Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19005

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by May 30,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Daniel A.

Meer, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812–2815

Placer County Air Pollution Control

District, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, CA

95603

El Dorado County Air Pollution Control

District, 2850 Fairlane Court,

Placerville, CA 95667

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 669 County Square Drive,

Ventura, CA 93003

Yolo Solano Air Quality Management

District, 1947 Galileo Court, Suite

103, Davis, CA 95616

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management

District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 200,

Victorville, CA 92392–2383

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel A. Meer, Chief Rulemaking

Section (A–5–3), Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone: (415)744–1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns Placer County Air

Pollution Control District Rules 216,

Organic Solvent Degreasing, and El

Dorado County Air Pollution Control

District Rule 235, Surface Preparation

and Cleanup, submitted to EPA on

October 13, 1995 by the California Air

Resources Board; Placer County Air

Pollution Control District Rule 236,

Wood Products Coatings, submitted to

EPA by the California Air Resources

Board on May 24, 1995; El Dorado

County Air Pollution Control District

Rule 225, Organic Solvent Cleaning, and

Rule 230, Automotive Refinishing, YoloSolano Air Quality Management District

Rule 2.13, Organic Solvents, and Mojave

Desert Air Quality Management District

Rule 1104, Organic Solvent Cleaning,

submitted to EPA by the California Air

Resources Board on November 30, 1994;

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District Rule 74.18, and Yolo-Solano

Rule 2.26, Motor Vehicle and Mobile

Equipment Coating Operations,

submitted to EPA by the California Air

Resources Board on February 24, 1995;

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District Rule 74.30, Wood Products

Coatings, and Mojave Desert Air Quality

Management District Rule 1117, Graphic

Arts, submitted to EPA by the California

Air Resources Board on July 13, 1994;

and Mojave Desert Air Quality

Management District Rule 1114, Wood

Products Coatings, submitted to EPA by

the California Air Resources Board on

March 31, 1995. For further information,

please see the information provided in

the Direct Final action which is located

in the Rules Section of this Federal

Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 26, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10564 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 59

[AD–FRL–5463–6]

RIN 2060–AE35

National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Automobile

Refinish Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes standards

to reduce emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) from the use of

automobile refinish coatings. The

proposed standards are in the first phase

of implementation of the portion of the

Clean Air Act (Act) that requires the

Administrator to control VOC emissions

from certain categories of consumer and

commercial products.

Exposure to ozone is associated with

a wide variety of human health effects,

agricultural crop loss, and damage to

forests and ecosystems. As required by

section 183(e) of the Act, the

Administrator conducted a study to

determine the potential of consumer

and commercial products to contribute

to ozone levels that violate the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone. Because the

automobile refinish coatings category is

a significant source of VOC emissions,

the EPA is proposing standards to

reduce emissions from this source.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before July 1, 1996.

Public Hearing. A public hearing will

be held, if requested. If anyone contacts

the EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by May 21, 1996, a public

hearing will be held on May 30, 1996,

beginning at 9:00 a.m.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact Ms. Marguerite Thweatt at the

EPA by May 21, 1996.

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.

Public Hearing. Persons interested in

attending the hearing should notify Ms.

Marguerite Thweatt, (919) 541–5607, to

verify that a hearing will occur and for

notification of the location of the

meeting.

Request to Speak at Hearing. To

present oral testimony contact Ms.

Thweatt at the following address:

Organic Chemicals Group (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5607, FAX number (919) 541–3470.

Docket. Docket No. A–95–18,

containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed standards, is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M–1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone

(202) 260–7548, FAX (202) 260–4400.

The proposed regulatory text and other

materials related to this rulemaking are

available for review in the docket. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Background Information Document.

The background information document

(BID) supporting the proposed standards

may be obtained from the docket or
19006 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

from the U.S. EPA Library (MD–35),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

2777. Please refer to ‘‘Automobile

Refinish Coatings—Background

Information for Proposed Standards,’’

EPA–453/D–95–005a.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the proposed

standards, 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: The

regulatory text of the proposed rule is

not included in this Federal Register

notice, but is available in Docket No. A–

95–18 (see ADDRESSES for information

about the docket). The proposed

regulatory language is also available on

one of the EPA’s Technology Transfer

Network (TTN) electronic bulletin

boards. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various

areas of air pollution control. The

service is free, except for the cost of a

phone call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for up

to a 14,400 bits per second (bps)

modem. If more information on the TTN

is needed, call the help desk at (919)

541–5384.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

B. Legislative Authority

C. Regulatory Background

D. Supporting Documentation for the

Proposed Standards

II. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability of the Standards

B. Regulated Entities

C. Standards

D. Compliance Requirements

E. Labeling Requirements

F. Reporting

G. Variance

H. Test Methods

III. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

B. Energy Impacts

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

D. Cost-Effectiveness

IV. Rationale

A. Applicability

B. Selection of BAC

C. Selection of Regulatory Format

D. Labeling Requirements

E. Selection of Reporting Requirements

F. Variance

G. Test Methods

H. Solicitation of Comments

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

Exposure to ground-level ozone is

associated with a wide variety of human

health effects, agricultural crop loss, and

damage to forests and ecosystems. The

most thoroughly studied health effects

of exposure to ozone at elevated levels

during periods of moderate to strenuous

exercise are the impairment of normal

functioning of the lungs, symptomatic

effects, and reduction in the ability to

engage in activities that require various

levels of physical exertion. Typical

symptoms associated with acute (1 to 3

hour) exposure to ozone at levels of 0.12

ppm or higher under heavy exercise or

0.16 ppm or higher under moderate

exercise include cough, chest pain,

nausea, shortness of breath, and throat

irritation.

