[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57215-57222]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0454; FRL-8478-7]
RIN 2060-A014

Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines
in Lieu of Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal
Furniture Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; Notice of final determination and availability of
final control techniques guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has
determined that control techniques guidelines will be substantially as
effective as national regulations in reducing emissions of volatile
organic compounds in ozone national ambient air quality standard
nonattainment areas from the following three Group III product
categories: paper, film, and foil coatings; metal furniture coatings;
and large appliance coatings. Based on this determination, EPA is
issuing control techniques guidelines in lieu of national regulations
for these product categories. These control techniques guidelines will
provide guidance to the States concerning EPA's recommendations for
reasonably available control technology-level controls for these
product categories. EPA further takes final action to list the three
Group III consumer and commercial product categories

addressed in this notice pursuant to Clean Air Act section 183(e).

DATES: This final action is effective on October 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established the following dockets for these actions:
Consumer and Commercial Products, Group III--Determination to Issue
Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0454; Consumer and Commercial Products--Paper, Film, and
Foil Coatings, Docket No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0336; Consumer and Commercial
Products--Metal Furniture Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334;
and Consumer and Commercial Products--Large Appliance Coatings, Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0329. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the CAA
section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact Mr.
Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information on technical
issues concerning the determination and control techniques guidelines
(CTG) for paper, film, and foil coatings, contact: Ms. Kim Teal, U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919)
541-5580, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information on
technical issues concerning the determination and CTG for metal
furniture coatings, contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For further information on technical issues concerning the
determination and CTG for large appliance coatings, contact: Mr. Lynn
Dail, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group
(E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Entities Potentially Affected by this Action. The entities
potentially affected by this action include industrial facilities that
use the respective consumer and commercial products covered in this
action as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Examples of affected
          Category               NAICS code \a\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper, film, and foil         322221, 322222,       Facilities that
 coatings.                     322223, 322224,       apply coatings to
                               322225, 322226,       packaging paper,
                               322229, 325992,       paper bags,
                               326111, 326112,       laminated aluminum
                               326113, 32613,        foil, coated
                               32791, 339944.        paperboard,
                                                     photographic film,
                                                     abrasives, carbon
                                                     paper, and other
                                                     coated paper, film
                                                     and foil products.
Metal furniture coatings....  337124, 337214,       Facilities that
                               337127, 337215,       apply coatings to
                               337127, 332951,       metal furniture
                               332116, 332612,       components or
                               337215, 335121,       products.
                               335122, 339111,
                               339114, 337127,
                               81142.
Large appliance coatings....  335221, 335222,       Facilities that
                               335224, 335228,       apply coatings to
                               333312, 333319.       household and
                                                     commercial cooking
                                                     equipment,
                                                     refrigerators,
                                                     laundry equipment,
                                                     laundry drycleaning
                                                     and pressing
                                                     equipment.
Federal Government..........  ....................  Not affected.
State/local/tribal            ....................  State, local and
 government.                                         tribal regulatory
                                                     agencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

World Wide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of EPA's
listing and final determination is available only by filing a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by December 10, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to the final determination that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be
raised during judicial review.

Organization of This Document

    The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

I. Background Information
    A. The Ozone Problem
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    C. Significance of CTGs
II. Summary of Changes to the Final CTGs
    A. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings
    B. Metal Furniture Coatings and Large Appliance Coatings
III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination
IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background Information

A. The Ozone Problem

    Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides
of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. The formation of ground-level
ozone is a complex process that is affected by many variables.
    Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to
forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that
acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion,
and by prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while
individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Transient effects from
acute exposures include pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms,
effects on exercise performance, and increased airway responsiveness.
Epidemiological studies have shown associations between ambient ozone
levels and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk
of experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor
workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those
most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with preexisting
respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The literature
suggests the possibility that long-term exposures to ozone may cause
chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and
accelerated decline in baseline lung function).

