STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 

ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES 

15A NCAC 02D .0909, .0922, .0923, .0935, .0902, .0951, .0952, 

AND 15A NCAC 02Q .0306 

PROPOSED ADOPTIONS TO RULES 15A NCAC 02D .0961, .0962, .0963, 

.0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and 15A NCAC 02D .0968 

REPEALS OF THE CURRENT RULES 15A NCAC 02D.0917, .0921, .0920, 

.0934, AND 15A NCAC 02D .0936 

APRIL 27, 2010 

CHARLOTTE, NC

APRIL 29, 2010 

RALEIGH, NC 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 

Attachment A A-1 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
This page was intentionally left blank. 

A-2 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I Summaries and Recommendations I-1

 Background and Summary I-1

 Public Comments and Responses Thereto I-4

 Summary of Comments and Responses I-16

 Conclusion I-22

 Hearing Officers Recommendation I-23

CHAPTER II Regulations Proposed for Adoption II-1

CHAPTER III Report of Proceedings III-1

 Introduction III-1

 Designation of Hearing Officer III-2

 Public Notice III-3

 Transcript III-6

CHAPTER IV Exhibits IV- 1

 Proposed Regulations With Amendments as Presented at the 

Hearing IV-2

 Hearing Officer Comments at Hearing IV-25

CHAPTER V Written Comments During Comment Period V-1

 Index of Commenters V-1

 Comments V-2

CHAPTER VI Attachments VI-1

CHAPTER VII Documentation VII-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A-3 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
This page was intentionally left blank. 

A-4 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-1 

CHAPTER I 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 

The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) is required, under provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 

172(c)(1), to revise its State Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to include an ozone attainment 

demonstration that will lead to attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone. Section 182(b)(2) of CAA provides that States must revise their ozone SIP to include Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources 

covered by any control techniques guidelines (CTG) document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior 

to the date of attainment. After the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised VOC 

regulations several times through issuance of New Sources Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations to related industries, it finally 

provided States with guidance concerning what types of controls could constitute RACT for a given 

source category through the issuance of CTGs to comply with the requirements of Section 182(b)(2). EPA 

has issued 11 CTGs since 2006. The 22 revisions to the rules analyzed herein address recommendations 

provided in these 11 CTGs. The DAQ amended eight, adopted eight, and repealed six VOC rules in 

accordance with the CTG recommendations in order to submit its proposals to EPA for review and 

approval. 

Proposed amendments of Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0902, .0909, .0922, .0923, .0935, .0951, 

.0952 and .0306. 

15A NCAC 02D .0902, Applicability, is proposed for amendment to extend the work practice 

standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0958 to all sources of VOC in the state. Additional changes to 

02D .0902 include the removal of obsolete language in Paragraphs (d), (f), and (g). A new 

Paragraph (g) is inserted to make it clear that all areas that become subject to the VOC RACT 

rules shall continue to comply with those rules after the area is redesignated to attainment. This 

amendment doesn’t change applicability of the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0928, Gasoline Service 

Stations Stage I.

15A NCAC 02D .0909, .0951, .0952, and 15A NCAC 02Q .0306, are proposed for amendment 

to change cross-references. 

15A NCAC 02D .0922, Metal Furniture Coatings, is proposed for amendment to control VOC 

emissions from metal furniture coatings by establishing three alternatives: (1) emission limits 

that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings; (2) equivalent emission limits that 

can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings or a combination of coatings and add-on 

controls; and (3) an overall control efficiency of 90 percent for add-on controls. 

15A NCAC 02D .0923, Surface Coating of Large Appliance Parts, is proposed for 

amendment to control VOC emissions from large appliance coatings by establishing three 

alternatives: (1) emission limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings; (2) 

equivalent emission limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings or a 

combination of coatings and add-on controls; and (3) an overall control efficiency of 90 percent 

for add-on controls. An examination of permits for existing facilities in this source category 

revealed that there are no existing facilities with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more VOC 

emissions located in the area affected by these amendments. 

A-5 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-2 

15A NCAC 02D .0935, Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling, is proposed for 

amendment to establish new emission limits for inks, coatings, and adhesives used by the flat 

wood paneling coating facilities. The amendments offer two alternatives for achieving these 

emission limits: (1) using materials with VOC content that is low enough to achieve the limits 

during application, (2) reducing the amount of VOC emitted through the use of add-on controls. 

Should product performance requirements or other needs dictate the use of higher-VOC coatings 

than specified above, a facility could choose to use add-on control equipment to meet an overall 

control efficiency of 90 percent. 

Proposed adoptions of Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and 

.0968. 

15A NCAC 02D .0961, Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, is proposed 

for adoption to control VOC emissions from heatset inks, fountain solution, and cleaning 

materials used in offset lithographic printing operations, as well as, VOC emissions from heatset 

inks used in letterpress printing operations at the level sufficient for RACT requirements. 

An examination of permits for existing facilities in this source category revealed that there are no 

existing facilities with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more VOC emissions located in the area 

affected by these amendments. 

15A NCAC 02D .0962 Industrial Cleaning Solvents, is proposed for adoption to define 

measures for controlling emissions of VOC from the use, storage, and disposal of industrial 

cleaning solvents. They include work practice standards, limitations on VOC content of the 

cleaning materials, and an optional alternative limit on composite vapor pressure of the cleaning 

materials. They may also include the use of add-on controls with an overall emission reduction 

of at least 85 percent by mass. The rule establishes applicable VOC content limit of cleaning 

material for each of the nine cleaning unit operations identified in the rule, unless emissions are 

controlled by a control system with an overall control efficiency of at least 85 percent. 

In addition to the recommended VOC content limit, the rule establishes a vapor pressure limit as 

a replacement and an alternative limit that may be used in any of nine cleaning unit operations as 

determined by rule. This rule exempts cleaning activity that is subject to other rules to make it 

clear that only one rule applies to a type of cleaning operation. 

15A NCAC 02D .0963, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing, is proposed for adoption to control 

VOC emissions from open molding resin and gel coat operations (pigmented gel coat, clear gel 

coat, production resin, tooling gel coat, and tooling resin); resin and gel coat mixing operations; 

and resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations at the level sufficient for RACT 

requirements. The rule defines three options to meet open molding resin and gel coat limits: (1) 

achieving the VOC individual monomer content limit through the use of low-monomer VOC 

materials, either by using only low VOC monomer materials within a covered operation, or by 

averaging the VOC monomer contents for all materials used within an operation on a weightadjusted basis; (2) meeting the VOC numerical monomer emission rate limits, which would 

enable a facility to average emissions among different operations using equations to estimate 

VOC monomer emission rates from each operation depending on the material and application 

A-6 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-3 

method; or (3) using add-on control to achieve a VOC numerical monomer emission rate that is 

determined for each facility depending on the mix of application methods and materials used at 

that facility. Any one or any combination of those options can be used at any affected facility to 

achieve RACT requirements. 

An examination of permits for the existing facilities in this source category revealed that there 

are no existing facilities with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more VOC emissions located in the 

area affected by these changes. 

15A NCAC 02D .0964, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, is proposed for adoption to 

control VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives. It establishes VOC emission 

limits based on application processes (general adhesive application processes, specialty adhesive 

application processes, and adhesive primer application processes.) The rule defines two options 

for achieving the required emission limits: (1) through the use of low-VOC content adhesives 

and specified application methods with good adhesive transfer efficiency; or (2) through the use 

of a combination of low-VOC adhesives, specified application methods, and add-on control. As 

an alternative to the emission limits, the rule offers an overall control efficiency of 85 percent. 

15A NCAC 02D .0965, Flexible Package Printing, is proposed for adoption to provide 

equivalent VOC content limits, which can be met by use of low VOC content materials or 

combinations of materials and controls. These VOC content limits are consistent with an 80 

percent overall emissions reduction level and reflect similar control levels such as the capture 

and control option. The new rule requires 80 percent overall reduction of VOC. 

15A NCAC 02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings, is proposed for adoption to establish an 

overall VOC control efficiency of 90 percent for each coating line along with emission limits 

that are equivalent to 90 percent overall control. The rule applies these control recommendations 

only to individual surface coating lines with the potential to emit, prior to controls, at least 25 tpy 

of VOC from coatings. The rule provides the affected facilities with the option of using an 

enforceable limitation on potential to emit to keep an individual paper, film, and foil surface 

coating line below this 25 tpy potential to emit threshold. This limit can be met by use of lowVOC content materials or combinations of materials and controls. 

15A NCAC 02D .0967, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, is proposed for 

adoption to control VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic part surface coatings. 

The rule provides the following three options: (1) VOC content limits for each coating category 

based on the use of low-VOC content coatings and specified application methods to achieve 

good transfer efficiency; (2) equivalent VOC emission rate limits based on the use of a 

combination of low-VOC coatings, specified application methods, and add-on controls; or (3) an 

overall VOC control efficiency of 90 percent for facilities that choose to use add-on controls 

instead of low-VOC content coatings and specified application methods. 

15A NCAC 02D .0968, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, is proposed 

for adoption to establish VOC emission limits based on application processes (general adhesive 

application processes, specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primer application 

processes.) The recommended emission limits for primer-surfacer and topcoat operations can be 

A-7 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-4 

achieved with a combination of higher-solid solvent-borne coatings, efficient application 

equipment and bake oven exhaust control. 

Proposed repeals of Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0917, .0921, .0920, .0934, and .0936. 

15A NCAC 02D .0917, Automobile and Light-duty Truck Manufacturing, 15A NCAC 02D 

.0921, Fabric and Vinyl Coating, 15A NCAC 02D .0920, Paper Coating, 15A NCAC 02D 

.0934, Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, and 15A NCAC 02D .0936, 

Graphic Art, are proposed for repeal as obsolete in accordance with NCGS 150B-2(1b) and 

150B-21.5(b) due to the fact that DAQ is proposing new rules for automobile and light-duty 

truck assembly coatings, paper, film and foil coatings, miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings, flexible package printing and, offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES THERETO

Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0902, Applicability 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, asks 

if it is correct to assume that the revised rules will apply to facilities with potential to emit greater 

than or equal to 100 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per year, regardless of whether 

total actual emissions are greater than 15 pounds per day before control. 

Response: The applicability limit of actual emissions of 15 pounds of VOCs per day in 

Paragraph (b) applies to sources while the applicability limit of potential to emit of 100 tons of 

VOCs per year in Paragraph (f) applies facility-wide. If the facility-wide potential to emit exceed 

100 tons of VOCs per year, the rules in Section 02D .0900 will apply to the facility but the rules 

will not apply to sources at that facility that emit less than 15 pounds per day before control. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, asks 

if it is appropriate to use the term “major source threshold for VOCs” in place of “100 tons of 

VOCs per year” in Paragraph (f) of this Rule since this limit is dependent on the non-attainment 

area classification. 

Response: The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) agrees that the limit is dependent on the nonattainment area classification. DAQ believes that listing the actual numerical standard helps the 

reader understand the current potential emission threshold. If the area is designated as serious for 

ozone, the potential to emit threshold will decrease to 50 tons of VOC per year. This 

reclassification threshold for the areas listed is listed in Paragraph (h) of this rule. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

states that Paragraph (f) uses the term “potential to emit” while Rule 02D .0901 has a definition 

for “potential emissions”. The terminology in the rules should be consistent. 

Response: The term “potential to emit” is a widely used term in EPA regulations. The 

definition in Rule 02D .0901 for “potential emissions” is identical to EPA’s definition of 

A-8 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-5 

“potential to emit”. The term “potential to emit” is used in many of the Control Technique 

Guideline (CTG) documents that are the basis for the rules in Section 02D .0901. 

============================================= 

15A NCAC 02D .0922, Metal Furniture Coatings 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends clarifying the emissions limits units for VOC emissions in Subparagraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) to determine whether they should be given in pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

pound of solids applied or in pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of coating. 

Response: Subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) are consistent with the EPA recommendations on 

expressing emission limits in terms of the VOC per volume of coating (excluding water and 

exempt compounds, as applied) and with the equivalent limits in terms of the VOC per volume 

of coating solids using an assumed VOC density of 7.36 pounds per gallon for the conversion 

“The Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings” page 23, EPA 453/R-07-005, 

September 2007. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

raises concerns over VOC emissions calculations for a coating unit in which more than one metal 

furniture coating is applied. 

Response: This rule incorporates the recommendations that EPA listed in “The Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings,” September 2007. EPA doesn’t 

recommend limiting VOC emissions rate determination to a specific formula. 

 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

questions legality of the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0912 applicability to determine compliance with 

this rule. 

Response: Provisions of the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0912 determine the compliance 

determination with this rule limits. 

============================================= 

15A NCAC 02D .0923, Surface Coating of Large Appliance Parts 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends adding definitions for the materials such as “sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and 

maskants.” 

Response: Such materials as sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives and maskants are well known 

to include their definitions to the rule. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends adding the same definition for “appliance parts coatings” as there is in 2D 

.0922(a)(3) for “metal furniture coatings.” 

A-9 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-6 

Response: The definition “appliance parts coatings” is added to the rule. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, asks 

to clarify the emission limits units for the VOC emissions in Subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2), 

whether they should be given in pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of solids 

applied or in pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of coating. 

Response: EPA recommends expressing emission limits in terms of mass of VOC per 

volume of coating (excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied) and the equivalent limits 

in terms of mass of VOC per volume of coating solids using an assumed VOC density of 7.36 

pounds per gallon for a conversion “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance 

Coatings” p.19, EPA 453/R-07-004, September 2007. 

============================================= 

15A NCAC 02D .0935, Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends including definitions of “hardboard” and “waferboard” into the rule. 

Response: The definition of “hardboard” is added to the rule. The definition of “waferboard” 

is not necessary to include into the rule because the waferboard surface coating is not included 

into the provisions of this rule. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

questions the reason for not listing any flat wood products used for other applications (such as 

flooring) in Subparagraphs (b)(1) through (3). Does it mean that such products are excluded from 

the rule? 

Response: The same wood products that are listed by EPA in “The Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings,” EPA 453/R-06-004 September 2006, page 10, are 

added to Paragraph (b) to make it consistent with EPA recommendations. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, in 

his comments indicates that; (1) the phrase “factory finished flat wood product operation” in 

Paragraph (c) is deleted incorrectly; (2) the breakout under Subparagraph (1) is not required, and; 

(3) the word “material” should be replaced by the phrase “coating applied” in Paragraph (c). 

Response: The rule version published in “The North Carolina Register, Volume 24, Issue 

17” in March 1, 2010 (1) contains the phrase “factory finished flat wood product operation” in 

Paragraph (c); (2) there is no breakout under Paragraph (c); and (3) the language in the proposed 

Paragraph (c) is consistent with the same language that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings,” EPA 453/R-06-004 September 2006, page 9. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, in 

his comments, states that the values given for VOC content in Paragraph (c) for lb/gallon on a 

A-10 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-7 

material basis and for lb/gallon on a solid basis are not necessarily equal. He further suggests that 

either/or should be stated. 

Response: The values given for VOC content on a lb/gallon of a material basis and lb/gallon 

of a solid basis in the proposed Paragraph (c) are consistent with the same values that EPA uses 

in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings,” EPA 453/R-06-004 

September 2006, page 10. 

============================================ 

15A NCAC 02D .0961, Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

questions legality of not including any add-on control option for off-set lithographic printing 

into this rule. 

Response: The limited VOC emissions that occur from sheet-fed and coldset web offset 

lithographic inks are diffuse and spread over a large area. These emissions are not amenable to 

add-on control “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing,” EPA 453/R-06-002, September 2006, page 11. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

indicates, in his comments, that text is missing in Paragraph (d) between the word “printing” and 

the word “five” in the phrase “...printing five ...” 

Response: The phrase “shall not exceed” is added to Paragraph (d) between “printing and 

“fine.”. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality 

suggests that the second (h) should be (j), (j) should be (k), and text is missing after the phrase 

“...mixed in closed” in the second (h).

Response: The rule version published in “The North Carolina Register, Volume 24, Issue 

17” in March 1, 2010 (1) contains all Paragraphs listed in the alphabetical order. The phrase “All 

volatile organic compounds materials and used shop towels shall be stored in covered containers 

all the time. All volatile organic compounds shall be mixed in closed” does not exist in the rule 

version published in “North Carolina Register, Volume 24, Issue 17” in March 1, 2010. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, the Printing Industry of the Carolinas, in his comments 

recommends revising the definition for “fountain solution” to clarify its function and 

composition. He also requested to include definitions for alcohol substitute, cleaning material, 

composite vapor pressure, heatset, non-heatset and press in the rule to provide clarity and 

consistency with the CTG. 

Response: The definition “fountain solution” presented in the rule explicitly reflects the 

function and nature of the fountain solution. Review is not necessary. The definitions for vapor 

pressure, heatset, non-heatset and press are added to the rule. Functions and nature of alcohol 

A-11 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-8 

substitute and cleaning material are too understandable and cannot be confused. Definitions in 

the rule are not necessary.

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

revising Paragraph (b) to include potential to emit (PTE) applicability requirements for facilities 

located in non attainment areas. 

Response: The potential to emit (PTE) applicability requirements for the facilities located in 

non attainment areas are included. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

deleting the proposed Paragraph (c) that allows usage of the fountain solutions containing no 

more than 1.6% alcohol by the heatset web offset lithographic printing presses as inconsistent 

with the requirements specified in Subparagraphs (c) (1), (c) (2), and (c) (3). 

Response: The language in the proposed Paragraph (c) is consistent with the same language 

that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing,” EPA-453/R-06-002, September 2006, page15. Paragraph (c) explicitly 

states that compliance with the same level of control, which is equivalent1.6% alcohol for 

volatile organic compounds, is consistent with compliance achieved by fulfilling the 

requirements listed in Subparagraphs (1) through (3). 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

replacing the word “reducing” with the word “maintaining” in Subparagraphs (c) (2) and (d)(1) 

because the word “reducing” implies that the alcohol concentration of the fountain solution is to 

be lowered; whereas, the intent of the CTG is to maintain the alcohol content at the specified 

concentration. 

Response: The language in the proposed Subparagraph (c)(1) is consistent with the same 

language that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing 

and Letterpress Printing,” EPA-453/R-06-002 September 2006, page 15. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

replacing the word “three” with the digit “3.0” in Subparagraph (c) (2) and the word “five” with 

the digit “5.0” in Subparagraphs (c) (3), (d)(3), and (e). 

Response: The North Carolina Administrative Code, Subparagraph (10)(a) of the Rule 26 

NCAC 02C .0108, General Format Instructions, requires that “numbers from one to nine shall be 

spelled out.” 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

deleting the phrase “on-press (as applied)” from the each requirement in Subparagraphs (c) (1) 

through (3) and (d)(1) through (3), since Subparagraph (c) already states that the limits in 

Subparagraph (c) (1) – (3) applies to “on-press (as applied).” 

A-12 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-9 

Response: The language in the proposed Subparagraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) is consistent 

with the same language that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” EPA-453/R-06-002, September 2006, page15. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

deleting the term “alcohol substitute” to provide clarity in the proposed Subparagraph (e). 

Response: The language in the proposed Paragraph (e) is consistent with the same language 

that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing”, EPA-453/R-06-002 September, 2006, page 15. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, the Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

deleting the words “or less” in the phrase “shall not exceed five or less percent” in Paragraph (e) 

since the phrase “shall not exceed” implies all concentrations at or below the five percent. 

Response: The words “or less” in the phrase “shall not exceed five or less percent” in 

Paragraph (e) are deleted.

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

replacing the term “coldset” with the term “non-heatset” throughout the rule. The term “nonheatset” is the preferred term used throughout the printing industry to describe a lithographic 

printing process where the printing inks are set by absorption or oxidation of the ink oil, and not 

by the evaporation of the ink oils in a dryer. 

 

Response: The term coldset “is replaced by the term “non-heatset” 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

consolidating and simplifying Subparagraphs (f) and (h) since both subparagraphs are concerned 

with controlling the ink oil emissions from heatset presses and because they pertain to the same 

requirement as add-on control requirements. 

 

Response: The language in the proposed Paragraphs (f) and (h) is consistent with the same 

language that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing 

and Letterpress Printing,” EPA-453/R-06-002 September 2006, page 13 and 14. Paragraph (f) 

incorporates EPA recommendations for establishing VOC limits in inks and coatings used in 

printers without add-on control. Paragraph (h) incorporates EPA recommendations for 

establishing the control efficiency to achieve emission limits equal to the emission limits 

established in Paragraph (f) if an add-on control option is chosen. These two approaches for the 

VOC content limits and for the required control efficiency are absolutely different and they shall 

be separated to avoid confusion. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

including heatset web offset printing presses in a new consolidated Subparagraph. 

Response: The provisions of Paragraphs (f) and (h) cover any single letterpress printing 

headset including heatset web offset printing presses. The new Subparagraph is not required. 

A-13 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-10 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends 

listing the 25 ton per year threshold as an exemption under Paragraph (i). 

Response: Paragraph (i) doesn’t list exemptions. It lists criteria for the exemption’s 

applicability. The language in Paragraph (f) doesn’t define the 25 ton per year as an exemption. 

It defines the 25 ton per year as the threshold for applying VOC emission control. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, advises to 

include an option for maintaining dryer operations at the negative pressure to make sure that the 

capture efficiency for VOC can be assumed as 100 percent of the VOC volatilized in the dryer. 

The capture efficiency test is not required in this situation. 

Response: The required language is added to Subparagraph (h)(3). 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, advises to 

include in Paragraph (h) an option to reduce control device outlet concentrations to 20 ppmv by 

expressing them as hexane on a dry basis for the add-on controls that cannot meet destruction 

efficiency requirements due to low volatile organic compounds inlet concentrations. 

Response: This option is included in Paragraph (h). The option to use the EPA test Method 

25A is also included into the rules .0922, .0923, .0935, .0961, .0962, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, 

and .0968. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, advises to 

revise Paragraph (g) to make sure that the EPA Method 24 covers VOC emissions from the inks 

used at offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing facilities. 

Response: Paragraph (g) is corrected to make sure that the EPA Method 24 covers all VOC 

content materials including the inks used at offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing 

facilities. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, in his 

comments, states that the requirement of Subparagraph (i)(2) is confusing and recommends 

revising or deleting this Subparagraph because its intent is not evident. 

Response: Subparagraph (i)(2) is revised to clarify exemption status from VOC content in 

the fountain solution. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, advises to 

replace the phrase “Paragraph (c) and (d)” with the phrase “Paragraph (f)” in Subparagraph 

(i)(3). 

Response: The phrase “Paragraph (c) and (d)” is replaced by the phrase “Paragraph (f)”. 

A-14 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-11 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas advises to 

replace the term “headset” with the term “heatset” in Subparagraph (i)(4). 

Response: The term “headset” is replaced by the term “heatset” in Subparagraph (i)(4). 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, requested to reemphasize exemption of the coatings applied during lithographic and letterpress operations in 

Paragraph (i) from the requirements of Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil 

Coatings, by specifically referencing Subparagraph (c) (1) of Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0966 as an 

exemption. 

Response: The reference to Subparagraph (c) (1) of the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0966 is added 

to Paragraph (b). 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas recommends 

including a provision allowing a printing facility to use up to 110 gallons per year on a twelve 

month rolling basis of cleaning solutions when this cleaning solution contains more than 70 

weight percent volatile organic compounds; or having cleaning solution VOC pressures higher 

than 10 mm Hg at 20o

 C. 

Response: Paragraph (j) explicitly states that the cleaning solutions shall meet the 

requirements whether containing less than 70 weight percent volatile organic compounds or 

having volatile compound vapor pressures less than 10 mm Hg at 20o C only if their amount 

exceeds 110 gallons per year. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, the Printing Industry of the Carolinas, advises to delete 

the reference to Rule .0903 and to establish specific recordkeeping requirements needed for this 

rule because the recordkeeping requirements in the Rule .0903 are rather broad. They are 

required to be maintained at a minimum on a daily basis which imposes a significant and 

unnecessary administrative burden on many small businesses. The new requirements should 

include VOC content for diluted and non diluted material, fountain solutions, and cleaning 

material; the temperature of the press fountain solutions for lithographic printing presses using 

alcohol in the fountain solution; the monthly quantity of used cleaning solution, which does not 

meet the vapor pressure and percentage volatile organic compound concentration limits per 

Paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2); temperature readings of the exhaust gas temperature taken at 15-

minute intervals; and the gas temperature of a catalytic oxidizer taken immediately upstream and 

downstream of any catalytic bed. 

Response: The recordkeeping requirements in the Rule .0903 are consistent with the RACT 

standards. The RACT requirement for monitoring and recordkeeping is applied on a short-term 

basis up to 24 hours as described in 40 CFR Part 59, October 5, 2006. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, the Printing Industry of the Carolinas, advises to 

address key emission and retention factors that are specific to the lithographic printing industry 

and are necessary for accurate emission determinations. Mr. Stoudt states that the appropriate 

factors have to be included in the revisions to the rule in order to ensure that the proper emission 

A-15 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-12 

and retention factors are applied for the purposes of determining applicability and compliance. 

Mr. Stoudt also advises to clarify the methodology for estimating actual emissions in the 

lithographic printing industry, which could save administrative time and costs for both the 

DENR and the printing industry. 

Response: The intention of this rule is to provide the industry with the methods to limit VOC 

emissions from Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing and the way VOC 

emissions will be controlled and documented. We believe that the rule should not limit methods 

of the VOC emission determinations by the industry, if these methods are approved by EPA. 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, advises to 

include recordkeeping provisions into the rule to demonstrate an exemption from the 

requirements RACT applicability. 

Response: In accordance with the EPA recommendations for RACT, this rule shall apply 

only to the facilities that meet the applicability requirements for RACT. 

============================================ 

15A NCAC 02D .0962, Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends including the dipping processes in the definition of the “solvent cleaning” in 

Subparagraph (a)(2), if the word “flushing” doesn’t mean dipping parts into a solvent bath, either 

batch-wise or in a continuous process. 

Response: Metal parts cleaning by dipping parts into a solvent bath, either batch-wise or in a 

continuous process, is the subject of the regulations under the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0930, 

Solvent Metal Cleaning. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

questions legality of the applicability of the “solvent cleaning” definition to small parts washers 

that would make them subject to this rule. 

Response: The definition for “solvent cleaning” is not applicable to small parts washers for 

the purposes of this rule. The small parts washers are the subject of regulations under the Rule 

15A NCAC 02D .0930, Solvent Metal Cleaning. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality 

advises to delete the reference to “.0962” in Paragraph (c). 

Response: The reference to “.0962” in Paragraph (c) is deleted. 

15A NCAC 02D .0963, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials 

Comment: EPA in its comments requested that in Paragraph (m), the number zero should be 

replaced by a degree symbol (0

F). 

A-16 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-13 

Response: The number zero is replaced by a degree symbol (

0

F) in Paragraph (m). 

============================================

15A NCAC 02D .0964, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

questions legality of recommendations to meet the limits for materials in Table 1, because the 

same option is mandatory in Subparagraph (d)(1). He further advises to delete the word 

“recommended”. 

Response: The word “recommended” is deleted from Table 1 in Subparagraph (d)(1). 

============================================ 

15A NCAC 02D .0965, Flexible Packaging Printing 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

advises to replace the word “material” with the word “coating” in the phrase “...0.16 lb 

volatile organic compounds per one lb of material applied...” 

Response: The language in the proposed Paragraph (c) is consistent with the same language 

that EPA uses in “The Control “Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing,” EPA 

453/R-06-003, September 2006, page14. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

advises to insert text or punctuation between the word “applied” and the word “limits”. 

Response: The phrase “These volatile organic compounds content” is inserted. 

============================================ 

15A NCAC 02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends clarifying the regulatory language to avoid a situation when a facility currently 

subject to 02D .0966 is also subject to 2D .0921 because the definition of “Fabric coating” 

appears to be identical for 02D .0966 and 02D .0921. 

Response: The definition of “Fabric coating” is deleted from Paragraph (a) to avoid 

confusion and misunderstanding. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, asks 

to clarify whether the emissions limits for VOC emissions in Subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2) 

should be given in pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of solids applied , or 0.067 

pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of coating. 

A-17 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-14 

Response: Values given for VOC content in a lb/gallon coatings and lb/gallon of solids in 

proposed Paragraph (d) are consistent with the same values that EPA uses in “The Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings,” EPA 453/R-07-003, September 

2007, page 18. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, asks 

to clarify whether the volatile organic compounds content limits are per coating or total for a 

coating line and how does 02D .0912 apply? 

Response: The new Subparagraph (d)(3) is added to clarify the VOC limits determination 

and the applicability of 02D .0912. 

 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality asks 

to clarify whether: (1) the phrase “coating lines’ should be added after the phrase “pressure 

sensitive tape and label surface paper, film, and foils...” in Subparagraph (d)(1); and (2) whether 

the word “applied” should be added after the phrase “lb/lb of coating” in Subparagraphs (d)(1); 

and (2). 

Response: The phrase “coating lines” and the word “applied” are added. 

============================================ 

15A NCAC 02D .0967, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts and Products 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends including definitions for coating types such as “extreme high-gloss”, “extreme 

performance”, “high-performance architectural” etc., or where the coating name/identifier is not 

descriptive (such as “Drum Coating, New, Interior” and “Electric-Insulating Varnish”). 

Response: The definitions for coating types are added to the rule. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends adding the phrase “excluding water and exempt compounds” after the phrase “lb 

VOC/gal coating” in the Tables 1,2,3,4, and 5. 

Response: The language in the proposed Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is consistent with the same 

language that EPA uses in “ The Control Techniques for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings,” EPA- EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008, pages 33-35. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends clarifying the terms “as applied”, or “as supplied” used to describe operations with 

limited VOC content coatings. 

Response: All terms used in proposed rule are consistent with the terms that EPA uses in 

“The Control Techniques for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA- EPA453/R-08-003, September 2008. 

A-18 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-15 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends replacing the word “metal” with the word “plastic” in the Table 2 Title. 

Response: The word “metal” is replaced by the word “plastic” in the Table 2 Title. 

============================================ 

15A NCAC 02D .0968, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends adding a definition of “assembly process” to the rule.

Response: EPA does not provide a definition of “assembly process” in the CTG and DAQ 

doesn’t feel that it is necessary to provide this definition in the rule. 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality 

recommends replacing the word “without” with the phrase “except for” in Subparagraph (b)(4). 

Response: The word “without” is replaced by the phrase “except for” in Subparagraph (b)(2) 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, 

recommends adding the definition “Automobile Topcoat Protocol” with the references to how to 

find it into Subparagraph (d)(1). 

Response: The definition “Automobile Topcoat Protocol” is added to Subparagraph (a)(2). 

Comment: EPA in its comment suggested that in Paragraph (d)(1), Table 1, under “Volatile 

Organic Compounds Emissions Limit for Electrodeposition Primer Operations,” the CTG value 

in the second column, on the second row should read “0.7 lb/gal coatings solids applied.” 

Response: The value is changed to “0.7 lb/gal coatings solids applied.” 

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality 

recommends deleting the word “Recommended” in the column heading for the second column in 

the Table 2. 

Response: The phrase “Recommended” in the column heading for the second column in the 

Table 2 is deleted. 

Comment: Mr. James Sell, Senior Counsel, the American Coating Association, asks DAQ 

not to incorporate in the NC rule specific VOC limits for eight categories of pleasure craft (i.e., 

recreational boats) surface coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 that EPA recommended in 

the final CTG. He stated that the American Coating Association has been working closely with 

EPA to change these VOC limits because the Association believes that SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 is 

not suitable for consideration as RACT by ozone non-attainment states and areas. Mr. Sell 

indicated that he was expecting clarification from EPA regarding this matter in the near term. 

A-19 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-16 

Response: Ms. Whitfield, Environmental Engineer, EPA, in her response to our request to 

clarify the situation with eight categories of pleasure craft (i.e., recreational boats) surface 

coatings, indicated that EPA is not intending to revise the CTG. Furthermore, she emphasized 

that regardless of whether DAQ chooses to implement the recommendations contained in the 

CTG, or any different approaches, DAQ must submit the rule to EPA for review and approval as 

part of the SIP process. EPA will make a final determination regarding whether the submitted 

rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations. In order to meet these 

requirements, DAQ incorporated EPA recommendations on VOC limits for eight categories of 

pleasure craft (i.e., recreational boats) surface coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. 

============================================= 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

15A NCAC 2D .0902, Applicability 

 

Comment Response

Concerns are expressed about the applicability of 

the revised rules to facilities with the potential to 

emit greater than or equal to 100 tons of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) per year, regardless of 

whether total actual emissions are greater than 15 

pounds per day before control. 

The VOC limit of 15 pounds per day potential 

to emit applies to each source while the VOC 

limit of 100 tons per year potential to emit 

applies facility-wide. If the facility-wide 

potential emissions exceed 100 tones of VOCs 

per year, the rules in Section 02D .0900 will 

apply only to the sources at that facility that 

emit more than 15 pounds per day before 

control. No change to the rule. 

Concerns are expressed about an appropriate 

usage of the term “major source threshold for 

VOCs” since the 100 tons of VOCs per year 

threshold is dependent on the non-attainment area 

classification. 

The VOC limit is dependent on the nonattainment area classification. If the area is 

designated as serious for ozone, the potential 

emissions threshold will decrease to 50 tons of 

VOC per year. This reclassification threshold 

for the areas listed in Paragraph (f) is listed in 

Paragraph (h) of this rule. No change to the 

rule. 

Questions the consistency of the term “potential to 

emit” while Rule 02D .0901 uses the definition 

“potential emissions”. 

The definition in Rule 02D .0901 for 

“potential emissions” is identical to EPA’s 

definition of “potential to emit”. 

15A NCAC 02D .0922, Metal Furniture Coatings 

Comment Response

Clarification of the VOC emissions limits units. The units are given in accordance with EPA 

recommendations. No change to the rule. 

Questions legality of VOC emissions calculations 

for a coating unit in which more than one metal 

furniture coating is applied. 

The rule incorporates the recommendations 

that EPA listed in “The Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings, 

September 2007.” No change to the rule. 

A-20 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-17 

Questions applicability of Rule 15A NCAC 02D 

.0912 to determine compliance with this rule. 

Provisions of the Rule .02D .0912 determine 

the compliance determination with this rule 

limits. No change to the rule. 

15A NCAC 02D .0923, Surface Coating of Large Appliance Parts 

Comment Response

Recommends adding definitions for the materials 

such as “sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and 

maskants.” 

These materials are too well-known. No 

change to the rule. 

Recommends adding the same definition for 

“appliance parts coatings” as there is in 2D 

.0922(a)(3) for “metal furniture coatings.” 

The definition is added to the rule. 

 Clarification of the VOC emissions limits units. The units are given in accordance with EPA 

recommendations. No change to the rule. 

15A NCAC 02D .0935, Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling 

Comment Response

Recommendation to include definitions of 

“hardboard” and “waferboard” into the rule. 

The definition of “hardboard” is added to the 

rule. The waferboard surface coating is not 

included into the provisions of this rule 

Questions the exemption of the products used for 

applications other than defined in this rule 

The products that are consistent with EPA 

recommendations are added to the rule. 

 States that: (1) the phrase “factory finished flat 

wood product operation” is deleted incorrectly; 

(2) the breakout under Subparagraph (1) is not 

necessary; and (3) the word “material” should be 

replaced by the phrase “coating applied”. 

The rule version published in “The North 

Carolina Register, Volume 24, Issue 17” in 

March 1, 2010 (1) contains the correct version 

of the rule with the language that is consistent 

with the EPA language. No change to the rule. 

 Clarification of the VOC emissions limits units. The units are given in accordance with EPA 

recommendations. No change to the rule. 

15A NCAC 02D .0961, Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing 

Comment Response

The rule does not include any option of add-on 

controls for off-set lithographic printing. 

The limited VOC emissions that occur from sheetfed and coldset web offset lithographic inks are 

diffuse and spread over a large area. These 

emissions are not amenable to add-on control. No 

change to the rule. 

Text is missing in Paragraph (d) The missing text is added to Paragraph (d). 

Paragraphs are not listed in alphabetical order 

and text is missing. 

The rule version published in “The North Carolina 

Register, Volume 24, Issue 17” in March 1, 2010 

(1) contains all Paragraphs listed in alphabetical 

order and the phrase with the missing text had 

A-21 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-18 

been deleted as unnecessary. No change to the 

rule. 