Ground-level ozone, which is a major

component of ‘‘smog,’’ is formed in the

atmosphere by reactions of VOC and

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence

of sunlight. In order to reduce groundlevel ozone levels, emissions of VOC

and NOX must be reduced.

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

by March 1997. This listing and

prioritization are not final Agency

actions, and EPA requests comment on

the placement of automobile refinish

coatings on the list and the priority

assigned to these coatings. Further

details about the study and the listing

are available in the March 23, 1995,

Federal Register.

B. Legislative Authority

Section 183(e) of the Act gives the

EPA the authority to establish national

standards to reduce VOC emissions

from automobile refinish coatings.

According to the Act, regulations

developed under this section shall

require best available controls (BAC).

Best available controls are defined in

section 183(e)(1)(A) as follows:

The term ‘‘best available controls’’ means

the degree of emissions reduction that the

Administrator determines, on the basis of

technological and economic feasibility,

health, environmental, and energy impacts, is

achievable through the application of the

most effective equipment, measures,

processes, methods, systems, or techniques,

including chemical reformulation, product or

feedstock substitution, repackaging, and

directions for use, consumption, storage, or

disposal.

Section IV.B describes the EPA’s

determination of BAC for the proposed

regulation.

The EPA could satisfy the

requirements of section 183(e) by

issuing Control Techniques Guidelines

(CTG) instead of a national rule for

automobile refinish coatings.

Section 183(e)(3)(C) states:

For any consumer or commercial product

the Administrator may issue control

techniques guidelines under this Act in lieu

of regulations required under subparagraph

(A) if the administrator determines that such

guidance will be substantially as effective as

regulations in reducing emissions of volatile

organic compounds which contribute to

ozone levels in areas which violate the

national ambient air quality standard for

ozone.

In many cases, CTG’s can be effective

regulatory approaches to reduce

emissions of VOC in nonattainment

areas—with the advantage of not

imposing control costs on attainment

areas, where VOC emissions reductions

may be less beneficial. On the other

hand, rules based on CTG’s may impose

requirements and costs in

nonattainment areas that are beyond

those of a national rule. For example,

State automobile refinish rules require

recordkeeping by body shops, while the

national rule does not.

The EPA can also use other systems

of regulation. According to section

183(e)(4), EPA can consider ‘‘any system

or systems of regulation as the

Administrator deems appropriate,

including requirements for registration

and labeling, self-monitoring and

reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or

economic incentives (including

marketable permits and auctions of

emissions rights) concerning the

manufacture, processing, distribution,

use, consumption or disposal of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19007

product.’’ The EPA solicits comments

on alternative approaches to regulation

in section IV.H.

C. Regulatory Background

Automobile refinish coatings are

included under the definition of

consumer and commercial products

since the definition under section 183(e)

of the Act specifically includes paints,

coatings, and solvents. Section 183(e) of

the Act requires that the first group of

consumer and commercial products

(i.e., those with highest priority for

regulation) be regulated within 2 years

after publication of the regulatory

schedule. As mentioned previously,

automobile refinish coatings are in the

first group of consumer and commercial

products to be regulated. The regulation

is required by March 1997. The criteria

which contribute to the prioritization of

automobile refinish coatings in the first

group of consumer and commercial

products to be regulated include the

availability of alternatives, the costeffectiveness of controls, and the VOC

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.

Further details about the criteria used to

prioritize consumer and commercial

product categories for regulation are

available in the Report to Congress.

Automobile refinish coating

regulations are in place or under

development in a number of States. For

the companies that market automobile

refinish coatings nationwide, trying to

fulfill the differing requirements of State

rules has created administrative,

technical, and marketing problems. A

Federal rule is expected to provide some

degree of consistency, predictability,

and administrative ease for the industry.

In addition, State representatives have

recommended that the EPA develop and

implement nationwide Federal control

measures to enhance enforceability and

conserve State resources.

D. Supporting Documentation for the

Proposed Standards

The automobile refinish coating

background information document (BID)

(EPA publication number EPA–453/D–

95–005a) contains supporting

documentation for this proposal. It

contains a product category description,

an industry profile, a discussion of

control measures and their associated

costs, and a description of the expected

emissions reductions. Other supporting

information for this proposed regulation

includes existing State regulations,

meeting summaries, and the report to

Congress on consumer and commercial

products. This information is contained

in the docket and is available to the

public as described above.

II. Summary of Proposed Standards

The proposed standards are

summarized below. The rationale for the

regulatory decisions made in developing

these standards is provided in section

IV.

A. Applicability of the Standards

The provisions of this proposed rule

apply to automobile refinish coatings

that are manufactured or imported for

sale or distribution in the United States.

The proposed standards do not apply

to the following automobile refinish

coatings:

(1) Coatings manufactured exclusively

for sale outside the United States;

(2) Coatings manufactured or

imported before the compliance date of

the rule;

(3) Coatings manufactured for use by

original equipment manufacturers for

assembly-line coating operations; and

(4) Coatings supplied in nonrefillable

aerosol containers.

