[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76941-76945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6913-9]
RIN 2060-A177
National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 1, 1995, we promulgated the National Emission
Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities. On January
24, 2000, we proposed to amend the standards to include a separate
emission limit for exterior primers used for large commercial aircraft
at existing facilities that produce fully assembled, large commercial
aircraft. This action finalizes those proposed amendments.
In addition, we are making a minor correction to the monitoring
requirements section of the aerospace emission standards. The amendment
helps correct regulatory language that erroneously made reference to a
list of requirements for initial compliance demonstrations when using
incinerators and carbon adsorbers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-92-20 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jaime Pagan, Policy, Planning, and
Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5340, facsimile (919) 541-0942,
electronic mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category....................... SIC a........... NAICS b......... Regulated entities.
Industry....................... 3721............ 336411.......... Facilities which are major source of
hazardous air pollutants and manufacture
large commercial aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Information Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Technical Support Document
A summary of the public comments received on the proposed
amendments and our response to those comments is included in a
memorandum in the docket for this rule (Docket No. A-92-20). The title
of the memorandum is ``Summary of Comments and Responses for the
Proposed Amendments to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities NESHAP.''
Judicial Review
Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of
these final amendments is available only by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by February 6,
[[Page 76942]]
2001. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these
amendments which was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by today's final action may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce these
requirements.
I. What Is the Background for the Amendments?
On September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45948), we promulgated the National
Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
(40 CFR part 63, subpart GG) under section 112(d) of the CAA. The rule
includes standards to control organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from primers with an
organic HAP and VOC content level of 350 grams per liter (g/L) (2.9
pounds per gallon (lb/gal)) or less (Sec. 63.745(c)(1) and (2)). These
limits applied where no add-on control systems were used.
Alternatively, an affected source could use a control system to reduce
the organic HAP and VOC emissions to the atmosphere by 81 percent or
greater (Sec. 63.745(d)).
On January 24, 2000, we proposed to amend the promulgated emission
limits contained in Sec. 63.745(c)(1) and (2) for primer operations
with no add-on control systems by proposing a separate emission limit
of 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC for exterior
primers, as applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts or
assemblies) or fully assembled, large commercial aircraft at existing
affected sources that produce fully assembled, large commercial
aircraft (65 FR 3642). Our basis for the proposed amendments was data
submitted to us by a manufacturer of large commercial aircraft and a
reevaluation of the original data used to establish the MACT floor for
primer application operations (e.g., the primer containing 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA) that was evaluated and included in the floor
determination is no longer available).
Today's action finalizes those amendments based on comments
received on the proposed amendments and our response to those comments.
Five comment letters were received on the proposed amendments. Two of
the comment letters were supportive of the proposal and the decisions
we made with respect to the applicability, definitions and the revised
HAP and VOC content limits. One commenter submitted information on the
potential use of a chemical in coating formulations to meet organic HAP
and VOC content limits. Another commenter disagreed with our proposal
by stating that there is add-on control technology available to help
reduce emissions to the currently required levels. Finally, one
commenter expressed the opinion that the proposal should apply to both
original equipment manufacturers and rework facilities, and that a
definition of large commercial aircraft components should be added to
the standards.
We carefully considered each of the public comments and concluded
that no changes to the proposed amendments were warranted. A complete
summary of the public comments received on the proposed amendments and
our responses to those comments is included in a memorandum in the
docket (Docket No A-92-20). Our responses to the public comments are
briefly summarized here. First, with regard to new coating
formulations, we appreciate the information and encourage the
development of new coatings, but the coatings described by the first
commenter are still in the testing and development stages for aerospace
applications. With regard to the information on add-on controls
provided by the second commenter, we did not change our decisions about
the basis for the standards; but the standards do still provide for the
option to use add-on controls to meet the emission limitations.
Likewise, we were not persuaded based on information from the third
commenter that the amendments should be extended to rework operations,
especially given supportive comments from a company with similar
operations. Lastly, we considered adding a definition of ``large
commercial aircraft components''. The term ``large commercial
aircraft'' was already defined in the proposal, but we were unable to
create a definition of ``aircraft components'' that is all inclusive
and that would not be subject to change in the future. Further, we
believe that the definition of exterior primer included in the
amendments provides a clear explanation of where the primer is to be
applied.
In addition to the amendments described above, we are making a
minor correction to the monitoring requirements section of the
aerospace emission standards. This revision helps correct regulatory
language that erroneously made reference to a list of requirements for
initial compliance demonstrations when using incinerators and carbon
adsorbers. In Sec. 63.751, requirements for initial compliance
demonstrations are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (12). The
introductory language of paragraph (b) indicates that the requirements
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) apply when using carbon adsorbers.
Then, the introductory language in paragraph (b) incorrectly indicates
that paragraphs (b)(9) through (12) apply when using incinerators. The
revision that we are making in this action clarifies the paragraph to
correctly state that paragraphs (b)(8) through (12) apply when using
incinerators.
