address significant technical concerns regarding this 
aircraft manufacturer's ability to achieve the promulgated 350 g/L (2.9 
lb/gal) HAP and VOC content limit requirements when using exterior 
primers.
    Finally, the amendment that we are making to the monitoring 
requirements section of the aerospace emission standards is a minor 
correction needed to revise an inadvertent mistake in the regulatory 
language of the original regulation. As such, there are no impacts 
associated with this correction.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of

[[Page 76943]]

the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant 
regulatory action'' as one that OMB determines is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect of the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
this Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the 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 
Executive Order 13132, the 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 the 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.
    If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires 
the EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The 
FSIS must include a description of the extent of the EPA's prior 
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of 
their concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue 
the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when the EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that the EPA has met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    These amendments 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. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to these amendments.

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

    Under Executive Order 13084, the 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 costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance cost incurred by the Tribal governments, or if the EPA 
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, the 
EPA is required to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section 
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 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, the EPA is required 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.''
    These 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 this action.

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

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) OMB determines 
is ``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866, and (2) the EPA determines the environmental health or safety 
risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the 
environmental, health, or safety aspects of the rule on children and 
explain why the rule is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
    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. These amendments are not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks. Furthermore, these 
amendments have been determined not to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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, the 
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 by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by 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 the 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 the EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least-

[[Page 76944]]

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 the 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.
    The EPA has determined that these amendments do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. There is no cost associated with these 
amendments. Thus, today's amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA 
has determined that these amendments do not contain regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because they do not contain requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the 
UMRA.
    Because these amendments do not include a Federal mandate and are 
estimated to result in expenditures less than $100 million in any 1 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, the EPA has not prepared 
a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. 
In addition, because small governments would not be significantly or 
uniquely affected by these amendments, the EPA is not required to 
develop a plan with regard to small governments. Therefore, the 
requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this action.

F. 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 amendments to the 
final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business that has fewer 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, it has been determined that this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on 
small entities. It affects only manufacturers of large commercial 
aircraft. There are no small-entity manufacturers of large commercial 
aircraft.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    These proposed amendments would not impose any new information 
collection requirements that would result in changes to the currently 
approved collection. The OMB 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 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.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards instead of government-unique standards in their 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 method, sampling and 
analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples 
of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    These amendments do not require the use of any new technical 
standards, therefore section 12(d) does not apply.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 
which includes a copy of the corrections amendments, to each House of 
the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 
Therefore, we will submit a report containing these amendments and 
other required information to the United States Senate, the United 
States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major 
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the 
Federal Register. This action does not constitute a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 4, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter 
I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

    2. Section 63.742 is amended by adding in alphabetical order 
definitions

[[Page 76945]]

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 (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 lb/gal) of primer (less water and 
exempt solvents), as applied.
* * * * *

    4. Section 63.751 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec. 63.751  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Incinerators and carbon adsorbers-initial compliance 
demonstrations. Each owner or operator subject to the requirements in 
this subpart must demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements 
of Secs. 63.745(d), 63.746(c), and 63.747(d) of this subpart. Each 
owner or operator using a carbon adsorber to comply with the 
requirements in this subpart shall comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section. Each owner 
or operator using an incinerator to comply with the requirements in 
this subpart shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(b)(8) through (12) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-31331 Filed 12-7-00; 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>