B. Regulated Entities

Regulated entities are defined under

section 183(e) to include manufacturers,

processors, wholesale distributors, and

importers. This proposed rule limits the

VOC contents of coatings manufactured

or imported for use in this country.

Since the distribution of coatings has no

effect on whether compliant coatings are

used, distributors are not regulated

entities under this proposed rule.

C. Standards

Coatings subject to this proposed rule

shall comply with the VOC content

standards listed in table 1. If a coating

is marketed under more than one of the

listed coating categories, the coating

shall comply with the lowest applicable

VOC content standard.

TABLE 1.—VOC CONTENT STANDARDS

FOR AUTOMOBILE REFINISH COATINGS

Coating Category VOC Contenta

(grams/liter)

Pretreatment Wash Primer.780

Primer/Primer Surfacer .... 575

Primer Sealer .................. 550

Single/2 Stage Topcoats 600

Topcoats of 3 or more

stages.

625

Specialty Coatingsb ......... 840

aVOC content means the amount of VOC in

a coating that has been prepared for application according to the manufacturer’s mixing instructions, excluding water and exempt compounds. bSpecialty coatings include adhesion promoters, anti-glare/safety coatings, bright metal

trim repair coatings, elastomeric materials, impact-resistant coatings, rubberized asphaltic

underbody coatings, uniform finish blenders,

and weld-through primers.

D. Compliance Requirements

The compliance date of the rule is 4

months after the promulgation date of

the rule.

E. Labeling Requirements

Containers of all subject coatings must

bear labels or lids that include the date

of manufacture of the contents or a code

indicating the date of manufacture.

F. Reporting

Manufacturers and importers of

coatings subject to the proposed

standards must file an initial report. The

initial report must be submitted by the

compliance date or within 180 days

after becoming subject to the rule,

whichever is later. The initial report

must include the following information:

(1) The name and mailing address of

the manufacturer or importer.

(2) In cases where codes are used to

represent the date of manufacture, the

manufacturer or importer shall submit

an explanation of each date code to the

Administrator. An explanation of any

new date codes shall be filed with the

Administrator no later than 30 days

after it is first introduced into

commerce.

G. Variance

The proposed rule allows

manufacturers and importers of

automobile refinish coatings to submit a

written application to the Administrator

requesting a variance if, for reasons

beyond their reasonable control, they

cannot comply with the requirements of

the proposed rule. The application must

include the following information:

(1) The specific grounds for which the

variance is sought;

(2) The proposed date(s) by which

compliance with the provisions of the

rule will be achieved; and

(3) A compliance report reasonably

detailing the method(s) by which

compliance will be achieved.

Upon receipt of the variance

application, the Administrator will hold

a public hearing to determine whether,

under what conditions, and to what

extent, a variance from the requirements

of the proposed rule is necessary and

will be permitted.

The Administrator may grant a

variance if the following criteria are

met:

(1) By complying with the proposed

rule, the applicant would bear

unreasonable economic hardship;

(2) The public benefit of avoiding

hardship to the applicant outweighs the

public interest in any increased

emissions or air contaminants that

would result from issuing the variance;

and
19008 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(3) The proposed compliance

schedule can be reasonably

implemented, and compliance will be

achieved as expeditiously as possible.

The approved variance order will

designate a final compliance date and a

condition that specifies increments of

progress necessary to assure timely

compliance. A variance shall end

immediately upon the failure (of the

party to whom the variance was

granted) to comply with any term or

condition of the variance.

H. Test Methods

For purposes of determining

compliance with this rule, the VOC

content of each coating product

manufactured or imported must be

determined using EPA’s Reference

Method 24—‘‘Determination of Volatile

Matter Content, Water Content, Density,

Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of

Surface Coatings,’’ found in 40 CFR part

60, appendix A. Analysis of waterborne

coating VOC content determined by

Reference Method 24 must be adjusted

as described in section 4.4 of Reference

Method 24.

The Administrator may approve, on a

case-by-case basis, alternative methods

of determining the VOC content of

coatings if they are demonstrated to the

Administrator’s satisfaction to provide

results equivalent to those obtained

using Reference Method 24.

III. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

This section will discuss the

incremental increase or decrease in air

pollution, water pollution, and solid

waste generation that would result from

implementing the proposed standards.

1. Air Pollution Impacts

The proposed standards would reduce

nationwide emissions of VOC from the

use of automobile refinish coatings by

an estimated 32,500 Mg (35,800 tons) in

1996. These reductions are compared to

1995 baseline emissions estimates.

Since many regulated VOC species are

also on the list of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) in section 112 of the

Act, the proposed rule is expected to

reduce some HAP emissions from the

use of automobile refinish coatings.

2. Water and Solid Waste

There are no adverse solid waste

impacts anticipated from compliance

with this rule. It is not expected that the

disposal of coatings as solid waste will

increase as a result of this rule. In fact,

because the compliant (higher solids)

coatings are more concentrated, fewer

containers will require disposal when

the same volume of solids is applied.

In cases where conversion from

solventborne to waterborne coatings is

the method used to achieve compliance,

an increase in wastewater discharge

may occur if waste waterborne coatings

are discharged to publicly owned

treatment works.