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC
emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess
their potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to
establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products.
Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those
categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial
products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone
nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be
regulated into four groups. EPA published the initial list in the
Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA
stated that it may amend the list of products for regulation, and the
groups of product categories, in order to achieve an effective
regulatory program in accordance with the Agency's discretion under CAA
section 183(e).
    EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (November
17, 2005); 64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999). Most recently, in May 2006,
EPA revised the list to add one product category, portable fuel
containers, and to remove one product category, petroleum dry cleaning
solvents. See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). As a result of these
revisions, Group III of the list comprises five product categories:
portable fuel containers; aerosol spray paints; paper, film, and foil
coatings; metal furniture coatings; and large appliance coatings.
Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:01-cv-01597-PLF
(D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final action on the product
categories in Group III by September 30, 2007. The portable fuel
containers and aerosol spray paints categories are addressed in
separate rulemaking actions.\1\ The remaining three categories in Group
III are the subject of this action. On July 10, 2007, EPA published its
proposed determination that a CTG is substantially as effective as a
regulation for each of these three categories and announced
availability of draft CTGs for paper, film, and foil coatings; metal
furniture coating; and large appliance coatings. See 72 FR 37582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA promulgated a national regulation that addresses VOC
emissions from portable fuel containers on February 26, 2007 (72 FR
8428). National VOC emission standards for aerosol coatings
currently are under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any regulations issued under CAA section 183(e) must be based on
``best available controls (BAC).'' CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC
as ``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.'' CAA section 183(e) also provides
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under
these provisions, EPA has previously issued ``national'' regulations
for autobody refinishing coatings, consumer products, architectural
coatings, and portable fuel containers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 63 FR 48806, 48819, and 48848 (September 11, 1998); and
72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that EPA may issue a CTG
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where EPA
determines that the CTG will be ``substantially as effective as
regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. The statute does not specify how EPA is to make this
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between
national regulations and CTGs.
    Specifically, for national regulations, CAA section 183(e) defines
regulated entities as:

    (i) * * * manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii)
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.

    Thus, under CAA section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or
commercial products is limited to measures applicable to manufacturers,
processors, distributors, or importers of consumer and commercial
products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA section 183(e) does
not authorize EPA to issue national regulations that would directly
regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTGs are guidance
documents that recommend reasonably available control technology (RACT)
measures that States can adopt and apply to the end users of products.
This dichotomy

(i.e., that EPA cannot directly regulate end-users under CAA section
183(e), but can address end-users through a CTG) created by Congress is
relevant to EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a national
regulation versus a CTG.

C. Significance of CTGs

    CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that state implementation plans
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available
control measures (RACM),'' including RACT, for sources of emissions.
CAA section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas,
States must revise their SIPs to include RACT for each category of VOC
sources covered by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and
the date of attainment. States subject only to the RACT requirements in
CAA section 172(c)(1) may take action in response to this guidance, as
necessary to achieve attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards.
    EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility, 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).'' In subsequent
notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the RACT requirements of
the Act. Significantly, RACT for a particular industry is determined on
a case-by-case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility.
    EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of controls
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances of a specific source. States can follow the CTG and adopt
State regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein,
or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either event, States must
submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the
SIP process. EPA will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice
and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the
submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of the recommendations in
a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested parties can raise questions
and objections about the substance of the guidance and the
appropriateness of the application of the guidance to a particular
situation during the development of the State rules and EPA's SIP
approval process.
    We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility. For example, a State may decide not to require 90 percent
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate,
in developing their RACT regulations.\3\ Finally, if States consider
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in
the CTGs, States may also wish to consider averaging, as appropriate.
In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-term basis up to
24 hours.\4\ However, EPA guidance addresses averaging times longer
than 24 hours under certain conditions.\5\ The EPA's ``Economic
Incentive Policy'' \6\ provides guidance on use of long-term averages
with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times of no
greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are present,
States may wish to consider the use of averaging in conjunction with
more stringent limits. Because of the nature of averaging, however, we
would expect that any State RACT Rules that allow for averaging also
include appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13,
2005).
    \4\ See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ``Compliance Periods''
(November 24, 1987). ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g.,
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
    \5\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits--SIP Revision
Policy.''
    \6\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,
January 2001,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/search.htm
.