Recommendations to revise the definition for 

“fountain solution” and to include the 

definitions for alcohol substitute, cleaning 

material, composite vapor pressure, heatset, 

non-heatset and press in the rule to provide 

clarity and consistency with the CTG. 

Review of the definition for “fountain solution” is 

not necessarily. The definitions for vapor 

pressure, heatset, non-heatset and press are added 

to the rule. The functions and nature of the alcohol 

substitute and the cleaning material are too 

obvious to be defined in the rule.

Recommendation to include potential to emit 

(PTE) applicability requirements for facilities 

located in non attainment areas. 

The potential to emit (PTE) applicability 

requirements are included.

Recommendation to delete the proposed 

Paragraph (c) as inconsistent with the 

requirements specified in Subparagraphs (c) 

(1), (c) (2), and (c) (3).

The language in the proposed Paragraph (c) is 

consistent with the same language that EPA uses 

in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” 

EPA-453/R-06-002 September 2006, page15. No 

change to the rule. 

Recommendation to replace the word 

“reducing” with the word “maintaining” in 

Subparagraphs (c) (2) and (d)(1). 

The language in proposed Subparagraph (c)(1) is 

consistent with the same language that EPA uses 

in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” 

EPA-453/R-06-002 September 2006, page 15. No 

change to the rule. 

Recommendation to replace the word “three” 

with the digit “3.0” in Subparagraph (c) (2) and 

the word “five” with the digit “5.0” in 

Subparagraphs (c) (3), (d)(3), and (e). 

North Carolina Administrative Code,

Subparagraph (10)(a) of Rule 26 NCAC 02C 

.0108, General Format Instructions, requires that 

“numbers from one to nine shall be spelled out.” 

No change to the rule. 

Recommendation to delete the phrase “onpress (as applied)” from the each requirement 

in Subparagraphs (c) (1) through (3) and (d)(1) 

through (3). 

The language in the proposed subparagraphs is 

consistent with the same language that EPA uses 

in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” 

EPA-453/R-06-002 September 2006, page15. No 

change to the rule. 

Recommendation to delete the term “alcohol 

substitute” to provide clarity in the proposed 

Paragraph (e). 

The language in the proposed paragraph is 

consistent with the same language that EPA uses 

in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing”, 

EPA-453/R-06-002 September 2006, page 15. No 

change to the rule. 

Recommendation to delete the words “or less” 

in the phrase “shall not exceed five or less 

percent” in Paragraph (e). 

The words “or less” in phrase “shall not exceed 

five or less percent” are deleted.

Recommendation to replace the term “coldset” 

with the term “non-heatset” throughout the 

rule. 

The term “coldset “is replaced by the tern “nonheatset” 

A-22 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-19 

Recommendation of consolidation and 

simplifying Subparagraphs (f) and (h) since 

both subparagraphs are concerned with 

controlling the ink oil emissions from heatset 

presses and because they pertain to the same 

requirement as add-on control requirements. 

The language in the proposed Paragraphs is 

consistent with the same language that EPA uses 

in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” 

EPA-453/R-06-002 September 2006, page 13 

and14. No change to the rule. 

Recommendation to include heatset web offset 

printing presses into a new consolidated 

Subparagraph. 

The provisions of Paragraphs (f) and (h) cover any 

single letterpress printing headset including 

heatset web offset printing presses. No change to 

the rule.

Recommendation to list the 25 ton per year 

threshold as an exemption under Paragraph (i). 

Paragraph (i) doesn’t list exemptions. It lists 

criteria for the exemption’s applicability. The 

language in Paragraph (f) doesn’t define the 25 

ton per year as an exemption. It defines the 25 ton 

per year as the threshold for applying VOC 

emission control. No change to the rule.

Recommendation to include an option to 

maintain dryer operations at the negative 

pressure to make sure that the capture 

efficiency for VOC can be assumed as 100 

percent. 

The required language is added. 

Recommendation to include in Paragraph (h) 

an option to reduce control device outlet 

concentrations to 20 ppmv by expressing them 

as hexane on a dry basis for the add-on 

controls that cannot meet destruction efficiency 

requirements due to low volatile organic 

compounds inlet concentrations. 

This option is included The option to use the EPA. 

An option to use test Method 25A is also added 

the rules. 

Recommendation to revise Paragraph (g) to 

make sure that the EPA Method 24 covers 

VOC emissions from the inks used at offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress printing 

facilities. 

Paragraph (g) is corrected. 

Recommendation to review or delete 

Subparagraph (i)(2) because its intent is not 

evident. 

Subparagraph (i)(2) is revised. 

Recommendation to replace the phrase 

“Paragraph (c) and (d)” with the phrase 

“Paragraph (f)” in Subparagraph (i)(3). 

The phrase “Paragraph (c) and (d)” is replaced by 

the phrase “Paragraph (f)”. 

Recommendation to replace the term “headset” 

with the term “heatset” in Subparagraph (i)(4). 

The term “headset” is replaced by the term 

“heatset” in Subparagraph (i)(4). 

Request to re-emphasize exemption of the 

coatings applied during lithographic and 

letterpress operations in Paragraph (i) from the 

requirements of the Subchapter 15A NCAC 

02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings.

The reference to Subparagraph (c) (1) of the Rule 

15A NCAC 02D .0966 is added to Paragraph (b). 

A-23 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-20 

Recommendation to include a provision 

allowing a printing facility to use up to 110 

gallons per year on a twelve month rolling 

basis of cleaning solutions when either: (1) less 

than 70 weight percent volatile organic 

compounds; or (2) volatile compound vapor 

pressures less than 10 mm Hg at 20oC 

requirements are not meet. 

Paragraph (j) explicitly states that the cleaning 

solutions shall meet these requirements only if 

their amount exceeds 110 gallons per year. No 

change to the rule. 

Recommendation to delete the reference to 

Rule .0903 and to establish specific 

recordkeeping requirements needed for this 

rule. 

The recordkeeping requirements in the Rule .0903 

are consistent with the RACT standards. No 

change to the rule. 

The recommendation to include key emission 

and retention factors that are specific to the 

lithographic printing industry and are 

necessary for accurate emission determinations 

to the rule. 

The intention of this rule is to provide the industry 

with the methods to limit VOC emissions from 

Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing and the way VOC emissions will be 

controlled and documented. No change to the rule. 

The recommendation to include recordkeeping 

provisions to demonstrate exemption from the 

requirements the RACT applicability in the 

rule. 

In accordance with the EPA, this rule shall apply 

only to the facilities that meet the applicability 

requirements for RACT. No change to the rule. 

15A NCAC 02D .0962, Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

Comment Response

Include the dipping processes in the definition 

of the “solvent cleaning” in Subparagraph 

(a)(2). 

Metal parts cleaning by dipping parts into a 

solvent bath, either batch-wise or in a continuous 

process, are subject of the regulations under the 

Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0930, Solvent Metal 

Cleaning. No change to the rule. 

Questions legality of the definition for “solvent 

cleaning” in term of the applicability to small 

parts washers. 

The small parts washers are the subject of 

regulations under Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0930, 

Solvent Metal Cleaning. No change to the rule. 

Delete the reference to “.0962” in Paragraph 

(c). 

The reference to “.0962” in Paragraph (c) is 

deleted. 

15A NCAC 02D .0963 – “Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials” 

Comment Response

Replace the number zero with a degree symbol 

(

0

F).that in Paragraph (m). 

The number zero is replaced by a degree symbol

(

0

F) in Paragraph (m). 

15A NCAC 02D .0964 – “Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives” 

Comment Response

A-24 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-21 

Delete the word “recommended”. The word “recommended” is deleted from Table 1 

in Subparagraph (d)(1). 

15A NCAC 02D .0965, Flexible Packaging Printing 

Comment Response

Replace the word “material” with the word 

“coating” in the phrase “...0.16 lb volatile 

organic compounds per one lb of material 

applied...”

The language in the proposed Paragraph (c) is 

consistent with the same language that EPA uses 

in “The Control “Techniques Guidelines for 

Flexible Package Printing,” EPA 453/R-06-003 

September 2006, page 14. No change to the rule. 

Insert text or punctuation between the word 

“applied” and the word “limits”. 

The phrase “These volatile organic compounds 

content” is inserted. 

15A NCAC 02D 0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings 

Comment Response

Delete the definition of “Fabric coating” 

because the definition of “Fabric coating” 

appears to be identical for 02D 0966 and 02D 

.0921. 

The definition of “Fabric coating” is deleted from 

Paragraph (a) to avoid confusions and 

misunderstanding. 

Clarification of the VOC emissions limits 

units. 

The units are given in accordance with EPA 

recommendations. No change to the rule. 

Clarification is required to determine if the 

VOC emissions limits are per coating or total 

for a coating line and how does 02D .0912 

apply? 

The new Subparagraph (d)(3) was added to clarify 

the VOC limits and the applicability of 02D .0912. 

Include the phrase “coating lines’ after the 

phrase “pressure sensitive tape and label 

surface paper, film, and foils...” and the word 

“applied” after phrase “lb/lb of coating.” 

The phrase “coating lines” and the word “applied” 

are added. 

15A NCAC 02D 0967, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts and Products 

Comments Response

Include definitions for coating types. The definitions for coating types are added to the 

rule. 

Include the phrase “excluding water and 

exempt compounds” after the phrase “lb 

VOC/gal coating” in the Tables 1,2,3,4, and 5. 

The language in the proposed Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 

and 5 is consistent with the same language that 

EPA uses in “ The Control Techniques for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” 

EPA- EPA-453/R-08-003 September 2008, pages 

33-35. No change to the rule. 

Clarify the usage of terms for the VOC coating 

content limits. 

All terms used in proposed rule are consistent with 

the terms that EPA uses in “The Control 

Techniques for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

A-25 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-22 

Parts Coatings,” EPA- EPA-453/R-08-003 

September 2008. No change to the rule. 

Replace the word “metal” with the word 

“plastic” in the Table 2 Title. 

The word “metal” is replaced by the word 

“plastic.” 

15A NCAC 02D 0968, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings 

Comment Response

Include a definition for an assembly process to 

the rule.

EPA does not provide a definition for an assembly 

process in the CTG and DAQ doesn’t feel that it 

necessarily to provide this definition in the rule. 

No change to the rule. 

Replace the word “without” with the phrase 

“except for” in Subparagraph (b)(4). 

The word “without” is replaced by the phrase 

“except for” in Subparagraph (b)(2) 

Include the definition “Automobile Topcoat 

Protocol” with the references how to find it to 

Subparagraph (d)(1). 

The definition “Automobile Topcoat Protocol” is 

added to Subparagraph (a)(2). 

Change the value in the Table 1, under 

“Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions 

Limit for Electrodeposition primer 

operations,” to 0.7lb/gal coatings solids 

applied. 

The value is changed to “0.7lb/gal coatings solids 

applied.” 

Delete the word “Recommended” in the 

column heading for the second column in the 

Table 2. 

The word “Recommended” in the column heading 

for the second column in the Table 2 is deleted. 

Recommendation not to include in the NC rule 

specific VOC limits for eight categories of 

pleasure craft (i.e., recreational boats) surface 

coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 that 

EPA recommended in the final CTG. DAQ has 

received clarification from EPA regarding this 

matter. It is incorporated in Chapter VI of this 

Hearing Record. 

DAQ incorporated EPA recommendations on 

VOC limits for eight categories of pleasure craft 

(i.e., recreational boats) surface coatings based on 

SCAQMD Rule 1106.1to meet the RACT 

requirements. No change to the rule. 

CONCLUSION

Four persons commented for the hearing record on the changes to Section .0900-Volatile 

Organic Compounds during the comment period. One commenter made several 

recommendations about units for VOC content limits, additions of various definitions, 

clarifications of different terms, and applicability of various requirements. 

The second commenter recommended revising various definitions and terms, clarifying 

applicability requirements and stack test methods, and including additional provisions for 

A-26 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-23 

cleaning materials usage, recordkeeping requirements, and various factors of determining 

applicability and compliance. 

The third commenter focused in his comments on the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0967, 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. He recommended not incorporating in the NC 

rule specific VOC limits for eight categories of pleasure craft (i.e., recreational boats) surface 

coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 that EPA recommended in the final CTG. DAQ has 

received clarification from EPA regarding this matter. It is incorporated in Chapter VI of this 

Hearing Record. 

The United States EPA recommended in its comments to change the value in the Table 1, under 

“Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions Limit for Electrodeposition Primer Operations,” to 0.7 

lb/gal coatings solids applied in Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0968, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings and to replace the number zero with a degree symbol (0

F) in Rule 15A

NCAC 02D .0963 – “Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.” 

HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The Hearing Officer recommends that the proposed amendments as presented in Chapter II of 

this hearing report be adopted by the Environmental Management Commission. 

A-27 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
I-24 

This page was intentionally left blank. 

A-28 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-1 

1 CHAPTER II 

 2 

 3 

4 REGULATIONS PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION 

5 

6 SECTION .0900 - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 

7 

8 15A NCAC 02D .0902 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

9 

10 15A NCAC 02D .0902 APPLICABILITY 

11 (a) The rules in this Section do not apply except as specifically set out in this Rule. 

12 (b) This Section applies to sources that emit greater than or equal to 15 pounds of volatile organic compounds per day. 

13 (c) Rules .0925, .0926, .0927, .0928, .0931, .0932, .0933, and .0958 of this Section apply regardless of the level of emissions of volatile 

14 organic compounds. 

15 (b)(d) Regardless of any other statement of applicability of this Section, this This Section does not apply to: 

16 (1) sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds are not more than 15 pounds per day, except that this Section 

17 does apply to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt and to gasoline service stations or gasoline dispensing facilities 

18 regardless of levels of emissions of volatile organic compounds;

19 (2)(1) sources whose emissions do not exceed that emit less than 800 pounds of volatile organic compounds per calendar month 

20 and that are: 

21 (A) bench-scale, on-site equipment used exclusively for chemical or physical analysis for quality control purposes, 

22 staff instruction, water or wastewater analyses, or non-production environmental compliance assessments; 

23 (B) bench-scale experimentation, chemical or physical analyses, training or instruction from not-for-profit, non24 production educational laboratories; 

25 (C) bench-scale experimentation, chemical or physical analyses, training or instruction from hospitals or health 

26 laboratories pursuant to the determination or diagnoses of illness; or 

27 (D) research and development laboratory activities provided the activity produces no commercial product or 

28 feedstock material; or 

29 (3)(2) emissions of volatile organic compounds during startup or shutdown operations from sources which use incineration or 

30 other types of combustion to control emissions of volatile organic compounds whenever the off-gas contains an explosive 

31 mixture during the startup or shutdown operation if the exemption is approved by the Director as meeting the 

32 requirements of this Subparagraph. 

33 (c)(e) The following rules of this Section apply statewide: 

34 (1) .0925, Petroleum Liquid Storage in Fixed Roof Tanks, for fixed roof tanks at gasoline bulk plants and gasoline bulk 

35 terminals; 

36 (2) .0926, Bulk Gasoline Plants; 

37 (3) .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; 

38 (4) .0928, Gasoline Service Stations Stage I; 

39 (5) .0932, Gasoline Truck Tanks and Vapor Collection Systems; 

40 (6) .0933, Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks, for external floating roof tanks at bulk gasoline plants 

41 and bulk gasoline terminals; 

42 (7) .0948, VOC Emissions from Transfer Operations; 

43 (8) .0949, Storage of Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds; and 

44 (9) .0958, Work Practices for Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds. 

45 (d) All sources located in Mecklenburg County that were required to comply with any of the Rules in Subparagraphs (d)(1) or (2) of this 

46 Rule before July 5, 1995 shall continue to comply with these Rules: 

47 (1) .0917 through .0937 of this Section, or

48 (2) .0943 through .0945 of this Section.

49 (e)(f) The Rules in this Section apply to facilities with the potential to emit greater than or equal to 100 tons of volatile organic compounds 

50 per year in the following areas: 

51 (1) Cabarrus County 

52 (2) Gaston County 

53 (3) Lincoln County 

54 (4) Mecklenburg County 

55 (5) Rowan County 

56 (6) Union County 

57 (7) Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township in Iredell County 

58 

A-29 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-2 

1 (g) If any county or part of a county to which this Section applies is later designated in 40 CFR 81.334 as attainment, all sources in that 

2 county subject to this Section before the redesignation to attainment shall continue to comply with this Section.

3 (f) If a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone is measured in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 in Davidson, Forsyth, or 

4 Guilford County or that part of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek 

5 and back to Yadkin River, the Director shall initiate analysis to determine the control measures needed to attain and maintain the ambient 

6 air quality standard for ozone. By the following May 1, the Director shall implement the specific stationary source control measures 

7 contained in this Section that are required as part of the control strategy necessary to bring the area into compliance and to maintain 

8 compliance with the ambient air quality standard for ozone. The Director shall implement the rules in this Section identified as being 

9 necessary by the analysis by notice in the North Carolina Register. The notice shall identify the rules that are to be implemented and shall 

10 identify whether the rules implemented are to apply in Davidson, Forsyth, or Guilford County or that part of Davie County bounded by the 

11 Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River or any combination thereof. At 

12 least one week before the scheduled publication date of the North Carolina Register containing the Director's notice implementing rules in 

13 this Section, the Director shall send written notification to all permitted facilities within the county in which the rules are being implemented 

14 that are or may be subject to the requirements of this Section informing them that they are or may be subject to the requirements of this 

15 Section. (For Forsyth County, "Director" means for the purpose of notifying permitted facilities in Forsyth County, the Director of the 

16 Forsyth County local air pollution control program.) Compliance shall be in accordance with Rule .0909 of this Section.

17 (g) If a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone is measured in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 in Durham or Wake County or 

18 Dutchville Township in Granville County, the Director shall initiate analysis to determine the control measures needed to attain and 

19 maintain the ambient air quality standard for ozone. By the following May 1, the Director shall implement the specific stationary source 

20 control measures contained in this Section that are required as part of the control strategy necessary to bring the area into compliance and to 

21 maintain compliance with the ambient air quality standard for ozone. The Director shall implement the rules in this Section identified as 

22 being necessary by the analysis by notice in the North Carolina Register. The notice shall identify the rules that are to be implemented and 

23 shall identify whether the rules implemented are to apply in Durham or Wake County or Dutchville Township in Granville County or any 

24 combination thereof. At least one week before the scheduled publication date of the North Carolina Register containing the Director's 

25 notice implementing rules in this Section, the Director shall send written notification to all permitted facilities within the county in which 

26 the rules are being implemented that are or may be subject to the requirements of this Section informing them that they are or may be 

27 subject to the requirements of this Section. Compliance shall be in accordance with Rule .0909 of this Section.

28 (h) If EPA reclassifies the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill ozone nonattainment area as serious for ozone under Section 182 of the federal 

29 Clean Air Act, the rules in this Section shall apply to facilities in Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Union Counties and 

30 Davidson and Coddle Creek townships in Iredell County with the potential to emit at least 50 tons but less than 100 tons of volatile organic 

31 compounds per year. Within 60 days of the reclassification, the Director shall notice the applicability of these Rules to these facilities in the 

32 North Carolina Register and shall send written notification to all permitted facilities within the counties in which the rules are being 

33 implemented that are or may be subject to the requirements of this Section informing them that they are or may be subject to the 

34 requirements of this Section. (For Mecklenburg County, "Director" means for the purpose of notifying permitted facilities in Mecklenburg 

35 County, the Director of the Mecklenburg County local air pollution control program.) Compliance shall be according to Rule .0909 of this 

36 Section. 

37 (i) Sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds are not subject to limitation under this Section may still be subject to emission 

38 limits on volatile organic compounds in Rules .0524, .1110, or .1111 of this Subchapter. 

 39 

40 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 41 

42 15A NCAC 02D .0909 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

43 

44 15A NCAC 02D .0909 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR SOURCES IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS 

45 (a) Applicability. With the exceptions in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, this Rule applies to all sources covered by Paragraph (e), (f), (g), or (h)

46 (f) or (h) of Rule .0902 of this Section. 

47 (b) Exceptions. This Rule does not apply to: to 

48 (1) sources in Mecklenburg County required to comply with the requirements of this Section under Rule .0902(d) of this 

49 Section; or

50 (2) sources required to comply with the requirements of this Section under Paragraph (e) of Rule .0902(c) .0902 of this 

51 Section. 

52 (c) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone nonattainment area contingency plan. The owner or operator of any source subject to this Rule 

53 because of the application of Paragraph (f), (g), or (h) (h) of Rule .0902 of this Section shall adhere to the following increments of progress 

54 and schedules: 

55 (1) if compliance is to be achieved by installing emission control equipment, replacing process equipment, or modifying 

56 existing process equipment: 

A-30 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-3 

1 (A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit application and a compliance schedule within six months after the 

2 Director notices the implementation of rules in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the 

3 ambient air quality standard for ozone; 

4 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments of progress: 

5 (i) a date by which contracts for the emission control system and process equipment shall be awarded or 

6 orders shall be issued for purchase of component parts; 

7 (ii) a date by which on-site construction or installation of the emission control and process equipment shall 

8 begin; and 

9 (iii) a date by which on-site construction or installation of the emission control and process equipment shall 

10 be completed; 

11 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved within three years after the Director notices the implementation of rules in 

12 the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone. 

13 (2) if compliance is to be achieved by using low solvent content coating technology: 

14 (A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit application and a compliance schedule within six months after the 

15 Director notices the implementation of rules in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the 

16 ambient air quality standard for ozone; 

17 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments: 

18 (i) a date by which research and development of low solvent content coating shall be completed if the 

19 Director determines that low solvent content coating technology has not been sufficiently researched 

20 and developed; 

21 (ii) a date by which evaluation of product quality and commercial acceptance shall be completed; 

22 (iii) a date by which purchase orders shall be issued for low solvent content coatings and process 

23 modifications; 

24 (iv) a date by which process modifications shall be initiated; and 

25 (v) a date by which process modifications shall be completed and use of low solvent content coatings shall 

26 begin; 

27 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved within three years after the Director notices the implementation of rules in 

28 the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone. 

29 (3) The owner or operator shall certify to the Director within five days after each increment deadline of progress in this 

30 Paragraph, whether the required increment of progress has been met. 

31 (d) Nonattainment areas. The owner or operator of any source subject to this Rule because of the application of Paragraph (e)(f) of Rule 

32 .0902 of this Section shall adhere to the following increments of progress and schedules: 

33 (1) if compliance is to be achieved by installing emission control equipment, replacing process equipment, or modifying 

34 existing process equipment: 

35 (A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit application and a compliance schedule by August 1, 2007; 

36 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments of progress: 

37 (i) a date by which contracts for the emission control system and process equipment shall be awarded or 

38 orders shall be issued for purchase of component parts; 

39 (ii) a date by which on-site construction or installation of the emission control and process equipment shall 

40 begin; and 

41 (iii) a date by which on-site construction or installation of the emission control and process equipment shall 

42 be completed. 

43 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved no later than April 1, 2009. 

44 (2) if compliance is to be achieved by using low solvent content coating technology: 

45 (A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit application and a compliance schedule by August 1, 2007; 

46 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments: 

47 (i) a date by which research and development of low solvent content coating shall be completed if the 

48 Directo r determines that low solvent content coating technology has not been sufficiently researched 

49 and developed; 

50 (ii) a date by which evaluation of product quality and commercial acceptance shall be completed; 

51 (iii) a date by which purchase orders shall be issued for low solvent content coatings and process 

52 modifications; 

53 (iv) a date by which process modifications shall be initiated; and 

54 (v) a date by which process modifications shall be completed and use of low solvent content coatings shall 

55 begin. 

56 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved no later than April 1, 2009. 

57 (3) The owner or operator shall certify to the Director within five days after the deadline, for each increment of progress in 

58 this Paragraph, whether the required increment of progress has been met. 

A-31 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-4 

1 (e) If the Director requires a test to demonstrate that compliance has been achieved, the owner or operator of sources subject to this Rule 

2 shall conduct a test and submit a final test report within six months after the stated date of final compliance. 

3 (f) Sources already in compliance. 

4 (1) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone nonattainment area contingency plan. Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall not apply to 

5 sources that are in compliance with applicable rules of this Section when the Director notices the implementation of rules 

6 in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone and that have 

7 determined and certified compliance to the satisfaction of the Director within six months after the Director notices the 

8 implementation of rules in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for 

9 ozone. 

10 (2) Nonattainment areas. Paragraphs (d) of this Rule shall not apply to sources in an area named in Paragraph (e)(f) of Rule 

11 .0902 of this Section that are in compliance with applicable rules of this Section on March 1, 2007. 

12 (g) New sources. 

13 (1) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone nonattainment area contingency plan. The owner or operator of any new source of 

14 volatile organic compounds not in existence or under construction before the date that the Director notices in the North 

15 Carolina Register in accordance with Paragraph (f), (g), or (h) (h) of Rule .0902 of this Section the implementation of 

16 rules in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone, shall comply 

17 with all applicable rules in this Section upon start-up of the source. 

18 (2) Nonattainment areas. The owner or operator of any new source of volatile organic compounds not in existence or under 

19 construction before March 1, 2007 in an area identified in Paragraph (e) (f) of Rule .0902 shall comply with all 

20 applicable rules in this Section upon start-up of the source. 

 21 

22 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 23 

24 15A NCAC 02D .0917 is proposed for repeal as follows: 

25 

26 15A NCAC 02D .0917 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURING 

27 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

28 (1) "Application area" means the area where the coating is applied by dipping or spraying.

29 (2) "Manufacturing plant" means a facility where auto body parts are manufactured or finished for eventual inclusion into a 

30 finished product ready for sale to vehicle dealers. Customizers, body shops and other repainters are not part of this 

31 definition.

32 (3) "Automobile" means all passenger cars or passenger car derivatives capable of seating 12 or fewer passengers.

33 (4) "Light-duty trucks" means any motor vehicles rated at 8,500 pounds gross weight or less which are designed primarily 

34 for purpose of transportation or are derivatives of such vehicles except automobiles.

35 (b) This Rule applies to the application area(s), flashoff area(s), and oven(s), of automotive and light-duty truck manufacturing plants 

36 involved in prime, topcoat and final repair coating operations.

37 (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from any automotive or light-duty 

38 truck manufacturing plant coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

39 (1) 1.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the applicator from prime application, flashoff 

40 area, and oven operations;

41 (2) 4.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the applicator from topcoat and surface 

42 application, flashoff area, and oven operation;

43 (3) 13.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the applicator from final repair application, 

44 flashoff area, and oven operation.

45 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this Subchapter and which has 

46 installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 

47 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

48 organic compounds from any automotive or light-duty truck manufacturing plant coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

49 (1) 1.2 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the 

50 applicator from prime application, flashoff area, and oven operations;

51 (2) 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, daily weighted average, excluding water and exempt 

52 compounds, delivered to the applicator from topcoat and surface application, flashoff area, and oven operation;

53 (3) 4.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the 

54 applicator from final repair application, flashoff area, and oven operation.

 55 

56 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 57 

58 15A NCAC 02D .0920 is proposed for repeal as follows: 

A-32 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-5 

1 

2 15A NCAC 02D .0920 PAPER COATINGS 

3 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

4 (1) "Knife coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of drawing the substrate beneath a 

5 knife that spreads the coating evenly over the full width of the substrate.

6 (2) "Paper coating" means decorative, protective, or functional coatings put on paper and pressure sensitive tapes regardless 

7 of substrate. The coatings shall be distributed uniformly across the web. Related web coating processes on plastic film 

8 and decorative coatings on metal foil are included in this definition. Saturation operations are included in this definition.

9 (3) "Roll coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of hard rubber or steel rolls.

10 (4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of a roll coating technique in 

11 which the substance to be applied is temporarily retained in etchings on the coating roll. The coating material is picked 

12 up in these recessed areas and is transferred to the substrate.

13 (b) This Rule applies to roll, knife or rotogravure coater(s) and drying oven(s) of paper coating lines.

14 (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from any paper coating line subject to 

15 this Rule shall not exceed 4.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator from a paper 

16 coating line.

17 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518 (e) of this Subchapter and which 

18 has installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 

19 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

20 organic compounds from any paper coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed 2.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of 

21 coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the coating applicator from a paper coating line.

 22 

23 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 24 

25 15A NCAC 02D .0921 IS proposed for repeal as follows: 

26 

27 15A NCAC 02D .0921 FABRIC AND VINYL COATING 

28 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

29 (1) "Fabric coating" means applying protective or functional coatings to a textile substance with a knife, roll, rotogravure, 

30 rotary screen, or flat screen coater to impart properties that are not initially present, such as strength, stability, water or

31 acid repellency, or appearance. Printing on textile fabric for decorative or other purposes is not part of this definition. 

32 Saturation operations are included in this definition.

33 (2) "Knife coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of drawing the substrate beneath a 

34 knife which spreads the coating evenly over the full width of the substrate.

35 (3) "Roll coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of hard rubber or steel rolls.

36 (4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of a roll coating technique in 

37 which the pattern to be applied is etched on the coating roll. The coating material is picked up in these recessed areas 

38 and is transferred to the substrate.

39 (5) "Vinyl coating" means applying a functional, decorative, or protective topcoat, or printing on vinyl coated fabric or vinyl 

40 sheets.

41 (6) "Rotary screen or flat screen coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of masking the 

42 surface and applying a color or finish using a screen either in flat form or rotary form.

43 (b) This Rule applies to roll, knife, rotogravure, rotary screen, or flat screen coater(s) and drying oven(s) of fabric and vinyl coating lines.

44 (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from any fabric coating line or vinyl 

45 coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

46 (1) 4.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator from a fabric coating 

47 line;

48 (2) 7.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator from a vinyl coating 

49 line.

50 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this Subchapter and which has 

51 installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 

52 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

53 organic compounds from any fabric coating line or vinyl coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

54 (1) 2.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the 

55 coating applicator from a fabric coating line;

56 (2) 3.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the 

57 coating applicator from a vinyl coating line.

 58 

A-33 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-6 

1 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5) 

 2 

3 15A NCAC 02D .0922 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

4 

5 15A NCAC 02D .0922 METAL FURNITURE COATINGS 

6 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 

7 (1) "Application area" means the area where the coating is applied by spraying, dipping, or flowcoating techniques. 

8 (2) "Coating unit" means one or more coating areas and any associated drying area and/or oven wherein a coating is applied, 

9 dried, or cured. 

10 (2)(3) "Metal furniture coating" coatings" means the surface coating of any furniture made of metal or any metal part which will 

11 be assembled with other metal, wood, fabric, plastic, or glass parts to form a furniture piece. paints, sealants, caulks, inks, 

12 adhesives, and maskants. 

13 (b) This Rule applies to application area(s), flashoff area(s), and oven(s) of metal furniture coating lines involved in prime and topcoat or 

14 single coating operations. each metal furniture surface coating unit source whose emissions of volatile organic compounds exceeds the 

15 threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 

16 (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d)(f) of this Rule, emissions of all volatile organic compounds from metal furniture coating line

17 unit subject to this Rule shall not exceed: exceed 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating 

18 applicator from prime and topcoat or single coat operations: 

19 (1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating excluding water and exempt compounds (3.3 pounds of 

20 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) delivered from general, one component or general, multi-component 

21 types of coating operations; and

22 (2) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating excluding water and exempt compounds (5.1 pounds of 

23 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) delivered from any other types of coating operations.

24 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this Subchapter and which has 

25 installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 

26 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

27 organic compounds from any metal furniture coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

28 gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the coating applicator from prime and topcoat or single coat 

29 operations.

30 (d) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

31 materials used at metal furniture surface coating units unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds 

32 content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

33 (e) Emissions limits established in Subparagraph (c)(2) of this Rule do not apply to stencil coatings, safety-indicating coatings, solid film 

34 lubricants, electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coatings, touch up and repair coatings, coating application utilizing hand- held aerosol 

35 cans, or cleaning operations. 

36 (f) Any coating unit which has chosen to use add-on control for coating operations rather than the emission limits established in Paragraph 

37 (c) of this Rule shall install control equipment with an overall control efficiency of 90 percent or use a combination of coating and add-on 

38 control equipment on a coating unit to meet limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. 

39 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

 40 

41 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

42 

43 15A NCAC 02D .0923 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

44 

45 15A NCAC 02D .0923 SURFACE COATING OF LARGE APPLIANCE PARTS 

46 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 

47 (1) "Application area" means the area where the coating is applied by spraying, dipping, or flow coating techniques. 

48 (2) "Single coat" means a single film of coating applied directly to the metal substrate omitting the primer application. 

49 (2) "Coating" means paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants.

50 (2)(3) "Coating unit" means a unit that consists of a series of one or more coating applicators and any associated drying area or 

51 oven where a coating is dried, or cured.

52 (3)(4) "Large appliances" appliance part" means doors, cases, lids, panels, and interior support parts of residential and 

53 commercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, dishwashers, trash compactors, air 

54 conditioners, and other similar products. any organic surface-coated metal lid, door, casing, panel, or other interior or 

55 exterior metal part or accessory that is assembled to form a large appliance product. 

56 (4)(5) "Large appliance product" means any organic surface-coated metal range, oven, microwave oven, refrigerator, freezer, 

57 washer, dryer, dishwasher, water heater, or trash compactor manufactured for household, commercial, or recreational use.

A-34 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-7 

1 (b) This Rule applies to application area(s), flashoff area(s), and oven(s) of large appliance coating lines involved in prime, single, or 

2 topcoat coating operations. each large appliance coating unit source whose volatile organic compounds emissions exceed the threshold 

3 established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 

4 (c) This Rule does not apply to the use of quick-drying lacquers for repair of scratches and nicks, which occur during assembly, if the 

5 volume of coating does not exceed one quart in any eight-hour period. 

6 (d)(c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule, emissions Emissions of all volatile organic compounds from any large 

7 appliance coating line unit subject to this Rule shall not exceed: exceed 4.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids 

8 delivered to the coating applicator from prime, single, or topcoat coating operations.

9 (1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds (3.3 pounds of 

10 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) delivered from general, one component coating or general, multi11 component types of coating operations; and

12 (2) 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds (4.5 pounds of 

13 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) delivered from any other types of coating operations.

14 (e) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518 (e) of this Subchapter and which 

15 has installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 

16 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (d) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

17 organic compounds from any large appliance coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

18 gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the coating applicator from prime, single, or topcoat any coating 

19 operations. 

20 (d) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

21 materials used at surface coating of large appliances parts facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

22 compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

23 (e) Emissions limits established in Subparagraph (c)(2) of this Rule do not apply to stencil coatings, safety-indicating coatings, solid film 

24 lubricants, electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coatings, touch up and repair coatings, coating applications utilizing hand- held 

25 aerosol cans, or any cleaning material. 

26 (f) Any coating unit which has chosen to use add-on controls for coating operations rather than the emission limits established in Paragraph 

27 (c) of this Rule shall install control equipment with an overall control efficiency of 90 percent or use a combination of coating and add-on 

28 control equipment on a coating unit to meet limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule.

29 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

 30 

31 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 32 

33 15A NCAC 02D .0934 is proposed for repeal as follows: 

34 

35 15A NCAC 02D .0934 COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS 

36 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

37 (1) "Heat sensitive material" means materials that cannot be exposed to temperatures greater than 180°F to 200°F.

38 (2) "Air dried coating" means coatings which are dried by the use of air or a forced air drier.

39 (3) "Clear coat" means a coating which lacks color and opacity.

40 (4) "Extreme performance coatings" means coatings designed for harsh exposure or extreme environmental conditions.

41 (5) "Extreme environmental conditions" means exposure to:

42 (A) the weather at all times;

43 (B) temperatures consistently above 203°F;

44 (C) detergents, scouring, solvents, or corrosive atmospheres; or

45 (D) other similar environmental conditions.

46 (b) This Rule applies to application areas, flashoff areas, ovens and other processes that are used in the coating of metal parts and products 

47 of the following types of manufacturing plants:

48 (1) large farm machinery including harvesting, fertilizing and planting machines, tractors, combines, and other similar 

49 machines;

50 (2) small farm machinery including lawn and garden tractors, lawn mowers, rototillers, and other similar machines;

51 (3) small appliances including fans, mixers, blenders, crock pots, dehumidifiers, vacuum cleaners, and other similar 

52 machines;

53 (4) commercial machinery including computers and auxiliary equipment, typewriters, calculators, vending machines, and 

54 other similar machines;

55 (5) industrial machinery including pumps, compressors, conveyor components, fans, blowers, transformers, and other similar 

56 machines;

57 (6) fabricated metal products including metal covered doors, frames and other similar structures; and

58 (7) any other manufacturing plant that coats metal parts or products.