B. Energy Impacts

There are no adverse energy impacts

anticipated from compliance with this

rule. Compliant coatings will not

require different application equipment

and no add-on controls are required.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

The total cost of this rule includes

coating manufacturer process

modification costs, and costs for

training coating manufacturer

representatives, distributors, and body

shop personnel. The EPA believes that

coatings that meet the VOC content

limits of this proposed rule do not have

longer drying times than conventional

coatings; therefore, the EPA has not

included costs for lost productivity in

this rule. The EPA requests comments

and data regarding the drying times of

coatings compliant with this proposed

rule, and any information that indicates

that there may be costs due to losses in

productivity. The annual cost of this

rule is 4.5 million dollars, or about $140

per megagram of VOC emissions

reductions.

If the manufacturer and distributor

costs are completely passed on as a

coating price increase, the price of

coatings is estimated to increase less

than 10 cents per gallon (less than 0.2

percent). If the total cost of the rule is

passed on as an increase in the price of

a refinish job, the price is estimated to

increase less than 30 cents per job (less

than 0.05 percent).

D. Cost-Effectiveness

The EPA often compares the relative

cost of different measures for controlling

a pollutant by calculating the ‘‘costeffectiveness’’ of the measures. Using

EPA’s traditional calculation

methodology, the cost-effectiveness of a

regulation that applies nationwide is

based on a comparison of national costs

and nationwide emission reductions.

This comparison is expressed as the cost

per megagram (or ton) of emissions

reduced. Using cost and emission

reduction figures presented earlier in

this section of the preamble, the

nationwide cost-effectiveness of the

proposed regulation is $140/Mg ($130/

ton).

Alternative ways to calculate a

measure of the ‘‘cost-effectiveness’’ of

the regulation have been suggested by

others. One alternative would be to

calculate cost-effectiveness on the basis

of the nationwide cost of the regulation

($4.5 million for the proposed

regulation) and the VOC reduction

achieved in ozone nonattainment areas.

The stated rationale for this approach is

that cost-effectiveness measures should

be designed in a way that best

represents the objective of the regulatory

action. In this case, for example, a major

objective, though not the only objective,

of these regulations is the control of

ozone formation in nonattainment areas.

By establishing nationwide standards,

the cost of achieving emission

reductions in ozone nonattainment

areas during the ozone seasons requires

nationwide expenditures during all

seasons of the year, including

expenditures year-round in areas

currently in attainment with the current

standard. These nationwide emission

reductions—including emission

reductions outside of nonattainment

areas and out of the ozone season—may

or may not contribute to efforts to limit

ozone in nonattainment areas,

depending on whether they participate

in ozone transport from one area to

another. One example of the application

of this method is presented in a

December 21, 1993, draft Regulatory

Impact Analysis developed by the EPA’s

Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) in

which control of emissions from

refueling of light duty vehicles (i.e.,

onboard refueling vapor recovery, or

ORVR) could viably be applied either

nationwide or in nonattainment areas

alone. In this example, regional

regulation represented an important

alternative to national regulation. The

OMS calculated cost-effectiveness using

(1) nationwide costs and nationwide

emission reductions, as well as (2)

nationwide costs and the emission

reductions achieved in nonattainment

areas.

Emissions from automobile refinish

coatings used in nonattainment areas

have been estimated. On a

nonattainment area basis, the costeffectiveness of the proposed

automobile refinish coatings rule would

be $300/Mg ($280/ton). A similar

calculation could be done to account for

the seasonality of ozone formation.

While such an approach offers a

measure of the cost of emission

reductions in nonattainment areas, EPA

sees significant drawbacks to this

approach. First, cost-effectiveness

figures would no longer provide a

consistent basis for comparison of the

relative cost of different control

measures or regulations considered at

different points in time. Because the

number and location of nonattainment

areas changes frequently, the initial
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19009

calculation of the cost-effectiveness of a

rule would depend upon when it was

issued. The EPA believes it is important

that cost-effectiveness be calculated in a

consistent manner that allows for valid

comparisons. Also, introducing new

methodology would tend to make new

control measures appear superficially to

be less cost-effective than measures

utilized in the past, simply because of

a change in well-established

terminology.

Second, this alternative approach

attributes all costs of the rule to

emission reductions achieved in

nonattainment areas and no cost to

emission reductions achieved in

attainment areas. By not including

emission reductions in attainment areas,

the methodology assumes that emission

reductions in areas which attain the

NAAQS for ozone have no value. In fact,

attainment areas often contribute to

pollution problems in nonattainment

areas through the transport of emissions

downwind. Also, emission reductions

in attainment areas help to maintain

clean air as the economy grows and new

pollution sources come into existence.

Furthermore, measures to reduce

emissions of VOC often reduce

emissions of toxic air pollutants.

Another alternative that has been

suggested would be to calculate not only

the emission reductions but also the

cost if the requirements applied only in

ozone nonattainment areas, perhaps

through issuance of a Control

Techniques Guideline (CTG). The EPA

has not estimated the cost of using a

CTG to regulate only those products

sold for use in ozone nonattainment

areas.

The EPA is planning to review

internally the generic question of the

alternative approach to measuring costs

against emission reductions. The results

of this review are not available for

incorporation into this rulemaking.

Therefore, the EPA requests comments

on the traditional and alternative

methods discussed above to characterize

the cost-effectiveness of this and other

Section 183(e) regulations.

V. Rationale

The following sections explain the

rationale for selecting the proposed

standards.

A. Applicability

This proposed rule applies to

automobile refinish coatings that are

manufactured or imported for sale or

distribution in the United States.