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

    By this action, we are issuing final CTGs that cover three product
categories in Group III of the CAA section 183(e) list. These CTGs are
guidance to the States and provide recommendations only. A State can
determine what constitutes RACT for these three product categories, and
EPA will review the State's rules reflecting RACT in the context of the
SIP process and determine whether those rules meet the RACT
requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations.
    Finally, CAA section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in
response to the CTG. In the CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that
States should submit their SIP revisions within 1 year of the date that
the CTGs are finalized.

II. Summary of Changes to the Final CTGs

A. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings

    The final CTG has been revised to provide separate applicability
recommendations for coating operations and cleaning operations. For
coating operations, we have changed the applicability recommendation to
apply to individual coating lines. Specifically, we recommend that the
control measures recommended in the final CTG apply to any coating line
with the potential to emit 25 tons or more per year (tpy) of VOC,
before consideration of control. This applicability level for coating
operations is the same applicability level that we recommended for
coatings, inks and adhesives in the final CTG for flexible package
printing and for heatset dryers in the final CTG for offset
lithographic printing and letterpress printing.
    We made this change in response to a comment that the cost of using
add-on controls to control coating emissions from an individual coating
line with potential to emit of 3 tpy would be unreasonable compared to
the emission reduction that would be achieved and that it would be even
more costly to control multiple coating lines with total potential to
emit of 3 tpy. The commenter provided information on the cost of
controlling an individual coating line with the potential to emit 3
tpy. The commenter also provided information on the cost of controlling
an individual coating line with the potential to emit 25 tpy. We agree
with the commenter that, for purposes of recommending an applicability
threshold for add-on controls, it is more appropriate to examine the
cost of add-on control for a single coating line than the cost of add-
on control for all of the coating lines at a facility because the
number of coating lines at a facility varies. Based on the information
provided by the commenter and similar cost analyses we performed during
the development of the CTG for flexible package printing and the CTG
for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing, we conclude
that add-on

control for a coating line with the potential to emit 25 or more tpy
will generally be cost effective and that add-on control for a coating
line with the potential to emit below 25 tpy will generally be too
costly for the emission reduction that would be achieved.
    We continue to recommend that the final CTG work practice
recommendations for cleaning apply to paper, film and foil coating
facilities with actual emissions of 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more,
before consideration of controls, from all covered paper, film and foil
coating operations and related cleaning activities at the facility.
Since work practices are carried out on a facility-wide basis, we
believe it is most appropriate for the applicability of work practices
to be determined on a facility-wide basis.
    We expect the change to our applicability recommendation, as
reflected in the final CTGs, to have little, if any, effect on VOC
emission reductions from this category. Because the majority of
emissions from paper, film, and foil coating come from coating lines
emitting more than 25 tpy VOC before consideration of control, we
anticipate that the change to our applicability recommendation in the
final CTG will have a negligible impact on the VOC emission reduction
estimates presented at proposal. Therefore, our determination that the
CTG will be substantially as effective as a national regulation for
this category is not affected by this change.
    We have also clarified in the final CTG that (1) daily within-line
averaging, and (2) using low VOC coatings in conjunction with capture
and control devices are viable options for achieving the recommended
limits for coating operations in the final CTG. These types of
compliance options were available in the 1977 CTG and are present in
most existing RACT regulations.