Although the revision to Sec. 63.751 described above was not part
of the proposal in 65 FR 3642, section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for
good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.
The EPA has determined that there is good cause for finalizing this
revision without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the
change corrects an inadvertent mistake in an introductory paragraph
referencing a list of requirements for initial compliance
demonstrations. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The
EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
II. What Are the Impacts Associated With These Amendments?
This action will not significantly affect the estimated emissions
reductions or the control costs for the standards promulgated for
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. Only one company has
been identified as being affected by the proposed amendments. These
amendments address significant technical concerns regarding this
aircraft manufacturer's ability to achieve the promulgated 350 g/L (2.9
lb/gal) HAP and VOC content limit requirements when using exterior
primers.
Finally, the amendment that we are making to the monitoring
requirements section of the aerospace emission standards is a minor
correction needed to revise an inadvertent mistake in the regulatory
language of the original regulation. As such, there are no impacts
associated with this correction.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of
[[Page 76943]]
the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that OMB determines is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect of the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently,
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order
12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires
the EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The
FSIS must include a description of the extent of the EPA's prior
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of
their concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue
the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when the EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the EPA must include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that the EPA has met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
These amendments will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to these amendments.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance cost incurred by the Tribal governments, or if the EPA
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, the
EPA is required to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the EPA's
prior consultation with representatives of affected Tribal governments,
a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting
the need to issue the regulation. In addition, the EPA is required to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
These amendments do not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) OMB determines
is ``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order
12866, and (2) the EPA determines the environmental health or safety
risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the
environmental, health, or safety aspects of the rule on children and
explain why the rule is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. These amendments are not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks. Furthermore, these
amendments have been determined not to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA
to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least-
[[Page 76944]]
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. There is no cost associated with these
amendments. Thus, today's amendments are not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA
has determined that these amendments do not contain regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because they do not contain requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's
amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA.
Because these amendments do not include a Federal mandate and are
estimated to result in expenditures less than $100 million in any 1
year by State, local, and tribal governments, the EPA has not prepared
a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.
In addition, because small governments would not be significantly or
uniquely affected by these amendments, the EPA is not required to
develop a plan with regard to small governments. Therefore, the
requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this action.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's amendments to the
final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business that has fewer than 1,500 employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, it has been determined that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on
small entities. It affects only manufacturers of large commercial
aircraft. There are no small-entity manufacturers of large commercial
aircraft.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
These proposed amendments would not impose any new information
collection requirements that would result in changes to the currently
approved collection. The OMB approved the information collection
requirements contained in the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities NESHAP under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0314.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., material specifications, test method, sampling and
analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples
of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
These amendments do not require the use of any new technical
standards, therefore section 12(d) does not apply.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report,
which includes a copy of the corrections amendments, to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States.
Therefore, we will submit a report containing these amendments and
other required information to the United States Senate, the United
States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action does not constitute a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 4, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter
I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart GG--National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities
2. Section 63.742 is amended by adding in alphabetical order
definitions
[[Page 76945]]
for ``Exterior primer'' and ``Large commercial aircraft'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.742 Definitions.
* * * * *
Exterior primer means the first layer and any subsequent layers of
identically formulated coating applied to the exterior surface of an
aerospace vehicle or component where the component is used on the
exterior of the aerospace vehicle. Exterior primers are typically used
for corrosion prevention, protection from the environment, functional
fluid resistance, and adhesion of subsequent exterior topcoats.
Coatings that are defined as specialty coatings are not included under
this definition.
* * * * *
Large commercial aircraft means an aircraft of more than 110,000
pounds, maximum certified take-off weight manufactured for non-military
use.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.745 Standards: Primer and topcoat application operations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Organic HAP emissions from primers shall be limited to an
organic HAP content level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of
primer (less water), as applied, for general aviation rework
facilities; or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water), as
applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies)
or fully assembled, large commercial aircraft at existing affected
sources that produce fully assembled, large commercial aircraft; or 350
g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less water), as applied.
(2) VOC emissions from primers shall be limited to a VOC content
level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less water and
exempt solvents), as applied, for general aviation rework facilities;
or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water and exempt
solvents), as applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts
or assemblies) or fully assembled, large commercial aircraft at
existing affected sources that produce fully assembled, large
commercial aircraft; or 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less water and
exempt solvents), as applied.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.751 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.751 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Incinerators and carbon adsorbers-initial compliance
demonstrations. Each owner or operator subject to the requirements in
this subpart must demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements
of Secs. 63.745(d), 63.746(c), and 63.747(d) of this subpart. Each
owner or operator using a carbon adsorber to comply with the
requirements in this subpart shall comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section. Each owner
or operator using an incinerator to comply with the requirements in
this subpart shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(b)(8) through (12) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-31331 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P