Coatings that are currently used for

automobile refinishing are also used

outside the automobile refinish

industry. In fact, some of these coatings

are not labeled specifically as

automobile refinish coatings, but are

labeled generally as primers, basecoats,

etc. This proposed rule applies only to

those coatings that are marketed as

automobile refinish coatings. Therefore,

coating manufacturers define which of

their coatings are automobile refinish

coatings by the way they market them.

All coatings marketed as automobile

refinish coatings are subject to this

proposed rule; all other coatings are not.

Automobile refinish coatings were

determined to be a significant source of

VOC emissions in nonattainment areas

and were designated for regulation

under the authority of section 183(e) of

the Act. The proposed standards do not

apply to some types of coatings. There

are exemptions for exported coatings,

coatings manufactured or imported

before the compliance date, coatings

that are sold in nonrefillable aerosol

containers, and coatings that are

manufactured for use by original

equipment manufacturers (OEM’s) for

assembly-line coating operations.

The purpose of section 183(e) of the

Act is to control VOC emissions that

contribute to ozone nonattainment in

the United States. Because exported

coatings do not contribute to VOC

emissions in the United States, and

because EPA has no legal or factual

basis to impose VOC control measures

outside the United States, coatings

manufactured for the explicit purpose of

export, and which are in fact exported,

are exempt from the requirements of the

proposed rule.

An exemption for coatings sold in

nonrefillable aerosol containers is

included in the proposed rule because

the EPA is developing a separate VOC

regulation for these coatings under

section 183(e) authority.

Coatings that are manufactured for

use by OEM’s for assembly-line coating

operations are exempt from this

proposed rule because such coatings are

significantly different than refinish

coatings; OEM’s are covered by

standards promulgated under section

111 of the Act, and will be covered by

standards promulgated under section

112 of the Act.

Each coating manufacturer produces

coating components, such as hardeners,

reducers, additives, etc., necessary for

the preparation of a ‘‘ready-to-spray’’

coating. Some coating manufacturers

also produce components for use in the

coatings of other manufacturers; some

companies do not produce coatings at

all, but produce only coating

components for use in the coatings of

other manufacturers. Although

preparing a coating using only the

components and suggested mixing ratio

of one manufacturer may yield a

compliant coating, preparing a coating

with the components of several

manufacturers may not. To be effective,

this proposed rule may need to apply to

all coating components; that is, if a

coating component manufacturer

suggests that a coating component may

be used for automobile refinishing, and

if its suggested use would result in the

preparation of a noncompliant coating,

then the coating component

manufacturer would be out of

compliance with the rule. Until recently

the EPA was not aware of the extent to

which coating users combined the

components of multiple manufacturers.

As a result, the EPA has not sufficiently

examined how to enforce this proposed

rule if its applicability were expanded

to include all automobile refinish

coating components, or the impacts that

the rule would have on the

manufacturers who would become

affected by the rule if its applicability

were expanded. The EPA has, therefore,

limited applicability to coating

manufacturers in this proposed rule, but

is soliciting comments on whether to

expand the applicability. Based on

information received during the

comment period, the EPA may expand

the applicability in the promulgated

rule.

The EPA is aware that the VOC

content standards of this proposed rule

would likely prohibit the manufacture

or import of lacquer coatings. Lacquers

are no longer used on new vehicles, and

are mainly used by antique car restorers;

therefore, the demand for lacquers is

small and is likely to decrease.

Although other coatings are compatible

with lacquers and may be used to

refinish an existing lacquer finish, some

colors available in lacquer are not

available in other coatings. Since the

production of lacquer topcoats is small

and not likely to increase, and since

they may be necessary to fill a niche in

automobile refinishing, the EPA is

considering exempting lacquer topcoats

from the proposed rule. Although

lacquer topcoat use is not likely to

increase, an exemption would not

prevent it. Therefore, the EPA is also

considering whether to include lacquer

topcoats in the specialty coating

category (described in section IV.B.) and

limit their production to a small

percentage of total automobile refinish

coating production. The EPA solicits

comments on these issues in section

IV.H.; based on information received

during the public comment period, the

EPA may, in the promulgated rule,

either exempt lacquer topcoats, or
19010 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

categorize them as specialty coatings

and limit their production.

B. Selection of BAC

The primary factors considered in

determining best available controls

(BAC) were technological and economic

feasibility, and environmental impacts.

Other impacts, such as nonair

environmental impacts (solid waste and

water) and energy impacts, are expected

to be minimal. Health impacts are

expected to parallel environmental

impacts in terms of directional benefit

(i.e., as environment improves, health

improves). The EPA relied on existing

State and local automobile refinish

rules, coating product information, and

input from the automobile refinish

industry to determine the availability

and technological and economic

feasibility of coatings.

The BAC selection process involves

both the selection of coating categories

and the determination of VOC content

limits for those categories. These

components are linked in a

determination of what degree of

emissions reduction represents BAC.

Decisions to subdivide a given category

into more specific ‘‘subcategories’’ can

be a direct consequence of the VOC

content levels under consideration. For

example, pretreatment wash primers

etch bare metal surfaces to provide

adhesion of the coating to the metal.

According to coating product

information there are no pretreatment

wash primers that have VOC content

levels as low as other primers.

Therefore, a subcategory was created for

this primer, along with a VOC content

level different from the general primer

category. Similarly, a subcategory was

created for topcoats of three (or more)

stages because coating information

indicates that there are no such coatings

with VOC content levels as low as those

of other topcoats.