B. Metal Furniture Coatings and Large Appliance Coatings

    EPA has changed the low VOC content coatings recommendation in both
the final metal furniture coatings CTG and the final large appliance
coatings CTG. The draft CTGs for these product categories recommended
an emissions limit of 0.275 kg VOC/l (2.3 lbs/gal) of coating,
excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied. This recommendation
was based on the California South Coast Air Quality Management District
(South Coast) regulations limiting VOC emissions from general purpose
baked coatings used in metal products coating operations. Based on the
public comments, we determined that the recommendation in the draft CTG
may inadvertently exclude certain coatings that are needed in the metal
furniture and large appliance industries. Therefore, in the final CTGs,
we have added to our recommendations other provisions of the South
Coast regulation, which is the regulation that formed the basis of our
recommendations in the draft CTGs. The additional provisions of the
South Coast regulation that we are now recommending include separate
VOC limits for certain specialty coatings and exemptions for certain
specialty coating operations. We believe that these other provisions of
the South Coast regulation are necessary to accommodate the range of
coatings that are needed in the metal furniture and large appliance
industries.
    Specifically, consistent with the South Coast regulation, the final
CTGs for metal furniture coatings and large appliance coatings include
separate recommended limits for baked coatings and air-dried coatings
in the following categories: general, one component; general, multi-
component; extreme high gloss; extreme performance; heat resistant;
metallic; pretreatment; and solar absorbent. Also, consistent with the
South Coast regulation, EPA recommends that the following types of
specialty coatings and coating operations be exempt from VOC content
limits: stencil coatings; safety-indicating coatings; solid-film
lubricants; electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coatings; touch-
up and repair coatings; and coating application utilizing hand-held
aerosol cans. Further details of these recommendations can be found in
the CTGs.
    Because the majority of liquid coatings used in metal furniture and
large appliance coating operations fall into the ``general, one
component'' coatings category, for which the recommended limits are
unchanged from the limit recommended in the draft CTGs, we do not
anticipate that the changes made in the final CTG will significantly
alter the VOC emission reduction estimates presented at proposal.
Therefore, the changes described above do not affect our determination
that CTGs will be substantially as effective as national regulations
for metal furniture coatings and large appliance coating.
    We have also clarified in the final CTGs that (1) daily within-
coating unit averaging, and (2) using low VOC coatings in conjunction
with capture and control devices are viable options for achieving the
recommended limits for coating operations in the final CTGs. These
types of compliance options were available in the 1977 CTGs and are
present in most existing RACT regulations.

III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination

    With the exception of one commenter, all other commenters that
addressed EPA's proposed CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination that
CTGs will be substantially as effective as national regulations in
reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas from the three
product categories associated with this action agreed with the proposed
determination.
    In support of the proposed determination and use of CTGs,
commenters remarked that the CTG approach would afford industry
flexibility to achieve VOC emission reductions while not compromising
their ability to meet customer needs. We also received specific
comments agreeing with EPA's position that State regulation of
facilities that apply the coatings covered by the CTGs will result in a
greater volume of emission reductions than would limiting the VOC
content of the products through a national regulation. Finally, we
received comments noting that the use of CTGs allows States greater
flexibility to tailor regulatory requirements to their specific
circumstances. The commenter stated that site-specific factors
necessitate the need for flexible controls. Because there can be great
variation in the operations of facilities and the environmental
conditions in which they operate, State regulators should be granted
some latitude to fashion control strategies to address the variables
that are inherent to the formation of ground-level ozone in their
States. The commenter concluded that the CTG approach affords this
flexibility by allowing the use of a variety of mechanisms to achieve
emission reductions, including the use of low-VOC coatings, add-on
control devices, work practice standards, restrictive permitting,
averaging of materials, and vapor pressure and reactivity measures.
    The only adverse comment on the determination that we received
asserted that CTGs will not be effective because they are voluntary
measures. We disagree with the commenter. CAA section 183(e)(3)(C)
specifically authorizes EPA to issue CTGs, which are guidance, in lieu
of national regulations if EPA determines that the CTGs will be as
substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of VOC
in ozone nonattainment areas. In our proposal, we presented the
rationale for our determination that a CTG is