A-35 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-8 

1 (c) This Rule does not apply to:

2 (1) sources covered by Rules .0917, .0918, .0919, .0922, .0923, and .0924 of this Section;

3 (2) architectural and maintenance coating;

4 (3) coating of airplane exterior;

5 (4) automobile refinishing;

6 (5) customized coating of automobiles and trucks; or

7 (6) exterior of marine vessels.

8 (d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from any coating line subject to this 

9 Rule shall not exceed:

10 (1) 10.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator that applies clear 

11 coatings;

12 (2) 6.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator in a coating application 

13 system that utilized air or forced air driers;

14 (3) 6.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator that applies extreme 

15 performance coatings;

16 (4) 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator that applies coatings of 

17 five or more color changes or of five or more colors or applies the coating that is the first coat on untreated ferrous 

18 substrate; or

19 (5) where there are less than five color changes and less than five colors are applied:

20 (A) 0.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator that applies 

21 powder coatings; or

22 (B) 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator for any other 

23 type of coating. Whenever more than one of the aforementioned emission limitations may apply to a process, 

24 then the least stringent emission limitation shall apply to the process.

25 (e) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this Subchapter and which has 

26 installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 

27 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (d) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

28 organic compounds from any coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

29 (1) 4.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 

30 coating applicator that applies clear coatings; 

31 (2) 3.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 

32 coating applicator in a coating application system that utilized air or forced air driers;

33 (3) 3.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 

34 coating applicator that applies extreme performance coatings;

35 (4) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 

36 coating applicator that applies coatings of five or more color changes or of five or more colors or applies the coating that 

37 is the first coat on untreated ferrous substrate; or

38 (5) where there are less than five color changes and less than five colors are applied:

39 (A) 0.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, 

40 delivered to a coating applicator that applies powder coatings; or 

41 (B) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon, excluding water and exempt solvents, delivered to a 

42 coating applicator for any other type of coating.

43 Whenever more than one of the aforementioned emission limitations may apply to a process, then the least stringent emission limitation 

44 shall apply to the process.

 45 

46 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

47 

48 15A NCAC 02D .0935 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

49 

50 15A NCAC 02D .0935 FACTORY SURFACE COATING OF FLAT WOOD PANELING 

51 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 

52 (1) "Class II hardboard paneling finishes" means finishes which meet the specifications of Voluntary Product Standard PS53 59-73 as approved by the American National Standards Institute.

54 (1) Flat wood paneling coatings means wood paneling product that are any interior, exterior or tileboard (class I hardboard) 

55 panel to which a protective, decorative, or functional material or layer has been applied.

56 (2) "Hardboard" is a panel manufactured primarily from inter-felted lignocellulosic fibers which are consolidated under heat 

57 and pressure in a hot-press.

A-36 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-9 

1 (2) "Hardboard" is a panel manufactured primarily from inter-felted lignocellulosic fibers which are consolidated under heat 

2 and pressure in a hot-press.

3 (3) "Hardwood plywood" means plywood whose surface layer is a veneer of hardwood.

4 (4) "Natural finish hardwood plywood panel" means a panel whose original grain pattern is enhanced by essentially 

5 transparent finishes frequently supplemented by fillers and toners.

6 (5) "Particle board" means a manufactured board made of individual wood particles which have been coated with a binder 

7 and formed into flat sheets by pressure. Thin particleboard has a thickness of one-fourth inch or less.

8 (6) "Printed panel" means a panel whose grain or natural surface is obscured by fillers and basecoats upon which a simulated 

9 grain or decorative pattern is printed.

10 (7) (2)(3) "Tileboard" means paneling that has a colored waterproof surface coating a premium interior wall paneling 

11 product made of hardboard that is used in high moisture area of the home. 

12 (b) This Rule applies to factory finishing of the following flat wood products: each flat wood paneling coatings source whose volatile 

13 organic compounds emissions exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) at the facilities with flat wood paneling coating 

14 applications for the following products:

15 (1) class II finishes on hardboard panels;

16 (2) exterior siding; 

17 (3) natural finish hardwood plywood panels;

18 (1)(4) printed decorative interior wall interior panels made of hardwood plywood hardwood, plywood, and thin particleboard; 

19 panels made of hardwood, plywood, or thin particleboard;

20 (2) natural finish hardwood plywood panels; and

21 (2) exterior siding made of solid wood, hardboard, or waferboard; and

22 (3) class II finishes of hardboard paneling.

23 (3)(5) tileboard made of hardboard. 

24 (c) This Rule does not apply to the following factory finished flat wood products:

25 (1) exterior siding,

26 (2) tileboard,

27 (3) particleboard used in cabinetry or furniture,

28 (4) insulation board, or

29 (5) softwood plywood.

30 (d)(c) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any factory finished flat wood product operation subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

31 exceed 2.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon material excluding water and exempt compounds (2.9 pounds of volatile 

32 organic compounds per gallon solids.)

33 (1) 6.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 1,000 square feet of coated finished product of printed interior wall panels 

34 made of hardwood plywood and thin particle board, or

35 (2) 12.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 1,000 square feet of coated finished product of natural finish hardwood 

36 plywood panels, or

37 (3) 10.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 1,000 square feet of coated finished product of class II finishes on 

38 hardboard paneling.

39 (d) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

40 materials used at surface coating of flat wood paneling facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

41 compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

42 (e) Any facility that meet definition of Paragraph (b) of this Rule and which has chosen to use add-on controls for flat wood paneling 

43 coating operation rather than the emission limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall install control equipment with an overall 

44 control efficiency of 90 percent or use a combination of coating and add-on control equipment on a flat wood paneling coating operation to 

45 meet limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. 

46 (f) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

 47 

48 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 49 

50 15A NCAC 02D .0936 is proposed for repeal as follows: 

51 

52 15A NCAC 02D .0936 GRAPHIC ARTS 

53 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

54 (1) "Flexographic printing" means the application of words, designs and pictures to a substrate by means of a roll printing 

55 technique in which both the pattern to be applied is raised above the printing roll and the image carrier is made of rubber 

56 or other elastometric materials.

57 (2) "Packaging rotogravure printing" means printing with a gravure press upon paper, paper board, metal foil, plastic film, 

58 and other substrates, which are, in subsequent operation, formed into containers and labels for articles to be sold.

A-37 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-10 

1 (3) "Printing" means the formation of words, designs and pictures, usually by a series of application rolls each with only 

2 partial coverage.

3 (4) "Publication rotogravure printing" means printing upon paper which is subsequently formed into books, magazines, 

4 catalogues, brochures, directories, newspaper supplements, and other types of printed materials.

5 (5) "Roll printing" means the application of words, designs and pictures to a substrate by means of hard rubber or steel rolls.

6 (b) This Rule applies to:

7 (1) flexographic printing, packaging rotogravure printing and publication rotogravure printing operations; or

8 (2) machines that have both coating units and printing units.

9 (c) This Rule does not apply to facilities where the potential emissions of volatile organic compounds is less than 100 tons per year.

10 (d) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any printing press or drying oven of a printing operation subject to this Rule shall not be 

11 discharged into the atmosphere unless:

12 (1) The captured volatile organic compound emissions are reduced by at least 90 percent by an incineration system or 95 

13 percent by a carbon adsorption system or any other control system; and:

14 (A) For packaging rotogravure printing operations, at least 65 percent overall reduction of the volatile organic 

15 compound emissions is achieved;

16 (B) For publication rotogravure printing operations at least 75 percent overall reduction of the volatile organic 

17 compound emissions is achieved; and

18 (C) For flexographic printing operations, at least 60 percent overall reduction of the volatile organic compound 

19 emissions is achieved;

20 (2) The solvent portion of the ink, as it is applied on the substrate, consists of at least 75 percent water by volume and no 

21 more than 25 percent organic solvent by volume;

22 (3) The ink contains by volume at least 60 percent nonvolatile material;

23 (4) The printing system uses a combination of solvent-borne and water-borne ink such that at least a 70 percent by volume 

24 overall reduction in solvent usage is achieved when compared to all solvent-borne ink usage, or

25 (5) The ink, including any solvents that may be added to it, contains no more than 0.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds 

26 per pound of solids in the ink; only flexographic printing and packaging rotogravure printing may use this option.

27 (e) When a facility complies with this Rule using the provision of Subparagraph (d)(4) of this Rule, the permit shall contain a condition 

28 stating the maximum quantity of solvent-borne ink that each printing unit may use or that the facility as a whole may use.

29 (f) Equivalency calculations for emissions trading, cross-line averaging, or determining compliance with add-on control equipment shall be 

30 performed in units of pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids.

 31 

32 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

33 

34 15A NCAC 02D .0951 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

35 

36 15A NCAC 02D .0951 MISCELLANEOUS VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS 

37 (a) With the exceptions in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, this Rule applies to all facilities that use volatile organic compounds as solvents, 

38 carriers, material processing media, or industrial chemical reactants, or in other similar uses, or that mix, blend, or manufacture volatile 

39 organic compounds for which there is no other applicable emissions control rule in this Section except Rule .0958 of this Section. If the 

40 only other applicable emissions control rule for the facility in this Section is Rule .0958, then both this Rule and Rule .0958 apply. 

41 (b) This Rule does not apply to architectural or maintenance coating. 

42 (c) The owner or operator of any facility to which this Rule applies shall: 

43 (1) install and operate reasonable available control technology; or 

44 (2) limit emissions of volatile organic compounds from coating lines not covered by Rules .0917 through .0922, .0923, 

45 .0924, .0934, or .0935 .0935, 0936 or .0961 through .0968 from this Section to no more than 6.7 pounds of volatile 

46 organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator. 

47 (d) If the owner or operator of a facility chooses to install reasonable available control technology under Subparagraph (c)(1) of this Rule, 

48 the owner or operator shall submit: 

49 (1) the name and location of the facility; 

50 (2) information identifying the source for which a reasonable available control technology limitation or standard is being 

51 proposed; 

52 (3) a demonstration that shows the proposed reasonable available control technology limitation or standard satisfies the 

53 requirements for reasonable available control technology; and 

54 (4) a proposal for demonstrating compliance with the proposed reasonable control technology limitation or standard. 

 55 

56 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

57 

58 15A NCAC 02D .0952 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

A-38 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-11 

1 

2 15A NCAC 02D .0952 PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE CONTROLS FOR RACT 

3 (a) With the exception in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, this This Rule applies to all sources covered under this Section. 

4 (b) This Rule does not apply to sources in Mecklenburg County to which Rules .0917 through .0937 of this Section apply and which are 

5 located at a facility where the total potential emissions of volatile organic compounds from all stationary sources at the facility are greater 

6 than or equal to 100 tons per year.

7 (c)(b) If the owner or operator of any source of volatile organic compounds subject to the requirements of this Section, can demonstrate that 

8 compliance with rules in this Section would be technologically or economically infeasible, he may petition the Director to allow the use of 

9 alternative operational or equipment controls for the reduction of volatile organic compound emissions. Petition shall be made for each 

10 source to the Director. 

11 (d)(c) The petition shall contain: 

12 (1) the name and address of the company and the name and telephone number of a company officer over whose signature the 

13 petition is submitted; 

14 (2) a description of all operations conducted at the location to which the petition applies and the purpose that the volatile 

15 organic compound emitting equipment serves within the operations; 

16 (3) reference to the specific operational and equipment controls under the rules of this Section for which alternative 

17 operational or equipment controls are proposed; 

18 (4) a description of the proposed alternative operational or equipment controls, the magnitude of volatile organic compound 

19 emission reduction that will be achieved, and the quantity and composition of volatile organic compounds that will be 

20 emitted if the alternative operational or equipment controls are instituted; 

21 (5) a plan, which will be instituted in addition to the proposed alternative operational or equipment controls, to reduce, where 

22 technologically and economically feasible, volatile organic compound emissions from other source operations at the 

23 facility, further than that required under the rules of this Section, if these sources exist at the facility, such that aggregate 

24 volatile organic compound emissions from the facility will in no case be greater through application of the alternative 

25 control than would be allowed through conformance with the rules of this Section; 

26 (6) a schedule for the installation or institution of the alternative operational or equipment controls in conformance with Rule 

27 .0909 of this Section, as applicable; and 

28 (7) certification that emissions of all other air contaminants from the subject source are in compliance with all applicable 

29 local, state and federal laws and regulations. 

30 The petition may include a copy of the permit application and need not duplicate information in the permit application. 

31 (e)(d) The Director shall approve a petition for alternative control if: 

32 (1) The petition is submitted in accordance with Paragraph (d) of this Rule; 

33 (2) The Director determines that the petitioner cannot comply with the rules in question because of technological or 

34 economical infeasibility; 

35 (3) All other air contaminant emissions from the facility are in compliance with, or under a schedule for compliance as 

36 expeditiously as practicable with, all applicable local, state, and federal regulations; and 

37 (4) The petition contains a schedule for achieving and maintaining reduction of volatile organic compound emissions to the 

38 maximum extent feasible and as expeditiously as practicable. 

39 (f)(e) When controls different from those specified in the appropriate emission standards in this Section are approved by the Director, the 

40 permit shall contain a condition stating such controls. 

 41 

42 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

43 

44 15A NCAC 02D .0961 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

45 

46 15A NCAC 02D .0961 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING AND LETTERPRESS PRINTING 

47 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

48 (1) “Composite partial vapor pressure” means the sum of the partial pressure of the compounds defined as volatile organic 

49 compounds. Volatile organic compounds composite 

50 vapor pressure is calculated as follows:

 51 

 ∑

∑ =

=

++

=

n

i

n

i i

i

c

c

w

w

ii i

c

MW

W

MW

W

MW

W

MWVPW PP

1

1

/))(( 52 

53 

54 Where:

55 Wi = Weight of the ”the volatile organic compounds, in grams

A-39 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-12 

1 Ww = Weight of water, in grams

2 Wc = Weight of exempt compound, in grams

3 Mwi = Molecular weight of the “i”th volatile organic compounds, in g/g-mole

4 MWw= Molecular weight of water, in g/g-mole

5 MWc= Molecular weight of exempt compound, in g/g-mole

6 PPc = Volatile organic compounds composite partial vapor pressure at 20°C (68°F), in mm Hg

7 Vpi = Vapor pressure of the “i”th volatile organic compounds at 20°C (68°F), in mm Hg

8 

9 (1)(2) "First installation date" means the actual date when this control device becomes operational. This date does not change if 

10 the control device is later redirected to a new press

11 (2)(3) "Fountain solution" means water-based solution that applies to lithographic plate to render the non-image areas 

12 unreceptive to the ink.

13 (4) “Heatset” means any operation in which heat is required to evaporate ink oils from the printing ink, excluding ultraviolet 

14 (UV) curing, electron beam curing and infrared drying.

15 (3)(5) "Letterpress printing" means a printing process in which the image area is raised relative to the non-image area and the 

16 paste ink is transferred to the substrate directly from the image surface.

17 (6) “Non-heatset” means a lithographic printing process where the printing inks are set by absorption and/or oxidation of the 

18 ink oil, not by evaporation of the ink oils in a dryer. For the purposes of this rule, use of an infrared heater or printing 

19 conducted using ultraviolet-cured or electron beam-cured inks is considered non-heatset. 

20 (4)(7) "Offset lithography" means an indirect method of printing when ink transferred from the lithographic plate to a rubber21 covered intermediate "blanket" cylinder and then transferred from the blanket cylinder to the substrate.

22 (8) “Press” means a printing production assembly composed of one or more units used to produce a printed substrate 

23 including any associated coating, spray powder application, heatset web dryer, ultraviolet or electron beam curing units, 

24 or infrared heating units.

25 (5)(9) " Sheet-fed printing " means an indirect method of printing when ink transferred from the lithographic plate to a rubber26 covered intermediate "blanket" cylinder and then transferred from the blanket cylinder to the substrate.

27 (6)(10) "Web printing" means printing when continuous rolls of substrate material are fed to the press and rewound or cut to size 

28 after printing.

29 (b) This Rule applies to any offset lithographic and any letterpress printing operations sources whose emissions of volatile organic 

30 compounds exceed the threshold established in Subparagraph Subparagraphs15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 02D .0902(b). and (f) and not 

31 covered by 15A NCAC 02D .0966(c)(1).

32 (c) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution from on-press (as-applied) for heatset web offset lithographic printing shall 

33 not exceed 1.6 percent alcohol (by weight) in the fountain solutionor equivalent. This level of control for volatile organic compounds shall 

34 be achieved by: 

35 (1) reducing the on-press (as-applied) alcohol content to 1.6 percent alcohol or less (by weight); or 

36 (2) use three percent alcohol or less (by weight) the on-press (as-applied) in the fountain solution if the fountain solution is 

37 refrigerated to below 60°F; or

38 (3) use five percent alcohol substitute or less (by weight) the on-press (as-applied) and no alcohol in the in the fountain 

39 solution.

40 (d) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution from on-press (as-applied) sheet-fed lithographic printing shall not exceed

41 five percent alcohol (by weight) in the fountain or equivalent. This level of control for volatile organic compounds shall be achieved by: 

42 (1) reducing the on-press (as-applied) alcohol content to five percent alcohol or less (by weight); or 

43 (2) use 8.5 percent alcohol or less (by weight) the on-press (as-applied) in the fountain solution if the fountain solution is 

44 refrigerated to below 60°F; or

45 (3) use five percent alcohol substitute or less (by weight) the on-press (as-applied) and no alcohol in the in the fountain 

46 solution.

47 (e) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution from on-press (as-applied) coldest non-heatset web offset lithographic 

48 printing shall not exceed five percent alcohol substitute or less (by weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution. 

49 (f) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any single letterpress printing heatset press subject to this Rule shall not exceed 25 tons 

50 per year. This level of control shall be achieved by using petroleum ink oil with volatile organic compounds content 31.25 tons per year 

51 volatile organic compounds or less because of the 20 percent ink oil retention.

52 (g) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating

53 the materials used at offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the 

54 volatile organic compounds content of coating the materials from the manufacturer. 

55 (h) Any single letterpress printing heatset dryer owner or operator subject to this Rule, who has chosen to use add-on control for letterpress 

56 printing operation rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (f) of this Rule shall install control equipment 

57 with: 

58 (1) 90 percent control efficiency for a control device whose first installation date was prior to July 1, 2010; or

A-40 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-13 

1 (2) 95 percent control efficiency for a control device whose first installation date was on or after July 1, 2010. 2010

2 (3) when the inlet VOC concentration is low or there is no identifiable measurable inlet, the control device outlet 

3 concentration shall be reduced to 20 ppmv as hexane on a dry basis; 

4 (4) VOC capture efficiency can be demonstrated by showing that the dryer is operating at negative pressure relative to the 

5 surrounding pressroom. The capture efficiency for VOC can be assumed to be 100 percent of the VOC (ink oils) 

6 volatilized in the dryer. Capture efficiency test is not required in this situation

7 (i) The control limits established in: 

8 (1) Paragraph (d) shall not be applied to sheet-fed presses with maximum sheet size 11x 17 inches or smaller. smaller, or to 

9 any press with total fountain solution reservoir of less than one gallon;

10 (2) Paragraphs(c) (d), and (e), and (f) shall not be applied to sheet-fed or coldest web inks, sheet-fed or coldest web 

11 varnishes, waterborne coatings or radiation (ultra-violet light or electron beam) cured materials used on offset 

12 lithographic presses or letterpress presses; any press with total fountain solution reservoir of less than one gallon;

13 (3) Paragraph (c) and (d) (f) shall not be applied to a press with a potential to emit below 25 tons per year used for book 

14 printing, and presses with maximum web width of 22 inches or less; and

15 (4) Paragraph (f) shall not be applied to a heatset press used for book printing, and a headset heatset press with maximum 

16 web width of 22 inches or less.

17 (j) All cleaning materials used in amount more than 110 gallons per year for cleaning a press, press parts, or to remove dried ink from areas 

18 around the press shall contain less than 70 weight percent volatile organic compounds or have volatile organic compounds composite vapor 

19 pressure less than 10 mm Hg at 20°C.

20 (k) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

 21 

22 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

23 

24 15A NCAC 02D .0962 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

25 

26 15A NCAC 02D .0962 INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SOLVENTS 

27 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

28 (1) "Organic solvent" means a liquid hydrocarbon, such as methyl ethyl ketone or toluene, used to dissolve paints, varnishes, 

29 grease, oil, or other hydrocarbons.

30 (2) "Solvent cleaning" means the process of removing the excess penetrant from the surface or a part by wiping. flushing, or 

31 spraying with a solvent for the penetrant.

32 (b) This Rule applies to sources whose volatile organic compound emissions exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) 

33 from the following cleaning operations: 

34 (1) spray gun cleaning;

35 (2) spray booth cleaning;

36 (3) large manufactured components cleaning;

37 (4) parts cleaning;

38 (5) equipment cleaning;

39 (6) line cleaning;

40 (7) floor cleaning;

41 (8) tank cleaning; and

42 (9) small manufactured components cleaning.

43 (c) Cleaning operations covered by Rules .0921, .0923, .0930, .0934, .0935, .0936, .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and 

44 .0968 of this Section are exempted from the requirements of this Rule.

45 (d) Any cleaning material of the nine cleaning operations listed in Paragraph (b) of this Rule shall have:

46 (1) volatile organic compounds content that does not exceed 0.42 pounds per gallon; or

47 (2) composite vapor limit of eight millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 20 degrees Celsius. 

48 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

49 materials used in industrial cleaning solvents operations unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds 

50 content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

51 (f) Facilities which have chosen to use add-on control rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (g) of this 

52 Rule shall install control equipment with 85 percent overall efficiency. 

53 (h) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

 54 

55 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 56 

57 15A NCAC 02D .0963 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

58 

A-41 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-14 

1 15A NCAC 02D .0963 FIBERGLASS BOAT MANUFACTURING MATERIALS 

2 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

3 (1) "Closed molding" means any fabrication techniques in which pressure is used to distribute the resin through the 

4 reinforcing fabric placed between two mold surfaces to either saturate the fabric or fill the mold cavity.

5 (2) "Monomer" means a volatile organic compound that partly combines with itself, or other similar compounds, by a cross6 linking reaction to become a part of the cured resin.

7 (3) "Open molding" means the open mold which is first spray-coated with a clear or pigmented polyster resin known as a gel 

8 coat. The gel coat will become the outer surface of the finished part.

9 (b) This Rule applies to a facility that manufactures hulls or decks of boats and related parts, build molds to make fiberglass boat hulls or 

10 decks and related parts from fiberglass, or make polyester resin putties for assembling fiberglass parts and whose volatile organic 

11 compounds emissions exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) from sources for the following operations: 

12 (1) open molding and gel coat operations (including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling gel coat, 

13 and tooling resin);

14 (2) resins and gel coat mixing operations; and 

15 (3) resins and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations.

16 (c) The following activities are exempted from the provisions of this Rule:

17 (1) surface coatings applied to fiberglass boats;

18 (2) surface coatings for fiberglass and metal recreational boats (pleasure craft); and

19 (3) industrial adhesives used in the assembly of fiberglass boats.

20 (d) Volatile organic compounds content limits in resin and gel coat that are used for any molding operations listed in Paragraph (b) of this 

21 Rule and closed molding operations that do not meet the definition established in Subparagraph (a)(2) of this Rule, such as vacuum bagging 

22 operations, shall not exceed monomer volatile organic compounds limits established in Table 1:

 23 

24 Table 1 Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants Content Requirements for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations (40 CFR 63, Subpart 

25 VVVV.)

Material Application Method Limit of Weighted-Average Monomer 

VOC Content (weight percent)

Production resin Atomized (spray) 28

Production resin Nonatomized 35

Pigmented gel coat Any method 33

Clear gel coat Any method 48

Tooling resin Atomized 30

Tooling resin Nonatomized 39

Tooling gel coat Any method 40

 26 

27 The average monomer volatile organic compounds contents listed in the Table 1 shall be determined by using Equation 1:

 28 n

 ∑ (M i VOC i 29 )

 i=1 30 

 31 

32 Weighted Average Monomer VOC Content = n

 ∑ (M i 33 )

 i=1 34 

35 

Where: M i 36 = mass of open molding resin or gel coat i used in the past 12 month in an operation, megagrams.

VOC I 37 = monomer volatile organic compounds content, by weight percent, of open molding resin or gel coat i used in 

38 the past 12 month in an operation.

39 n = number of different open molding resins or gel coats used in the past 12 month in an operation.

40 (e) Molding monomer and non-monomer volatile organic compounds limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall not be applicable 

to: 41 

42 (1) production resins (including skin coat resins) that shall meet specifications for use in military vessels or shall be 

43 approved by the U.S. Coast Guard for the use in the construction of lifeboats, rescue boats, and other life saving 

44 appliances approved under 46 CFR subchapter Q, or the construction of small passenger vessels regulated by 46 CFR 

45 Subchapter T. Production resins that meet these criteria shall be applied with nonatomizing resin application equipment; 

A-42 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-15 

1 (2) production and tooling resins, and pigmented, clear, and tooling gel coat used for part or mold repair and touch up. Total 

2 resin and gel coat materials that meet these criteria shall not exceed one percent by weight of all resin and gel coat used 

3 at a facility on a 12-month rolling-average basis; or 

4 (3) pure, 100-percent vinylester resin used for skin coats that shall be applied with nonatomizing resin application equipment 

5 and with the total amount of the resin materials not exceeding five percent by weight of all resin used at a factory on 12-

6 month rolling-average basis.

7 (f) Any molding resin and gel coat operations listed in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, that a facility chooses to include into average emissions 

8 among different operations to meet numerical monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate limits rather than to comply with the 

9 emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall use:

10 (1) Equation 2 to estimate a facility-specific monomer volatile organic compounds mass emission limit (12-month rolling 

11 average). Estimations of emissions average shall be determined on 12-month rolling average basis at the end of every 

12 month (12 times per year). 

13 Equation 2:

14 Monomer VOC Limit= 46(MR) + 159(MPG) + 291(MCG) + 54(MTR) + 214(MTG)

15 Where: 

16 Monomer VOC Limit = total allowable monomer volatile organic compounds that can be emitted from the open molding 

17 operations included in the average, kilograms per 12-month period.

18 MR = mass of production resin used in the past 12 month excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams.

19 MPG= mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams.

20 MCG= mass of clear gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams

21 MTR= mass of tooling resin coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams

22 MTG = mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams

23 The numerical coefficients associated with each term on the right hand side of Equation 2 are the allowable monomer 

24 volatile organic compounds emission rate for that particular material in units of kilograms of VOC per megagrams of 

25 material used. 

26 (2) Equation 3 to demonstrate that the monomer volatile organic compounds emissions from the operations included in the 

27 average do nor exceed the emission limit calculated using Equation 2 from Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule for the same 

28 12-month period. This demonstration shall be conducted at the end of the first 12-month averaging period and at the end 

29 of every subsequent month for only those operations and materials that included in the average.

30 Equation 3:

31 Monomer VOC emissions = (PVR)(MR) + (PVPG)(MPG) + (PVCG)(MCG) + (PVTR)(MTR) + (PVTG)(MTG)

32 Where: 

33 Monomer VOC emissions = monomer volatile organic compounds emissions calculated using the monomer volatile 

34 organic compounds emission equation for each operation included in the average, 

35 kilograms.

36 PVR = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for production resin used in the past 12 

37 month, kilograms per megagram.

38 MR = Mass of production resin used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

39 PVPG = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for pigmented gel coat used in the past 

40 12 month, kilograms per megagram.

41 MPG = mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

42 PVCG = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for clear gel coat used in the past 12 

43 month, kilograms per megagram.

44 MCG = Mass of clear gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

45 PVTR = Weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for tooling resin used in the past 12 

46 month, kilograms per megagram.

47 MTR = Mass of tooling resin used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

48 PVTG = Weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for tooling gel coat used in the past 12 

49 month, kilograms per megagram.

50 MTG = Mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

51 (3) Equation 4 to compute the weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for the previous 12 

52 month for each open molding resin and gel coat operation included in the average to apply the results in Equation 3.

53 Equation 4:

54 n

 ∑ (M i PV i 55 ) 

 i=1 56 

PVOP = 57 

58 n

A-43 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-16 

 ∑ (M i 1 ) 

 i=1 2 

3 

4 Where:

5 PVOP = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for each open molding operation (PVR, 

6 PVPG, PVCG, PVTR, and PVTG) included in the average, kilograms of monomer volatile organic compounds per 

7 megagram of material applied.

M i 8 = mass or resin or gel coat i used within an operation in the past 12 month, megagrams.

9 n = number of different open molding resins and gel coats used within an operation in the past 12 month.

PV i. 10 = the monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for resin or gel coat i used within an operation in the 

11 past 12 month, kilograms of monomer volatile organic compounds per megagram of material applied. Equations 

12 in Table 2 shall be used to compute PV

 13 

14 Table 2 Compliant Materials Monomer Volatile Organic Compounds Content for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat.

For this material and this application 

method

Use this formula to calculate the 

monomer VOC emission rate

1. Production resin, tooling resin a. Atomized 0.014 x (Resin VOC%)2.425

b. Atomized, plus 

vacuum bagging with 

roll-out

0.01185 x (Resin VOC%)2.425

c. Atomized, plus 

vacuum bagging 

without roll-out

0.00945 x (Resin VOC%)2.425

 d. Nonatomized 0.014 x (Resin VOC%)2.275

e. Nonatomized, plus 

vacuum bagging with 

roll-out

0.0110 x (Resin VOC%)2.275

f. Nonatomized, plus 

vacuum bagging without 

roll-out

0.0076 x (Resin VOC%)2.275

2. Pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, tooling 

gel coat

All methods 0.445 x (Gel coat VOC%)1.675

 15 

16 (g) If any molding resin and gel coat operations listed in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, chooses to use of higher-monomer volatile organic 

17 compounds materials rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule it shall:

18 (1) install control equipment to meet the emission limit determined by Equation 2 in Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule, 

19 applying the mass of each material used during the control device performance test in Equation 2 to determine the 

20 emission limit (in kilogram of monomer VOC) that is applicable during the test, instead of using the mass of each 

21 material as it established in Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule;

22 (2) monitor and record relevant control device and capture system operating parameters during the control device 

23 performance test to use the recorded values to establish operating limits for those parameters;

24 (3) monitor the operating parameters for the control device and emissions capture system and maintain the parameters within 

25 the established limits;

26 (h) Any molding resin and gel coat operations that use a filled production resin or filled tooling resin shall calculate the emission rate for 

27 the filled production resin or filled tooling resin on as applied basis using Equation 5. If the filled resin:

28 (1) is used as a production resin than the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 shall not exceed 46 kilograms of monomer 

29 VOC per megagram of filled resin applied;

30 (2) is used as a tooling resin than the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 shall not exceed 54 kilograms of monomer VOC 

31 per megagram of filled resin applied;

32 (3) is included in the emissions averaging procedure than the facility use the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 for the 

33 value PVi in Equation 4 in Subparagraph (f)(3) of this Rule.

34 

35 Equation 5:

36 (100 -%Filler)

 PVF = PVU 37 x 100

38 

Where: PVF 39 = The as-applied monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for the filled production resin or 

40 tooling resin, kilograms monomer VOC per megagram of filled material.

A-44 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-17 

PVU 1 = The monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for the neat (unfilled) resin before filler is added, as 

2 calculated using the formulas in Table 2. of Subparagraph (f)(3) of this Rule.

3 %Filler = The weight-percent of filler in the as-applied filled resin system.

4 (i) All resins and gel coats included in volatile organic compounds limits described in Paragraphs (d) through (h) shall meet non-monomer 

5 volatile organic compounds content limit of five percent.

6 (j) If the non-monomer volatile organic compounds content of a resin or gel coat exceeds five percent, then the excess non-monomer 

7 volatile organic compounds over five percent shall be counted toward the monomer volatile organic compounds content.

8 (k) SCAQMD Method 312-91, Determination of Percent Monomer in Polyester Resins, revised April 1996 shall be used to determine the 

9 monomer volatile organic compounds content of resin and gel coat materials unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile 

10 organic compounds content of resin and gel coat materials from the manufacturer.

11 (l) All resin and gel coat mixing containers with a capacity equal to or greater than 55 gallons, including those used for on-site mixing of 

12 putties and polyputties, shall have a cover with no visible gaps in place at all times except the following operations: 

13 (1) when material is being manually added to or removed from a container;

14 (2) when mixing or pumping equipment is being placed or removed from a container.

15 (m) Volatile organic compounds cleaning solvents for routine application equipment cleaning shall contain no more than five percent 

volatile organic compounds by weight, or have a composite vapor pressure of no more than 0.50 mm Hg at 68 0F. 680 16 F.

17 (n) Only non-volatile organic compounds solvents shall be used to remove cured resin and gel coat from

18 application equipment.

19 (o) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

 20 

21 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 22 

23 15A NCAC 02D .0964 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

24 

25 15A NCAC 02D .0964 MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES 

26 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

27 (1) "Air-assisted airless spray" means a system that consists of an airless spray gun with a compressed air jet at the gun tip to

28 atomize the adhesive. 

29 (2) "Airless spray" means the application of an adhesive through an atomizing nozzle at high pressure (1,000 to 6,000 

30 pounds per square inch) by a pump forces. 

31 (3) "Application process" means a process that consists of a series of one or more adhesive applicators and any associated 

32 drying area or oven where an adhesive is applied, dried and cured. 

33 (4) "Dip Coating" means application where substrates are dipped into a tank containing the adhesive. The substrates are then 

34 withdrawn from the tank and any excess adhesive is allowed to drain. 

35 (5) "Electrocoating" means a specialized form of dip coating where opposite electric charges are applied to the waterborne 

36 adhesive and the substrate. 

37 (6) "Electrostatic spray" means application where the adhesive and substrate are oppositely charged. 

38 (7) "Flow coating" means conveying the substrate over an enclosed sink where the adhesive is applied at low pressure as the 

39 item passes under a series of nozzles.

40 (8) "HVLP" means a system with specialized nozzles that provide better air and fluid flow at lower air pressure, shape spray 

41 pattern, and guide high volumes of atomized adhesive particles to the substrate using lower air pressure (10 pounds per 

42 square inch or less at the spray cap).

43 (9) "Roll coating", "brush coating", and "hand application" means application of high viscosity adhesives onto small surface 

44 area.

45 (b) Control of volatile organic compounds emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives product categories covered by Rules .0921, 

46 .0923, .0934, .0935, .0936, .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and .0968 of this Section are exempted from the requirements of 

47 this Rule.

48 (c) This Rule applies to miscellaneous industrial adhesive application sources whose volatile organic compounds emissions exceed the 

49 threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b).

50 (d) With the exception established in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, all volatile organic compounds containing materials applied by each 

51 miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes before control shall:

52 (1) not exceed limits established in Table 1 of this Paragraph; and

53 (2) be used in one of the following application methods in conjunction with using low volatile organic compounds adhesives 

54 or adhesive primers:

55 (A) electrostatic spray;

56 (B) HVLP spray;

57 (C) Flow coat;

A-45 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-18 

1 (D) roll coat or hand application, including non-spray application methods similar to hand or mechanically powered 

2 caulking gun, brush, or direct hand application;

3 (E) Dip coat (including electrodesposition);

4 (F) Airless spray;

5 (G) Air-assisted airless spray; or

6 (H) Other adhesive application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that 

7 achieved by HVLP spraying. 

8 (e) Emission limits established in Subparagraph (d)(1) of this Rule shall be:

9 (1) met by averaging the volatile organic compounds content of materials used oh a single application unit for each day; and

10 (2) calculated as mass of volatile organic compounds per volume of adhesive primer excluding water and exempt 

11 compounds, as applied.

12 (f) If an adhesive is used to bond dissimilar substrates together in general adhesive application process (Table 1), then the applicable 

13 substrate category with the highest volatile organic compounds emission limit shall be established as the limit for such application. 

 14 

15 Table 1. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Limits for General and Specialty Adhesive Application Process.

