IV.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

DoD certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

The rule has been revised to minimize effects on small businesses in particular. The rule only affects deliverables that contain greater than 0.1% hexavalent chromium, not in-plant hexavalent chromium processes or deliverables containing the metal chromium. The rule is primarily aimed at coatings. Consequently, the rule has no effect on--

Conversion coatings;

Hard chrome plating;

Chromic acid anodizing;

Most chromated metallic ceramics; and

Chromate washes, etches, pickling, etc.

The primary coatings used by DoD affected by the rule are--

Chromated primers (for aircraft skins);

Chromated primers (for components);

Aircraft fuel tank internal coatings;

Wet install fastener sealants (used on Naval aircraft);

Other chromated sealants (used to seal panels, covers, electronics, etc.); and

Chromated metallic-ceramic paints used in turbine engines.

With respect to deliverables provided to DoD, the above materials are used primarily by the large aerospace companies such as--

Airframe manufacturers;

Engine manufacturers; and

Missile and spacecraft manufacturers.

The suppliers to these large manufacturers will be affected primarily by the requirement to supply components painted with non-chrome primers and chrome-free sealants. Some of these suppliers are large corporations but many are small businesses. However, the substitution of non-chromated products does not require a capital investment but rather a substitution of one coating formulation for another. For the most part, the same coating application equipment can be used and, as stated earlier, the rule will be positive for many of the small businesses that have developed non-hexavalent products.

Some commercial aerospace companies have already adopted chromate-free finish systems. This is being accomplished to meet commercial client desires for more sustainable products, but it also results in a reduction in operating costs. A Boeing press release on the initial testing of non-chromate primers on commercial aircraft states:

"In addition to simplified health and safety monitoring requirements, a chrome-free primer reduces the environmental impact of the paint and stripping process. Removing chrome from the paint and primer eliminates the need for special handling of paint waste, clean up and designated offsite disposal areas."

(Reference http://www.boeing.com/apachenews/2009/issue_01/news_s7_p2.html).

In one military example, significant cost avoidance was achieved by eliminating the extensive chromate control requirements involved in bonding attach points for wiring on the production line. Meeting the federal Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) requirements when using chromated primers requires blocking off the area during sanding operations, which interferes with all other work and reduces the efficiency of the production process.

The examples below provide evidence that in most cases, companies will achieve savings when replacing hexavalent chromium with an alternative.

At one maintenance facility, a side-by-side cost comparison was developed for a hexavalent chromium process and a non-hexavalent chromium process developed by a small business. The report shows that--

The non-chromate process replaced three steps which dramatically reduced labor costs and also eliminated the need to purchase three other chemicals;

The non-chromate process used \2/3\ less rinse water resulting in water and wastewater cost savings and environmental benefit;

There was a significant reduction in hazardous waste disposal costs;

The equipment used for the non-chromate product was the same as the standard process (with hexavalent chromium); therefore there were no capital costs for the conversion; and

Less personal protection equipment (PPE) was required when converting to the non-chromate process (e.g., full mask, hazardous materials suit, respirator cartridges, etc.).

At another facility, there was a savings of $6,000 per aircraft with $1.3 million in documented operational savings at the time of the report due to switching to a non-chromate process. The process also eliminated 500,000 gallons of wastewater per year.

A large maintenance facility in Ohio switched to a non-chromate process and significantly reduced pollutant discharges, improved worker safety, cut process time, and reported savings in excess of $200,000 just due to reduction in state and federal compliance requirements.

Another facility reported a savings of approximately $120,000 per year in water consumption and treatment costs alone and reduced production times by 4,400 man-hours per year.

Fact sheets and detailed cost and performance reports for numerous non-hexavalent chromium processes can be found by searching for "hexavalent chromium" at http://www.serdp-estcp.org.