National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
Related Material
[Federal Register: January 24, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 15)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3642-3648]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja00-16]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6526-8]
RIN 2060-A177
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities to include a separate emission standard for exterior
primers used for large commercial aircraft components (parts or
assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft. We
are proposing these amendments based on review of data that support
significant technical concerns of an aircraft manufacturer's ability to
achieve the current 350 grams per liter (g/L) (2.9 pounds per gallon
(lb/gal)) hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and volatile organic compound
(VOC) content limit requirements when using exterior primers.
DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received by February 23,
2000, unless a hearing is requested by February 3, 2000. If a hearing
is requested, written comments must be received by March 9, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket Number A-92-20, Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA
requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed
below in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Comments may also be
submitted electronically by following the instructions provided in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Public Hearing: Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA by February 3, 2000. If requested, a public hearing will be held
February 7, 2000. If a public hearing is requested, the comment period
will end 30 days after the date of the public hearing, in which case
EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the
hearing information and the extended comment period. If a public
hearing is held, it will be held at the EPA's Office of Administration
Auditorium. Persons interested in attending the hearing to present oral
testimony should contact Ms. Dorothy Apple; Policy, Planning, and
Standards Group (MD-13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-4487.
Docket: Docket number A-92-20, containing information relevant to
this proposed rulemaking, is available for public inspection between
8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except for Federal
holidays) at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 260-7548. The
docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
[[Page 3643]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Szykman or Mr. Jaime Pagan;
Policy, Planning, and Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2452 (Szykman) or (919) 541-
5340 (Pagan), electronic mail address szykman.jim@epa.gov or
pagan.jaime@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
The regulated category and entities affected by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................ Facilities which are major sources
of hazardous air pollutants and
manufacture large commercial
aircraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather, provides a
guide for readers likely to be interested in the proposed amendments to
the regulations affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of these proposed amendments to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
These proposed amendments, the promulgated NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG), and other background information are available in Docket
Number A-92-20 or by request from the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center (ADDRESSES). These documents can also be
accessed through the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. For
further information and general questions regarding the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN) call Mr. Hersch Rorex (919) 541-5637. Electronic
comments and data may be submitted by sending electronic mail (e-mail)
to: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Submit comments as an ASCII file,
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Comments and data will also be accepted on diskette in Word Perfect
5.1, 6.1, Corel 8, or ACSII file format. Identify all comments and data
in electronic form by the docket number A-92-20. No Confidential
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail.
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Why are we taking this action?
II. What provisions of the Aerospace NESHAP would these proposed
amendments affect?
III. Whom would these proposed amendments affect?
IV. What are the administrative requirements for this proposal?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
I. Why Are We Taking This Action?
On September 1, 1995, we promulgated the NESHAP for Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (60 FR 45948). The NESHAP contains
standards to control organic HAP and VOC emissions from primer
application operations. These standards require the use of a primer
with an organic HAP and VOC content level of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or
less (40 CFR 63.745(c)(1),(2)) where no add-on control system is used,
or the use of a control system to reduce the organic HAP and VOC
emissions to the atmosphere by 81 percent or greater (Sec. 63.745(d)).
We set these standards at the maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) floor for new and existing sources.
In the preamble to the proposed NESHAP (59 FR 29241), we explained
the basis of the MACT floor for primer application operations. We
established the MACT floor for existing facilities based on the
weighted average VOC content that represented the average of the top 12
percent of facilities. Because of the limited available data on the
corresponding organic HAP content, we proposed a HAP content limit at
the same level as the VOC content limit. Also, in applying these
standards within the source category, we did not identify any technical
reason to distinguish between the different types of market segments
(commercial or military), or the work type (original equipment
manufacture or rework). Therefore, we applied these standards to all
market segments within the source category.
In public comments received on the proposed rule, aircraft
manufacturers raised concerns about the inclusion of exterior primers
for large commercial aircraft in the data set for the MACT floor on
primer operations. The industry expressed concerns about whether a
suitable exterior primer would be available by the September 1, 1998
NESHAP compliance deadline for existing sources. However, at that time,
industry did not provide adequate supporting data to justify separate
treatment of exterior primers for large commercial aircraft.