 16 

General Adhesive Application Processes Recommended VOC Emission Limit (lb/gal)

Reinforced Plastic Composite 1.7

Flexible vinyl 2.1

Metal 0.3

Porous Material (Except Wood) 1

Rubber 2.1

Wood 0.3

Other Substrates 2.1

Specialty Adhesive Application Processes Recommended VOC Emission Limit (lb/gal)

Ceramic Tile Installation 1.1

Contact Adhesive 2.1

Cove Base Installation 1.3

Floor Covering Installation (Indoor) 1.3

Floor Covering Installation (Outdoor) 2.1

Floor Covering Installation (Perimeter Bonded Sheet Vinyl) 5.5

Metal to Urethane/Rubber Molding or Casting 7.1

Motor Vehicle Adhesive 2.1

Motor Vehicle Weatherstrip Adhesive 6.3

Multipurpose Construction 1.7

Plastic Solvent Welding (ABS) 3.3

Plastic Solvent Welding (Except ABS) 4.2

Sheet Rubber Lining Installation 7.1

Single-Ply Roof Membrane Installation/Repair (Except EPDM) 2.1

Structural Glazing 0.8

Thin Metal Laminating 6.5

Tire Repair 0.8

Waterproof Resorcinol Glue 1.4

Adhesive Primer Application Processes Recommended VOC Emission Limit1 (lb/gal)

Motor Vehicle Glass Bonding Primer 7.5

Plastic Solvent Welding Adhesive Primer 5.4

Single-Ply Roof Membrane Adhesive Primer 2.1

Other Adhesive Primer 2.1

 17 

18 (g) Any miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes subject to this Rule, which chooses to use add-on control for adhesive 

19 application processes rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, shall install control equipment 

A-46 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-19 

1 with overall control efficiency of 85 percent or use a combination of adhesives and add-on control equipment on an application process to 

2 meet limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule.

3 (h) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of 

4 adhesives, other than reactive adhesives, and the procedure established in Appendix A of the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic parts 

5 (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of reactive adhesives unless the facility 

6 maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds content of adhesives from the manufacturer. 

7 (i) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

 8 

9 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 10 

11 15A NCAC 02D .0965 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

12 

13 15A NCAC 02D .0965 FLEXIBLE PACKAGE PRINTING 

14 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

15 (1) "First installation date" means the actual date when the equipment or control device becomes operational. This date does 

16 not change if the equipment or control device is later moved to a new location.

17 (2) "Flexible Packaging" means any package or part of a package the shape of which can be readily changed.

18 (3) "Flexographic printing" means a printing process in which an image is raised above the printing plate, and the image 

19 carrier is made of rubber or other elastomeric materials.

20 (4) "Rotogravure press" means an unwind or feed section, which may include more than one unwind or feed station (such as 

21 on a laminator), series of individual work stations, one or more of which is a rotogravure print station, any dryers 

22 associated with the work stations, and a rewind, stack, or collection section. 

23 (5) "Rotogravure printing" means a printing process in which an image (type and art) is etched or engraved below the surface 

24 of a plate or cylinder.

25 (b) This Rule applies to flexible packaging printing press sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds exceed the threshold 

26 established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b).

27 (c) Volatile organic compounds content of materials used on any single flexible packaging printing press subject to this Rule shall not 

28 exceed 0.8 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb of solids applied, or 0.16 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb of materials applied 

29 limits limits. These volatile organic compounds content limits that are consistent with 80 percent overall emissions reduction level and 

30 reflect similar control levels as the capture and control option.

31 (d) Any flexible packaging printing press which has chosen to use add-on control for coating operations rather than to comply with the 

32 emission limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall install control equipment with: 

33 (1) 65 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 75 percent and a control device efficiency of 90 percent for a 

34 press that was first installed prior to March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 

35 installation date prior to July 1. 2010; or 

36 (2) 70 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 75 percent and a control device efficiency of 95 percent for a 

37 press that was first installed prior to March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 

38 installation date was on or after July 1, 2010; or 

39 (3) 75 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 85 percent and a control device efficiency of 95 percent for a 

40 press that was first installed on or after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 

41 installation date was prior July 1, 2010; or 

42 (4) 80 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 85 percent and a control device efficiency of 95 percent for a 

43 press that was first installed on or after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 

44 installation date was on or after July 1, 2010.

45 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

46 materials used at flexible package printing facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds 

47 content of coating materials from the manufacturer.

48 (f) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

49 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 50 

51 15A NCAC 02D .0966 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

52 

53 15A NCAC 02D .0966 PAPER, FILM AND FOIL COATINGS 

54 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

55 (1) "Paper, film, and foil coating line" means a series of coating applicators, flash-off areas, and any associated curing/drying 

56 equipment between one or more unwind/feed stations and one or more rewind/cutting stations. 

57 (2) "Fabric coating" means applying protective or functional coatings to a textile substance with a knife, roll, rotogravure, 

58 rotary screen, or flat screen coater to impart properties that are not initially present, such as strength, stability, water or

A-47 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-20 

1 acid repellency, or appearance. Printing on textile fabric for decorative or other purposes is not part of this definition. 

2 Saturation operations are included in this definition.

3 (3)(2) "Flexographic coating" means that the area to be coated is delineated by a raised surface on a flexible plate.

4 (4)(3) "Rotary screen or flat screen coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of masking the 

5 surface and applying a color or finish using a screen either in flat form or rotary form.

6 (5)(4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of a roll coating technique in 

7 which the pattern to be applied is etched on the coating roll. The coating material is picked up in these recessed areas 

8 and is transferred to the substrate.

9 (b) With the exception in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, this Rule applies to paper, film and foil surface coating operations sources, including 

10 related cleaning activity, whose emissions of volatile organic compounds exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b), at 

11 the facility that applies:

12 (1) paper, film, or foil surfaces in the manufacturing of products for pressure sensitive tape and labels (including fabric 

13 coated for use in pressure sensitive tapes and labels; photographic film; industrial and decorative laminates; abrasive 

14 products (including fabric coated for use in abrasive products) and flexible packaging (including coating of non-woven 

15 polymer substrates for use in flexible packaging); and

16 (2) coatings during miscellaneous coating applications for production of corrugated and solid fiber boxes; die-cut paper 

17 paperboard, and cardboard; converted paper and paperboard not elsewhere classified; folding paperboard boxes, 

18 including sanitary boxes; manifold business forms and related products; plastic asceptic packaging; and carbon paper and 

19 inked ribbons.

20 (c) The following types of coatings are not covered by this Rule:

21 (1) coatings performed on or in-line with any offset lithographic, screen, letterpress, flexographic, rotogravure, or digital 

22 printing press; or

23 (2) size presses and on machine coaters that function as part of an in- line papermaking system.

24 (d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from:

25 (1) pressure sensitive tape and label paper, film, and foils coating lines with the potential to emit, prior to controls, less than 

26 25 tons per year of volatile organic compounds from coatings shall not exceed 0.20 pounds volatile organic compounds 

27 per pound of solids applied (0.067 pounds volatile organic compounds per pound of coating applied); 

28 (2) paper, film, and foil surface coating lines with the potential to emit, prior to controls less than 25 tons per year of volatile 

29 organic compounds from coatings shall not exceed 0.40 pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of solids(0.08 

30 pounds volatile organic compounds per pound of coating).coating applied); and

31 (3) The volatile organic compounds content limits shall be determined in accordance with Subparagraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of 

32 the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0912. 

33 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

34 materials used at paper, film and foil coatings facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds 

35 content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

36 (f) Any individual paper, film, and foil with the potential to emit, prior to controls, at least 25 tons per year of volatile organic compounds

37 from coatings shall apply control with overall volatile organic compounds efficiency of 90 percent rather than the emission limits 

38 established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule or use a combination of coating and add-on control equipment on a coating unit to meet limits that 

39 are equivalent to 90 percent overall control efficiency.

40 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

 41 

42 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 43 

44 15A NCAC 02D .0967 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

45 

46 15A NCAC 02D .0967 MISCELLANEOUS METAL AND PLASTIC PARTS COATINGS 

47 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

48 (1) "Air dried coating" means coatings which are dried by the use of air or a forced air drier. that is cured at a temperature 

49 below 90°C (194°F).

50 (2) “Baked coating” means a coating that is cured at a temperature at or above 90°C (194°F).

51 (3) "Clear coat" means a colorless coating which contains binders, but no pigment, and is formulated to form a transparent 

52 film.

53 (2)(4) "Coating unit" means series one or more coating applicators and any associated drying area and oven wherein a coating is 

54 applied, dried, and cured.

55 (5) “Drum” means any cylindrical metal shipping container larger than 12 gallons capacity but no larger than 110 

56 gallons capacity.

57 (6) “Electric dissipating coating” means a coating that rapidly dissipates a high voltage electric charge.

A-48 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-21 

1 (7) “Electric-insulating varnish” means a non-convertible-type coating applied to electric motors, components of electric 

2 motors, or power transformers, to provide electrical, mechanical, and environmental protection or resistance.

3 (8) “Etching filler” means a coating that contains less than 23 percent solids by weight and at least 1/2-percent acid by 

4 weight, and is used instead of applying a pretreatment coating followed by a primer.

5 (9) “Extreme high-gloss coating” means a coating which, when tested by the American Society for Testing Material Test 

6 Method D-523 adopted in 1980, shows a reflectance of 75 or more on a 60° meter.

7 (10) Extreme-performance coating means a coating used on a metal or plastic surface where the coated surface is, in its 

8 intended use, subject to the following:

9 (A) Chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic or acidic agents, chemicals, chemical fumes,

10 chemical mixtures or solutions; or 

11 (B) Repeated exposure to temperatures in excess of 250° F; or

12 (C) Repeated heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and repeated scrubbing with

13 industrial grade solvents, cleansers or scouring agents. Extreme performance coatings include, but are not 

14 limited to, coatings applied to locomotives, railroad cars, farm machinery, and heavy 

15 (11) “High-performance architectural coating” means a coating used to protect architectural subsections and which meets the 

16 requirements of the Architectural Aluminum Manufacturer Association's publication number AAMA 2604-05 (Voluntary 

17 Specification, Performance Requirements and Test Procedures for High Performance Organic Coatings on 

18 Aluminum Extrusions and Panels) or 2605-05 (Voluntary Specification, Performance Requirements and Test 

19 Procedures for Superior Performing Organic Coatings on Aluminum Extrusions and Panels).

20 (12) “Multi-component coating” means a coating requiring the addition of a separate reactive resin, commonly 

21 known as a catalyst or hardener, before application to form an

22 acceptable dry film.

23 (13) “One-component coating” means a coating that is ready for application as it comes out of its container to form an 

24 acceptable dry film. A thinner, necessary to reduce the viscosity, is not considered a component 

25 (b) This Rule applies to miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating units whose volatile organic compounds emissions exceed the 

26 threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) for coating and related cleaning activities of the following types of products:

27 (1) fabricated metal products, molded plastic parts, small and large farm machinery, commercial and industrial machinery 

28 and equipment;

29 (2) automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle 

30 accessories, bicycles and sporting goods;

31 (3) toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure craft (recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components, railroad cars, 

32 heavier vehicles, lawn and garden equipment;

33 (4) business machines, laboratory and medical equipment; and

34 (5) electronic equipment, steel drums metal pipes, and numerous other industrial and household products.

35 (c) This Rule does not apply to:

36 (1) coatings that are applied to test panels and coupons as part of research and development, quality control;

37 (2) performance testing activities at paint research or manufacturing facility; or

38 (3) sources covered by Rules .0921, .0922, .0923, .0935, .0936, .0961 .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and .0968 of 

39 this Section.

40 (d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds before control for surface coating of: 

41 (1) Metal parts and products shall not exceed limits as established in Table 1;

 42 

43 Table 1. Metal Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category Air Dried

lb VOC/gal coating

Baked

lb VOC/gal coating

General One Component; General Multi Component;

Military Specification 2.8 2.3

Camouflage; Electric-Insulating Varnish; Etching 

Filler; High Temperature; Metallic; Mold-Seal; Pan 

Backing; Pretreatment Coatings; Drum Coating, New, 

Interior; Drum Coating, Reconditioned, Exterior; 

Silicone Release; Vacuum-Metalizing 3.5 3.5

Extreme High-Gloss; Extreme Performance; HeatResistant; Repair and Touch Up; Solar-Absorbent 3.5 3.0

High Performance Architectural 6.2 6.2

Prefabricated Architectural Multi-Component; 

Prefabricated Architectural One-Component 3.5 2.3

A-49 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-22 

Drum Coating, New, Exterior 2.8 2.8

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, Interior 4.2 4.2

1 

2 (2) Plastic parts and products shall not exceed limits as established in Table 2;

3 Table 2. Metal Plastic Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

General One Component 2.3

General Multi Component; Metallic 3.5

Electric Dissipating Coatings and Shock-Free Coatings; Optical Coatings; 

Vacuum-Metalizing 6.7

Extreme Performance 3.5 (2-pack coatings)

Military Specification

2.8 (1 pack)

3.5 (2 pack)

Mold-Seal 6.3

Multi-colored Coatings 5.7

4 

5 (3) automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts shall not exceed limits as established in Table 3;

6 

7 Table 3. Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Automotive/Transportation Coatings

I. High Bake Coatings – Interior and Exterior Parts

Non-flexible Primer 3.5

Base Coats; Non-basecoat/clear coat; Flexible Primer 4.3

Clear Coat 4.0

II. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Exterior Parts

Primers; Basecoat; Non-basecoat/clearcoat 4.8

Clearcoats 4.5

 III. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Interior Parts 5.0

 IV. Touchup and Repair Coatings 5.2

Business Machine Coatings

Primers; Topcoat Texture Coat; Touchup and repair 2.9

Fog Coat 2.2

8 

9 (4) pleasure craft shall not exceed limits as established in Table 4;

10 

11 Table 4. Pleasure Craft Surface Coating Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 4.1

High Gloss Topcoat Finish; Primer/Surfacer; All other pleasure craft surface 

coatings for metal or plastic 3.5

Pretreatment Wash Primers 6.5

High Build Primer Surfacer; Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 2.8

Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 4.7

12 

13 (5) motor vehicle materials shall not exceed limits as established in Table 5.

14 

15 Table5. Motor Vehicle Materials Volatile Organic Compounds Content Limits 

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Motor vehicle cavity wax; Motor vehicle sealer; Motor vehicle deadener; Motor 5.4

A-50 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-23 

vehicle underbody coating; Motor vehicle trunk interior coating

Motor vehicle gasket/gasket sealing material; Motor vehicle bedliner 1.7

Motor vehicle lubricating wax/compound 5.8

1 

2 (e) With the exception of motor vehicle materials coatings, any miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings operations facility may 

3 choose combination of low volatile organic compounds coatings and add-on control equipment on a coating unit. Emissions of volatile 

4 organic compounds before control with such combination shall not exceed limits for surface coating of: 

5 

6 (1) Metal parts and products as established in Table 1;

 7 

8 Table 1. Metal Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Air Dried Baked Coating Category lb VOC/gal solids lb VOC/gal solids

General One Component; General Multi Component; 

Military Specification; 4.52 3.35

Etching Filler; High Temperature; Metallic; Mold-Seal; 

Pan Backing; Pretreatment Coatings; Silicone Release; 

Drum Coating, New, Interior; Drum Coating, 

Reconditioned, Exterior; Vacuum-Metalizing 6.67 6.67

Extreme High-Gloss; Extreme Performance; HeatResistant; Solar-Absorbent 6.67 5.06

High Performance Architectural 38.0 38.0

Prefabricated Architectural Multi-Component 6.67 3.35

Prefabricated Architectural One-Component 6.67 3.35

 6.67 6.67

Drum Coating, New, Exterior 4.52 4.52

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, Interior 6.67 9.78

 9 

10 (2) plastic parts and products as established in Table 2;

11 

12 Table 2. Plastic Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids

General One Component 3.35

General Multi Component; Metallic 6.67

Electric Dissipating Coatings and Shock-Free Coatings Optical Coatings; 

Vacuum-Metalizing 74.7

Extreme Performance 6.67(2-pack)

Military Specification 4.52 (1 pack)

6.67 (2 pack)

Mold-Seal 43.7

Multi-colored Coatings 25.3

13 

14 (3) automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts as established in Table 3;

15 

16 Table 3. Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids

Automotive/Transportation Coatings1

I. High Bake Coatings – Interior and Exterior Parts

Flexible Primer 11.58

Non-flexible Primer; Non-basecoat/clear coat 6.67

Base Coats 10.34

A-51 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-24 

Clear Coat 8.76

II. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Exterior Parts

Primers 13.8

Basecoat; Non-basecoat/clearcoat 15.59

Clearcoats: 11.58

III. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Interior Parts 15.59

IV. Touchup and Repair Coatings 17.72

Business Machine Coatings

Primers; Topcoat; Texture Coat; Touchup and repair 4.8

Fog Coat 3.14

1 

2 (4) pleasure craft surface coatings as established in Table 4;

3 

4 Table 4. Pleasure Craft surface Coatings Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 9.2

High Gloss Topcoat; Finish Primer/Surfacer; All other pleasure craft surface 

coatings for metal or plastic 6.7

Pretreatment Wash Primers 55.6

Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 12.8

High Build Primer Surfacer; Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 4.4

 5 

6 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

7 materials used at miscellaneous metal and plastic part coating facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

8 compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

9 (f) With the exception of motor vehicle materials coatings, any miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings operations facility may 

10 choose to use add-on control equipment with an overall control efficiency of 90 percent in lieu of using low-VOC coatings and specified 

11 application methods.

12 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

 13 

14 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 15 

16 15A NCAC 02D .0968 is proposed for adoption as follows: 

17 

18 15A NCAC 02D .0968 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK ASSEMBLY COATINGS 

19 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

20 (1) "Automobile" means a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and 

21 motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property. 

22 (2) “Automobile Topcoat Protocol” means Protocol For Determining The Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate 

23 Of Automobile and Light-duty Truck Topcoat Operations

24 (2)(3) "Electrodeposition" means a process of applying a protective, corrosion-resistantwaterborne primer on exterior and 

25 interior surfaces that provides thorough coverage of recessed areas. It is a dip coating method that uses an electrical field 

26 to apply or deposit the conductive coating onto the part. The object being painted acts as an electrode that is oppositely 

27 charged from the particles of paint in the dip tank.

28 (3)(4) "Final repair" means the operations performed and coating(s) applied to completely assembled motor vehicles or to parts 

29 that are not yet on a completely assembled vehicle to correct damage or imperfections in the coating.

30 (4)(5) "Light-duty truck" means vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of 

31 property with gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less.

32 (5)(6) "Primer-surfacer" means an intermediate protective coating applied over the electrodeposition primer (EDP) and under 

33 the topcoat. Primer-surfacer provides adhesion, protection, and appearance properties to the total finish.

34 (6)(7) "Solids turnover ratio (RT)" means the ratio of total volume of coating solids that is added to the EDP system in a 

35 calendar month divided by the total volume design capacity of the EDP system.

A-52 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-25 

1 (b) This Rule applies to automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating operations and related cleaning activities whose emissions of 

2 volatile organic compounds exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) at: 

3 (1) automobile or light-duty assembly plants during the vehicle assembly processes with the following primary coating 

4 product applications: 

5 (A) new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies, or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks; or

6 (B) other parts that are coated along with these bodies or body parts; or 

7 (C) additional coatings which include glass bonding primer, adhesives, cavity wax, sealer, deadener, gasket/gasket 

8 sealing material, underbody coating, trunk interior coating, bedliner, weatherstrip adhesive, and lubricating 

9 waxes/compounds; and 

10 (2) coatings used in facilities that perform these coating operations on a contractual basis without coatings used at plastic or 

11 composites molding facilities 

12 (c) This Rule does not apply to:

13 (1) aerosol coatings of automobile and light-truck assembly coatings; or 

14 (2) coatings that are applied to other parts intended for use in new automobiles or new light-duty trucks (e.g., application of

15 spray primer, color and clear coat to fascia or bumpers) on coating lines that are not related to the vehicle assembly 

16 process at automobile or light-duty assembly plants. They are covered by Rules .0964, and .0967 of this Section; and 

17 (3) aftermarket repair or replacement parts for automobiles or light-duty trucks that are covered by Rules .0964, and .0967 of 

18 this Section.

19 (d) With the exception of materials supplied in containers with a net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a net weight of one pound or less, 

20 emissions of volatile organic compounds before control for:

21 (1) automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings shall not exceed limits established in Table 1 

 22 

23 Table 1. Volatile Organic Compounds emission limits for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings.

Assembly Coating Process Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Limit

When solids

turnover ratio

(RT) ≥0.16;

When

0.040≤ RT <0.160;

When

RT<0.040;

Electrodeposition primer (EDP) 

operations (including application area, 

spray/rinse stations, and curing oven)

0.07lb/gal 

0.7lb/gal

coatings solids

 applied.

0.0840.160-R x 8.34

lb/gal coating solids

applied.

No VOC

emission 

limit.

Primer-surfacer operations(including 

application area, flash-off area, and oven)

12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited solids on a daily weighted average 

basis as determined by following the procedures in the revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol 

Topcoat operations (including 

application area, flash-off area, and 

oven)

12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited solids on a daily weighted average 

basis as determined by following the procedures in the revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol

Final repair operations 4.8 lb VOC/gallon of coating less water and less exempt 

solvents on a daily weighted average basis or as an occurrence 

weighted average.

Combined primer-surfacer and topcoat 

operations

12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited solids on a daily weighted average 

basis as determined by following the procedures in the revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol

 24 

25 (2) miscellaneous materials used at automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings facilities shall not exceed limits

26 established in Table 2.

 27 

28 Table 2. Volatile Organic Compounds emission limits for miscellaneous materials used at automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating 

29 facility (grams of VOC per liter of coating excluding water exempt compounds, as applied)

Material Recommended VOC Emission Limit

Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer 900

Automobile and light-duty truck adhesive 250

Automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax 650

Automobile and light-duty truck sealer 650

Automobile and light-duty truck deadener 650

A-53 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
II-26 

Automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material 200

Automobile and light-duty truck underbody coating 650

Automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating 650

Automobile and light-duty truck bediner 200

Automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive 750

Automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound 700

 1 

2 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coatings, 

3 other than reactive adhesives used at automobile and light-duty truck coating facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the 

4 volatile organic compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

5 (f) The emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule can be achieved with a combination of higher-solid solvent-borne coatings, 

6 efficient application equipment and bake oven exhaust control.

7 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

 8 

9 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

 10 

11 15A NCAC 02D .0306 is proposed for amendment as follows: 

12 

13 15A NCAC 02Q .0306 PERMITS REQUIRING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

14 (a) The Director shall provide for public notice for comments with an opportunity for the public to request a public hearing on draft permits 

15 for the following: 

16 (1) any source that may be designated by the Director based on public interest relevant to air quality; 

17 (2) a source to which 15A NCAC 02D .0530 or .0531 applies; 

18 (3) a source whose emission limitation is based on a good engineering practice stack height that exceeds the height defined 

19 in 15A NCAC 02D .0533(a)(4)(A), (B), or (C); 

20 (4) a source required to have controls more stringent than the applicable emission standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0500 

21 according to 15A NCAC 02D .0501 when necessary to comply with an ambient air quality standard under 15A NCAC 

22 02D .0400; 

23 (5) alternative controls different than the applicable emission standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0900 according to 15A NCAC 

24 02D .0952; 

25 (6) a limitation on the quantity of solvent-borne ink that may be used by a printing unit or printing system according to 15A 

26 NCAC 02D .0936; .0961 and .0965;

27 (7) an allowance of a particulate emission rate of 0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot for an incinerator constructed before 

28 July 1, 1987, in accordance with 15A NCAC 02D .1204(c)(2)(B) and .1208 (b)(2)(B): 

29 (8) an alternative mix of controls under 15A NCAC 02D .0501(f); 

30 (9) a source that is subject to the requirements of 15A NCAC 02D .1109 or .1112; 

31 (10) a source seeking exemption from the 20-percent opacity standard in 15A NCAC 02D .0521 under 15A NCAC 2D 

32 .0521(f); 

33 (11) a source using an alternative monitoring procedure or methodology under 15A NCAC 02D .0606(g) or .0608(g); or 

34 (12) the owner or operator requests that the draft permit go to public notice with an opportunity to request a public hearing. 

35 (b) On the Division's website, the Director shall post a copy of the draft permit that changes classification for a facility by placing a 

36 physical or operational limitation in it to avoid the applicability of rules in 15A NCAC 02Q .0500. Along with the draft permit, the Director 

37 shall also post a public notice for comments with an opportunity to request a public hearing on that draft permit. The public notice shall 

38 contain the information specified in 15A NCAC 02Q .0307(c) and shall allow at least 30 days for public comment. 

39 (c) If EPA requires the State to submit a permit as part of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air Quality (SIP) and if the 

40 Commission approves a permit containing any of the conditions described in Paragraph (a) of this Rule as a part of the SIP, the Director 

41 shall submit the permit to the EPA on behalf of the Commission for inclusion as part of the federally approved SIP. 

 42 

43 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1),(3); 143-215.108; 143-215.114A; 143-215.114B; 143-215.114C. 

 44 

A-54 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
CHAPTER III 

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 

Introduction 

The Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, held two 

public hearings on April 27, 2010, at 6:00 P.M. at Mecklenburg Government Center, Room CH14, 600 E. 4th Street, Charlotte, NC 28202 and on April 29, 2010, at 6:00 P.M., at DENR – 

Division of Air Quality Annex Training Room (AQ 526) 2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, NC 

27604. 

The hearing considered the proposed amendments to Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0909, .0922, .0923, 

.0935, .0902, .0951, .0952, and 15A NCAC 02Q .0306; proposed adoptions to Rules 15A NCAC 

02D 15A .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and 15A NCAC 02D .0968; and 

Repeals of the Current Rules 15A NCAC 02D.0917, .0921, .0920, .0934, AND 15A NCAC 02D 

.0936. 

 The proposed effective date for these rules is projected to be September 1, 2010. 

A public notice announcing this hearing was mailed to each person on the official mailing list for 

rule-making hearings. The public notice was also published in the North Carolina Register at 

least 20 days before the public hearing and in the Charlotte Observer, the Wilmington Star News, 

the Asheville Citizen Times, the Winston Salem Journal, and the Raleigh News and Observer at 

least 30 days prior to the public hearing. 

III-1 A-55 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Stephen T. Smith

Chairman

Charles Peterson

Vice Chairman

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor

Dee Freeman, Secretary Yvonne C. Bailey

Donnie Brewer

Thomas F. Cecich

Stan L. Crowe

John S. Curry

Marion Deerhake

Tom Ellis

William L. Hall, Jr.

Ernest W. Larkin

Kevin Martin

David H. Moreau

Jeffrey V. Morse

Darryl D. Moss

David B. Peden

Dickson Phillips Ill

Forrest R. Westall, Sr.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Tom Ellis

FROM: Mr. Stephen Smith TyvtAIrr)

SUBJECT: Hearing Officer Appointment

DATE: March 4, 2010

Public hearings have been scheduled for Tuesday, April 27, 2010, in Charlotte at 6:00 p.m. and

Thursday, April 29, 2010, in Raleigh at 6:00 p.m. The attached public notice describes the purpose of these

hearings.

I am hereby appointing you to serve as hearing officer for these hearings. Please receive all relevant public

comment and report your findings and recommendations to the Environmental Management Commission.

Mr. Mike Abraczinskas will provide staff support for you.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Joelle Burleson at (919) 733-1474 or me.

BKO/jb

Attachment

cc: Keith Overcash

Lois Thomas

Hearing Record File

An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

A-56 III-2 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
III-3 A-57 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-58 III-4 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
III-5 A-59 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Transcript

Transcripts of the April 27 and April 29, 2010 hearings have not been prepared; however, 

an audio recording of each proceeding will be kept on file with the Division of Air 

Quality for one year from the date of the final actions by the Environmental Management 

Commission. 

A list of those attending the hearing as follows: 

Hearing Officer: Mr. Tom Ellis, member of the Environmental Management 

Commission 

Staff Members at both hearings: 

Mr. Glenn Sappie, DAQ, DENR 

Mr. Vladimir Zaytsev, DAQ, DENR 

Ms. Joelle Burleson, DAQ, DENR 

Staff Member at the April 27, Charlotte hearing: 

Mr. Chuck Greco, Mecklenburg County Air Quality 

Staff Member at the April 29, Raleigh hearing: 

Mr. Michael Abraczinskas, DAQ, DENR 

Members of the General Public at the April 27, Charlotte hearing: 

Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, Printing Industry of the Carolinas 

Mr. Andy Munn, Public Policy Director, Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition 

Members of the General Public at the April 29, Raleigh hearing: 

Mr. James Sell, Senior Council, American Coatings Association 

A-60 III-6 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
IV-1 

CHAPTER IV 

EXHIBITS 

EXHIBIT PAGE

Proposed Regulations as Published in the Public Notice and Presented at the Hearing IV-2 

Hearing Officer Comments at the Public Hearing IV-25 

 

A-61 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

SECTION .0900 - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 

15A NCAC 02D .0902 APPLICABILITY 

(a) The rules in this Section do not apply except as specifically 

set out in this Rule. 

(b) This Section applies to sources that emit greater than or 

equal to 15 pounds of volatile organic compounds per day. 

(c) Rules .0925, .0926, .0927, .0928, .0931, .0932, .0933, and 

.0958 of this Section apply regardless of the level of emissions 

of volatile organic compounds. 

(b)(d) Regardless of any other statement of applicability of this 

Section, this This Section does not apply to: 

(1) sources whose emissions of volatile organic 

compounds are not more than 15 pounds per 

day, except that this Section does apply to the 

manufacture and use of cutback asphalt and to 

gasoline service stations or gasoline 

dispensing facilities regardless of levels of 

emissions of volatile organic compounds;

(2)(1) sources whose emissions do not exceed that 

emit less than 800 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per calendar month and that are: 

(A) bench-scale, on-site equipment used 

exclusively for chemical or physical 

analysis for quality control purposes, 

staff instruction, water or wastewater 

analyses, or non-production 

environmental compliance 

assessments; 

(B) bench-scale experimentation, 

chemical or physical analyses, 

training or instruction from not-forprofit, non-production educational 

laboratories; 

(C) bench-scale experimentation, 

chemical or physical analyses, 

training or instruction from hospitals 

or health laboratories pursuant to the 

determination or diagnoses of illness; 

or 

(D) research and development laboratory 

activities provided the activity 

produces no commercial product or 

feedstock material; or 

(3)(2) emissions of volatile organic compounds 

during startup or shutdown operations from 

sources which use incineration or other types 

of combustion to control emissions of volatile 

organic compounds whenever the off-gas 

contains an explosive mixture during the 

startup or shutdown operation if the exemption 

is approved by the Director as meeting the 

requirements of this Subparagraph. 

(c)(e) The following rules of this Section apply statewide: 

(1) .0925, Petroleum Liquid Storage in Fixed Roof 

Tanks, for fixed roof tanks at gasoline bulk 

plants and gasoline bulk terminals; 

(2) .0926, Bulk Gasoline Plants; 

(3) .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; 

(4) .0928, Gasoline Service Stations Stage I; 

(5) .0932, Gasoline Truck Tanks and Vapor 

Collection Systems; 

(6) .0933, Petroleum Liquid Storage in External 

Floating Roof Tanks, for external floating roof 

tanks at bulk gasoline plants and bulk gasoline 

terminals; 

(7) .0948, VOC Emissions from Transfer 

Operations; 

(8) .0949, Storage of Miscellaneous Volatile 

Organic Compounds; and 

(9) .0958, Work Practices for Sources of Volatile 

Organic Compounds. 

(d) All sources located in Mecklenburg County that were 

required to comply with any of the Rules in Subparagraphs 

(d)(1) or (2) of this Rule before July 5, 1995 shall continue to 

comply with these Rules: 

(1) .0917 through .0937 of this Section, or

(2) .0943 through .0945 of this Section.

(e)(f) The Rules in this Section apply to facilities with the 

potential to emit greater than or equal to 100 tons of volatile 

organic compounds per year in the following areas: 

(1) Cabarrus County 

(2) Gaston County 

(3) Lincoln County 

(4) Mecklenburg County 

(5) Rowan County 

(6) Union County 

(7) Davidson Township and Coddle Creek 

Township in Iredell County 

(g) If any county or part of a county to which this Section 

applies is later designated in 40 CFR 81.334 as attainment, all 

sources in that county subject to this Section before the 

redesignation to attainment shall continue to comply with this 

Section. 

(f) If a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone is 

measured in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 in Davidson, Forsyth, 

or Guilford County or that part of Davie County bounded by the 

Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, 

Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River, the Director shall 

initiate analysis to determine the control measures needed to 

attain and maintain the ambient air quality standard for ozone. 

By the following May 1, the Director shall implement the 

specific stationary source control measures contained in this 

Section that are required as part of the control strategy necessary 

to bring the area into compliance and to maintain compliance 

with the ambient air quality standard for ozone. The Director 

shall implement the rules in this Section identified as being 

necessary by the analysis by notice in the North Carolina 

Register. The notice shall identify the rules that are to be 

implemented and shall identify whether the rules implemented 

are to apply in Davidson, Forsyth, or Guilford County or that 

part of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans 

Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to 

Yadkin River or any combination thereof. At least one week 

before the scheduled publication date of the North Carolina 

Register containing the Director's notice implementing rules in 

this Section, the Director shall send written notification to all 

permitted facilities within the county in which the rules are 

being implemented that are or may be subject to the 

requirements of this Section informing them that they are or may 

be subject to the requirements of this Section. (For Forsyth 

County, "Director" means for the purpose of notifying permitted 

facilities in Forsyth County, the Director of the Forsyth County 

IV-2 A-62 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

local air pollution control program.) Compliance shall be in 

accordance with Rule .0909 of this Section.

(g) If a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone is 

measured in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 in Durham or Wake 

County or Dutchville Township in Granville County, the 

Director shall initiate analysis to determine the control measures 

needed to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standard 

for ozone. By the following May 1, the Director shall 

implement the specific stationary source control measures 

contained in this Section that are required as part of the control 

strategy necessary to bring the area into compliance and to 

maintain compliance with the ambient air quality standard for 

ozone. The Director shall implement the rules in this Section 

identified as being necessary by the analysis by notice in the 

North Carolina Register. The notice shall identify the rules that 

are to be implemented and shall identify whether the rules 

implemented are to apply in Durham or Wake County or 

Dutchville Township in Granville County or any combination 

thereof. At least one week before the scheduled publication date 

of the North Carolina Register containing the Director's notice 

implementing rules in this Section, the Director shall send 

written notification to all permitted facilities within the county in 

which the rules are being implemented that are or may be subject 

to the requirements of this Section informing them that they are 

or may be subject to the requirements of this Section. 

Compliance shall be in accordance with Rule .0909 of this 

Section.

(h) If EPA reclassifies the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill ozone 

nonattainment area as serious for ozone under Section 182 of the 

federal Clean Air Act, the rules in this Section shall apply to 

facilities in Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, 

and Union Counties and Davidson and Coddle Creek townships 

in Iredell County with the potential to emit at least 50 tons but 

less than 100 tons of volatile organic compounds per year. 

Within 60 days of the reclassification, the Director shall notice 

the applicability of these Rules to these facilities in the North 

Carolina Register and shall send written notification to all 

permitted facilities within the counties in which the rules are 

being implemented that are or may be subject to the 

requirements of this Section informing them that they are or may 

be subject to the requirements of this Section. (For Mecklenburg 

County, "Director" means for the purpose of notifying permitted 

facilities in Mecklenburg County, the Director of the 

Mecklenburg County local air pollution control program.) 

Compliance shall be according to Rule .0909 of this Section. 

(i) Sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds are 

not subject to limitation under this Section may still be subject to 

emission limits on volatile organic compounds in Rules .0524, 

.1110, or .1111 of this Subchapter. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0909 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES 

FOR SOURCES IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS 

(a) Applicability. With the exceptions in Paragraph (b) of this 

Rule, this Rule applies to all sources covered by Paragraph (e), 

(f), (g), or (h) (f) or (h) of Rule .0902 of this Section. 

(b) Exceptions. This Rule does not apply to: to 

(1) sources in Mecklenburg County required to 

comply with the requirements of this Section 

under Rule .0902(d) of this Section; or

(2) sources required to comply with the 

requirements of this Section under Paragraph 

(e) of Rule .0902(c) .0902 of this Section. 