substantially as effective as a rule for each of the three categories
here. The commenter raised no concerns or issues with that rationale.
Furthermore, the commenter is incorrect in comparing CTGs to voluntary
measures. As discussed in section I.B. of this notice, the CTGs contain
recommendations. Certain States must revise their SIP to include RACT
for paper film and foil coatings, metal furniture coatings, and large
appliance coatings, as a result of EPA's issuance of the CTGs for these
three categories. The CTGs provide States with guidance from EPA
concerning the types of controls that could constitute RACT for these
three product categories. Because the recommendations in the CTG are
based on available data and information, they may not apply to a
particular situation based upon the circumstances. States have the
flexibility to either adopt EPA's recommendations in the CTGs as RACT
or develop alternative approaches that are better suited for the
sources within their States. In either event, States must submit their
RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the notice and
comment SIP process. Finally, Congress was well aware of the nature and
structure of CTGs when it included CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) in the
statute, affording EPA the opportunity to issue CTGs in lieu of
national regulations. EPA acted consistently with the CAA in issuing
the determination, and the commenter has not challenged the rationale
that EPA provided in support of that determination.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
``significant regulatory action,'' since it is deemed to raise novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866, and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This action does not contain any information collection requirements.
    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.
    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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (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 this final rule on small
entities, I certify 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. EPA is taking
final action to list the three Group III consumer and commercial
product categories addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA section
183(e) of the Act. The listing action alone does not impose any
regulatory requirements. EPA has also determined that, for each of the
three product categories at issue, a CTG will be substantially as
effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions
in ozone nonattainment areas. This final determination means that EPA
has concluded that it is not appropriate to issue Federal regulations
under CAA section 183(e) to regulate VOC emissions from these three
product categories. Instead, EPA has concluded that it is appropriate
to issue guidance in the form of CTGs that provide recommendations to
States concerning potential methods to achieve needed VOC emission
reductions from these product categories. In addition to the final
determination, EPA is also announcing availability of the final CTGs
for these three product categories. These CTGs are guidance documents.
EPA does not directly regulate any small entities through the issuance
of a CTG. Instead, EPA issues CTG to provide States with guidance on
developing appropriate regulations to obtain VOC emission reductions
from the affected sources within certain nonattainment areas. EPA's
issuance of a CTG does trigger an obligation on the part of certain
States to issue State regulations, but States are not obligated to
issue regulations identical to the Agency's CTG. States may follow the
guidance in the CTG or deviate from it, and the ultimate determination
of whether a State regulation meets the RACT requirements of the CAA
would be determined through notice and comment rulemaking in the
Agency's action on each State's State Implementation Plan. Thus, States
retain discretion in determining to what degree to follow the CTGs.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
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
one 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 to
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.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector because they impose no enforceable
duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
(Note: The term ``enforceable duty'' does not include duties and
conditions in voluntary Federal contracts for goods and services.)
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because they contain no regulatory
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon
them. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA.

E. 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 EO 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.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. The CAA establishes the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this
action does not impact that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule. However, in the spirit of EO 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA solicited comments from State and
local officials. EPA received no adverse comments from State or local
governments on these issues.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. They do not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, in that the listing action and the final
determination impose no regulatory burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the
listing action and the final determination do not affect the
relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Authority
Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal government and
Tribes in implementing the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under EO 12866, and (2) 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.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health and safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulations. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Action Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. These actions
impose no regulatory requirements and are therefore not likely to have
any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, 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 their regulatory activities unless to
do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, with explanations when the Agency does not use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that the listing action and the final
determination will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of environmental protection to
populations in affected ozone nonattainment areas without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any populations, including any minority or low-income
populations. The purpose of section 183(e) is to obtain VOC emission
reductions to assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The health
and environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the
establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be
protective of the public with an adequate margin of safety. EPA's
listing of the products and its determination that CTGs are
substantially as effective as regulations are actions intended to help
States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 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 rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this notice and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the notice in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective October 9, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

    Air pollution control, Consumer and commercial products,
Confidential business information, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 28, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 59--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).

Subpart A--General

0
2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  59.1  Final determinations under section 183(e)(3)(C) of the
Clean Air Act.

    This section identifies the consumer and commercial product
categories for which EPA has determined that control techniques
guidelines (CTGs) will be substantially as effective as regulations in
reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas:
    (a) Wood furniture coatings;
    (b) Aerospace coatings;
    (c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
    (d) Lithographic printing materials;
    (e) Letterpress printing materials;
    (f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
    (g) Flat wood paneling coatings;
    (h) Industrial cleaning solvents;
    (i) Paper, film, and foil coatings;
    (j) Metal furniture coatings; and
    (k) Large appliance coatings.