Recently, an aircraft manufacturer raised these same concerns and
submitted additional data indicating that it has not been able to find
a satisfactory exterior primer for use in manufacturing and assembling
large commercial aircraft that will meet the current HAP and VOC
content limits in the NESHAP and their own performance needs. This
aircraft manufacturer has stated that several factors exist that create
a distinction between facilities that produce fully assembled large
commercial aircraft and facilities that manufacture other types of
aerospace components and vehicles. One of the primary differences is
the annual utilization rates for large commercial aircraft versus other
aircraft. Large commercial aircraft often remain in constant use with
multiple take-offs and landings daily and much higher annual flight
hours than other aircraft. The total flight time, flight frequency, and
flight altitudes for large commercial aircraft are often much higher
than for other types of aircraft, such as defense aircraft and general
aviation aircraft. These higher utilization rates associated with large
commercial aircraft create distinct stresses for the paint systems
used. In addition, the largest of the commercial aircraft are often
designed for overseas travel (transcontinental routes) which creates a
greater exposure to salt, a strong corrosive agent. Finally, this
aircraft manufacturer has stated that differing paint requirements,
such as replicability of color and gloss, and differing maintenance
requirements due to its large number of customers (200 plus), are also
factors that can contribute to the acceptability of a paint system.
This aircraft manufacturer expressed significant technical concern
about its ability to find an exterior primer that would provide
adequate protection to large commercial aircraft without pitting or
peeling and that would meet the VOC and HAP content standards for
primers. This aircraft manufacturer has stated that available low-VOC
exterior primers have very different physical and chemical properties,
such as the rheology and cross-link density of the coating, from the
primers that were in use when the MACT floor was established in 1995.
Primers that were in use at that time contained 1,1,1
[[Page 3644]]
trichloroethane (TCA) but TCA has since been phased out due to its
adverse effect on the stratospheric ozone layer. New TCA-free, high
solids/low-VOC primers represent a distinct technology from the
previous TCA primer technology. The manufacturer has stated that this
has resulted in changes to the performance characteristics of the
primer, particularly the adhesion, flexibility, and impact resistance,
which have resulted in a greater chance of the coatings peeling and
pitting. This aircraft manufacturer provided summary test data on the
50 exterior primers tested since the Aerospace NESHAP was promulgated.
The compliance date for the NESHAP was September 1, 1998. We have
granted compliance extensions based on this issue; however, these
extensions expired September 1, 1999.
Today, we are proposing to amend the current emission limits
contained in 40 CFR 63.745(c)(1) and (2) for primer operations with no
add-on control systems by proposing a separate emission limit of 650 g/
L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC for exterior primers as
applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies)
or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected
sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft; and an
emission limit of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC
for exterior primers as applied to large commercial aircraft components
(parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at
new affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial
aircraft. Our bases for these amendments are data recently submitted to
us by a manufacturer of large commercial aircraft and a reevaluation of
the original data used to establish the MACT floor for primer
application operations. Also based on the fact that TCA-based primer is
no longer available, as previously discussed, we reevaluated the
original data used to establish the MACT floor for primer application
operations of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC.
In order to determine if a separate limit should be established for
exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft at existing
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft, we
considered whether these facilities are distinct from other segments of
the industry. Because large commercial aircraft often have much higher
annual utilization rates and greater exposure to corrosive
environments, creating the need for higher performance coating systems,
and the manufacturer of such aircraft has many different customer
specifications it must satisfy, we determined that a separate limit
should be established for these facilities. We then re-evaluated the
original data only for facilities that manufactured fully assembled
large commercial aircraft. In our re-evaluation of the data, we
identified four facilities which manufactured fully assembled large
commercial aircraft. To account for the fact that TCA-based primer is
no longer available, we removed all TCA-based primer data. The data
from these four facilities on the annual usage of primers used in the
primer operations for large commercial aircraft had a VOC content that
ranged from 650 g/L (5.3 lb/gal) to 670 g/L (5.6 lb/gal). A more
detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in the Docket (No. A-
92-20) within the document titled, ``MACT Floor for Aerospace
Commercial Aircraft Original Equipment Operations--Interior and
Exterior Primers.''
The Clean Air Act requires that emission standards for HAP
established under section 112(d)(2) be based on ``* * * the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants
subject to this section * * * that the Administrator, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing sources in
the category or subcategory to which such emission standards applies *
* *.'' This basis is commonly referred to as MACT.
Section 112(d)(3) further clarifies the minimum acceptable
stringency for the MACT level of emission reduction. For new sources,
MACT shall be no ``* * * less stringent than the emission control that
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator.'' For existing sources, MACT ``* * *
shall not be less stringent, and may be more stringent than--
(A) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of the existing sources * * * in the category or subcategory
for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or
(B) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing
five sources * * * in the category or subcategory for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.''