(c) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone nonattainment area 

contingency plan. The owner or operator of any source subject 

to this Rule because of the application of Paragraph (f), (g), or 

(h) (h)of Rule .0902 of this Section shall adhere to the following 

increments of progress and schedules: 

(1) if compliance is to be achieved by installing 

emission control equipment, replacing process 

equipment, or modifying existing process 

equipment: 

(A) The owner or operator shall submit a 

permit application and a compliance 

schedule within six months after the 

Director notices the implementation 

of rules in the North Carolina 

Register that resolves a violation of 

the ambient air quality standard for 

ozone; 

(B) The compliance schedule shall 

contain the following increments of 

progress: 

(i) a date by which contracts for 

the emission control system 

and process equipment shall 

be awarded or orders shall 

be issued for purchase of 

component parts; 

(ii) a date by which on-site 

construction or installation 

of the emission control and 

process equipment shall 

begin; and 

(iii) a date by which on-site 

construction or installation 

of the emission control and 

process equipment shall be 

completed; 

(C) Final compliance shall be achieved 

within three years after the Director 

notices the implementation of rules in 

the North Carolina Register that 

resolves a violation of the ambient air 

quality standard for ozone. 

(2) if compliance is to be achieved by using low 

solvent content coating technology: 

(A) The owner or operator shall submit a 

permit application and a compliance 

schedule within six months after the 

Director notices the implementation 

of rules in the North Carolina 

Register that resolves a violation of 

the ambient air quality standard for 

ozone; 

(B) The compliance schedule shall 

contain the following increments: 

(i) a date by which research and 

development of low solvent 

content coating shall be 

completed if the Director 

determines that low solvent 

IV-3 A-63 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

content coating technology 

has not been sufficiently 

researched and developed; 

(ii) a date by which evaluation 

of product quality and 

commercial acceptance shall 

be completed; 

(iii) a date by which purchase 

orders shall be issued for 

low solvent content coatings 

and process modifications; 

(iv) a date by which process 

modifications shall be 

initiated; and 

(v) a date by which process 

modifications shall be 

completed and use of low 

solvent content coatings 

shall begin; 

(C) Final compliance shall be achieved 

within three years after the Director 

notices the implementation of rules in 

the North Carolina Register that 

resolves a violation of the ambient air 

quality standard for ozone. 

(3) The owner or operator shall certify to the 

Director within five days after each increment 

deadline of progress in this Paragraph, whether 

the required increment of progress has been 

met. 

(d) Nonattainment areas. The owner or operator of any source 

subject to this Rule because of the application of Paragraph 

(e)(f) of Rule .0902 of this Section shall adhere to the following 

increments of progress and schedules: 

(1) if compliance is to be achieved by installing 

emission control equipment, replacing process 

equipment, or modifying existing process 

equipment: 

(A) The owner or operator shall submit a 

permit application and a compliance 

schedule by August 1, 2007; 

(B) The compliance schedule shall 

contain the following increments of 

progress: 

(i) a date by which contracts for 

the emission control system 

and process equipment shall 

be awarded or orders shall 

be issued for purchase of 

component parts; 

(ii) a date by which on-site 

construction or installation 

of the emission control and 

process equipment shall 

begin; and 

(iii) a date by which on-site 

construction or installation 

of the emission control and 

process equipment shall be 

completed. 

(C) Final compliance shall be achieved 

no later than April 1, 2009. 

(2) if compliance is to be achieved by using low 

solvent content coating technology: 

(A) The owner or operator shall submit a 

permit application and a compliance 

schedule by August 1, 2007; 

(B) The compliance schedule shall 

contain the following increments: 

(i) a date by which research and 

development of low solvent 

content coating shall be 

completed if the Directo r 

determines that low solvent 

content coating technology 

has not been sufficiently 

researched and developed; 

(ii) a date by which evaluation 

of product quality and 

commercial acceptance shall 

be completed; 

(iii) a date by which purchase 

orders shall be issued for 

low solvent content coatings 

and process modifications; 

(iv) a date by which process 

modifications shall be 

initiated; and 

(v) a date by which process 

modifications shall be 

completed and use of low 

solvent content coatings 

shall begin. 

(C) Final compliance shall be achieved 

no later than April 1, 2009. 

(3) The owner or operator shall certify to the 

Director within five days after the deadline, for 

each increment of progress in this Paragraph, 

whether the required increment of progress has 

been met. 

(e) If the Director requires a test to demonstrate that compliance 

has been achieved, the owner or operator of sources subject to 

this Rule shall conduct a test and submit a final test report within 

six months after the stated date of final compliance. 

(f) Sources already in compliance. 

(1) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone 

nonattainment area contingency plan. 

Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall not apply to 

sources that are in compliance with applicable 

rules of this Section when the Director notices 

the implementation of rules in the North 

Carolina Register that resolves a violation of 

the ambient air quality standard for ozone and 

that have determined and certified compliance 

to the satisfaction of the Director within six 

months after the Director notices the 

implementation of rules in the North Carolina 

Register that resolves a violation of the 

ambient air quality standard for ozone. 

(2) Nonattainment areas. Paragraphs (d) of this 

Rule shall not apply to sources in an area 

named in Paragraph (e)(f) of Rule .0902 of this 

Section that are in compliance with applicable 

rules of this Section on March 1, 2007. 

IV-4 A-64 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(g) New sources. 

(1) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone 

nonattainment area contingency plan. The 

owner or operator of any new source of 

volatile organic compounds not in existence or 

under construction before the date that the 

Director notices in the North Carolina Register 

in accordance with Paragraph (f), (g), or (h)

(h) of Rule .0902 of this Section the 

implementation of rules in the North Carolina 

Register that resolves a violation of the 

ambient air quality standard for ozone, shall 

comply with all applicable rules in this Section 

upon start-up of the source. 

(2) Nonattainment areas. The owner or operator of 

any new source of volatile organic compounds 

not in existence or under construction before 

March 1, 2007 in an area identified in 

Paragraph (e) (f) of Rule .0902 shall comply 

with all applicable rules in this Section upon 

start-up of the source. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0917 AUTOMOBILE AND 

LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURING 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Application area" means the area where the 

coating is applied by dipping or spraying.

(2) "Manufacturing plant" means a facility where 

auto body parts are manufactured or finished 

for eventual inclusion into a finished product 

ready for sale to vehicle dealers. Customizers, 

body shops and other repainters are not part of 

this definition.

(3) "Automobile" means all passenger cars or 

passenger car derivatives capable of seating 12 

or fewer passengers.

(4) "Light-duty trucks" means any motor vehicles 

rated at 8,500 pounds gross weight or less 

which are designed primarily for purpose of 

transportation or are derivatives of such 

vehicles except automobiles.

(b) This Rule applies to the application area(s), flashoff area(s), 

and oven(s), of automotive and light-duty truck manufacturing 

plants involved in prime, topcoat and final repair coating 

operations.

(c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, 

emissions of volatile organic compounds from any automotive 

or light-duty truck manufacturing plant coating line subject to 

this Rule shall not exceed:

(1) 1.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to the applicator 

from prime application, flashoff area, and oven 

operations;

(2) 4.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to the applicator 

from topcoat and surface application, flashoff 

area, and oven operation;

(3) 13.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to the applicator 

from final repair application, flashoff area, and 

oven operation.

(d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of 

volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this 

Subchapter and which has installed air pollution control 

equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to 

comply with this Rule before December 1, 1989, may comply 

with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those 

contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

organic compounds from any automotive or light-duty truck 

manufacturing plant coating line subject to this Rule shall not 

exceed:

(1) 1.2 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to the applicator from 

prime application, flashoff area, and oven 

operations;

(2) 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, daily weighted average, 

excluding water and exempt compounds, 

delivered to the applicator from topcoat and 

surface application, flashoff area, and oven 

operation;

(3) 4.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to the applicator from 

final repair application, flashoff area, and oven 

operation.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0920 PAPER COATINGS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Knife coating" means the application of a

coating material to a substrate by means of 

drawing the substrate beneath a knife that 

spreads the coating evenly over the full width 

of the substrate.

(2) "Paper coating" means decorative, protective, 

or functional coatings put on paper and 

pressure sensitive tapes regardless of substrate. 

The coatings shall be distributed uniformly 

across the web. Related web coating processes 

on plastic film and decorative coatings on 

metal foil are included in this definition. 

Saturation operations are included in this 

definition.

(3) "Roll coating" means the application of a 

coating material to a substrate by means of 

hard rubber or steel rolls.

(4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application 

of a coating material to a substrate by means 

of a roll coating technique in which the 

substance to be applied is temporarily retained 

in etchings on the coating roll. The coating 

material is picked up in these recessed areas 

and is transferred to the substrate.

(b) This Rule applies to roll, knife or rotogravure coater(s) and 

drying oven(s) of paper coating lines.

(c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, 

emissions of volatile organic compounds from any paper coating 

line subject to this Rule shall not exceed 4.8 pounds of volatile 

IV-5 A-65 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating 

applicator from a paper coating line.

(d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of 

volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518 (e) of this 

Subchapter and which has installed air pollution control 

equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to 

comply with this Rule before December 1, 1989, may comply 

with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those 

contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

organic compounds from any paper coating line subject to this 

Rule shall not exceed 2.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds 

per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, 

delivered to the coating applicator from a paper coating line.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0921 FABRIC AND VINYL COATING 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Fabric coating" means applying protective or 

functional coatings to a textile substance with 

a knife, roll, rotogravure, rotary screen, or flat 

screen coater to impart properties that are not 

initially present, such as strength, stability, 

water or acid repellency, or appearance. 

Printing on textile fabric for decorative or 

other purposes is not part of this definition. 

Saturation operations are included in this 

definition.

(2) "Knife coating" means the application of a 

coating material to a substrate by means of 

drawing the substrate beneath a knife which 

spreads the coating evenly over the full width 

of the substrate.

(3) "Roll coating" means the application of a 

coating material to a substrate by means of 

hard rubber or steel rolls.

(4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application 

of a coating material to a substrate by means 

of a roll coating technique in which the pattern 

to be applied is etched on the coating roll. The 

coating material is picked up in these recessed 

areas and is transferred to the substrate.

(5) "Vinyl coating" means applying a functional, 

decorative, or protective topcoat, or printing 

on vinyl coated fabric or vinyl sheets.

(6) "Rotary screen or flat screen coating" means 

the application of a coating material to a 

substrate by means of masking the surface and 

applying a color or finish using a screen either 

in flat form or rotary form.

(b) This Rule applies to roll, knife, rotogravure, rotary screen, or 

flat screen coater(s) and drying oven(s) of fabric and vinyl 

coating lines.

(c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, 

emissions of volatile organic compounds from any fabric coating 

line or vinyl coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

(1) 4.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to the coating 

applicator from a fabric coating line;

(2) 7.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to the coating 

applicator from a vinyl coating line.

(d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of 

volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this 

Subchapter and which has installed air pollution control 

equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to 

comply with this Rule before December 1, 1989, may comply 

with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those 

contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

organic compounds from any fabric coating line or vinyl coating 

line subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

(1) 2.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to the coating applicator 

from a fabric coating line;

(2) 3.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to the coating applicator 

from a vinyl coating line.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0922 METAL FURNITURE 

COATINGS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 

(1) "Application area" means the area where the 

coating is applied by spraying, dipping, or 

flowcoating techniques. 

(2) "Coating unit" means one or more coating 

areas and any associated drying area and/or 

oven wherein a coating is applied, dried, or 

cured. 

(2)(3) "Metal furniture coating" coatings" means the 

surface coating of any furniture made of metal 

or any metal part which will be assembled 

with other metal, wood, fabric, plastic, or glass 

parts to form a furniture piece. paints, sealants, 

caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. 

(b) This Rule applies to application area(s), flashoff area(s), and 

oven(s) of metal furniture coating lines involved in prime and 

topcoat or single coating operations. each metal furniture surface 

coating unit source whose emissions of volatile organic 

compounds exceeds the threshold established in 15A NCAC 

02D .0902(b). 

(c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d)(f) of this Rule, 

emissions of all volatile organic compounds from metal 

furniture coating line unit subject to this Rule shall not exceed: 

exceed 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of 

solids delivered to the coating applicator from prime and topcoat 

or single coat operations: 

(1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating excluding water and exempt 

compounds (3.3 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of solids) delivered 

from general, one component or general, 

multi-component types of coating operations; 

and 

(2) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating excluding water and exempt 

compounds (5.1 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of solids) delivered 

from any other types of coating operations. 

(d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of 

volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this 

IV-6 A-66 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

Subchapter and which has installed air pollution control 

equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to 

comply with this Rule before December 1, 1989, may comply 

with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those 

contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

organic compounds from any metal furniture coating line subject 

to this Rule shall not exceed 3.0 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to the coating applicator from prime and 

topcoat or single coat operations.

(d) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used 

to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at metal furniture surface coating units unless the 

facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

(e) Emissions limits established in Subparagraph (c)(2) of this 

Rule do not apply to stencil coatings, safety-indicating coatings, 

solid film lubricants, electric-insulating and thermal-conducting 

coatings, touch up and repair coatings, coating application 

utilizing hand- held aerosol cans, or cleaning operations. 

(f) Any coating unit which has chosen to use add-on control for 

coating operations rather than the emission limits established in 

Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall install control equipment with an 

overall control efficiency of 90 percent or use a combination of 

coating and add-on control equipment on a coating unit to meet 

limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. 

(g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this rule shall 

comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0923 SURFACE COATING OF LARGE 

APPLIANCE PARTS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 

(1) "Application area" means the area where the 

coating is applied by spraying, dipping, or 

flow coating techniques. 

(2) "Single coat" means a single film of coating 

applied directly to the metal substrate omitting 

the primer application. 

(2) "Coating unit" means a unit that consists of a 

series of one or more coating applicators and 

any associated drying area or oven where a 

coating is dried, or cured.

(3) "Large appliances" appliance part" means 

doors, cases, lids, panels, and interior support 

parts of residential and commercial washers, 

dryers, ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water 

heaters, dishwashers, trash compactors, air 

conditioners, and other similar products. any 

organic surface-coated metal lid, door, casing, 

panel, or other interior or exterior metal part or 

accessory that is assembled to form a large 

appliance product. 

(4) "Large appliance product" means any organic 

surface-coated metal range, oven, microwave 

oven, refrigerator, freezer, washer, dryer, 

dishwasher, water heater, or trash compactor 

manufactured for household, commercial, or 

recreational use.

(b) This Rule applies to application area(s), flashoff area(s), and 

oven(s) of large appliance coating lines involved in prime, 

single, or topcoat coating operations. each large appliance 

coating unit source whose volatile organic compounds emissions 

exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 

(c) This Rule does not apply to the use of quick-drying lacquers 

for repair of scratches and nicks, which occur during assembly, 

if the volume of coating does not exceed one quart in any eighthour period. 

(d)(c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule, 

emissions Emissions of all volatile organic compounds from any 

large appliance coating line unit subject to this Rule shall not 

exceed: exceed 4.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator from prime, 

single, or topcoat coating operations.

(1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds (3.3 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of solids) delivered 

from general, one component coating or 

general, multi-component types of coating 

operations; and

(2) 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds (4.5 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of solids) delivered 

from any other types of coating operations.

(e) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of 

volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518 (e) of this 

Subchapter and which has installed air pollution control 

equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to 

comply with this Rule before December 1, 1989, may comply 

with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those 

contained in Paragraph (d) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

organic compounds from any large appliance coating line 

subject to this Rule shall not exceed 2.8 pounds of volatile 

organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and 

exempt compounds, delivered to the coating applicator from 

prime, single, or topcoat any coating operations. 

(d) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used 

to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at surface coating of large appliances parts 

facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the 

volatile organic compounds content of coating materials from 

the manufacturer. 

(e) Emissions limits established in Subparagraph (c)(2) of this 

Rule do not apply to stencil coatings, safety-indicating coatings, 

solid film lubricants, electric-insulating and thermal-conducting 

coatings, touch up and repair coatings, coating applications 

utilizing hand- held aerosol cans, or any cleaning material. 

(f) Any coating unit which has chosen to use add-on controls for 

coating operations rather than the emission limits established in 

Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall install control equipment with an 

overall control efficiency of 90 percent or use a combination of 

coating and add-on control equipment on a coating unit to meet 

limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule.

(g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule 

shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0934 COATING OF 

MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

IV-7 A-67 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(1) "Heat sensitive material" means materials that 

cannot be exposed to temperatures greater than 

180°F to 200°F.

(2) "Air dried coating" means coatings which are 

dried by the use of air or a forced air drier.

(3) "Clear coat" means a coating which lacks color 

and opacity.

(4) "Extreme performance coatings" means 

coatings designed for harsh exposure or 

extreme environmental conditions.

(5) "Extreme environmental conditions" means 

exposure to:

(A) the weather at all times;

(B) temperatures consistently above 

203°F;

(C) detergents, scouring, solvents, or 

corrosive atmospheres; or

(D) other similar environmental 

conditions.

(b) This Rule applies to application areas, flashoff areas, ovens 

and other processes that are used in the coating of metal parts 

and products of the following types of manufacturing plants:

(1) large farm machinery including harvesting, 

fertilizing and planting machines, tractors, 

combines, and other similar machines;

(2) small farm machinery including lawn and 

garden tractors, lawn mowers, rototillers, and 

other similar machines;

(3) small appliances including fans, mixers, 

blenders, crock pots, dehumidifiers, vacuum 

cleaners, and other similar machines;

(4) commercial machinery including computers 

and auxiliary equipment, typewriters, 

calculators, vending machines, and other 

similar machines;

(5) industrial machinery including pumps, 

compressors, conveyor components, fans, 

blowers, transformers, and other similar 

machines;

(6) fabricated metal products including metal 

covered doors, frames and other similar 

structures; and

(7) any other manufacturing plant that coats metal 

parts or products.

(c) This Rule does not apply to:

(1) sources covered by Rules .0917, .0918, .0919, 

.0922, .0923, and .0924 of this Section;

(2) architectural and maintenance coating;

(3) coating of airplane exterior;

(4) automobile refinishing;

(5) customized coating of automobiles and trucks; 

or

(6) exterior of marine vessels.

(d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule, 

emissions of volatile organic compounds from any coating line 

subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

(1) 10.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to a coating 

applicator that applies clear coatings;

(2) 6.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to a coating 

applicator in a coating application system that 

utilized air or forced air driers;

(3) 6.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to a coating 

applicator that applies extreme performance 

coatings;

(4) 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of solids delivered to a coating 

applicator that applies coatings of five or more 

color changes or of five or more colors or 

applies the coating that is the first coat on 

untreated ferrous substrate; or

(5) where there are less than five color changes 

and less than five colors are applied:

(A) 0.4 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of solids 

delivered to a coating applicator that 

applies powder coatings; or

(B) 5.1 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of solids 

delivered to a coating applicator for 

any other type of coating. Whenever 

more than one of the aforementioned 

emission limitations may apply to a 

process, then the least stringent 

emission limitation shall apply to the 

process.

(e) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of 

volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this 

Subchapter and which has installed air pollution control 

equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to 

comply with this Rule before December 1, 1989, may comply 

with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those 

contained in Paragraph (d) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 

organic compounds from any coating line subject to this Rule 

shall not exceed:

(1) 4.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to a coating applicator

that applies clear coatings; 

(2) 3.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to a coating applicator 

in a coating application system that utilized air 

or forced air driers;

(3) 3.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to a coating applicator 

that applies extreme performance coatings;

(4) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to a coating applicator 

that applies coatings of five or more color 

changes or of five or more colors or applies 

the coating that is the first coat on untreated 

ferrous substrate; or

(5) where there are less than five color changes 

and less than five colors are applied:

(A) 0.4 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon of coating, 

excluding water and exempt 

compounds, delivered to a coating 

IV-8 A-68 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

applicator that applies powder 

coatings; or 

(B) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon, excluding 

water and exempt solvents, delivered 

to a coating applicator for any other 

type of coating.

Whenever more than one of the aforementioned emission 

limitations may apply to a process, then the least stringent 

emission limitation shall apply to the process.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0935 FACTORY SURFACE COATING 

OF FLAT WOOD PANELING 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 

(1) "Class II hardboard paneling finishes" means 

finishes which meet the specifications of 

Voluntary Product Standard PS-59-73 as 

approved by the American National Standards 

Institute.

(1) Flat wood paneling coatings means wood 

paneling product that are any interior, exterior 

or tileboard (class I hardboard) panel to which 

a protective, decorative, or functional material 

or layer has been applied.

(2) "Hardboard" is a panel manufactured primarily 

from inter-felted lignocellulosic fibers which 

are consolidated under heat and pressure in a 

hot-press.

(3) "Hardwood plywood" means plywood whose 

surface layer is a veneer of hardwood.

(4) "Natural finish hardwood plywood panel" 

means a panel whose original grain pattern is 

enhanced by essentially transparent finishes 

frequently supplemented by fillers and toners.

(5) "Particle board" means a manufactured board 

made of individual wood particles which have 

been coated with a binder and formed into flat 

sheets by pressure. Thin particleboard has a 

thickness of one-fourth inch or less.

(6) "Printed panel" means a panel whose grain or 

natural surface is obscured by fillers and 

basecoats upon which a simulated grain or 

decorative pattern is printed.

(7)(2) "Tileboard" means paneling that has a colored 

waterproof surface coating a premium interior 

wall paneling product made of hardboard that 

is used in high moisture area of the home. 

(b) This Rule applies to factory finishing of the following flat 

wood products: each flat wood paneling coatings source whose 

volatile organic compounds emissions exceed the threshold 

established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) at the facilities with 

flat wood paneling coating applications for the following 

products: 

(1) printed decorative interior wall panels made of 

hardwood plywood and thin particleboard; 

panels made of hardwood, plywood, or thin 

particleboard;

(2) natural finish hardwood plywood panels; and

(2) exterior siding made of solid wood, hardboard, 

or waferboard; and

(3) class II finishes of hardboard paneling.

(3) tileboard made of hardboard. 

(c) This Rule does not apply to the following factory finished 

flat wood products:

(1) exterior siding,

(2) tileboard,

(3) particleboard used in cabinetry or furniture,

(4) insulation board, or

(5) softwood plywood.

(d)(c) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any 

factory finished flat wood product operation subject to this Rule 

shall not exceed: exceed 2.1 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon material excluding water and exempt 

compounds (2.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

gallon solids.) 

(1) 6.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

1,000 square feet of coated finished product of 

printed interior wall panels made of hardwood 

plywood and thin particle board, or

(2) 12.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

1,000 square feet of coated finished product of 

natural finish hardwood plywood panels, or

(3) 10.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 

1,000 square feet of coated finished product of 

class II finishes on hardboard paneling.

(d) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used 

to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at surface coating of flat wood paneling facilities 

unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile 

organic compounds content of coating materials from the 

manufacturer. 

(e) Any facility that meet definition of Paragraph (b) of this 

Rule and which has chosen to use add-on controls for flat wood 

paneling coating operation rather than the emission limits 

established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall install control 

equipment with an overall control efficiency of 90 percent or use 

a combination of coating and add-on control equipment on a flat 

wood paneling coating operation to meet limits established in 

Paragraph (c) of this Rule. 

(f) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this rule shall 

comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0936 GRAPHIC ARTS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Flexographic printing" means the application 

of words, designs and pictures to a substrate 

by means of a roll printing technique in which 

both the pattern to be applied is raised above 

the printing roll and the image carrier is made 

of rubber or other elastometric materials.

(2) "Packaging rotogravure printing" means 

printing with a gravure press upon paper, 

paper board, metal foil, plastic film, and other 

substrates, which are, in subsequent operation, 

formed into containers and labels for articles 

to be sold.

(3) "Printing" means the formation of words, 

designs and pictures, usually by a series of 

application rolls each with only partial 

coverage.

IV-9 A-69 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(4) "Publication rotogravure printing" means 

printing upon paper which is subsequently 

formed into books, magazines, catalogues, 

brochures, directories, newspaper 

supplements, and other types of printed 

materials.

(5) "Roll printing" means the application of 

words, designs and pictures to a substrate by 

means of hard rubber or steel rolls.

(b) This Rule applies to:

(1) flexographic printing, packaging rotogravure 

printing and publication rotogravure printing 

operations; or

(2) machines that have both coating units and 

printing units.

(c) This Rule does not apply to facilities where the potential 

emissions of volatile organic compounds is less than 100 tons 

per year.

(d) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any printing 

press or drying oven of a printing operation subject to this Rule 

shall not be discharged into the atmosphere unless:

(1) The captured volatile organic compound 

emissions are reduced by at least 90 percent by 

an incineration system or 95 percent by a 

carbon adsorption system or any other control 

system; and:

(A) For packaging rotogravure printing 

operations, at least 65 percent overall 

reduction of the volatile organic 

compound emissions is achieved;

(B) For publication rotogravure printing 

operations at least 75 percent overall 

reduction of the volatile organic 

compound emissions is achieved; and

(C) For flexographic printing operations, 

at least 60 percent overall reduction 

of the volatile organic compound 

emissions is achieved;

(2) The solvent portion of the ink, as it is applied 

on the substrate, consists of at least 75 percent 

water by volume and no more than 25 percent 

organic solvent by volume;

(3) The ink contains by volume at least 60 percent 

nonvolatile material;

(4) The printing system uses a combination of 

solvent-borne and water-borne ink such that at 

least a 70 percent by volume overall reduction 

in solvent usage is achieved when compared to 

all solvent-borne ink usage, or

(5) The ink, including any solvents that may be 

added to it, contains no more than 0.5 pounds 

of volatile organic compounds per pound of 

solids in the ink; only flexographic printing 

and packaging rotogravure printing may use 

this option.

(e) When a facility complies with this Rule using the provision 

of Subparagraph (d)(4) of this Rule, the permit shall contain a 

condition stating the maximum quantity of solvent-borne ink 

that each printing unit may use or that the facility as a whole 

may use.

(f) Equivalency calculations for emissions trading, cross-line 

averaging, or determining compliance with add-on control 

equipment shall be performed in units of pounds of volatile 

organic compounds per gallon of solids.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0951 MISCELLANEOUS VOLATILE 

ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS 

(a) With the exceptions in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, this Rule 

applies to all facilities that use volatile organic compounds as 

solvents, carriers, material processing media, or industrial 

chemical reactants, or in other similar uses, or that mix, blend, or 

manufacture volatile organic compounds for which there is no 

other applicable emissions control rule in this Section except 

Rule .0958 of this Section. If the only other applicable 

emissions control rule for the facility in this Section is Rule 

.0958, then both this Rule and Rule .0958 apply. 

(b) This Rule does not apply to architectural or maintenance 

coating. 

(c) The owner or operator of any facility to which this Rule 

applies shall: 

(1) install and operate reasonable available control 

technology; or 

(2) limit emissions of volatile organic compounds 

from coating lines not covered by Rules .0917 

through .0922, .0923, .0924, .0934, or .0935

.0935, 0936 or .0961 through .0968 from this 

Section to no more than 6.7 pounds of volatile 

organic compounds per gallon of solids 

delivered to the coating applicator. 

(d) If the owner or operator of a facility chooses to install 

reasonable available control technology under Subparagraph 

(c)(1) of this Rule, the owner or operator shall submit: 

(1) the name and location of the facility; 

(2) information identifying the source for which a 

reasonable available control technology 

limitation or standard is being proposed; 

(3) a demonstration that shows the proposed 

reasonable available control technology 

limitation or standard satisfies the 

requirements for reasonable available control 

technology; and 

(4) a proposal for demonstrating compliance with 

the proposed reasonable control technology 

limitation or standard. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0952 PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE 

CONTROLS FOR RACT 

(a) With the exception in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, this This 

Rule applies to all sources covered under this Section. 

(b) This Rule does not apply to sources in Mecklenburg County 

to which Rules .0917 through .0937 of this Section apply and 

which are located at a facility where the total potential emissions 

of volatile organic compounds from all stationary sources at the 

facility are greater than or equal to 100 tons per year.

(c)(b) If the owner or operator of any source of volatile organic 

compounds subject to the requirements of this Section, can 

demonstrate that compliance with rules in this Section would be 

technologically or economically infeasible, he may petition the 

IV-10 A-70 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

Director to allow the use of alternative operational or equipment 

controls for the reduction of volatile organic compound 

emissions. Petition shall be made for each source to the Director. 

(d)(c) The petition shall contain: 

(1) the name and address of the company and the 

name and telephone number of a company 

officer over whose signature the petition is 

submitted; 

(2) a description of all operations conducted at the 

location to which the petition applies and the 

purpose that the volatile organic compound 

emitting equipment serves within the 

operations; 

(3) reference to the specific operational and 

equipment controls under the rules of this 

Section for which alternative operational or 

equipment controls are proposed; 

(4) a description of the proposed alternative 

operational or equipment controls, the 

magnitude of volatile organic compound 

emission reduction that will be achieved, and 

the quantity and composition of volatile 

organic compounds that will be emitted if the 

alternative operational or equipment controls 

are instituted; 

(5) a plan, which will be instituted in addition to 

the proposed alternative operational or 

equipment controls, to reduce, where 

technologically and economically feasible, 

volatile organic compound emissions from 

other source operations at the facility, further 

than that required under the rules of this 

Section, if these sources exist at the facility, 

such that aggregate volatile organic compound 

emissions from the facility will in no case be 

greater through application of the alternative 

control than would be allowed through 

conformance with the rules of this Section; 

(6) a schedule for the installation or institution of 

the alternative operational or equipment 

controls in conformance with Rule .0909 of 

this Section, as applicable; and 

(7) certification that emissions of all other air 

contaminants from the subject source are in 

compliance with all applicable local, state and 

federal laws and regulations. 

The petition may include a copy of the permit application and 

need not duplicate information in the permit application. 

(e)(d) The Director shall approve a petition for alternative 

control if: 

(1) The petition is submitted in accordance with 

Paragraph (d) of this Rule; 

(2) The Director determines that the petitioner 

cannot comply with the rules in question 

because of technological or economical 

infeasibility; 

(3) All other air contaminant emissions from the 

facility are in compliance with, or under a 

schedule for compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable with, all applicable local, state, and 

federal regulations; and 

(4) The petition contains a schedule for achieving 

and maintaining reduction of volatile organic 

compound emissions to the maximum extent 

feasible and as expeditiously as practicable. 

(f)(e) When controls different from those specified in the 

appropriate emission standards in this Section are approved by 

the Director, the permit shall contain a condition stating such 

controls. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0961 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC 

PRINTING AND LETTERPRESS PRINTING 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "First installation date" means the actual date 

when this control device becomes operational. 

This date does not change if the control device 

is later redirected to a new press

(2) "Fountain solution" means water-based 

solution that applies to lithographic plate to 

render the non-image areas unreceptive to the 

ink.

(3) "Letterpress printing" means a printing process 

in which the image area is raised relative to the 

non-image area and the paste ink is transferred 

to the substrate directly from the image 

surface.

(4) "Offset lithography" means an indirect method 

of printing when ink transferred from the 

lithographic plate to a rubber-covered 

intermediate "blanket" cylinder and then 

transferred from the blanket cylinder to the 

substrate.

(5) " Sheet-fed printing " means an indirect 

method of printing when ink transferred from 

the lithographic plate to a rubber-covered 

intermediate "blanket" cylinder and then 

transferred from the blanket cylinder to the 

substrate.

(6) "Web printing" means printing when 

continuous rolls of substrate material are fed to 

the press and rewound or cut to size after 

printing.

(b) This Rule applies to any offset lithographic and any 

letterpress printing operations sources whose emissions of 

volatile organic compounds exceed the threshold established in 

15A NCAC 02D .0902(b).

(c) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution 

from on-press (as-applied) for heatset web offset lithographic 

printing shall not exceed 1.6 percent alcohol (by weight) in the 

fountain or equivalent. This level of control for volatile organic 

compounds shall be achieved by: 

(1) reducing the on-press (as-applied) alcohol 

content to 1.6 percent alcohol or less (by 

weight); or 

(2) use three percent alcohol or less (by weight) 

the on-press (as-applied) in the fountain 

solution if the fountain solution is refrigerated 

to below 60°F; or

(3) use five percent alcohol substitute or less (by 

weight) the on-press (as-applied) and no 

alcohol in the in the fountain solution.

IV-11 A-71 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(d) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution 

from on-press (as-applied) sheet-fed lithographic printing five 

percent alcohol (by weight) in the fountain or equivalent. This 

level of control for volatile organic compounds shall be achieved 

by: 

(1) reducing the on-press (as-applied) alcohol 

content to five percent alcohol or less (by 

weight); or 

(2) use 8.5 percent alcohol or less (by weight) the 

on-press (as-applied) in the fountain solution if 

the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 

60°F; or

(3) use five percent alcohol substitute or less (by 

weight) the on-press (as-applied) and no 

alcohol in the in the fountain solution.

(e) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution 

from on-press (as-applied) coldset web offset lithographic 

printing shall not exceed five percent alcohol substitute or less 

(by weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution. 

(f) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any single 

letterpress printing heatset press subject to this Rule shall not 

exceed 25 tons per year. This level of control shall be achieved 

by using petroleum ink oil with volatile organic compounds 

content 31.25 tons per year volatile organic compounds or less 

because of the 20 percent ink oil retention.

(g) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used 

to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at offset lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing facilities unless the facility maintains records to 

document the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials from the manufacturer. 

(h) Any single letterpress printing heatset dryer owner or 

operator subject to this Rule, who has chosen to use add-on 

control for letterpress printing operation rather than to comply 

with the emission limits established in Paragraph (f) of this Rule 

shall install control equipment with: 

(1) 90 percent control efficiency for a control 

device whose first installation date was prior 

to July 1, 2010; or

(2) 95 percent control efficiency for a control 

device whose first installation date was on or 

after July 1, 2010.

(i) The control limits established in: 

(1) Paragraph (d) shall not be applied to sheet-fed 

presses with maximum sheet size 11x 17 

inches or smaller, or to any press with total 

fountain solution reservoir of less than one 

gallon;

(2) Paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) shall not be applied 

to sheet-fed or coldest web inks, sheet-fed or 

coldest web varnishes, waterborne coatings or 

radiation (ultra-violet light or electron beam) 

cured materials used on offset lithographic 

presses or letterpress presses; 

(3) Paragraph (c) and (d) shall not be applied to a 

press with a potential to emit below 25 tons 

per year used for book printing, and presses 

with maximum web width of 22 inches or less; 

and

(4) Paragraph (f) shall not be applied to a heatset 

press used for book printing, and a headset 

press with maximum web width of 22 inches 

or less.

(j) All cleaning materials used in amount more than 110 gallons 

per year for cleaning a press, press parts, or to remove dried ink 

from areas around the press shall contain less than 70 weight 

percent volatile organic compounds or have volatile organic 

compounds composite vapor pressure less than 10 mm Hg at 

20°C.

(k) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule 

shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0962 INDUSTRIAL CLEANING 

SOLVENTS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Organic solvent" means a liquid hydrocarbon, 

such as methyl ethyl ketone or toluene, used to 

dissolve paints, varnishes, grease, oil, or other 

hydrocarbons.

(2) "Solvent cleaning" means the process of 

removing the excess penetrant from the 

surface or a part by wiping. flushing, or 

spraying with a solvent for the penetrant.

(b) This Rule applies to sources whose volatile organic 

compound emissions exceed the threshold established in 15A 

NCAC 02D .0902(b) from the following cleaning operations: 

(1) spray gun cleaning;

(2) spray booth cleaning;

(3) large manufactured components cleaning;

(4) parts cleaning;

(5) equipment cleaning;

(6) line cleaning;

(7) floor cleaning;

(8) tank cleaning; and

(9) small manufactured components cleaning.

(c) Cleaning operations covered by Rules .0921, .0923, .0930, 

.0934, .0935, .0936, .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, 

.0967, and .0968 of this Section are exempted from the 

requirements of this Rule.

(d) Any cleaning material of the nine cleaning operations listed 

in Paragraph (b) of this Rule shall have:

(1) volatile organic compounds content that does 

not exceed 0.42 pounds per gallon; or

(2) composite vapor limit of eight millimeters of 

mercury (mmHg) at 20 degrees Celsius. 