[FR Doc. E7-19627 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 471]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-612-000]

Greeley Energy Facility, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Greeley Energy Facility, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 19, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 30, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33232 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM TO: 304( m) Record FROM: Betsy Bicknell and Cortney Itle, ERG DATE: August 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Review of Multi Sector General Permit Database ERG reviewed the Multi Sector General Permit ( MSGP) database that Carey Johnston of EPA/ EAD forwarded to ERG on June 30, 2004. Carey Johnston obtained the database from Jack Faulk EPA/ OWM. The MSGP database contains discharge monitoring report ( DMR) data for EPA issued MSGPs. ERG determined that the database is not useful for evaluating toxic pollutant discharges from industrial operations. The review of the MSGP database is summarized in the attachments to this memo.

The database includes discharge monitoring report ( DMR) data for 419 facilities. Most of the facilities are located in Puerto Rico and 7 states:

° Alaska ° Arizona ° Idaho ° Massachusetts ° Maine ° New Hampshire ° New Mexico There are a few facilities in other states. Many of these are federal facilities, but some are not. For example:

° Florida REVLON PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS ( SIC 2841) ° Texas CITY OF SAVOY, EAGLE PASS S & G, WEIR PLANT ( SIC 3271), VICWEST STEEL ( SIC 3312), and EVANS ROAD QUARRY ° Utah OMG APEX ( SIC 2819)

Over half of the facilities with DMR data have operations in the following industries: ° Sawmills and logging ( SIC 2421 and 2411); ° Auto salvage yards and scrap metal ( SIC 5015 and 5093); ° Concrete, sand & gravel, and asphalt ( SIC 3273, 1442, 2951); ° Where the value in the SIC code field is " LF" ( probably landfills); and ° Where the value in the SIC code field is " SE" ( probably steam electric).

ERG was particularly interested in data for wood preserving ( SIC 2491), metal mining ( SIC 10) and mineral mining and quarrying ( SIC 14), which reported release of toxic pollutants derived from stormwater to TRI . The number of facilities for which there are data:

SIC Code Number of Facilities with DMR data 2491 1 10 1 14 29 Twenty five of the 29 reporting facilities in SIC 14 are sand and gravel and crushed and broken stone. Pollutants reported and the number of reporting facilities are:

Pollutant Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant Nitrate 1 Nitrite 1 Nitrate + Nitrite 2 pH 7 Oil and Grease 2 TSS 12 Iron 1 ERG concludes that this database is not useful for evaluating toxic stormwater discharges from wood preserving and mining. Since most stormwater permits are issued by states, presumably individual states would have more extensive monitoring data.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33208-33211]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13917]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2047; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an NPRM for SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplaness

(type certificate previously held by EADS SOCATA) that was proposed to
revise AD 2007-04-13. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as cracks found on the main landing gear cylinders. This
action revises the NPRM by including the actions against those
airplanes that reach a certain number of landings after the effective
date of the AD. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to
correct the unsafe condition on these products. Since this action
imposes an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are
reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment
on this proposed change.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France;
telephone: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; fax: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; or SOCATA
North America, North Perry Airport, 7501 S Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines,
Florida 33023, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: http://www.socata.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-2047.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2047; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2047;
Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-013-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
    The docket number and the directorate identifier of the NPRM (80 FR
8821, February 19, 2015) is Docket No. FAA-2006-26235; Directorate
Identifier 2006-CE-065-AD. The NPRM docket number is different than the
docket number of this SNPRM. The comment period for the NPRM closed on
April 6, 2015; we received one comment in support of the NPRM.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an NPRM for SOCATA Model
TBM 700 airplanes (type certificate previously held by EADS SOCATA),
which was published in the Federal Register on February 19, 2015 (80 FR
8821). The NPRM proposed to require actions intended to address the
unsafe condition for the products listed above and was based on
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by
another country.
    Since the NPRM was issued, we have determined that airplanes with
MLG with forging body that had not reached 1,750 landings as of March
23, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-04-13) were not affected by the
AD. This is not the intent and allows airplanes to fly indefinitely
with the unsafe condition. This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) proposes to
make those airplanes with MLG with forging body either at or under
1,750 landings as of March 23, 2007, applicable to the AD in addition
to extending the time between the repetitive inspections until a
reinforced landing gear is installed, which terminates the repetitive
inspections.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EADS SOCATA has issued TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB
70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, and SOCATA has issued DAHER-
SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3,
dated December 2014. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
The DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130,
Revision 3, dated December 2014, incorporates procedures for replacing
cracked MLG with a reinforced MLG as a terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
the SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 431 products of U.S.
registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $109,905, or $255 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $6,000, for a cost of
$6,340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
Reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14945 (72 FR
7576, February 16, 2007), and adding the following new AD:

SOCATA (type certificate previously held by EADS SOCATA): Docket No.
FAA-2015-2047; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-013-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 27, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2007-04-13, Amendment 39-14945, (72 FR
7576, February 16, 2007) (``AD 2007-04-13'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial
numbers 1 through 638 and 687, that:
    (1) are not equipped with a left-hand main landing gear (MLG)
body part number (P/N) D68161 or D68161-1 and a right-hand MLG body
P/N D68162 or D68162-1; and
    (2) are certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product and the FAA's determination to add additional airplanes to
the Applicability section. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracks in the shock strut cylinder of the MLG, which could
cause the MLG to fail, and to add airplanes to the Applicability
section. Failure of the shock strut cylinder of the MLG could result
in a collapsed MLG during takeoff or landing and possible reduced
structural integrity of the airplane. We are superseding AD 2007-04-
13 to add airplanes to the Applicability section, increase the time
between the repetitive inspections, and incorporate a modification
to terminate the required repetitive inspections.

(f) Actions and Compliance for Airplanes not Previously Affected by AD
2007-04-13

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1),
(f)(2), and (h) of this AD:
    (1) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-04-13),
for MLG with forging body that were either at or under 1,750
landings as of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of (AD 2007-04-
13): Upon or before accumulating 1,750 landings on the MLG with
forging body since new or within the next 100 landings after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect the
forging body for cracks. Do the inspection following the
Accomplishment Instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB 70-130, dated January 2006, or DAHER-SOCATA TBM
Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated
December 2014.
    (2) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at
intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear
specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.

(g) Actions and Compliance for Airplanes Previously Affected by AD
2007-04-13

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (h) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:
    (1) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD
2007-04-13), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 1,750
landings but less than 3,501 landings since new:
    (i) Inspect the forging body for cracks within 100 landings
after March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-04-
13), following the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM
Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, dated January 2006,
or DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130,
Revision 3, dated December 2014.
    (ii) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in
paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at
intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear
specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.
    (2) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD
2007-04-13), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500
landings since new:
    (i) Inspect the forging body for cracks within 25 landings after
March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-04-13),
following the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM
Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, dated January 2006,
or DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130,
Revision 3, dated December 2014.
    (ii) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at

intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear
specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.

(h) Actions and Compliance for All Affected Airplanes

    If any cracks are detected during any inspection required in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (g)(2) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs:
    (1) Before further flight, remove the affected landing gear leg
and confirm the presence of the crack with dye penetrant inspection
or fluorescent penetrant inspection.
    (2) If the crack is confirmed, before further flight, contact
SOCATA at the address in paragraph (k) of this AD to coordinate the
FAA-approved landing gear repair/replacement and implement any FAA-
approved repair/replacement instructions obtained from SOCATA, or
replace the cracked landing gear with a reinforced landing gear
specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014. This replacement
terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD.

(i) Calculating Unknown Number of Landings for Compliance

    The compliance times of this AD are presented in landings
instead of hours time-in-service (TIS). If the number of landings is
unknown, hours TIS may be used by dividing the number of hours TIS
by 1.35.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2006-0085R2, dated January 16, 2015. You may examine the MCAI on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2006-26235. For service information related to this
AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9,
France; telephone: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; fax: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; or
SOCATA North America, North Perry Airport, 7501 S Airport Rd.,
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (954)
964-4141; Internet: http://www.socata.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 1, 2015.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-13917 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P