‘‘Specialty coatings’’ that serve

specific functions and that either do not

belong in other coating categories or are

not available at the VOC content limits

of those categories are included in a

separate category. This category

includes coatings that are designed for

a specific use, and coatings of other

categories that are modified by changing

the components of the coating. In this

proposed rule, all coatings that the EPA

considers specialty coatings are defined.

It may not be possible to determine all

of the specialty coatings that may be

needed in the future as new OEM

coatings are developed; therefore, an

open-ended definition of specialty

coatings is desirable. However, such a

definition could be abused by simply

renaming existing coatings as specialty

coatings. Even with a closed definition,

the specialty coating category may have

undesirable effects. For example, an

elastomeric coating is a specialty

coating. Some flexible topcoats, which

are considered elastomeric coatings, are

prepared simply by adding a flexible

hardener in place of the normal

hardener. In this case, the specialty

coating category would allow topcoats

to be used that exceed the VOC content

standard for topcoats.

Limiting the production of specialty

coatings to a small percentage of total

automobile refinish coating production

may be effective in minimizing the

problems associated with this category.

However, as mentioned above, some

specialty coatings are just modifications

of other coatings, and it is unclear what

the EPA would be limiting. Limiting

specialty coating production to a

percentage of total production would

adversely affect manufacturers that are

mainly in the specialty coating business.

The EPA is considering limiting the

production of specialty coatings, and is

soliciting comments on how to

determine such limits and how they can

be made enforceable. Based on

information received during the public

comment period, the EPA may include

specialty coating production limits in

the promulgated rule.

The process of determining BAC

began with the examination of State and

local automobile refinish rules. The EPA

focused on existing coating categories

and their associated VOC standards in

State and local rules to determine which

categories and VOC content limits might

constitute the degree of emissions

reduction that represents BAC.

Specifically, California rules were

analyzed because California has been

regulating automobile refinish coatings

for several years and generally has the

most stringent VOC standards in the

country.

The VOC limits of California rules are

typically met with waterborne coatings.

Coating manufacturers have stated that

they would need to modify their

production facilities to supply the entire

country with waterborne coatings. Such

modifications reportedly include the

replacement of carbon steel equipment

with corrosion-resistant materials.

Although not usually necessary in the

relatively dry climate of California, in

some geographic areas of the country

waterborne coatings would likely

require forced drying with supplemental

heating equipment (such as heated

spray booths or infrared heating lamps)

because of their longer drying times.

In geographic areas without existing

automobile refinish rules, solventborne

coatings are typically used that have

relatively high VOC content levels;

these coatings are sometimes referred to

as ‘‘conventional’’ coatings.

Conventional coatings are typically fastdrying and, therefore, do not need to be

force-dried. There is not a continuous

spectrum of coating VOC content levels;

coatings with the lowest VOC content

levels (such as waterborne coatings)

were developed to comply with State

and local rules. Conventional coatings

(that have the highest VOC content

levels) were developed to satisfy the

demand for fast-drying coatings that are

easy to use. However, between these

extremes there exist coatings that have

VOC content levels that are lower than

those of conventional coatings, that are

not significantly harder to use or slower

to dry than conventional coatings, and

that do not require the forced drying or

extensive coating manufacturer process

modifications of the coatings with the

lowest VOC content levels. The VOC

content limits that are being proposed as

BAC in this proposed rule are based on

such ‘‘medium-solids’’ coatings.

The EPA considered proposing a VOC

content standard of 550 grams per liter

for primers and primer surfacers.

Coating product information indicates

that coatings at this level are available.

However, primers at this level are not

tintable according to the information

available to the EPA. Tintable primers

are available with a VOC content of 575

grams per liter. When tintable primers

are used, less topcoat needs to be

applied because the tint of the primer

assists in achieving the final color

desired. Since less topcoat is used when

tintable primers are used, and since the

VOC content of topcoats are generally

higher than 550 grams per liter, VOC

emissions reductions are expected to be

equal or greater when tintable primers

are used. The EPA is therefore

proposing a 575 grams per liter standard

for primers and primer surfacers.

Comments on the proposed standard for

primers and primer surfacers are

solicited in section IV.H.

Since most of the nation uses

conventional coatings, these coatings

provide a reference point from which to

assess technological and economic

feasibility. The emissions reductions

and cost impacts of regulatory

alternatives considered by the EPA are

given in table 2.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19011

TABLE 2.—IMPACTS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

Regulatory alternative

Emissions reductions * Mg/

yr

Capital

costs 10 6

$

Annual

costs 10 6

$

Cost effectiveness $/Mg

Incremental cost

effectiveness $/

Mg

BAC ............................................................................................... 32,500 32 5 140 ............................

Beyond BAC ................................................................................. 36,800 240 34 930 6900

* Baseline emissions are 88,500 Mg/yr.

As previously mentioned, mediumsolids coatings do not need to be forcedried, and the process modifications of

coating manufacturing facilities

necessary to produce such coatings

nationwide are less extensive than those

needed to produce waterborne coatings.

The capital cost associated with the use

of medium-solids coatings is about 4.5

million dollars; about 60% of the cost is

for the training of coating manufacturer

and distributor representatives and shop

personnel in the use of lower-VOC

coatings. The cost effectiveness of using

medium-solids coatings is about $140

per megagram; the incremental

emissions reductions that would be

achieved by going beyond (or lower

than) the VOC content limits of

medium-solids coatings would cost

about $6900 per megagram. Most of this

cost (60%) is from the purchase by body

shops of additional heating equipment

necessary to speed the drying of the

coatings to avoid losses in productivity.