(e) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used 

to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used in industrial cleaning solvents operations unless 

the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

(f) Facilities which have chosen to use add-on control rather 

than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph 

(g) of this Rule shall install control equipment with 85 percent 

overall efficiency. 

(h) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule 

shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0963 FIBERGLASS BOAT 

MANUFACTURING MATERIALS 

IV-12 A-72 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Closed molding" means any fabrication 

techniques in which pressure is used to 

distribute the resin through the reinforcing 

fabric placed between two mold surfaces to 

either saturate the fabric or fill the mold 

cavity.

(2) "Monomer" means a volatile organic 

compound that partly combines with itself, or 

other similar compounds, by a cross-linking 

reaction to become a part of the cured resin.

(3) "Open molding" means the open mold which 

is first spray-coated with a clear or pigmented 

polyster resin known as a gel coat. The gel 

coat will become the outer surface of the 

finished part.

(b) This Rule applies to a facility that manufactures hulls or 

decks of boats and related parts, build molds to make fiberglass 

boat hulls or decks and related parts from fiberglass, or make 

polyester resin putties for assembling fiberglass parts and whose 

volatile organic compounds emissions exceed the threshold 

established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) from sources for the 

following operations: 

(1) open molding and gel coat operations 

(including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, 

production resin, tooling gel coat, and tooling 

resin);

(2) resins and gel coat mixing operations; and 

(3) resins and gel coat application equipment 

cleaning operations.

(c) The following activities are exempted from the provisions of 

this Rule:

(1) surface coatings applied to fiberglass boats;

(2) surface coatings for fiberglass and metal 

recreational boats (pleasure craft); and

(3) industrial adhesives used in the assembly of 

fiberglass boats.

(d) Volatile organic compounds content limits in resin and gel 

coat that are used for any molding operations listed in Paragraph 

(b) of this Rule and closed molding operations that do not meet 

the definition established in Subparagraph (a)(2) of this Rule, 

such as vacuum bagging operations, shall not exceed monomer 

volatile organic compounds limits established in Table 1:

Table 1 Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants Content Requirements for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations (40 CFR 63, 

Subpart VVVV.)

Material Application Method Limit of Weighted-Average Monomer 

VOC Content (weight percent)

Production resin Atomized (spray) 28

Production resin Nonatomized 35

Pigmented gel coat Any method 33

Clear gel coat Any method 48

Tooling resin Atomized 30

Tooling resin Nonatomized 39

Tooling gel coat Any method 40

The average monomer volatile organic compounds contents listed in the Table 1 shall be determined by using Equation 1:

 n

 ∑ (M i VOC i )

 i=1

 

Weighted Average Monomer VOC Content = n

 ∑ (M i )

 i=1

 

Where: M i = mass of open molding resin or gel coat i used in the past 12 month in an operation, megagrams.

VOC I = monomer volatile organic compounds content, by weight percent, of open molding resin or gel coat i used 

in the past 12 month in an operation.

n = number of different open molding resins or gel coats used in the past 12 month in an operation.

(e) Molding monomer and non-monomer volatile organic 

compounds limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall 

not be applicable to:

(1) production resins (including skin coat resins) 

that shall meet specifications for use in 

military vessels or shall be approved by the 

U.S. Coast Guard for the use in the 

construction of lifeboats, rescue boats, and 

other life saving appliances approved under 46 

CFR subchapter Q, or the construction of 

small passenger vessels regulated by 46 CFR 

Subchapter T. Production resins that meet 

these criteria shall be applied with 

nonatomizing resin application equipment; 

(2) production and tooling resins, and pigmented, 

clear, and tooling gel coat used for part or 

mold repair and touch up. Total resin and gel 

coat materials that meet these criteria shall not 

exceed one percent by weight of all resin and 

gel coat used at a facility on a 12-month 

rolling-average basis; or 

IV-13 A-73 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(3) pure, 100-percent vinylester resin used for skin 

coats that shall be applied with nonatomizing 

resin application equipment and with the total 

amount of the resin materials not exceeding 

five percent by weight of all resin used at a 

factory on 12-month rolling-average basis.

(f) Any molding resin and gel coat operations listed in 

Paragraph (b) of this Rule, that a facility chooses to include into 

average emissions among different operations to meet numerical 

monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate limits rather 

than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph 

(d) of this Rule shall use:

(1) Equation 2 to estimate a facility-specific 

monomer volatile organic compounds mass 

emission limit (12-month rolling average). 

Estimations of emissions average shall be 

determined on 12-month rolling average basis 

at the end of every month (12 times per year). 

Equation 2:

Monomer VOC Limit= 46(MR) + 159(MPG) + 

291(MCG) + 54(MTR) + 214(MTG)

Where: 

Monomer VOC Limit = total allowable 

monomer volatile organic compounds that can 

be emitted from the open molding operations 

included in the average, kilograms per 12-

month period.

MR = mass of production resin used in the 

past 12 month excluding any 

materials that are exempt, 

megagrams.

MPG= mass of pigmented gel coat used in 

the past 12 month, excluding any 

materials that are exempt, 

megagrams.

MCG= mass of clear gel coat used in the past 

12 month, excluding any materials 

that are exempt, megagrams

MTR= mass of tooling resin coat used in the 

past 12 month, excluding any 

materials that are exempt, megagrams

MTG = mass of tooling gel coat used in the 

past 12 month, excluding any 

materials that are exempt, megagrams

The numerical coefficients associated with 

each term on the right hand side of Equation 2

are the allowable monomer volatile organic 

compounds emission rate for that particular 

material in units of kilograms of VOC per 

megagrams of material used. 

(2) Equation 3 to demonstrate that the monomer 

volatile organic compounds emissions from 

the operations included in the average do nor 

exceed the emission limit calculated using 

Equation 2 from Subparagraph (f)(1) of this 

Rule for the same 12-month period. This 

demonstration shall be conducted at the end of 

the first 12-month averaging period and at the 

end of every subsequent month for only those 

operations and materials that included in the 

average.

Equation 3:

Monomer VOC emissions = (PVR)(MR) + 

(PVPG)(MPG) + (PVCG)(MCG) + 

(PVTR)(MTR) + (PVTG)(MTG)

Where:

Monomer VOC emissions = monomer volatile 

organic compounds 

emissions calculated using 

the monomer volatile 

organic compounds 

emission equation for each 

operation included in the 

average, kilograms.

PVR = weighted-average monomer volatile 

organic compounds emission rate for 

production resin used in the past 12 

month, kilograms per megagram.

MR = Mass of production resin used in the 

past 12 month, megagrams.

PVPG = weighted-average monomer volatile 

organic compounds emission rate for 

pigmented gel coat used in the past 

12 month, kilograms per megagram.

MPG = mass of pigmented gel coat used in 

the past 12 month, megagrams.

PVCG = weighted-average monomer volatile 

organic compounds emission rate for 

clear gel coat used in the past 12 

month, kilograms per megagram.

MCG = Mass of clear gel coat used in the past 

12 month, megagrams.

PVTR = Weighted-average monomer volatile 

organic compounds emission rate for 

tooling resin used in the past 12 

month, kilograms per megagram.

MTR = Mass of tooling resin used in the past 

12 month, megagrams.

PVTG = Weighted-average monomer volatile 

organic compounds emission rate for 

tooling gel coat used in the past 12 

month, kilograms per megagram.

MTG = Mass of tooling gel coat used in the 

past 12 month, megagrams.

(3) Equation 4 to compute the weighted-average 

monomer volatile organic compounds 

emission rate for the previous 12 month for 

each open molding resin and gel coat 

operation included in the average to apply the 

results in Equation 3.

Equation 4:

 n

 ∑ (M i PV i ) 

 i=1 

PVOP = 

 n

IV-14 A-74 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

 ∑ (M i ) 

 i=1 

 

Where:

PVOP = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for each open molding operation 

(PVR, PVPG, PVCG, PVTR, and PVTG) included in the average, kilograms of monomer volatile organic 

compounds per megagram of material applied.

M i = mass or resin or gel coat i used within an operation in the past 12 month, megagrams.

n = number of different open molding resins and gel coats used within an operation in the past 12 month.

PV i. = the monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for resin or gel coat i used within an operation in 

the past 12 month, kilograms of monomer volatile organic compounds per megagram of material applied. 

Equations in Table 2 shall be used to compute PV

Table 2 Compliant Materials Monomer Volatile Organic Compounds Content for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat.

For this material and this application 

method

Use this formula to calculate the 

monomer VOC emission rate

1. Production resin, tooling resin a. Atomized 0.014 x (Resin VOC%)2.425

 b. Atomized, plus 

vacuum bagging with 

roll-out

0.01185 x (Resin VOC%)2.425

c. Atomized, plus 

vacuum bagging 

without roll-out

0.00945 x (Resin VOC%)2.425

 d. Nonatomized 0.014 x (Resin VOC%)2.275

 e. Nonatomized, plus 

vacuum bagging with 

roll-out

0.0110 x (Resin VOC%)2.275

f. Nonatomized, plus 

vacuum bagging without 

roll-out

0.0076 x (Resin VOC%)2.275

2. Pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, tooling 

gel coat

All methods 0.445 x (Gel coat VOC%)1.675

(g) If any molding resin and gel coat operations listed in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, chooses to use of higher-monomer volatile 

organic compounds materials rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule it shall:

(1) install control equipment to meet the emission limit determined by Equation 2 in Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule, 

applying the mass of each material used during the control device performance test in Equation 2 to determine the 

emission limit (in kilogram of monomer VOC) that is applicable during the test, instead of using the mass of each 

material as it established in Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule;

(2) monitor and record relevant control device and capture system operating parameters during the control device 

performance test to use the recorded values to establish operating limits for those parameters;

(3) monitor the operating parameters for the control device and emissions capture system and maintain the parameters 

within the established limits;

(h) Any molding resin and gel coat operations that use a filled production resin or filled tooling resin shall calculate the emission rate 

for the filled production resin or filled tooling resin on as applied basis using Equation 5. If the filled resin:

(1) is used as a production resin than the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 shall not exceed 46 kilograms of 

monomer VOC per megagram of filled resin applied;

(2) is used as a tooling resin than the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 shall not exceed 54 kilograms of monomer 

VOC per megagram of filled resin applied;

(3) is included in the emissions averaging procedure than the facility use the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 for 

the value PVi in Equation 4 in Subparagraph (f)(3) of this Rule.

Equation 5:

 (100 -%Filler)

 PVF = PVU x 100

 

Where: PVF = The as-applied monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for the filled production resin 

or tooling resin, kilograms monomer VOC per megagram of filled material.

PVU = The monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for the neat (unfilled) resin before filler is added, 

as calculated using the formulas in Table 2. of Subparagraph (f)(3) of this Rule.

%Filler = The weight-percent of filler in the as-applied filled resin system.

(i) All resins and gel coats included in volatile organic compounds limits described in Paragraphs (d) through (h) shall meet nonmonomer volatile organic compounds content limit of five percent.

IV-15 A-75 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(j) If the non-monomer volatile organic compounds content of a resin or gel coat exceeds five percent, then the excess non-monomer 

volatile organic compounds over five percent shall be counted toward the monomer volatile organic compounds content.

(k) SCAQMD Method 312-91, Determination of Percent Monomer in Polyester Resins, revised April 1996 shall be used to determine 

the monomer volatile organic compounds content of resin and gel coat materials unless the facility maintains records to document the 

volatile organic compounds content of resin and gel coat materials from the manufacturer.

(l) All resin and gel coat mixing containers with a capacity equal to or greater than 55 gallons, including those used for on-site mixing 

of putties and polyputties, shall have a cover with no visible gaps in place at all times except the following operations: 

(1) when material is being manually added to or removed from a container;

(2) when mixing or pumping equipment is being placed or removed from a container.

(m) Volatile organic compounds cleaning solvents for routine application equipment cleaning shall contain no more than five percent 

volatile organic compounds by weight, or have a composite vapor pressure of no more than 0.50 mm Hg at 68 0F.

(n) Only non-volatile organic compounds solvents shall be used to remove cured resin and gel coat from

application equipment.

(o) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0964 MISCELLANEOUS 

INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Air-assisted airless spray" means a system 

that consists of an airless spray gun with a 

compressed air jet at the gun tip to atomize the 

adhesive. 

(2) "Airless spray" means the application of an 

adhesive through an atomizing nozzle at high 

pressure (1,000 to 6,000 pounds per square

inch) by a pump forces. 

(3) "Application process" means a process that 

consists of a series of one or more adhesive 

applicators and any associated drying area or 

oven where an adhesive is applied, dried and 

cured. 

(4) "Dip Coating" means application where 

substrates are dipped into a tank containing the 

adhesive. The substrates are then withdrawn 

from the tank and any excess adhesive is 

allowed to drain. 

(5) "Electrocoating" means a specialized form of 

dip coating where opposite electric charges are 

applied to the waterborne adhesive and the 

substrate. 

(6) "Electrostatic spray" means application where 

the adhesive and substrate are oppositely 

charged. 

(7) "Flow coating" means conveying the substrate 

over an enclosed sink where the adhesive is 

applied at low pressure as the item passes 

under a series of nozzles.

(8) "HVLP" means a system with specialized 

nozzles that provide better air and fluid flow at 

lower air pressure, shape spray pattern, and 

guide high volumes of atomized adhesive 

particles to the substrate using lower air 

pressure (10 pounds per square inch or less at 

the spray cap).

(9) "Roll coating", "brush coating", and "hand 

application" means application of high 

viscosity adhesives onto small surface area.

(b) Control of volatile organic compounds emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives product categories covered 

by Rules .0921, .0923, .0934, .0935, .0936, .0961, .0962, .0963, 

.0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and .0968 of this Section are 

exempted from the requirements of this Rule.

(c) This Rule applies to miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application sources whose volatile organic compounds emissions 

exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b).

(d) With the exception established in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, 

all volatile organic compounds containing materials applied by 

each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes 

before control shall:

(1) not exceed limits established in Table 1 of this 

Paragraph; and

(2) be used in one of the following application 

methods in conjunction with using low volatile 

organic compounds adhesives or adhesive 

primers:

(A) electrostatic spray;

(B) HVLP spray;

(C) Flow coat;

(D) roll coat or hand application, 

including non-spray application

methods similar to hand or 

mechanically powered caulking gun, 

brush, or direct hand application;

(E) Dip coat (including 

electrodesposition);

(F) Airless spray;

(G) Air-assisted airless spray; or

(H) Other adhesive application method 

capable of achieving a transfer 

efficiency equivalent to or better than 

that achieved by HVLP spraying. 

(e) Emission limits established in Subparagraph (d)(1) of this 

Rule shall be:

(1) met by averaging the volatile organic 

compounds content of materials used oh a 

single application unit for each day; and

(2) calculated as mass of volatile organic 

compounds per volume of adhesive primer 

excluding water and exempt compounds, as 

applied.

(f) If an adhesive is used to bond dissimilar substrates together 

in general adhesive application process (Table 1), then the 

applicable substrate category with the highest volatile organic 

IV-16 A-76 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

compounds emission limit shall be established as the limit for such application. 

Table 1. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Limits for General and Specialty Adhesive Application Process.

General Adhesive Application Processes Recommended VOC Emission Limit (lb/gal)

Reinforced Plastic Composite 1.7

Flexible vinyl 2.1

Metal 0.3

Porous Material (Except Wood) 1

Rubber 2.1

Wood 0.3

Other Substrates 2.1

Specialty Adhesive Application Processes Recommended VOC Emission Limit (lb/gal)

Ceramic Tile Installation 1.1

Contact Adhesive 2.1

Cove Base Installation 1.3

Floor Covering Installation (Indoor) 1.3

Floor Covering Installation (Outdoor) 2.1

Floor Covering Installation (Perimeter Bonded Sheet Vinyl) 5.5

Metal to Urethane/Rubber Molding or Casting 7.1

Motor Vehicle Adhesive 2.1

Motor Vehicle Weatherstrip Adhesive 6.3

Multipurpose Construction 1.7

Plastic Solvent Welding (ABS) 3.3

Plastic Solvent Welding (Except ABS) 4.2

Sheet Rubber Lining Installation 7.1

Single-Ply Roof Membrane Installation/Repair (Except 

EPDM) 2.1

Structural Glazing 0.8

Thin Metal Laminating 6.5

Tire Repair 0.8

Waterproof Resorcinol Glue 1.4

Adhesive Primer Application Processes Recommended VOC Emission Limit1 (lb/gal)

Motor Vehicle Glass Bonding Primer 7.5

Plastic Solvent Welding Adhesive Primer 5.4

Single-Ply Roof Membrane Adhesive Primer 2.1

Other Adhesive Primer 2.1

(g) Any miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes subject to this Rule, which chooses to use add-on control for adhesive 

application processes rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, shall install control 

equipment with overall control efficiency of 85 percent or use a combination of adhesives and add-on control equipment on an 

application process to meet limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule.

(h) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of adhesives, 

other than reactive adhesives, and the procedure established in Appendix A of the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic parts (40 

CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of reactive adhesives unless the 

facility maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds content of adhesives from the manufacturer. 

(i) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0965 FLEXIBLE PACKAGE 

PRINTING 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "First installation date" means the actual date 

when the equipment or control device becomes 

operational. This date does not change if the 

equipment or control device is later moved to 

a new location.

(2) "Flexible Packaging" means any package or 

part of a package the shape of which can be 

readily changed.

IV-17 A-77 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(3) "Flexographic printing" means a printing 

process in which an image is raised above the 

printing plate, and the image carrier is made of 

rubber or other elastomeric materials.

(4) "Rotogravure press" means an unwind or feed 

section, which may include more than one 

unwind or feed station (such as on a 

laminator), series of individual work stations, 

one or more of which is a rotogravure print 

station, any dryers associated with the work 

stations, and a rewind, stack, or collection 

section. 

(5) "Rotogravure printing" means a printing 

process in which an image (type and art) is 

etched or engraved below the surface of a plate 

or cylinder.

(b) This Rule applies to flexible packaging printing press 

sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds exceed 

the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b).

(c) Volatile organic compounds content of materials used on 

any single flexible packaging printing press subject to this Rule 

shall not exceed 0.8 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb of 

solids applied, or 0.16 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb 

of materials applied limits that are consistent with 80 percent 

overall emissions reduction level and reflect similar control 

levels as the capture and control option.

(d) Any flexible packaging printing press which has chosen to 

use add-on control for coating operations rather than to comply 

with the emission limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule 

shall install control equipment with: 

(1) 65 percent overall control based on a capture 

efficiency of 75 percent and a control device 

efficiency of 90 percent for a press that was 

first installed prior to March 14, 1995 and that 

is controlled by an add-on control device 

whose first installation date prior to July 1.

2010; or 

(2) 70 percent overall control based on a capture 

efficiency of 75 percent and a control device 

efficiency of 95 percent for a press that was 

first installed prior to March 14, 1995 and that 

is controlled by an add-on control device 

whose first installation date was on or after 

July 1, 2010; or 

(3) 75 percent overall control based on a capture 

efficiency of 85 percent and a control device 

efficiency of 95 percent for a press that was 

first installed on or after March 14, 1995 and 

that is controlled by an add-on control device 

whose first installation date was prior July 1, 

2010; or 

(4) 80 percent overall control based on a capture 

efficiency of 85 percent and a control device 

efficiency of 95 percent for a press that was 

first installed on or after March 14, 1995 and 

that is controlled by an add-on control device 

whose first installation date was on or after 

July 1, 2010.

(e) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used 

to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at flexible package printing facilities unless the 

facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer.

(f) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule 

shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0966 PAPER, FILM AND FOIL 

COATINGS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Paper, film, and foil coating line" means a 

series of coating applicators, flash-off areas, 

and any associated curing/drying equipment 

between one or more unwind/feed stations and 

one or more rewind/cutting stations. 

(2) "Fabric coating" means applying protective or 

functional coatings to a textile substance with 

a knife, roll, rotogravure, rotary screen, or flat 

screen coater to impart properties that are not 

initially present, such as strength, stability, 

water or acid repellency, or appearance. 

Printing on textile fabric for decorative or 

other purposes is not part of this definition. 

Saturation operations are included in this 

definition.

(3) "Flexographic coating" means that the area to 

be coated is delineated by a raised surface on a 

flexible plate.

(4) "Rotary screen or flat screen coating" means 

the application of a coating material to a 

substrate by means of masking the surface and 

applying a color or finish using a screen either 

in flat form or rotary form.

(5) "Rotogravure coating" means the application 

of a coating material to a substrate by means 

of a roll coating technique in which the pattern 

to be applied is etched on the coating roll. The 

coating material is picked up in these recessed 

areas and is transferred to the substrate.

(b) With the exception in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, this Rule 

applies to paper, film and foil surface coating operations sources, 

including related cleaning activity, whose emissions of volatile 

organic compounds exceed the threshold established in 15A 

NCAC 02D .0902(b), at the facility that applies:

(1) paper, film, or foil surfaces in the 

manufacturing of products for pressure 

sensitive tape and labels (including fabric 

coated for use in pressure sensitive tapes and 

labels; photographic film; industrial and 

decorative laminates; abrasive products 

(including fabric coated for use in abrasive 

products) and flexible packaging (including 

coating of non-woven polymer substrates for 

use in flexible packaging); and

(2) coatings during miscellaneous coating 

applications for production of corrugated and 

solid fiber boxes; die-cut paper paperboard, 

and cardboard; converted paper and 

paperboard not elsewhere classified; folding 

paperboard boxes, including sanitary boxes; 

manifold business forms and related products; 

IV-18 A-78 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

plastic asceptic packaging; and carbon paper 

and inked ribbons.

(c) The following types of coatings are not covered by this 

Rule:

(1) coatings performed on or in-line with any 

offset lithographic, screen, letterpress, 

flexographic, rotogravure, or digital printing 

press; or

(2) size presses and on machine coaters that 

function as part of an in- line papermaking 

system.

(d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule,

emissions of volatile organic compounds from:

(1) pressure sensitive tape and label surface paper, 

film, and foils with the potential to emit, prior 

to controls, less than 25 tons per year of 

volatile organic compounds from coatings 

shall not exceed 0.20 pounds volatile organic 

compounds per pound of solids applied (0.067 

pounds volatile organic compounds per pound

of coating); 

(2) paper, film, and foil surface coating lines with 

the potential to emit, prior to controls less than 

25 tons per year of volatile organic compounds 

from coatings shall not exceed 0.40 pounds of 

volatile organic compounds per pound of 

solids(0.08 pounds volatile organic 

compounds per pound of coating).

(e) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used 

to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at paper, film and foil coatings facilities unless 

the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

(f) Any individual paper, film, and foil with the potential to 

emit, prior to controls, at least 25 tons per year of volatile 

organic compounds from coatings shall apply control with 

overall volatile organic compounds efficiency of 90 percent 

rather than the emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of 

this Rule or use a combination of coating and add-on control 

equipment on a coating unit to meet limits that are equivalent to 

90 percent overall control efficiency.

(g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule 

shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0967 MISCELLANEOUS METAL AND 

PLASTIC PARTS COATINGS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Air dried coating" means coatings which are 

dried by the use of air or a forced air drier.

(2) "Coating unit" means series one or more 

coating applicators and any associated drying 

area and oven wherein a coating is applied, 

dried, and cured.

(b) This Rule applies to miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating units whose volatile organic compounds 

emissions exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D 

.0902(b) for coating and related cleaning activities of the 

following types of products:

(1) fabricated metal products, molded plastic 

parts, small and large farm machinery, 

commercial and industrial machinery and 

equipment;

(2) automotive or transportation equipment, 

interior or exterior automotive parts, 

construction equipment, motor vehicle 

accessories, bicycles and sporting goods;

(3) toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure craft 

(recreational boats), extruded aluminum 

structural components, railroad cars, heavier 

vehicles, lawn and garden equipment;

(4) business machines, laboratory and medical 

equipment; and

(5) electronic equipment, steel drums metal pipes, 

and numerous other industrial and household 

products.

(c) This Rule does not apply to:

(1) coatings that are applied to test panels and 

coupons as part of research and development, 

quality control;

(2) performance testing activities at paint research 

or manufacturing facility; or

(3) sources covered by Rules .0921, .0922, .0923, 

.0935, .0936, .0961 .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, 

.0966, .0967, and .0968 of this Section.

(d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, 

emissions of volatile organic compounds before control for 

surface coating of: 

(1) Metal parts and products shall not exceed 

limits as established in Table 1;

Table 1. Metal Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category Air Dried

lb VOC/gal coating

Baked

lb VOC/gal coating

General One Component; General Multi 

Component; Military Specification 2.8 2.3

Camouflage; Electric-Insulating Varnish; Etching 

Filler; High Temperature; Metallic; Mold-Seal; Pan 

Backing; Pretreatment Coatings; Drum Coating, 

New, Interior; Drum Coating, Reconditioned,

Exterior; Silicone Release; Vacuum-Metalizing 3.5 3.5

Extreme High-Gloss; Extreme Performance; HeatResistant; Repair and Touch Up; Solar-Absorbent 3.5 3.0

High Performance Architectural 6.2 6.2

Prefabricated Architectural Multi-Component; 3.5 2.3

IV-19 A-79 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

Prefabricated Architectural One-Component

Drum Coating, New, Exterior 2.8 2.8

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, Interior 4.2 4.2

(2) Plastic parts and products shall not exceed limits as established in Table 2;

 Table 2. Metal Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

General One Component 2.3

General Multi Component; Metallic 3.5

Electric Dissipating Coatings and Shock-Free Coatings; Optical 

Coatings; Vacuum-Metalizing 6.7

Extreme Performance 3.5 (2-pack coatings)

Military Specification

2.8 (1 pack)

3.5 (2 pack)

Mold-Seal 6.3

Multi-colored Coatings 5.7

(3) automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts shall not exceed limits as established in Table 3;

Table 3. Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Automotive/Transportation Coatings

I. High Bake Coatings – Interior and Exterior Parts

Non-flexible Primer 3.5

Base Coats; Non-basecoat/clear coat; Flexible Primer 4.3

Clear Coat 4.0

II. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Exterior Parts

Primers; Basecoat; Non-basecoat/clearcoat 4.8

Clearcoats 4.5

 III. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Interior Parts 5.0

 IV. Touchup and Repair Coatings 5.2

Business Machine Coatings

Primers; Topcoat Texture Coat; Touchup and repair 2.9

Fog Coat 2.2

(4) pleasure craft shall not exceed limits as established in Table 4;

Table 4. Pleasure Craft Surface Coating Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 4.1

High Gloss Topcoat Finish; Primer/Surfacer; All other pleasure craft surface 

coatings for metal or plastic 3.5

Pretreatment Wash Primers 6.5

High Build Primer Surfacer; Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 2.8

Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 4.7

(5) motor vehicle materials shall not exceed limits as established in Table 5.

Table5. Motor Vehicle Materials Volatile Organic Compounds Content Limits 

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Motor vehicle cavity wax; Motor vehicle sealer; Motor vehicle deadener; 

Motor vehicle underbody coating; Motor vehicle trunk interior coating 5.4

IV-20 A-80 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

Motor vehicle gasket/gasket sealing material; Motor vehicle bedliner 1.7

Motor vehicle lubricating wax/compound 5.8

(e) With the exception of motor vehicle materials coatings, any miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings operations facility may 

choose combination of low volatile organic compounds coatings and add-on control equipment on a coating unit. Emissions of 

volatile organic compounds before control with such combination shall not exceed limits for surface coating of: 

(1) Metal parts and products as established in Table 1;

Table 1. Metal Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category

Air Dried Baked

lb VOC/gal solids lb VOC/gal solids

General One Component; General Multi Component; 

Military Specification; 4.52 3.35

Etching Filler; High Temperature; Metallic; MoldSeal; Pan Backing; Pretreatment Coatings; Silicone 

Release; Drum Coating, New, Interior; Drum 

Coating, Reconditioned, Exterior; VacuumMetalizing 6.67 6.67

Extreme High-Gloss; Extreme Performance; HeatResistant; Solar-Absorbent 6.67 5.06

High Performance Architectural 38.0 38.0

Prefabricated Architectural Multi-Component 6.67 3.35

Prefabricated Architectural One-Component 6.67 3.35

 6.67 6.67

Drum Coating, New, Exterior 4.52 4.52

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, Interior 6.67 9.78

(2) plastic parts and products as established in Table 2;

Table 2. Plastic Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids 

General One Component 3.35 

General Multi Component; Metallic 6.67 

Electric Dissipating Coatings and Shock-Free Coatings Optical Coatings; 

Vacuum-Metalizing 74.7

Extreme Performance 6.67(2-pack)

Military Specification 4.52 (1 pack)

6.67 (2 pack)

Mold-Seal 43.7

Multi-colored Coatings 25.3

(3) automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts as established in Table 3;

Table 3. Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids

Automotive/Transportation Coatings1

I. High Bake Coatings – Interior and Exterior Parts

Flexible Primer 11.58

Non-flexible Primer; Non-basecoat/clear coat 6.67

Base Coats 10.34

Clear Coat 8.76

II. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Exterior Parts

Primers 13.8

Basecoat; Non-basecoat/clearcoat 15.59

IV-21 A-81 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

Clearcoats: 11.58

III. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Interior Parts 15.59

IV. Touchup and Repair Coatings 17.72

Business Machine Coatings

Primers; Topcoat; Texture Coat; Touchup and repair 4.8

Fog Coat 3.14

(4) pleasure craft surface coatings as established in Table 4;

Table 4. Pleasure Craft surface Coatings Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 9.2

High Gloss Topcoat; Finish Primer/Surfacer; All other pleasure craft surface 

coatings for metal or plastic 6.7

Pretreatment Wash Primers 55.6

Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 12.8

High Build Primer Surfacer; Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 4.4

(e) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at miscellaneous metal and plastic part coating facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile 

organic compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

(f) With the exception of motor vehicle materials coatings, any miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings operations facility may 

choose to use add-on control equipment with an overall control efficiency of 90 percent in lieu of using low-VOC coatings and 

specified application methods.

(g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

15A NCAC 02D .0968 AUTOMOBILE AND 

LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK ASSEMBLY COATINGS 

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Automobile" means a motor vehicle designed 

to carry up to eight passengers, excluding 

vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles 

designed primarily to transport light loads of 

property. 

(2) "Electrodeposition" means a process of 

applying a protective, corrosionresistantwaterborne primer on exterior and 

interior surfaces that provides thorough 

coverage of recessed areas. It is a dip coating 

method that uses an electrical field to apply or 

deposit the conductive coating onto the part. 

The object being painted acts as an electrode 

that is oppositely charged from the particles of 

paint in the dip tank.

(3) "Final repair" means the operations performed 

and coating(s) applied to completely 

assembled motor vehicles or to parts that are 

not yet on a completely assembled vehicle to 

correct damage or imperfections in the 

coating.

(4) "Light-duty truck" means vans, sport utility 

vehicles, and motor vehicles designed 

primarily to transport light loads of property 

with gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 

pounds or less.

(5) "Primer-surfacer" means an intermediate 

protective coating applied over the 

electrodeposition primer (EDP) and under the 

topcoat. Primer-surfacer provides adhesion, 

protection, and appearance properties to the 

total finish.

(6) "Solids turnover ratio (RT)" means the ratio of 

total volume of coating solids that is added to 

the EDP system in a calendar month divided 

by the total volume design capacity of the EDP 

system.

(b) This Rule applies to automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly coating operations and related cleaning activities 

whose emissions of volatile organic compounds exceed the 

threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) at: 

(1) automobile or light-duty assembly plants 

during the vehicle assembly processes with the 

following primary coating product 

applications: 

(A) new automobile or new light-duty 

truck bodies, or body parts for new 

automobiles or new light-duty trucks; 

or

(B) other parts that are coated along with 

these bodies or body parts; or 

(C) additional coatings which include 

glass bonding primer, adhesives, 

cavity wax, sealer, deadener, 

gasket/gasket sealing material, 

underbody coating, trunk interior 

IV-22 A-82 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

coating, bedliner, weatherstrip 

adhesive, and lubricating 

waxes/compounds; and 

(2) coatings used in facilities that perform these 

coating operations on a contractual basis

without coatings used at plastic or composites 

molding facilities 

(c) This Rule does not apply to:

(1) aerosol coatings of automobile and light-truck 

assembly coatings; or 

(2) coatings that are applied to other parts 

intended for use in new automobiles or new 

light-duty trucks (e.g., application of spray 

primer, color and clear coat to fascia or 

bumpers) on coating lines that are not related 

to the vehicle assembly process at automobile 

or light-duty assembly plants. They are 

covered by Rules .0964, and .0967 of this 

Section; and 

(3) aftermarket repair or replacement parts for 

automobiles or light-duty trucks that are 

covered by Rules .0964, and .0967 of this 

Section.

(d) With the exception of materials supplied in containers with a 

net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a net weight of one pound or 

less, emissions of volatile organic compounds before control for:

(1) automobile and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings shall not exceed limits established in 

Table 1 

Table 1. Volatile Organic Compounds emission limits for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings.

Assembly Coating Process Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Limit

Electrodeposition primer (EDP) 

operations (including application area, 

spray/rinse stations, and curing oven)

When solids

turnover ratio

(RT) ≥0.16;

When

0.040≤ RT <0.160;

When

RT<0.040;

0.07lb/gal

coatings solids

 applied.

0.0840.160-R x 8.34

lb/gal coating solids

applied.

No VOC

emission 

limit.

Primer-surfacer operations(including 

application area, flash-off area, and 

oven)

12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited solids on a daily weighted average 

basis as determined by following the procedures in the revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol 

Topcoat operations (including 

application area, flash-off area, and 

oven)

12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited solids on a daily weighted average 

basis as determined by following the procedures in the revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol

Final repair operations 4.8 lb VOC/gallon of coating less water and less exempt 

solvents on a daily weighted average basis or as an occurrence 

weighted average.

Combined primer-surfacer and topcoat 

operations

12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited solids on a daily weighted average 

basis as determined by following the procedures in the revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol

(2) miscellaneous materials used at automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings facilities shall not exceed limits

established in Table 2.

Table 2. Volatile Organic Compounds emission limits for miscellaneous materials used at automobile and light-duty truck assembly 

coating facility (grams of VOC per liter of coating excluding water exempt compounds, as applied)

Material Recommended VOC Emission Limit

Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer 900

Automobile and light-duty truck adhesive 250

Automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax 650

Automobile and light-duty truck sealer 650

Automobile and light-duty truck deadener 650

Automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material 200

Automobile and light-duty truck underbody coating 650

Automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating 650

Automobile and light-duty truck bediner 200

Automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive 750

Automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound 700

(e) EPA Method 24 (CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coatings, 

other than reactive adhesives used at automobile and light-duty truck coating facilities unless the facility maintains records to 

document the volatile organic compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

(f) The emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule can be achieved with a combination of higher-solid solvent-borne 

coatings, efficient application equipment and bake oven exhaust control.

IV-23 A-83 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
PROPOSED RULES 

(g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section.

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 

SUBCHAPTER 02Q - AIR QUALITY PERMITS PROCEDURES 

SECTION .0300 - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PERMITS 

15A NCAC 02Q .0306 PERMITS REQUIRING PUBLIC 

PARTICIPATION 

(a) The Director shall provide for public notice for comments with an opportunity for the public to request a public hearing on draft 

permits for the following: 

(1) any source that may be designated by the Director based on public interest relevant to air quality; 

(2) a source to which 15A NCAC 02D .0530 or .0531 applies; 

(3) a source whose emission limitation is based on a good engineering practice stack height that exceeds the height 

defined in 15A NCAC 02D .0533(a)(4)(A), (B), or (C); 

(4) a source required to have controls more stringent than the applicable emission standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0500 

according to 15A NCAC 02D .0501 when necessary to comply with an ambient air quality standard under 15A 

NCAC 02D .0400; 

(5) alternative controls different than the applicable emission standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0900 according to 15A 

NCAC 02D .0952; 

(6) a limitation on the quantity of solvent-borne ink that may be used by a printing unit or printing system according to 

15A NCAC 02D .0936; .0961 and .0965;

(7) an allowance of a particulate emission rate of 0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot for an incinerator constructed 

before July 1, 1987, in accordance with 15A NCAC 02D .1204(c)(2)(B) and .1208 (b)(2)(B): 

(8) an alternative mix of controls under 15A NCAC 02D .0501(f); 

(9) a source that is subject to the requirements of 15A NCAC 02D .1109 or .1112; 

(10) a source seeking exemption from the 20-percent opacity standard in 15A NCAC 02D .0521 under 15A NCAC 2D 

.0521(f); 

(11) a source using an alternative monitoring procedure or methodology under 15A NCAC 02D .0606(g) or .0608(g); or 

(12) the owner or operator requests that the draft permit go to public notice with an opportunity to request a public 

hearing. 