In prior rulemaking where fewer than five sources exist, we have
based the MACT floor for existing sources on the average emission
limitation achieved by all the sources. Use of the arithmetic average
would result in a VOC content of 655 g/L. This method for calculating
the MACT floor yields a number that does not correspond to an actual
VOC content of primer used at these facilities. Therefore, we
determined the MACT floor for these four facilities based on the median
VOC content for primer operations at these facilities. The MACT floor
for primer operations at these facilities is 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or
less of organic HAP and VOC. This represents the existing source MACT
floor for all primer operations at facilities that manufacture fully
assembled large commercial aircraft.
We then considered exterior versus interior primers. The data
recently submitted to us by the aircraft manufacturer relate only to
technical problems concerning the use of ``exterior'' primers at
existing facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial
aircraft. We do not have any data indicating that similar problems
exist with the use of interior primers at these facilities. We believe
that the 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) level has already been demonstrated to be
an achievable level of control for interior primers used at facilities
that manufacture fully assembled large commercial aircraft. Therefore,
we propose to go beyond the MACT floor level of control (650 g/L (2.9
lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC to 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less
of organic HAP and VOC for interior primer operations used at existing
and new facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial
aircraft.
We are not proposing to establish MACT at a level beyond the MACT
floor for exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft at
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft. This
is because we believe that meeting a standard more stringent than a 650
g/L level is not technically achievable for all existing commercial
production facilities that manufacture and assemble large commercial
aircraft at this time. However, the manufacturer in question has stated
that it will continue to test and evaluate exterior primers, used to
manufacture and assemble large commercial aircraft, with the goal of
achieving the current content limit of 350 g/L. Should this
manufacturer find an exterior primer that meets its specifications and
is lower than the proposed content limit of 650 g/L prior to
promulgation of these proposed amendments, we intend to promulgate an
emission limit for exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft
at facilities that manufacture fully
[[Page 3645]]
assembled large commercial aircraft that would be at this lower level.
For new sources, section 112(d)(3) states that MACT ``* * * shall
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the
Administrator.''
Based on our reevaluation of these original data, the new source
MACT floor for primer operations used on large commercial aircraft at
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft is
650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC. This represents
the ``best controlled similar source'' from these four facilities.
Since the original data were collected, new high-solids chemistry,
without TCA, has been employed to achieve the 350 g/L levels. Some
existing sources may not be able to use this new technology, combined
with other changes to low-HAP and low-VOC topcoats and new application
techniques, because of design constraints in their overall operation.
The use of this technology may only be feasible for facilities with
maximum flexibility in physical plant, climate control, contaminant
control (keeping the surface clean prior to primer application), etc.
However, for a new source that manufactures fully assembled large
commercial aircraft, the operation as a whole could be designed to
accommodate the new high-solids technology. Indeed, at least one large
commercial aircraft facility is currently using this technology (Boeing
Long Beach facility, formerly the McDonnell Douglas facility). This is
new information that is not in the original data set used to determine
the MACT floor.
Based on the recent data provided, EPA concludes that although
technological problems exist at the 350 g/L level for most of the
existing facilities, manufacturers can design new facilities with this
new technology in mind. Thus, we believe that it is appropriate to set
MACT above the floor for new facilities. As a result, we propose to set
the limit for exterior primer used on large commercial aircraft at new
facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft at
350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC.
Although we are not addressing other sectors of the industry, such
as the military, in today's proposal, we reviewed the data from the
remainder of the responses to section 114 questionnaires for these
sectors of the aerospace manufacturing and rework industry that perform
primer operations. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the MACT
floor for these sectors of the industry would also be in the range of
650 g/L, assuming that we removed the TCA-based data from the data set.
However, even if the floor for these sectors were to change, we would
see no reason not to adopt the current 350 g/L limit as an above-the-
floor requirement. We have received no information indicating that this
limit is not achievable for these sectors of the industry. In addition,
on September 1, 1998, we issued amendments to the Aerospace NESHAP (63
FR 46533) that set new standards for the control of organic HAP and VOC
emissions from primer and topcoat application operations for general
aviation rework facilities. We believe that those standards resolved
any similar problems for the general aviation rework facilities.
Therefore, the proposed organic HAP and VOC emission limit of 650 g/L
(5.4 lb/gal) or less for exterior primers applies only to large
commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled
large commercial aircraft at existing affected sources that produce
fully assembled large commercial aircraft.