Because of these high incremental costs,

the EPA selected the VOC content limits

in Table 1 as BAC.

C. Selection of Regulatory Format

In contrast to traditionally regulated

stationary sources that emit VOC at a

specific fixed location (e.g., a

manufacturing plant), VOC from

automobile refinish coatings are emitted

wherever the products are used. For this

reason, regulating at the manufacturer

and importer level is the most efficient

and least burdensome method of

regulating the VOC content of coatings,

and would ultimately impact the VOC

content of automobile refinish coatings

at the distributor and end user level.

The framework EPA chose to

implement BAC is VOC content

standards. Coatings manufactured or

imported on or after the effective date

must comply with the VOC content

standards. The EPA will continue to

gather data with which to evaluate the

potential for further emissions

reductions or alternate frameworks for

implementing BAC such as economic

incentive-type approaches.

D. Labeling Requirements

The proposed regulation requires that

containers for all subject coatings

display on the label or lid the date of

manufacture or a code indicating the

date of manufacture. This information

allows enforcement personnel to

determine whether a coating was

manufactured before or after the

compliance date.

E. Selection of Reporting Requirements

The EPA evaluated what reported

information would be sufficient to

ensure compliance with VOC standards

within the proposed rule. The reporting

requirements proposed are necessary to

allow determination of compliance, and

the EPA believes they do not represent

an undue burden on manufacturers or

importers of automobile refinish

coatings. Compliance with this rule will

be determined by periodic random

testing (EPA Reference Method 24,

described below). Therefore, beyond the

initial report, which serves to identify

all manufacturers and importers of

automobile refinish coatings, there are

no reporting provisions in this rule

(except for reports explaining any new

date codes and for variances).

F. Variance

The proposed rule includes a variance

provision whereby manufacturers and

importers of subject automobile refinish

coatings may apply to the Administrator

for a temporary variance from

compliance with the standards. A

variance will be granted if the applicant

demonstrates that compliance would

result in economic hardship, and that

granting the variance would better serve

the public interest than would requiring

continuous compliance under the

conditions of economic hardship. The

EPA intends for this provision to allow

manufacturers and importers some

flexibility in responding to unforeseen

circumstances that may cause

additional, unanticipated compliance

burden. The EPA recognizes that certain

interruptions in the availability of raw

materials and or manufacturing

processes may affect the manufacturer’s

or importer’s ability to continuously

comply with the standards. In

particular, the EPA anticipates that this

variance provision will help to mitigate

impacts to small manufacturers. Small

manufacturers are likely to have fewer

research and development resources,

and, therefore, will benefit from the

allowed variance.

G. Test Methods

Under the proposed provisions,

compliance with the VOC content

standards is based on the EPA’s

Reference Method 24. This test method

represents the EPA’s approved protocol

for determining the VOC content of

coatings and is EPA’s standard test

method for determining the VOC

content of coatings.

Standard language allowing use of

alternative methods of determining VOC

content subject to the Administrator’s

approval is also included in the

proposed rule.

H. Solicitation of Comments

The Administrator welcomes

comments from interested persons on

any aspect of the proposed rule, and on

any statement in the preamble or the

referenced supporting documents. The

proposed rule was developed on the

basis of information available to the

EPA. The Administrator is specifically

requesting factual information that may

support either the approach taken in the

proposed standards or an alternate

approach.

The EPA is requesting specific

comments and data on several aspects of

the proposed rule: (1) Alternative

approaches to regulation; (2) expanding

the applicability of the rule to include

all automobile refinish coating

components; (3) limiting production of

lacquer topcoats, or exempting lacquer

topcoats from the rule; (4) determining

and enforcing specialty coating

production limits; and (5) the technical

and economic feasibility of VOC content

levels that are higher or lower than the

575 grams/liter standard for primers and

primer surfacers.

The EPA anticipates promulgating

this rule on an expedited schedule. This

will benefit States for which VOC

reductions from automobile refinish

coating are critical to their 15 percent

rate-of-progress plans, and help

minimize the patchwork of individual

State automobile refinish coating rules

across the country.
19012 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Comments submitted to the

Administrator should contain specific

proposals and supporting data to allow

the EPA to fully evaluate the comments.

Recommended changes to any of the

VOC content standards presented in this

proposal should include sufficient

information for the EPA to evaluate the

technological and economic feasibility

associated with such changes.

Applicable dates and addresses for the

submission of comments are included at

the beginning of this preamble.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide opportunity for

interested persons to make oral

presentations regarding the proposed

regulation in accordance with section

307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to

make oral presentation on the proposed

regulation for automobile refinish

coatings should contact the EPA at the

address given in the ADDRESSES section

of this preamble. Oral presentations will

be limited to 15 minutes each. Any

member of the public may file a written

statement before, during, or within 30

days after the hearing. Written

statements should be addressed to the

Air Docket Section at the address given

in the ADDRESSES section of this

preamble and should refer to Docket No.

A–95–18.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing

and written statements will be available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours at the EPA’s Air

Docket Section in Washington, DC (see

ADDRESSES section of the preamble).

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the

Agency must determine whether a

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to Office of

Management Budget (OMB) review and

the requirements of the Executive Order.