(b) On the Division's website, the Director shall post a copy of the draft permit that changes classification for a facility by placing a 

physical or operational limitation in it to avoid the applicability of rules in 15A NCAC 02Q .0500. Along with the draft permit, the 

Director shall also post a public notice for comments with an opportunity to request a public hearing on that draft permit. The public 

notice shall contain the information specified in 15A NCAC 02Q .0307(c) and shall allow at least 30 days for public comment. 

(c) If EPA requires the State to submit a permit as part of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air Quality (SIP) and if 

the Commission approves a permit containing any of the conditions described in Paragraph (a) of this Rule as a part of the SIP, the 

Director shall submit the permit to the EPA on behalf of the Commission for inclusion as part of the federally approved SIP. 

Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1),(3); 143-215.108; 143-215.114A; 143-215.114B; 143-215.114C. 

IV-24 A-84 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
IV-25 

Hearing Officer's Suggested Hearing Comments 

INTRODUCTION

[hearing officer]: 

 Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tom Ellis. I am a member of the 

Environmental Management Commission. My role as hearing officer is to listen to all 

relevant comment on these proceedings and report them to the full commission. 

Sitting with me is Ms. Joelle Burleson. She is with the North Carolina Division of Air 

Quality (DAQ), Planning Section. 

 Some of the staff from the Division of Air Quality are here to assist. Ms. Burleson, 

please introduce the staff present. 

Ms. Burleson. (Introduce staff) 

[hearing officer]: 

 This evening we are conducting two hearings. During the first hearing we will 

take comments concerning amendments to the Prevention of Significant (PSD) and 

New Source Review (NSR) rules. The second hearing concerns adoptions, repeals 

and amendments to rules in Subchapter 02D, Section .0900 that regulate volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions. These hearings will be held according to the 

North Carolina Administrative Procedures Act. The public notice for these hearings 

has been advertised in the North Carolina Register and five newspapers in the state. 

Copies of the notice have been sent to those on the official DAQ mailing list. I will 

A-85 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
IV-26 

enter the public notice and the proposed amendments, repeals and adoptions into the 

hearing record without reading them at this time. 

 Any person desiring to comment is requested to submit a written statement for 

inclusion into the hearing record. Once called to speak, please come to the podium 

and state your name clearly, identify the rule or rules you are commenting on, and 

whom you represent. 

[first hearing]: 

 I will now open the first hearing and take relevant comments on rule amendments 

to the PSD and NSR requirements. The PSD requirements can be found in Rule 15 

A NCAC 02D .0530, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and the NSR 

requirements can be found in Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0531, Sources in 

Nonattainment Areas. Being considered are rule amendments to clarify that 

installation of best available control technology (BACT) applies to all new natural 

gas-fired electrical utility generating units for which cost recovery is sought under the 

Clean Smokestacks Act and to remove pollutant specific references that require 

sources to continue measures after an area’s redesignation to attainment and replace 

the description of nonattainment areas with reference to 40 CFR 81.334 that 

identifies nonattainment areas. 

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

[hearing officer]: Optional Time Limit 

 Many people have requested to speak at this hearing. Due to time constraints, 

speakers’ presentations will be limited to ___ minutes. Speakers are requested to 

A-86 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
IV-27 

submit a written statement by the close of the comment period for inclusion into the 

hearing record. 

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

[hearing officer]: 

 I will now take any comments that you may have. 

[SPEAKERS] 

A-87 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
IV-28 

[hearing officer]: 

 Is there anyone else who would like to comment? If there are no more comments, 

then the first hearing is closed. The first hearing record will remain open until April 

30, 2010, for additional written comments. 

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

 [second hearing]: 

 I will now open the second hearing and take relevant comments to the modification 

of 15A NCAC 2D Section .0900, Volatile Organic Compounds. Being considered are 

rule changes to incorporate United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) level of Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) to comply with Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

 DAQ is required, under provisions of CAA Section 172(c)(1), to revise its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to include an ozone attainment demonstration 

that will lead to attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for ozone. Section 182(b)(2) of CAA provides that States must revise their ozone SIP 

to include RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by any CTG document 

issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the date of attainment. After the 

USEPA revised VOC regulations several times through issuance of New Sources 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations to related industries, it finally provided States with 

guidance concerning what types of controls could constitute RACT for a given source 

category through the issuance of CTGs to comply with the requirements of Section 

182(b)(2). EPA has issued 11 CTGs since 2006. The changes in Section .0900-

A-88 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
IV-29 

Volatile Organic Compounds presented at this hearing address recommendations 

made in these 11 CTGs. 

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

[hearing officer]: 

I will now take any comments that you may have. 

[SPEAKERS] 

 

[hearing officer]: 

Is there anyone else who would like to comment? If there are no more comments, 

then this hearing is closed. The hearing record will remain open until April 30, 2010, 

for additional written comments. 

A-89 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
This page is intentionally blank 

IV-30 A-90 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
V-1 

CHAPTER V 

 COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING 

 AND DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD 

 INDEX OF COMMENTORS 

NAME REPRESENTING PAGE

Mr. Chuck Greco Mecklenburg County Air Quality V-2 

Mr. Jeff Stoudt The Printing Industry of the Carolinas V-9 

Mr. Christian von 

der Heyde American Coating Association V-27 

Mr. Richard A. 

Schutt USEPA, Region 4 V-37 

A-91 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Revisions to Section 2D .0900 Rules 

General applicability comments:

1. MCAQ recommends that 2D .0902 be revised to address/clarify the concerns raised 

in this item and item 2 below. 

a. Many of the proposed/revised rules contains wording to the effect that “this rule 

applies to subject activities where total actual VOC emissions are equal to or 

exceed 15 lb/day before control” 

2D .0902(f) states – “The Rules in this Section apply to facilities with the 

potential to emit greater than or equal to 100 tons of volatile organic compounds 

per year in the following areas:

(1) Cabarrus County 

(2) Gaston County 

(3) Lincoln County 

(4) Mecklenburg County 

(5) Rowan County 

(6) Union County 

(7) Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township in Iredell County” 

Is it correct to assume that the revised rules will apply to facilities with PTE 

greater than or equal to 100 tons/year, regardless of whether total actual emissions 

are greater than 15 lb/day before control? 

b. Also, two general comments about .0902(f): 

a. is it more appropriate to use the term “major source threshold for VOCs” in 

place of “100 tons of VOCs per year” since this limit is dependant on the nonattainment area classification? 

b. (f) uses the term “potential to emit” while 2D .0901 has a definition for 

“Potential Emissions”. This might be a minor point but the terminology 

should be consistent. 

2. Will applicability of the new proposed rules (2D .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, 

.0966, .0967, and .0968) fall under 2D .0902(e), i.e. be applicable state-wide 

(regardless of size, like 2D .0928 – “Gasoline Service Stations - Stage I”), or 2D 

.0902(f), i.e. be applicable to sources with potential greater than or equal to 100 t/y? 

If they will be applicable under 2D .0902(e) MCAQ recommends that, in addition to 

the facility-wide limit of 15 lbs/day actual VOC emissions before control, a specific 

emission limit for the subject process (e.g. the solvent cleaning process for .0962, or 

A-92 V-2 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
adhesive process for .0964) be developed below which the process is exempt from the 

Rule (similar to the 50,000 gal/yr limit for .0928). 

3. Most of the proposed/revised rules, in the last paragraph of the rule, now reference 

work practice standards (e.g. “All volatile organic compounds materials and used 

shop towels shall be stored in covered containers all the time.”), many of which are 

also covered by 2D .0958. Are the work practice standard references, if already 

included in .0958, necessary in the individual rules? 

4. Different units are used in different rules (e.g. 2D .0920 uses lb VOC/lb of coating 

and lb VOC/lb of solids, while 2D .0922 uses lb VOC/gallon of coating and lb 

VOC/gallon of solids). MCAQ recommends that a consistent set of units be used for 

all the rules. 

5. It is not clear in several of the new/revised rule whether a limit is stated “delivered, or 

as applied” or “as supplied”. MCAQ recommends that the same terminology be used 

in every rule for consistency, and any exceptions be called out explicitly. 

6. In several of the revised/new rules limits are stated in terms of lb VOC/gallon of 

solids and lb VOC/gallon of coating (or in some cases lb VOC/lb of solids and lb 

VOC/lb of coating). In most of the rules it is not clear if the two values are assumed 

equivalent. If so, what is the basis for the equivalency? What common factors were 

used to convert from one to the other (e.g. standard coating or solids specific 

gravity?) If that information is available in a state or EPA guidance it should be 

referenced.

7. 2D .0912(c) states – “Compliance shall be determined on a line-by-line basis using 

the more stringent of the following two: 

(1) Compliance shall be determined on a daily basis for each coating line using a 

weighted average, that is, dividing the sum of the mass (pounds) of volatile 

organic compounds in coatings consumed on that coating line, as received, and 

the mass (pounds) of volatile organic compound solvents added to the coatings on 

that coating line by the volume (gallons) of coating solids consumed during that 

day on that coating line; or 

(2) Compliance shall be determined as follows: 

(A) When low solvent or high solids coatings are used to reduce emissions of 

volatile organic compounds, compliance shall be determined instantaneously. 

(B) When add on control devices, e.g., solvent recovery systems or incinerators, 

are used to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, compliance shall 

be determined by averaging emissions over a one-hour period.” 

It is not clear in any of the revised/new rules how 2D .0912 is applicable, particularly 

which coatings are “low solvent”or “high solids”. MCAQ recommends that each 

revised/new rule indicate specifically how 2D .0912 applies. Also, a guidance should 

be provided for how to calculate the limits for a line for each of the different 

averaging periods. 

V-3 A-93 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
2D .0968 – “Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings 

1. MCAQ recommends that a definition of “assembly process” be added to the rule (i.e. 

does the rule apply only to new vehicle assembly processes?). 

2. (b)(4) states – “coatings used in facilities that perform these coating operations on a 

contractual basis without coatings used at plastic or composites molding facilities” 

Should “without” be changed to “except for” 

3. (d)(1) Table 1 references the “Automobile Topcoat Protocol” but there is no reference 

to what that is or where to find it. 

4. (d)(2) states – “miscellaneous materials used at automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings facilities shall not exceed limits established in Table 2.” The 

column heading for the second column in Table 2 is – “Recommended VOC Emission 

Limit”

Must a facility meet the limits in Table 2 for materials or are they just recommended 

values? Should the word “recommended” be deleted? 

2D .0966 – “Paper, Film and Foil Coatings” 

1. (a)(2) - The definition of “Fabric coating” appears to be identical that in 2D .0921 – 

Fabric And Vinyl Coating”. Will a facility currently subject to 2D .0291 now be 

subject to both? MCAQ recommends that the distinction between the two rules be 

clarified. 

2. (d) states – “With the exception stated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, emissions of 

volatile organic compounds from: 

(1) pressure sensitive tape and label surface paper, film, and foils with the potential 

to emit, prior to controls, less than 25 tons per year of volatile organic 

compounds from coatings shall not exceed 0.20 pounds volatile organic 

compounds per pound of solids applied (0.067 pounds volatile organic 

compounds per pound of coating); 

(2) paper, film, and foil surface coating lines with the potential to emit, prior to 

controls less than 25 tons per year of volatile organic compounds from coatings 

shall not exceed 0.40 pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of 

solids(0.08 pounds volatile organic compounds per pound of coating).”

a. The values given for VOC emissions in (1) on a lb/lb of solids applied basis and 

lb/lb of coating basis, are not necessarily equivalent, and for VOC emissions in 

(2) on a lb/lb of solids applied basis and lb/lb of coating basis, are not necessarily 

equivalent. Are these meant to be either/or, i.e. is a coating line subject to (1) in 

compliance if the VOC emissions are less than either 0.2 pounds of volatile 

A-94 V-4 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
organic compounds per pound of solids applied , or 0.067 pounds of volatile 

organic compounds per pound of coating? If so, MCAQ recommends it be 

stated. 

b. It is not clear if the emission limits in (1) and (2) are per coating or total for a 

coating line. How does 2D .0912 apply? 

c. Should (d)(1) - “pressure sensitive tape and label surface paper, film, and foils 

with...” be “pressure sensitive tape and label surface paper, film, and foils 

coating lines with...”

d. For (1) and (2) should “lb/lb of coating” be “lb/lb of coating applied”? 

2D .0922 – “Metal Furniture Coatings” 

1. (c) states - “With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule, emissions of all 

volatile organic compounds from metal furniture coating unit subject to this Rule 

shall not exceed: 

(1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating excluding water 

and exempt compounds (3.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of 

solids) delivered from general, one component or general, multi-component types 

of coating operations; and 

(2) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating excluding water 

and exempt compounds (5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of 

solids) delivered from any other types of coating operations.” 

The values given for VOC content in (1) on a lb/gallon of coating basis and lb/gallon 

of solids basis, are not necessarily equivalent, and for VOC content in (2) on a 

lb/gallon of coating basis and lb/gallon of solids basis, are not necessarily equivalent. 

(See comment 2.a. in 2D .0920 above) If either/or, this should be stated. 

2. (a)(3) states – “Metal furniture coatings" means paints, sealants, caulks, inks, 

adhesives, and maskants.”, and

(c) state - “With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule, emissions of all 

volatile organic compounds from metal furniture coating unit subject to this Rule...” 

For a coating unit in which more than one metal furniture coating, as defined in 

(a)(3), is applied, how are the VOC emissions for the line calculated? How does 2D 

.0912 apply? 

2D .0923 – “Surface Coating of Large Appliance Parts” 

1. There is no definition of “appliance parts coatings” as there is in 2D .0922(a)(3) for 

“metal furniture coatings”. Are materials such as “sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives 

and maskants” not to be included in the VOC emissions? MCAQ recommends that a 

definition be included. 

2. (c) states - “Emissions of all volatile organic compounds from any large appliance 

coating unit subject to this Rule shall not exceed:

V-5 A-95 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
(1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating excluding water 

and exempt compounds (3.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of 

solids) delivered from general, one component or general, multi-component types 

of coating operations; and 

(2) 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating excluding water 

and exempt compounds (4.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of 

solids) delivered from any other types of coating operations.” 

The values given for VOC content in (1) on a lb/gallon of coating basis and lb/gallon 

of solids basis, are not necessarily equivalent, and for VOC content in (2) on a 

lb/gallon of coating basis and lb/gallon of solids basis, are not necessarily equivalent. 

(See comment 2.a. in 2D .0920 above) If either/or, this should be stated. 

2D .0967 – “Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts and Products” 

1. The definitions for different types of coatings such as “extreme performance 

coatings” have been deleted with the revision. MCAQ recommends that definitions 

for coating types be included, particularly for coatings such as “extreme high-gloss”, 

“extreme performance”, “high-performance architectural” etc, where the coating 

name/identifier is not descriptive of the application (such as “Drum Coating, New , 

Interior” and “Electric-Insulating Varnish”). 

2. The VOC content limits in Tables 1,2,3,4 and 5, which are based on “lb VOC/gal 

coating” do not indicate “excluding water and exempt compounds”. Is this an 

oversight? 

3. There is no indication anywhere in the rule that any of the coating VOC content 

limits are “delivered” or “as applied”. Are these limits assumed to be “as supplied” 

or is this an oversight? 

4. (d)(2) states – “Plastic parts and products shall not exceed limits as established in 

Table 2;”, and 

Table 2 Title is – “Metal Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content 

Limits” 

“Metal” in Table 2 title should be replaced by “Plastic” 

2D .0935 – “Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling” 

1. The definition of “hardboard” has been deleted. Since “hardboard” is referenced in 

(b)(2) MCAQ recommends the definition be included.

2. There is no definition of “wafer board” which is referenced in (b)(2). MCAQ 

recommends a definition of “waferboard” be included.

A-96 V-6 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
3. (b) states – “This Rule applies to factory finishing of the following flat wood 

products: facilities that use flat wood paneling coatings that emit at least 15 pounds 

per day of volatile organic compounds before consideration of control for the 

following products: 

(1) printed wall panels made of hardwood plywood and thin particleboard; 

(2) exterior siding made of solid wood, hardboard, or waferboard; and 

(3) tileboard made of hardboard. 

As stated, the products in (1), (2), and (3) are all used for walls (interior or exterior). 

Are any flat wood products used for other applications (such as flooring) meant to be 

excluded from the rule? 

4. (c) states – “Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any factory finished flat 

wood product operation subject to this Rule shall not exceed: 

(1) emission limit of 2.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon material 

excluding water and exempt compounds (2.9 pounds of volatile organic 

compounds per gallon solids.)” 

a. It appears the words “factory finished flat wood product operation” is being 

incorrectly deleted. 

b. There is no (2) so the breakout under (1) is not necessary. 

c. In “...2.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon material...” should 

“material” be replaced by “coating applied”?

d. The values given for VOC content in (1) on a lb/gallon material basis and 

lb/gallon of solids basis are not necessarily equivalent. (See comment 2.a. in 2D 

.0920 above) If either/or, this should be stated. 

2D .0965 – “Flexible Packaging Printing” 

(c) states – “Volatile organic compounds content of materials used on any single flexible 

packaging printing press subject to this Rule shall not exceed 0.8 lb volatile organic 

compounds per one lb of solids applied, or 0.16 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb 

of materials applied limits that are consistent with 80 percent overall emissions reduction 

level and reflect similar control levels as the capture and control option.” 

a. In “...0.16 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb of material applied...” should

“material” be replaced by “coating”?

b. It appears that at “...applied limits ...” there is either text or punctuation missing 

between “applied” and “limits” 

2D .0961 – “Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing” 

1. The rule does not include any option for add-on controls for off-set lithographic 

printing. Is this the intent or an omission? 

V-7 A-97 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
2. (d) states that - “Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution from onpress (as-applied) sheet-fed lithographic printing five percent alcohol...” 

It appears that at “...printing five ...” there is text missing between “printing” and 

“five”. Should this read “...printing shall not exceed five...”

3. The second (h) should be (j) 

4. (j) should be (k) 

5. The second (h) states – “All volatile organic compounds materials and used shop 

towels shall be stored in covered containers all the time. All volatile organic 

compounds shall be mixed in closed.”

It appears there is text missing after “...mixed in closed.” 

2D .0962 – Industrial Cleaning Solvents” 

1. (a)(2) states – ““Solvent cleaning” means the process of removing the excess 

penetrant from the surface or a part by wiping, flushing, or spraying with a solvent 

for the penetrant.” 

a. Does “flushing” include dipping parts into a solvent bath, either batch-wise or in a 

continuous process, for cleaning? If not, should dipping processes be included in 

the definition? 

b. Under this definition of “solvent cleaning” would small parts washers, such as the 

type typically found in a maintenance shop, be subject to this rule? 

2. (c) states – “Cleaning operations covered by Rules .0917,....0962,...of this Section 

are exempted from the requirements of this rule.”

The rule exempts itself. The .0962 reference should be deleted. 

2D .0964 – “Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives” 

1. (d)(1) states – “...all volatile organic compound containing materials applied by each

miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes shall:

(1) not exceed limits established in Table1...” and, 

the column heading for the second column in Table 1 is – “Recommended VOC 

Emission Limit”

Must a facility meet the limits in Table 1 for materials or are they just recommended 

values? Should the word “recommended” be deleted? 

A-98 V-8 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
1

April 27, 2010 

Mr. Michael Abraczinskas 

Division of Air Quality 

1641 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1641 

Re: Comments on proposed amendments to 15A NCAC 02D 

Dear Mr. Abraczinskas: 

The Printing Industry of the Carolinas (PICA) thanks you for the opportunity to review and 

comment on the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

(NCDENR) proposed amendments to 15A NCAC 02D .0902 and 15A NCAC 02D .0961.

PICA appreciates your willingness to work with the printing industry in developing 

amendments regarding the application of reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) in the offset lithography and letter press industries. 

To assist the NCDENR in its review of the comments below we have enclosed a markedup version of the draft rule that contains our suggested revisions to the proposed 

amendments. The enclosed marked-up version of the draft rule shows insertions to the 

regulatory language in italics and deletions in double strikethrough. 

As background, PICA represents the printing and publishing industry (SIC 2700 and 

various NAICS 323 codes) in North Carolina. PICA currently has 348 members in North 

Carolina and there are approximately 889 companies employing about 25,700 workers 

engaged in offset lithographic printing in North Carolina. As reported in the 2008 Print 

Market Atlas, the value of goods shipped for the industry in North Carolina is 

approximately $4.4 billion. Over 30% of printers in North Carolina employ less than 20 

employees. Printing is a prime example of small businesses involved in manufacturing. 

Overall, PICA supports the NCDENR in its use of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (USEPA) 2006 Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing 

and Letterpress Printing (hereafter referred to as the CTG) as the basis for developing 

RACT requirements for the commercial offset lithographic printing industry. PICA, 

however, is concerned with several requirements the draft regulation establishes. 

There is one section in particular regarding the applicability of the proposed rule that is 

both confusing and conflicting. There are critical elements contained in the CTG 

providing guidance on compliance demonstration and emission calculations that were not 

included in the proposed amendments. PICA is also concerned regarding the regulatory 

status of inks, coatings, and varnishes that are applied in-line during the lithographic 

printing as the draft regulation is silent. 

V-9 A-99 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
2

We would be willing to meet with you to discuss our concerns with the current draft of the 

proposed regulation. Please feel free to contact Gary Jones, Printing Industries of 

America’s Director of Environmental, Health and Safety Affairs, at 412-259-1794 

(gjones@printing.org) with any questions you may have regarding these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Stoudt 

President 

The Printing Industry of the Carolinas 

PO Box 19889 

Charlotte, NC 28219 

704-357-1150 

jstoudt@picanet.org

Hard copies submitted at April 27, 2010, public hearing held in Charlotte. 

A-100 V-10 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
3

PICA requests that NCDENR consider the comments listed below as it moves forward 

with its rulemaking: 

15A NCAC 02D .0902 APPLICABILITY

1. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (b) of the proposed rule expresses the 

applicability threshold for the rule in terms of 15 pounds per day and should be 

revised to the USEPA’s acceptable annual threshold of 3 tons per year over a 12 

month rolling period. In the CTG, USEPA provides several options for expressing 

the applicability threshold, including the 3 ton per year threshold. The 3 ton per 

year threshold presents the least burdensome approach as a “per day” threshold 

imposes daily recordkeeping, which is not acceptable or technically feasible, given 

the nature of the printing industry and how it utilizes inks, fountain solutions, 

coatings, and other input materials. 

On page 3 of the CTG, EPA states the following: 

“In terms of applicability, we recommend that the control recommendations 

discussed in this CTG for cleaning materials and fountain solutions apply to 

any offset lithographic printing operation where the emissions associated with 

all aspects of that operation equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) actual 

emissions of VOC, or an equivalent level, before consideration of controls.” 

Additionally, on Page 4 of the CTG, USEPA states that “In developing their 

RACT rules, State and local agencies should consider carefully the facts and 

circumstances of the affected sources in their States. As noted above, States 

can adopt the above recommended 15 lb/day actual emissions of VOC 

applicability criterion before consideration of controls, or an equivalent 

applicability level expressed on a monthly basis (e.g., 450 lb/month) or 12-

month rolling basis (e.g., 3 tons per 12month rolling period) . . .” 

Based on the above request 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (b) would read as follows (all 

changes are italicized): 

(b) This Section applies to sources that emit greater than or equal to 3 tons of 

volatile organic compounds per 12 month rolling basis. 

15A NCAC 02D .0961 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING AND LETTERPRESS

PRINTING 

1. Definitions – 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (a)

Various definitions must be revised or added to provide clarity and consistency 

with the CTG as follows: 

a. The definition for “fountain solution” should be revised to clarify its function 

and composition. 

V-11 A-101 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
4

b. Definitions for the following should be included in the rule: alcohol 

substitute; cleaning material; composite vapor pressure; heatset; nonheatset and press. 

Based on the above, 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (a) would read as follows (all changes 

are italicized): 

(1) “Alcohol substitute” means a material used in a fountain solution in place of 

alcohol.

(2) “Cleaning material” means a solution used for cleaning blanket, roller, plate, 

metering roller, impression cylinder, rubber rejuvenators, press, or press 

parts or to remove dried ink from areas around a press. 

(3) “Composite partial vapor pressure” means the sum of the partial pressure of the 

compounds defined as volatile organic compounds. Volatile organic 

compounds composite partial vapor pressure is calculated as follows: 

PPc = (Wi

)(VPi) / MWi

Ww

MWw

+

Wc

MWc

+

Wi

i =1 MWi

n

∑ i=1

n

∑

Where: 

Wi = Weight of the “i”th volatile organic compounds, in 

grams 

Ww = Weight of water, in grams 

Wc = Weight of exempt compound, in grams 

Mwi = Molecular weight of the “i”th volatile organic 

compounds, in g/g-mole 

MWw = Molecular weight of water, in g/g-mole 

MWc = Molecular weight of exempt compound, in g/g-mole 

PPc = Volatile organic compounds composite partial vapor 

pressure at 20°C (68°F), in mm Hg 

Vpi = Vapor pressure of the “i”th volatile organic 

compounds at 20°C (68°F), in mm Hg 

(4) "First installation date” means the actual date when this control device 

becomes operational. This date does not change if the control device is 

later redirected to a new press. 

 

(5) “Fountain solution” means a mixture of water, chemicals, and additives that 

reduces the surface tension of the water and wets the nonimage areas so 

that the ink is maintained within the image area. 

(6) “Heatset” means any operation in which heat is required to evaporate ink 

oils from the printing ink, excluding ultraviolet (UV) curing, electron beam 

A-102 V-12 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
5

curing and infrared drying. 

(7) "Letterpress printing" means a printing process in which the image area is 

raised relative to the non-image area and the paste ink is transferred to the 

substrate directly from the image surface. 

(8) “Non-heatset” means a lithographic printing process where the printing inks 

are set by absorption and/or oxidation of the ink oil, not by evaporation of 

the ink oils in a dryer. For the purposes of this rule, use of an infrared 

heater or printing conducted using ultraviolet-cured or electron beam-cured 

inks is considered non-heatset. 

(9) "Offset lithography" means an indirect method of printing when ink 

transferred from the lithographic plate to a rubber-covered intermediate 

“blanket” cylinder and then transferred from the blanket cylinder to the 

substrate. 

(10) “Press” means a printing production assembly composed of one or more 

units used to produce a printed substrate including any associated 

coating, spray powder application, heatset web dryer, ultraviolet or 

electron beam curing units, or infrared heating units. 

(11) " Sheet-fed printing" means a lithographic printing process where 

individual sheets of substrate are fed into the press sequentially. 

 

(12) "Web printing" means printing when continuous rolls of substrate material 

are fed to the press and rewound or cut to size after printing. 

2. Applicability – 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (b)

a. Proposed Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (b) specifies that the 

requirements of 0.961 apply only to printing operations sources whose 

emissions of volatile organic compounds meet or exceed the thresholds 

established at 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (b). 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (b) specifies 

that the rule applies to any source that has actual volatile organic compound 

emissions of greater than or equal to 15 pounds per day statewide, regardless 

of ozone attainment status. 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (f) specifies that the rule 

applies only to facilities located in specified counties/areas which have the 

potential to emit greater than or equal to 100 tons per year of volatile organic 

compounds. 

Since the requirements of the CTG are intended to apply only to facilities 

located in nonattainment areas that exceed the thresholds established in the 

CTG, the applicability statement at 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (b) needs to be 

revised or the reference in 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (b) should be revised to . 

first apply to those facilities located in nonattainment areas with the potential to 

emit greater than or equal to 100 tons per year of volatile organic compounds 

V-13 A-103 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
6

and then only to those printing operations sources with actual emissions of 

greater than or equal to 3 tons per year on a 12 month rolling basis. Based on 

these comments Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (b) would read (all 

changes are italicized): 

b. This Rule applies to any offset lithographic and any letterpress printing 

operations sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds exceed 

the threshold established in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (f) and 

Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 

3. Fountain Solution Limits For Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Presses – 15A

NCAC 02D .0961 (c) 

a. The proposed requirement in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) that 

require fountain solutions be used with heatset web offset lithographic printing 

presses contain no more than 1.6% alcohol should be deleted as it is 

inconsistent with the requirements specified Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D 

0961 (c) (1), (c) (2), and (c) (3). 

b. The word “reducing” in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) (2) needs to 

be deleted and replaced with “maintaining”. Reducing implies that the alcohol 

concentration of the fountain solution is to be lowered; whereas, the intent of 

the CTG was to maintain the alcohol content at the specified concentration. 

c. To remain consistent with other sections of the proposed rule, the word “three” 

in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) (2) should be deleted and be 

replaced with “3.0” and the word “five” in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 

(c) (3) be deleted and replaced with “5.0”. 

d. The phrase “on-press (as applied)” should be deleted from each requirement in 

Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) (1) – (3), since Subparagraph 15A 

NCAC 02D .0961 (c) already states that the limits in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 

02D .0961 (c) (1) – (3) applies to “on-press (as applied)”. 

Based upon the requests stated above, 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) would read as 

follows (all changes are italicized): 

c. Volatile organic compound content in the fountain solution from on-press (asapplied) for heatset web offset lithographic printing shall be controlled by:

(1) maintaining the alcohol content of the fountain solution at 1.6 percent 

alcohol or less (by weight); or 

(2) maintaining the alcohol content of the fountain solution at 3.0 percent or 

less (by weight) and refrigerate to below 60°F; or 

(3) maintaining the volatile organic compounds content of the fountain solution

A-104 V-14 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
7

at 5.0 percent or less (by weight) and use no alcohol. 

4. Fountain Solution Limits For Sheet-fed Offset Lithographic Presses – 15A NCAC 

02D .0961 (d)

a. The proposed requirement in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d) that 

require all fountain solutions be used with sheet-fed lithographic printing 

presses contain no more than five percent alcohol content by weight should be 

deleted as it is inconsistent with the requirements in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 

02D .0961 (d) (1), (d) (2) and (d) (3). 

b. For the reason stated for Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) above, the 

word “reducing” in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d) (1) should be 

deleted and replaced with “maintaining”. 

c. For the reason stated for Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) the phrase 

“on-press (as-applied)” be deleted from Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 

(d) (1) – (3) 

d. For the reason stated for Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) above, the 

word “five” in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d) (3) should be deleted 

and replaced with “5.0”. 

Based upon the requests stated above, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d) 

would read as follows (all changes are italicized): 

d. Volatile organic compounds content of the fountain solution from on-press 

(as-applied) sheet-fed lithographic printing shall be controlled by: 

(1) maintaining the alcohol content of the fountain solution at 5.0 percent 

alcohol or less (by weight); or 

(2) maintaining the alcohol content of the fountain solution at 8.5 percent 

alcohol or less (by weight) and refrigerate to below 60°F; or 

(3) maintaining an alcohol substitute with a volatile organic compounds 

content of 5.0 percent or less (by weight) and using no alcohol in the 

fountain solution. 

5. Fountain Solution Limits For Coldset Web Offset Lithographic Presses – 15A

NCAC 02D .0961 (e)

a. Proposed Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (e) requires that the alcohol 

substitute content of fountain solutions used with coldset web offset 

lithographic printing to not exceed five percent and that the solution contain no 

alcohol. To provide clarity, the term “alcohol substitute” should be deleted. 

V-15 A-105 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
8

b. To provide consistency with other parts of the rule, please delete the word 

“five” and replace it with “5.0”. The requirement also states that the 

concentration “shall not exceed five or less percent”. PICA requests “or less” 

be deleted since “shall not exceed” implies all concentrations at or below five 

percent. 

c. The word “coldset” needs to be deleted and replaced throughout the rule with 

“non-heatset”. “Non-heatset” is the preferred term used throughout the printing 

industry to describe a lithographic printing process where the printing inks are 

set by absorption and/or oxidation of the ink oil, not by evaporation of the ink 

oils in a dryer. 

Based on the above, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (e) would read as 

follows (all changes are italicized): 

(e) Volatile organic compounds content of the fountain solution from on-press 

(as-applied) non-heatset web offset lithographic printing shall not exceed

5.0 (by weight) and contain no alcohol in the fountain solution. 

6. Control of emissions from heatset web offset lithographic and heatset letterpress 

presses Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) and 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (h)

a. Proposed Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) limits emissions “from single 

letterpress heatset presses to 25 tons per year and that this limit is to be 

achieved by using petroleum ink oil with volatile organic content of 31.25 tons 

per year organic compounds or less because of the 20% ink oil retention.” 

This provision is confusing as it does not embody the requirement as stated in 

the CTG. To provide clarity, Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) and (h) 

need to be consolidated and simplified since both subparagraphs are 

concerned with controlling ink oil emissions from heatset presses and they 

pertain to the same requirement regarding add-on control requirements. 

The 25 ton per year threshold could be incorporated as an exemption under 

Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i). The use of the 20 percent retention 

factor can be addressed in the new section being recommended for inclusion 

(see comment 11 below) which would include all retention and carry over 

factors which can be used to calculate volatile organic compounds emissions 

from offset printing operations. 

b. Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) and (h) need to be revised by 

combining them into one Subparagraph [Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 

(f)] and including heatset web offset printing presses. The current proposal 

only addresses heatset letterpress presses. 

c. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) needs to include a requirement that 

the air dryer pressure be maintained lower than the pressroom pressure at all 

A-106 V-16 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
9

times the press is in operation. Doing so will assure 100% capture of volatile 

organic compounds emissions as identified on page 19 of the CTG where 

USEPA states: 

“For heatset web offset lithographic presses and heatset web letterpress 

presses, we believe capture efficiency for VOC (petroleum ink oils) from oil 

based paste inks and oil based paste varnishes (coatings) can be 

demonstrated by showing that the dryer is operating at negative pressure 

relative to the surrounding pressroom. We recommend that as long as the 

dryer is operated at negative pressure, the capture efficiency for VOC from 

the heatset lithographic inks and varnishes (coatings) formulated with low 

volatility ink oils can be assumed to be 100 percent of the VOC (ink oils) 

volatilized in the dryer. We do not recommend conducting a capture 

efficiency test in this situation”. 

d. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (h) does not include a control option for 

add-on controls that cannot meet destruction efficiency requirements due to 

low volatile organic compounds inlet concentrations or presses that have 

combined dryers and oxidizers. USEPA addressed this concern on page 10 of 

the CTG where it states: 

“Oxidizers and condenser filters may not be able to achieve the above 

stated destruction or recovery efficiencies when the VOC concentration of 

the stream entering the control device is too low. Oxidizers tend to have a 

rather constant outlet concentration around 20 ppmv as compound. As a 

result, an oxidizer that achieves 90 percent destruction efficiency at inlet 

concentrations above 200 ppmv as compound may not be able to achieve 

this level of destruction efficiency at inlet concentrations below 200 ppmv 

as compound. Similarly, an oxidizer that achieves 95 percent destruction 

efficiency at inlet concentrations above 400 ppmv as compound may not be 

able to achieve this level of destruction efficiency at inlet concentrations 

below 400 ppmv as compound. Print jobs (e.g.,book printing) with light 

coverage will yield low inlet concentrations. In addition, there are several 

instances, such as sources utilizing combined dryers and control devices 

that do not have an identifiable measurable inlet where the only option 

available is to measure the outlet concentration to demonstrate 

compliance”. 

USEPA addresses this problem on page 14 of the CTG, where it makes the 

following recommendation: 

“To accommodate situations where the inlet VOC concentration is so low 

that a 90 or 95 percent efficiency may not be achievable, we recommend 

providing an outlet concentration alternative. Specifically we recommend 

providing an option to reduce the control device outlet concentration to 20 

ppmv as hexane on a dry basis to accommodate situations where the inlet 

VOC concentration is low, or there is no identifiable measurable inlet”. 

V-17 A-107 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
10

Due to the requested deletion of Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (h), the 

revised Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) needs to include an option 

limiting the control device outlet concentration to 20 ppmv as hexane on a dry 

basis as a control option. 