In deciding how to define ``large commercial aircraft,'' we
evaluated several different criteria. A review of current Federal
Aviation Agency (FAA) regulations revealed two definitions of large
aircraft in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 (-) Aeronautics
and Space. Under title 14, part 1, general definitions are provided
which are applicable for the majority of FAA regulations, sub-chapters
A through K. Part 1.1 of title 14 defines large aircraft as ``an
aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certified take-off
weight.'' Under 14 CFR 268.1, which is a regulation applicable to air
carriers known as air taxi operators and commuter air carrier
operations, large aircraft is defined as ``any aircraft designed to
have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum
payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds.'' These definitions
suggest the use of maximum certified take-off weight, maximum payload
capacity, or maximum passenger capacity as possible criteria to define
large aircraft. However, factors cited in the data submitted by the
aircraft manufacturer indicated that total flight time, flight
frequency and flight altitudes were distinguishing criteria which
create more demanding performance characteristics for exterior primers
used to manufacture and assemble large commercial aircraft. This
suggests that one or all of these criteria could serve as another
possible alternative for defining large commercial aircraft.
Based on our review of the data, we believe that the weight of the
aircraft is the best defining factor. Greater weight frequently is
related to aircraft that are designed to have greater flight time,
flight frequency and flight altitude. After reviewing the FAA
definitions of large aircraft, we believe that maximum take-off weight
would be an appropriate criterion to define large commercial aircraft.
The maximum take-off weight is well known and documented within the
industry. However, based on the data received, the current definition
within FAA regulations (a maximum take-off weight of 12,500 lbs) does
not characterize the size of the aircraft where we believe the problems
exist for exterior primers.
With respect to the second part of this definition, ``commercial,''
this manufacturer has not indicated that this is a problem for the
large military aircraft it manufactures. Therefore, we are defining the
term commercial to exclude large aircraft manufactured for military
use.
We are proposing to define a large commercial aircraft as an
aircraft of more than 110,000 pounds, maximum certified take-off weight
manufactured for non-military use. We are requesting comments on this
definition along with the use of the other criteria discussed for
defining large commercial aircraft.
II. What Provisions of the Aerospace NESHAP Would These Proposed
Amendments Affect?
We are proposing to amend section 63.745(c)(1) and (2) of the
NESHAP by adding a separate HAP and VOC content limit of 650 g/L for
exterior primers applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts
or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing
affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial
aircraft.
III. Whom Would These Proposed Amendments Affect?
These proposed amendments would affect you if you are the owner or
operator of an existing or new exterior primer application operation at
a facility that, either in part or in whole, manufactures and assembles
large commercial aircraft and is a major source as defined in 40 CFR
63.2.
IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposal?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulator Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must
[[Page 3646]]
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in
standards that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
These proposed amendments would not impose any new information
collection requirements would result in no change to the currently
approved collection. The OMB has approved the information collection
requirements contained in the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities NESHAP under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0314.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business that has less than 1,500 employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. These proposed amendments will not impose any requirements on
small entities. They affect only manufacturers of large commercial
aircraft. There are no small-entity manufacturers of large commercial
aircraft.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's proposed amendments contain no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. These proposed amendments
would amend certain existing emission limits in a de-regulatory manner
and would not impose any new enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's proposed
amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA. The EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance
[[Page 3647]]
costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the
tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA
complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide
to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule,
a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's proposed amendments do not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
these proposed amendments.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,
sampling and analytical procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standard
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with
explanations when EPA decides not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
These proposed action amendments do not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
H. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
These proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These proposed
amendments would amend portions of an existing rule, the Aerospace
NESHAP, in a de-regulatory manner. They would not impose any
obligations on State or local governments. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 11, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart GG--National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities
2. Section 63.742 is amended by adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ``Exterior primer'' and ``Large commercial aircraft''
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.742 Definitions.
* * * * *
Exterior primer means the first layer and any subsequent layers of
identically formulated coating applied to the exterior surface of an
aerospace vehicle or component where the component is used on the
exterior of the aerospace vehicle. Exterior primers are typically used
for corrosion prevention, protection from the environment, functional
fluid resistance, and adhesion of subsequent exterior topcoats.
Coatings that are defined as specialty coatings are not included under
this definition.
* * * * *
Large commercial aircraft means an aircraft of more than 110,000
pounds, maximum certified take-off weight manufactured for non-military
use.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.745 Standards: Primer and topcoat application operations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Organic HAP emissions from primers shall be limited to an
organic HAP content level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of
primer (less water), as applied, for general aviation rework
facilities, or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water), as
applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies)
or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected
sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft, or 350
g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less water), as applied.
(2) VOC emissions from primers shall be limited to a VOC content
level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less water and
exempt solvents), as applied, for general aviation rework facilities,
or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water and exempt
solvents), as applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts
or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing
affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial
aircraft, or 350 g/L (2.9
[[Page 3648]]
lb/gal) of primer (less water and exempt solvents), as applied.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-1557 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510201245im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}