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 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.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, the OMB has notified the EPA

that it considers this a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the Executive Order. The EPA

submitted this action to the OMB for

review. Any written comments from the

OMB to the EPA and any written EPA

response to those comments will be

included in Docket No. A–95–18, listed

at the beginning of this notice under

ADDRESSES.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. l) and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington,

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260–2740.

Pursuant to Section 183(e) of the Act,

the proposed rule regulates VOC

emissions from automobile refinish

coatings. The only information

collection requirements of the proposed

rule are for labeling and reporting. To

determine whether a coating is

manufactured before or after the

compliance date of the rule, the date of

manufacture, or code representing the

date, must appear on the coating

container. Coating manufacturers

currently include this information on

coating containers. The proposed rule

requires all coating manufacturers to

submit an initial report containing their

name and mailing address, and an

explanation of coating date codes, if

codes are used to represent the date of

coating manufacture. Reporting beyond

the initial report is required only for the

explanation of any new date codes used

by coating manufacturers, and for

requests for variances. The information

to be reported is not of a sensitive

nature.

The EPA estimated the cost and hour

burden of the information collection

requirements of the proposed rule.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

The initial report must be submitted

by all coating manufacturers. Averaged

over a 3 year period, EPA estimates that

the initial report will require 8 hours to

complete, and will be submitted by 10

respondents annually. Beyond the

initial report, EPA estimates that 3

respondents per year will spend 2 hours

each reporting the explanations of any

new date codes used. The total annual

cost of the reporting requirements of the

proposed rule is $3,200.

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.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington,

D.C. 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after April 30,

1996, a comment to OMB is best assured

of having its full effect if OMB receives

it by May 30, 1996. The final rule will

respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA to

consider potential impacts of proposed

regulations on small business ‘‘entities.’’

A regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) is

required if preliminary analysis

indicates ‘‘a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19013

Shops in the autobody refinish

industry are classified as small by the

U.S. Small Business Administration if

the entity that owns the shop has total

sales of less than $3.5 million. Most

individual shops are small by this

criterion if the owning entity has no

other sales from other shops. Therefore,

an RFA was performed and is contained

in the docket for this proposed rule.

Information on the size of

manufacturers and distributors

impacted by this rule is not available,

but some small entities among

manufacturers and distributors may also

be affected.

Several industry trade associations,

including the Automotive Service

Association (ASA) that represents body

shops, and the Automotive Service

Industry Association (ASIA) that

represents coating distributors, have

submitted comments and provided

information during the development of

the national rule. Most of the members

of these associations are small

businesses. The main concerns of these

associations deal with recordkeeping

and VOC content limits. Some members

of ASA are already subject to State rules

that contain VOC content limits and

recordkeeping at the body shop. The

drying times of some coatings compliant

with State rules are significantly longer

than those of conventional coatings,

which can result in losses in body shop

productivity. Some shops report that the

recordkeeping required under some

rules is burdensome and time

consuming.

The proposed national rule applies to

automobile refinish coating

manufacturers and importers only, not

to body shops or any other users of the

coatings. After the national rule is

effective, only compliant coatings will

be available for purchase by coating

users in this country. Since the purpose

of most State recordkeeping

requirements is to demonstrate that

body shops are using compliant

coatings, some States may decide to

remove such requirements from their

rules after the national rule is effective.

Coatings compliant with the proposed

rule do not take significantly longer to

dry than conventional coatings;

therefore, small shops will be able to

apply compliant coatings without

purchasing additional equipment.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the Agency prepare a budgetary

impact statement to accompany any

proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Section 203 requires

the Agency to establish a plan for

obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the Agency must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The Agency must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the Agency explains

why this alternative is not selected or

the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because the proposed rule is

estimated to result in expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector of less than $100

million in any one year, the Agency has

not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative. Because small governments

will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the Agency is not

required to develop a plan with regard

to small governments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Automobile refinish

coatings, Consumer and commercial

products, Ozone, Volatile organic

compound.

Dated: April 19, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10381 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 96–85, FCC 96–154]

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted

an Order and Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking regarding implementation

of the Cable Act reform provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (‘‘1996

Act’’). The Order segment of this action

may be found elsewhere in this issue of

the Federal Register. This Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) solicits

comment on several issues arising from

the enactment of the 1996 Act. This

NPRM solicits comment regarding

possible revisions to the interim final

rules established in the companion

Order and requests comment on other

issues critical to the 1996 Act’s

implementation. The intended effect of

this action is to develop rules that fully

implement the mandates of the 1996 Act

with regard to cable television.

DATES: Comments filed in response to

this NPRM must be filed by May 28,

1996. Reply Comments are due June 28,

1996. Written comments by the public

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due on or

before May 28, 1996. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before July 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: An original and six copies

of comments and reply comments

should be sent to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Room 222,

Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to

Nancy Stevenson of the Cable Services

Bureau, 2033 M Street, NW., Room

408A, Washington, DC 20554. Parties

should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 239,

Washington, DC 20554.

In addition to filing comments with

the Secretary, a copy of any comments

on the information collections

contained herein should be submitted to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC 20054, or via the Internet to

dconway@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725–

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503

or via the Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Power, Paul Glenchur, or Nancy

Stevenson, Cable Services Bureau, (202)

416–0800. For additional information

concerning the information collections

contained in this NPRM contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217, or via the

Internet at dconway@fcc.gov.