Based on the requested revisions, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) would 

read as follows (all changes are italicized): 

(f) Any person who owns or operates a single heatset web offset lithographic 

printing press or heatset web offset letterpress shall maintain the dryer air 

pressure lower than the pressroom air pressure at all times the press is 

operating and operate a control system that achieves:

(1) 90 percent control efficiency for a control device whose first installation 

date was prior to July 1, 2010; 

(2) 95 percent control efficiency for a control device whose first installation 

date was on or after July 1, 2010; or

3) an outlet volatile organic compounds concentration of 20 parts per 

million volume (expressed as hexane on a dry basis) or less.

7. EPA Method 24 - 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (g)

a. Proposed Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (g) requires that EPA Method 

24 be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of coating 

materials used at offset lithographic printing and offset letterpress printing 

facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 

compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 

 

The subparagraph should be revised to include the term “inks” by inserting it 

before the term “coatings” so that it is clear that the method is also for inks. 

Therefore, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (g) would read as follows (all 

changes are italicized): 

(g) EPA Method 24 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine 

the volatile organic compounds content of inks and coatings used at offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress printing facilities unless the facility 

maintains records supplied by the manufacturer or supplier, such as 

technical data sheets or material safety data sheets, which document the 

volatile organic compounds content of the materials. 

 

8. Exemptions – 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i) 

a. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i) (1) exempts any press from the 

requirements of Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d) for any sheet-fed 

A-108 V-18 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
11

press with a maximum sheet size 11” x 17” or smaller or any press with a total 

fountain solution reservoir of less than one gallon. Since Subparagraph 15 

NCAC 02D .0961 (d) only applies to fountain solutions for sheet-fed presses, 

the condition needs to be revised to reflect that Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 

02D .0961 (c) and (e) do not apply to any heatset web offset or non-heatset 

web offset press. Since the one gallon exemption is a universal requirement, 

this specific exemption should have its own separate paragraph and can be 

inserted as Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i) (2) as this paragraph’s 

intent is not clear and should be revised or deleted. 

b. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i) (2) exempts sheet-fed or coldset web 

inks, varnishes, and waterborne coatings or radiation (ultra-violet light or 

electron beam) cured materials on lithographic presses and letterpress 

presses from the requirements of Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d), 

(e) and (f). This requirement is confusing, because Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 

02D .0961 (d) and (e) pertain to fountain solutions and Subparagraph 15A 

NCAC 02D .0961 (f) pertains to exemptions from the control requirements from 

heatset presses. Since limits for fountain solutions do not apply to inks and 

Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) has exemptions for heatset presses, 

this condition needs to be revised or deleted as the intent of it is not evident. 

c. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i) (3) states that Subparagraphs 15A 

NCAC (c) and (d) shall not apply to a press with the potential to emit below 25 

tons per year used for book printing , and presses with a maximum web width 

of 22 inches or less. Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) and (d) 

address fountain solution control requirements for heatset presses and sheetfed presses, respectively, and do not apply to ink volatile organic compounds 

emissions. The exemptions are more applicable to add-on controls for 

heatset presses and the phrase “Paragraph (c) and (d)” needs to be deleted 

and replaced with “Paragraph (f)”. 

 d. The term “headset” needs to be deleted and replaced with “heatset” in 

Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i) (4). 

e. The proposed rule does not specifically state that varnishes and other overprint 

coatings applied for decorative or protective purposes are considered part of 

the lithographic printing process and not subject to regulation under any other 

standard. We are concerned that the application of varnishes and coatings 

might be considered a separate process (e.g. paper coating) and, therefore, 

requests that .0961 (i) re-emphasize that coatings applied during lithographic 

and letterpress operations are excluded from the requirements of Subchapter 

15A NCAC 02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings, by specifically 

referencing 15A NCAC 02D .0966 (c) (1) as an exemption. Based on the 

above requests, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (i) would read as follows 

(all changes are italicized): 

(i) The control limits established in: 

V-19 A-109 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
12

 

(1) Paragraph (d) shall not be applied to sheet-fed presses with maximum 

sheet size 11x 17 inches or smaller; 

(2) Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) shall not be applied to any press with total 

fountain solution reservoir of less than one gallon;

(3) Paragraph (f) shall not be applied to a press with a potential to emit 

below 25 tons per year; 

(4) Paragraph (f) shall not be applied to a heatset press used for book 

printing, and a heatset press with maximum web width of 22 inches or 

less; and

(5) Per 15A NCAC 02D .0966 (c) (1), coatings, varnishes and other 

overprint coatings applied on or in-line are considered part of the 

lithographic and letterpress printing processes and are excluded from 

the requirements of that subchapter. 

9. Cleaning Materials 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (j)

a. Subparagraph15A NCAC 02D .0961 (j) does not include a provision allowing a 

printing facility to use up to 110 gallons per year on a twelve month rolling 

basis of cleaning solutions which do not meet either one of the requirements of 

less than 70 weight percent volatile organic compounds or have volatile 

compound vapor pressures less than 10 mm Hg at 20oC. Due to the nature of 

the equipment being cleaned, cleaning solutions that meet the requirements of 

less than 70 weight percent volatile organic compounds or have volatile 

compound vapor pressures less than 10 mm Hg at 20oC are sometimes not 

adequate to achieve the level of cleaning required. The use of those cleaning 

solutions on a limited basis was recognized by USEPA and was included in its 

CTG, therefore this provision needs to be added as Subparagraph 15A NCAC 

02D .0961 (j). 

This request is supported by the information on page 3 of the CTG where 

USEPA states: 

“...the cleaning control approaches recommended in this CTG include 

limitations on the VOC composite vapor pressure of cleaning materials and 

limits on the VOC content of cleaning materials, with an exclusion of 110 

gallons per year of cleaning materials which meet neither the low VOC 

composite vapor pressure recommendation nor the lower VOC content 

recommendation, and work practices. “ 

Therefore, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (j) needs to be revised so that 

it reads as follows (all changes are italicized): 

A-110 V-20 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
13

(j) All cleaning materials used in an amount more than 110 gallons per 

year for cleaning a press, press parts, or to remove dried ink from areas 

around the press shall meet the following requirements: 

(1) contains less than 70 weight percent volatile organic compounds; or 

(2) have a volatile organic compounds composite vapor pressure less 

than 10 mm Hg at 20°C. 

(3) does not meet the requirements of (1) or (2) above, provided no 

more than 110 gallons per year of that cleaning material is used 

during any twelve consecutive months. 

10. Data and Reports 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (k)

a. The rule requires the compliance with Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 02D Rules 

.0903 and .0958. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0903 (a) (2) is rather broad 

in its application and specifies that data and reports are required to be 

maintained at a minimum on a daily basis. Since this new rule is going to 

subject many small businesses to new regulatory requirements, this 

requirement imposes a significant and unnecessary administrative burden and 

need to be revised to allow for some records to be a one time basis and others 

to be on a monthly frequency. 

To avoid unnecessary recordkeeping and provide certainty to what records 

need to be maintained, specific recordkeeping requirements need to be 

established for this rule. Therefore, the reference to Rule .0903needs to be 

deleted from Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (k) and the following record 

keeping requirements included in this subparagraph: 

(1) The volatile organic compounds content of as applied fountain solutions are 

to be determined by one of the following: 

 

 a) If diluted prior to use, formulations indicating the final volatile organic 

compounds content in percent by weight and the mix ratio of the 

fountain solution concentrate, fountain solution additive and water. 

Volatile organic compounds content can be determined by using 

formulation information provided with the concentrated materials used to 

prepare the fountain solutions such as the product container label, 

product data sheet, or the Material Safety Data Sheet. 

 b) If not diluted prior to use, then formulation information, product container 

label, product data sheet or, Material Safety Data Sheet may be used. 

(2) The volatile organic compounds content of as applied cleaning solutions 

are to be determined by one of the following: 

 

V-21 A-111 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
14

 a) If diluted prior to use, formulations indicating the final volatile organic 

compounds content in percent by weight and the mix ratio of the 

cleaning solution concentrate and water. Volatile organic compounds 

content can be determined by using formulation information provided 

with the concentrated materials used to prepare the cleaning solutions 

such as the product container label, product data sheet, or the Material 

Safety Data Sheet. 

 b) If not diluted prior to use, then formulation information, product 

container label, product data sheet or, Material Safety Data Sheet may 

be used. 

(3) The temperature of the press fountain solutions for lithographic printing 

presses using alcohol in the fountain solution; 

(4) The monthly quantity of cleaning solution used which does not meet the 

vapor pressure and percentage volatile organic compound concentration 

limits per paragraphs j (1) and j (2); 

(5) Temperature readings, taken at 15-minute intervals, of the exhaust gas 

temperature or, in the case of a catalytic oxidizer, the gas temperature 

immediately upstream and downstream of any catalytic bed. 

Based upon the above, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (k) would read as 

follows: 

(k) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this rule shall comply 

with Rule .9058 of this Section and shall maintain the following records: 

(1) The volatile organic compounds content of as applied fountain solutions 

are to be determined by one of the following: 

 

a) If diluted prior to use, formulations indicating the final volatile organic 

compounds content in percent by weight and the mix ratio of the 

fountain solution concentrate, fountain solution additive and water. 

Volatile organic compounds content can be determined by using 

formulation information provided with the concentrated materials 

used to prepare the fountain solutions such as the product container 

label, product data sheet, or the Material Safety Data Sheet. 

b) If not diluted prior to use, then formulation information, product 

container label, product data sheet or, Material Safety Data Sheet 

may be used. 

(2) The volatile organic compounds content of as applied cleaning solutions 

are to be determined by one of the following: 

 

A-112 V-22 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
15

 a) If diluted prior to use, formulations indicating the final volatile organic 

compounds content in percent by weight and the mix ratio of the 

cleaning solution concentrate and water. Volatile organic compounds 

content can be determined by using formulation information provided 

with the concentrated materials used to prepare the cleaning 

solutions such as the product container label, product data sheet, or 

the Material Safety Data Sheet. 

 b) If not diluted prior to use, then formulation information, product 

container label, product data sheet or, Material Safety Data Sheet 

may be used. 

(3) The temperature of the press fountain solutions for lithographic printing 

presses using alcohol in the fountain solution; 

(4) The monthly quantity of cleaning solution used which does not meet the 

vapor pressure and percentage volatile organic compound 

concentration limits per paragraphs (j) (1) and (j) (2); 

(5) Temperature readings, taken at 15-minute intervals, of the exhaust gas 

temperature or, in the case of a catalytic oxidizer, the gas temperature 

immediately upstream and downstream of any catalytic bed.

11. Proposed new Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (l)

The draft rule does not address key emission and retention factors that are 

specific to the lithographic printing industry and are necessary to perform accurate 

emission determinations. In order to ensure that the proper emission and 

retention factors are applied for purposes of determining applicability and 

compliance, the appropriate factors need to be included in the revisions to the 

rule. The recommended section will clarify the methodology for estimating actual 

emissions in the lithographic printing industry, saving administrative time and 

costs for both the DENR and the printing industry. 

The inclusion of the emission and retention factors are supported by USEPA as 

the CTG states on Pages 18-20: 

“This section provides a summary of some of the recommendations EPA has 

previously made to States concerning factors that may be considered in 

determining VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing operations. These factors are important for a number of reasons 

including determining whether a facility or a press exceeds the applicability 

thresholds recommended in this CTG or other applicability thresholds that a 

state may consider including in its regulations. The factors described below 

and other relevant factors are discussed in the 1993 draft CTG, the 1994 ACT 

and the 2005 Printing TSD”. 

V-23 A-113 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
16

Therefore, a new section, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (l), needs to be 

added and should read as follows: 

(l) Retention Factors and Capture Efficiencies - For purposes of determining 

volatile organic compounds emissions from offset lithographic printing 

operations, the following retention factors and capture efficiencies shall be 

used: 

(1) A portion of the volatile organic compounds contained in inks and cleaning 

solution is retained in the printed web or in the shop towels used for 

cleaning. The following retention factors shall be used: 

a) A 20% volatile organic compounds retention factor shall be used for 

heatset inks printed on absorptive substrates, meaning 80% of the 

volatile organic compounds in the ink is emitted during the printing 

process and is available for capture and control by an add-on pollution 

control device. 

b) A 95% volatile organic compounds retention factor shall be used for 

sheet-fed and non-heatset web inks printed on absorptive substrates, 

meaning 5% of the volatile organic compounds in the ink is emitted 

during the printing process. 

c) A 50% volatile organic compounds retention factor shall be used for 

cleaning solution VOC in shop towels for cleaning solutions with a 

volatile organic compounds composite vapor pressure of no more than 

10 mm of mercury (Hg) at 20°C (68°F) if the contaminated shop towels 

are kept in closed containers, meaning 50% of the VOC used on the 

shop towels is emitted during the cleaning process. 

(2) A portion of the volatile organic compounds contained in inks, fountain 

solutions, and automatic blanket washes on heatset presses is captured in 

the press dryer for control by add-on pollution control devices. Capture 

efficiency testing for heatset dryers is not required if it demonstrated that 

pressure in the dryer is negative relative to the surrounding press room and 

the airflow is into the dryer. Continuous dryer air flow monitoring is not 

required. The following capture efficiencies are to be used: 

a) A 100% volatile organic compounds carry over efficiency shall be used 

for inks. All the volatile organic compounds in the ink that is not retained 

is assumed to be volatilized in the press dryer. 

b) A 70% volatile organic compounds carry over efficiency shall be used 

for fountain solutions containing alcohol substitutes. 

A-114 V-24 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
17

c) A 40% volatile organic compounds carry over efficiency shall to be used 

for automatic blanket wash solutions with a VOC composite vapor 

pressure of no more than 10 mm of mercury (Hg) at 20°C (68°F). 

12. Proposed new Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (m)

The proposed rule does not provide a material use alternative for facilities to 

determine applicability. Therefore, a new paragraph, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 

02D .0961 (m), needs to be added and should read as follows:

(m) Requirements for facilities that determine they are not subject to the 

requirements of this rule. 

(1) An owner or operator of an offset lithographic printing facility that is exempt 

from the requirements of this rule based on the threshold applicability in 

section .0961 (b) of this rule shall maintain records demonstrating such 

exemption according to the one of the following methods: 

a) Material use records that show the facility meets the following material 

use thresholds: 

Type of Offset Lithographic Printing 

Operation 

12-Month Rolling Material Use 

Threshold 

Sheet-fed 768 gallons of cleaning solvent and 

fountain solution additives 

Non-heatset Web 768 gallons of cleaning solvent and 

fountain solution additives 

Heatset Web 5400 pounds of ink, cleaning 

solvent, and fountain solution 

additives 

b) The following monthly records and calculations demonstrating actual 

VOC emissions did not equal or exceed three tons of volatile organic 

compounds per rolling twelve-month period: 

(i) The total amount, in pounds or gallons, of each ink, fountain solution, 

and cleaning solvent used; 

(ii) The volatile organic compounds content of each ink, fountain 

solution, and cleaning used: 

Volatile organic compounds calculations shall be based on the 

following formula using applicable retention factors identified in 

.0961 (l) of this rule. 

Volatile organic compounds emissions = amount of ink (pounds) x 

volatile organic compounds content (weight percent) x retention 

factor + amount of fountain solution (gallons) x volatile organic 

V-25 A-115 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
18

compounds content (pounds per gallon) + amount of cleaning 

solvent (gallons) x volatile organic compounds content (pounds per 

gallon) x retention factor. 

(2) An owner or operator of a heatset web offset lithographic printing press 

that is exempt from the requirements of this rule based on .0961 (i) (3) of 

this rule shall maintain records demonstrating such exemption according to 

the one of the following methods: 

a) Material use records that show the facility meets the following material 

use thresholds:

Type of Offset Lithographic 

Printing Operation

Annual Material Use Threshold

Heatset Web 55,800 pounds of ink

b) The following monthly records and calculations demonstrating actual 

volatile organic compounds emissions did not equal or exceed three 

tons of volatile organic compounds per rolling twelve-month period: 

(i) The total amount, in pounds, of each ink used; 

(ii) The volatile organic compounds content of each ink used; 

Volatile organic compounds calculations shall be based on the 

following formula using applicable retention factors identified .0961 

(l) of this rule 

 Volatile organic compounds emissions = amount of ink (pounds) x 

volatile organic compounds content (weight percent) x retention 

factor 

A-116 V-26 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
V-27 A-117 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-118 V-28 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
V-29 A-119 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-120 V-30 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
V-31 A-121 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-122 V-32 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
V-33 A-123 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-124 V-34 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
V-35 A-125 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-126 V-36 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
V-37 A-127 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
This page is intentionally blank 

A-128 V-38 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
CHAPTER VI 

INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS 

ATTACHMENTS PAGE 

1. Economic Assessment of Proposed Changes to the Section .0900-Volatile Organic Compounds VI-3 

2. References to Supporting Materials VI-28 

3. Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 150, Friday, August 4, 2006 

Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for 

 Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing 

 Materials, Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Proposed Rule VI-29 

4. Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 193, Thursday, October 5, 2006 

Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

 Regulations for Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Lithographic Printing Materials, 

 Letterpress Printing Materials, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, and Flat Wood Paneling Coatings; 

 Final Rule VI-52 

5. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 131, Tuesday, July 10, 2007. 

Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations 

 for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings; 

 Proposed Rule VI-61 

6. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 194, Tuesday, October 9, 2007. 

Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for 

 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings; 

 Final Rule VI-86 

7. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 135, Monday, July 14, 2008 

Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations 

 for Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck 

 Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous Industrial 

 Adhesives; Proposed Rule VI-94 

8. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 195, Tuesday, October 7, 2008 

 Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

 Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and 

 Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and 

 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; Final Rule VI-128 

9. EPA email concerning the VOC limits for pleasure craft in the Control Technique Guidelines 

 (CTG) for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings VI-139 

VI-1 A-129 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
10. EPA memorandum “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

 Parts Coatings – Industry Request for Consideration.” VI-140 

A-130 VI-2 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 

I. BASIC INFORMATION 

Contact Information 

1. Division of Air Quality File Number 484 

2. Analyst: Vladimir Zaytsev 

vladimir.zaytsev@ncdenr.gov 

3. Office DENR, Air Quality Planning, Rule Branch 

4. Phone 919/ 715-4398 

5. Comments to Agency Contact Mike Abraczinskas, 919/715-3743 

michael.abraczinskas@ncdenr.gov 

6. Title of the Proposed Rule Amendments: Compliance Schedules for Sources in 

Nonattainment Areas, Metal Furniture Coatings, Surface 

Coating of Large Appliance Parts, Factory Surface 

Coating of Flat Wood Paneling, Applicability, Petition 

for Alternative Controls for RACT, Miscellaneous 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, and Permits 

Requiring Public Participation. 

Adoptions: Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing; Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials; Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives; Flexible Package Printing; Paper, Film and 

Foil Coatings; Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings; and Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings. 

Repeals: Automobile and Light-duty Truck 

Manufacturing, Fabric and Vinyl Coating, Paper 

Coating, Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products, Graphic Arts. 

7. Rule Citations Amendments: 15A NCAC 02D .0909, 15A NCAC 02D 

.0922, 15A NCAC 02D .0923, 15A NCAC 02D .0935, 

15A NCAC 02D .0902, 15A NCAC 02D .0951, 15A 

NCAC .02D 0952 and .15A NCAC 02Q .0306. 

Adoptions: 15A NCAC 02D .0961, 15A NCAC 02D 

.0962, 15A NCAC 02D .0963, 15ANCAC 02D .0964, 

15A NCAC 02D .0965, 15A NCAC 02D .0966, 15A 

NCAC 02D .0967, and 15A NCAC 02D .0968. 

Repeals: 15A NCAC 02D .0917, 15A NCAC 02D 

.0921, 15A NCAC 02D .0920, 15A NCAC 02D .0934, 

and 15A NCAC 02D .0936. 

8. Brief Description of the Proposed 

Rules 

Bring the Section .0900-Volatile Organic Compounds 

into compliance with the requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) 

9. Rule Category Division 1 – Regulatory Behavior 

10. Authorizing Statutes G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5); 

VI-3 A-131 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Screening Analysis 

11. Repeal of Regulatory Deadwood - Is the Rule Obsolete? NCGS 150B-2(1b) 

NCGS 150B-21.5(b) 

Yes 

12. Federal Law Certification Required - Does the proposed rule 

purport to implement a federal law requiring a certification 

statement by the rule-making coordinator? 

NCGS 150B-21(f)(1) No 

13. Temporary Rules - Does this rule meet the criteria listed 

relating to temporary rules? 

NCGS 150B-21.1 No 

14. Emergency Rules - Does this rule meet the criteria relating to 

emergency rules? 

NCGS 150B-21.1(a) No 

15. Establishes or Increases Fees - Is the agency required to 

complied with the requirements of G.S. 12-3.1? 

NCGS 150B-12-3.1 

NCGS 150B-21.3(c1) 

No 

16. State Funds - Does the proposed rule require the expenditure or 

distribution of funds subject to the Executive Budget Act, Article 1 

of Chapter 143? 

NCGS 150B-21.4(a) No 

17. NC DOT Analysis - Does the proposed rule affect NC DOT 

environmental permitting that will result in an increased cost? 

NCGS 150B-21.4(a1) No 

18. Local Government Unit Funds - Does the proposed rule affect 

the expenditures or revenues of a unit of local government? 

NCGS 150B-21.4(b) No 

19. Substantial Economic Impact Analysis - Federal Rule 

Exemption - Does this rule meet the criterion of Federal Exemption?

NCGS 150B-21.4(b1) No 

20. Technical Change - Are only technical changes being 

incorporated such that public notice and rule-making hearings are 

not required? 

NCGS 150B-21.5 No 

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of this analysis is to conduct an evaluation of costs that will be incurred by affected parties to 

comply with the proposed changes to the Section .0900-Volatile Organic Compounds of North Carolina 

Air Quality Rules. These changes include: 

1. Amendments to the Rules: 15A NCAC 02D .0909 Compliance Schedules for Sources in 

Nonattainment Areas; 15A NCAC 02D .0922, Metal Furniture Coatings; 15A NCAC 02D .0923, 

Surface Coating of Large Appliance Parts; 15A NCAC 02D .0935, Factory Surface Coating Of Flat 

Wood Paneling; 15A NCAC 02D .0902, Applicability; 15A NCAC 02D .0951, Miscellaneous 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, 15A NCAC 02D .0952 Petition for Alternative Controls for 

RACT, and 15A NCAC 02Q .0306, Permits Requiring Public Participation. 

2. Adoptions of the Rules: 15A NCAC 02D .0961, Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing; 15A NCAC 02D .0962, Industrial Cleaning Solvents; 15A NCAC 02D .0963, Fiberglass 

Boat Manufacturing; 15A NCAC 02D .0964, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; 15A NCAC 02D 

.0965, Flexible Package Printing; 15A NCAC 02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings; 15A 

NCAC 02D .0967, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings; 15A NCAC 02D .0968, 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. 

3. Repeals of the current Rules: 15A NCAC 02D .0917, Automobile and Light-duty Truck 

Manufacturing; 15A NCAC 02D .0921, Fabric and Vinyl Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0920, Paper 

Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0934, Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; and 15A 

NCAC 02D .0936, Graphic Arts. 

 

A-132 VI-4 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) is required, under provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 

172(c)(1), to revise its State Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to include an ozone attainment 

demonstration that will lead to attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone. Section 182(b)(2) of CAA provides that States must revise their ozone SIP to include Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources 

covered by any control techniques guidelines (CTG) document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior 

to the date of attainment. After the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised VOC 

regulations several times through issuance of New Sources Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations to related industries, it finally 

provided States with guidance concerning what types of controls could constitute RACT for a given 

source category through the issuance of CTGs to comply with the requirements of Section 182(b)(2). EPA 

has issued 11 CTGs since 2006. The rules analyzed herein address these 11 CTGs. The DAQ must amend 

its VOC rules in accordance with the CTG recommendations or develop its own RACT rules and submit 

its proposals to EPA for review and approval. EPA approval of these rules is necessary for an adequate 

ozone SIP submittal under the new 8-hr ozone standard. 

In accordance with DAQ’s database of permitted facilities, only five source categories such as factory 

surface coating of flat wood paneling; miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings; flexible package 

printing; miscellaneous industrial adhesives; and industrial cleaning solvents are currently affected by 

these rule changes. Additionally, DAQ included six extra proposed rules for new RACT standards 

required by CTG’s because of their potential future impact to surface coating operations of large 

appliance parts; offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing; paper, film, and foil coatings; 

assembly of automobiles and light-duty trucks; metal furniture coatings; and fiberglass boat 

manufacturing source categories. 

If EPA's implementation of the new 8-hr ozone standard follows the previous standard, it appears that 

areas designated as moderate or above would be required to do RACT. In moderate areas, facilities with a 

potential to emit (PTE) >100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC would be subject to these RACT rules. If any 

areas are designated as serious nonattainment areas, facilities with PTE > 50 tpy of VOC would be 

subject to these rules. There is another layer of applicability in 02D .0902(b), which narrows the 

applicability to sources whose emissions of VOCs are more than 15 lbs/day. As a conservative approach 

in this analysis, facilities with actual emissions greater than 50 tpy of VOC emissions were assumed to 

meet the applicability criteria above. 

The Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency (Mecklenburg local air 

program) is affected by these changes. This local program usually adopts rules that are identical (or nearly 

identical) to the DAQ rules and thus proceed through local rule-making procedures and analyses. 

However, since Mecklenburg County is one of the counties most likely to be impacted by these rule 

changes, economic impacts for facilities located in Mecklenburg County are included in this analysis. 

The total annualized fiscal impact of these changes for the regulated community is $130,164 per year for 

66 affected facilities located in the worst case scenario area and $95,272 per year as a realistic approach 

for the next five years. 

The fiscal impact of compliance with the changes to the Section .0900 is substantially below of the 

$3,000,000 threshold and therefore, has no substantial economic impact on the affected parties. The 

changes do not alter the State’s general funds, and have insignificant impact on DAQ and Mecklenburg 

County government. No local government facilities are among the affected community. 

III. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

The purpose of the amendments, adoptions and repeals is to include RACT for VOC emissions from 

VI-5 A-133 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
coatings of metal furniture; large appliance parts; flat wood paneling; miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts; fiberglass boat manufacturing; assembly of automobiles and light-duty trucks as well as from offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress printing; flexible package printing; paper, film, and foil; and usage of 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives; and industrial cleaning solvents. 

The current rules were developed in 1979 - 1986 and are based on CTG recommendations that EPA 

developed in the late 1970’s. These rules established different levels of VOC emission limits for 

uncontrolled sources as well as for the sources with alternative control systems. 

The emission limits for current rules are based on the use of low VOC content coatings and are 

approximately equivalent to the use of conventional high solvent content coatings in conjunction with an 

80-85 percent overall efficiency add-on control system. 

The proposed changes are based on Control Techniques Guidelines for affected industrial processes 

issued by EPA in 2006 –2008 and published in 40 CFR 59 in October 5, 2006, for flexible package 

printing materials, lithographic printing materials, letterpress printing materials, industrial cleaning 

solvents, and flat wood paneling coatings; in October 9, 2007 for paper film and foil coatings, metal 

furniture coatings, and large appliance coatings; and in October 7, 2008 for miscellaneous metal products 

coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives. 

The following changes are necessary to follow the guidelines in 40 CFR 59 for the affected industrial 

processes: 

Amendments to Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0922, Metal Furniture Coatings 

The amendments establish three alternatives: (1) emission limits that can be achieved through the use of 

low-VOC coatings; (2) equivalent emission limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC 

coatings or a combination of coatings and add-on controls; and (3) an overall control efficiency of 90 

percent for add-on controls. Currently, all existing facilities are covered by NSPS, Subpart EE. Due to the 

fact that NSPS, Subpart EE limits are more stringent than RACT, there is no cost involved in achieving 

compliance with new RACT standards. 

Amendments to Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0923, Surface Coating of Large Appliance Parts 

To control VOC emissions from large appliance coatings, the amendments establish three alternatives: (1) 

emission limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings; (2) equivalent emission limits 

that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings or a combination of coatings and add-on 

controls; and (3) an overall control efficiency of 90 percent for add-on controls. An additional 

examination of permits for existing facilities in this source category revealed that there are no existing 

facilities with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more VOC emissions located in the area affected by these 

amendments. 

Amendments to Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0935, Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling 

The amendments are designed to establish new emission limits for inks, coatings, and adhesives used by 

the flat wood paneling coating facilities. The goal is to reduce emission limits by 7 percent from existing 

83 percent reductions covered by the current rule that are based on EPA guideline “Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources – Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat 

Wood Paneling” issued in 1978. 

The amendments offer two alternatives for achieving these emission limits: either by using materials with 

VOC content that is low enough to achieve the limits during application, or by reducing the amount of 

VOC emitted through the use of add-on controls. Should product performance requirements or other 

A-134 VI-6 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
needs dictate the use of higher-VOC coatings than specified above, a facility could choose to use add-on 

control equipment to meet an overall control efficiency of 90 percent. 

Amendments to the Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0909, .0951, .0952, and 15A NCAC 02Q .0306 

The amendments to these rules change cross-references. 

 

Adoption of the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0961, Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing 

The proposed rule offers control for VOC emissions from heatset inks, fountain solution, and cleaning 

materials used in offset lithographic printing operations, as well as, for VOC emissions from heatset inks 

used in letterpress printing operations at the level sufficient for RACT requirements. 

The level of control for VOC emissions from heatset dryers is tied to the first installation date of the 

control device. It varies from 90 percent control efficiency for a control device whose first installation 

date was prior the effective date of this rule to 95 percent control efficiency for a control device whose 

first installation date was on or after the effective of this rule. This level of control applies to individual 

heatset web letterpress printing presses with potential to emit from the dryer, prior to controls, of at least 

25 tpy of VOC (petroleum ink oil). The new rule provides printers with the option of using an enforceable 

limitation on potential emissions to keep an individual heatset press below this 25 tpy potential to emit 

threshold. 

The new rule specifies control options for each applicable printing method to reduce VOC emissions from 

fountain solution. The level of control for VOC emissions from on-press fountain solution for heatset web 

offset lithographic printing is 1.6 percent alcohol (by weight) in the fountain or equivalent. The rule 

establishes three different approaches for achieving this level of control. The first approach involves 

reducing the on-press (as-applied) alcohol content to 1.6 percent alcohol or less (by weight). The second 

approach involves using 3 percent alcohol or less (by weight) on-press (as-applied) in the fountain 

solution, if the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60oF (15.5oC). The third approach involves using 

5 percent alcohol substitute or less (by weight) on-press and no alcohol in the fountain solution. 

The level of control for VOC emissions from on-press fountain solution for sheet-fed printing is 

equivalent to 5 percent alcohol (by weight) in the fountain. The rule establishes three different approaches 

for achieving this recommended level of control. The first approach involves reducing the on-press 

alcohol content to 5.0 percent alcohol or less (by weight). The second approach involves using 8.5 percent 

alcohol or less (by weight) on-press in the fountain solution provided the fountain solution is refrigerated 

to below 60oF (15.5 oC). The third approach involves using 5 percent alcohol substitute or less (by 

weight) on-press and no alcohol in the fountain solution. 

The level of control for VOC emissions from fountain solution for coldset web is 5 percent alcohol 

substitute or less (by weight) on-press and no alcohol in the fountain solution. All these levels of control 

are designed to achieve 90 percent reduction of VOC. 

An additional examination of permits for existing facilities in this source category revealed that there are 

no existing facilities with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more VOC emissions located in the area 

affected by these amendments. 

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0962 Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

The proposed rule defines measures for controlling emissions of VOC from the use, storage, and disposal 

of industrial cleaning solvents. They include work practice standards, limitations on VOC content of the 

cleaning materials, and an optional alternative limit on composite vapor pressure of the cleaning 

materials. They may also include the use of add-on controls with an overall emission reduction of at least 

85 percent by mass. 

VI-7 A-135 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
The rule establishes applicable VOC content limit of cleaning material for each of the nine cleaning unit 

operations identified in the rule, unless emissions are controlled by a control system with an overall 

control efficiency of at least 85 percent. 

In addition to the recommended VOC content limit, the rule establishes a vapor pressure limit as a 

replacement and an alternative limit that may be used in any of nine cleaning unit operations as 

determined by rule. 

This rule exempts cleaning activity that is subject to other rule regulations to make it clear that only one 

rule applies to a type of cleaning operation. 

Currently, the industrial cleaning solvents are regulated by Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0951, Miscellaneous 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, which limit emissions of volatile organic compounds from 

coating lines not covered by other VOC rules to no more than 6.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds 

per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator. 

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0963, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

The proposed rule offers control for VOC emissions from open molding resin and gel coat operations 

(pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling gel coat, and tooling resin); resin and gel 

coat mixing operations; and resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations at the level 

sufficient for RACT requirements. 

For open molding resin and gel coat operations, the proposed rule establishes VOC monomer content 

limits and alternative VOC monomer emission rate limits in accordance with EPA recommendations 

presented in CTG “Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.” 

The rule defines three options to meet open molding resin and gel coat limits: (1) achieving the VOC 

individual monomer content limit through the use of low-monomer VOC materials, either by using only 

low VOC monomer materials within a covered operation, or by averaging the VOC monomer contents for 

all materials used within an operation on a weight-adjusted basis; (2) meeting the VOC numerical 

monomer emission rate limits, which would enable a facility to average emissions among different 

operations using equations to estimate VOC monomer emission rates from each operation depending on 

its the material and application method; or (3) using add-on control to achieve a VOC numerical 

monomer emission rate that is determined for each facility depending on the mix of application methods 

and materials used at that facility. Any one or any combination of those options can be used at any 

affected facility to achieve RACT requirements. 

For filled resins, the rule provides calculation method based on EPA recommendations to adjust the 

emission rate under all three options recommended above to limit monomer VOC emissions from resins 

and gel coats. 

 

In addition to the options to meet the open molding resin and gel coat limits described above, the rule 

provides methods of Vapor Pressure Limits for VOC Content. 

An additional examination of permits for existing facilities in this source category revealed that there are 

no existing facilities with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more VOC emissions located in the area 

affected by these amendments. 

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0964, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

The proposed rule offers various emission limit options for controlling VOC emissions from 

A-136 VI-8 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
miscellaneous industrial adhesives to provide flexibility to facilities. It establishes VOC emission limits 

based on application processes (general adhesive application processes, specialty adhesive application 

processes, and adhesive primer application processes.) 

The rule defines two options for achieving the required emission limits: (1) through the use of low-VOC 

content adhesives and specified application methods with good adhesive transfer efficiency; or (2) 

through the use of a combination of low-VOC adhesives, specified application methods, and add-on 

control. As an alternative to the emission limits, the rule offers an overall control efficiency of 85 percent. 

Currently, the miscellaneous industrial adhesives are regulated by Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0951, 

Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, which limit emissions of volatile organic 

compounds from coating lines not covered by other VOC rules to no more than 6.7 pounds of volatile 

organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator. If the owner or operator of a 

facility chooses to install and operate a control technology, the owner or operator shall submit a 

demonstration that shows that the proposed control technology satisfies the requirements for reasonable 

available control technology. The reasonable available control technology limitation or standard for the 

current rules was developed in 1998. It required that the control system capture at least 80 percent of the 

VOC emissions. 

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0965, Flexible Package Printing 

The established level of control for VOC emissions from coatings, inks and adhesives used on flexible 

package printing presses is tied to the first installation date of the equipment. It varies from overall 65 

percent control for a press that was first installed prior to March 14, 1995 (the proposal date for the 1996 

NESHAP for the printing and publishing industry) and that is controlled by an add-on control whose first 

installation date was prior to the effective date of the State RACT rule to 80 percent overall control for a 

press that was first installed on or after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control whose 

first installation date was on or after the effective date of the State RACT rule. 

As an alternative to emission reduction percentages specified above, the rule provides equivalent VOC 

content limits, which can be met by use of low VOC content materials or combinations of materials and 

controls. These VOC content limits are consistent with an 80 percent overall emissions reduction level 

and reflect similar control levels such as the capture and control option. The new rule requires 80 percent 

overall reduction of VOC. 

Currently, the flexible package printing is regulated by Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0936 Graphic Arts, 

which requires at least 60 percent overall reduction. 

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings 

This rule controls VOC emissions from coatings used in paper, film and foil surface coating. The 

proposed rule establishes an overall VOC control efficiency of 90 percent for each coating line along with 

emission limits that are equivalent to 90 percent overall control. The rule applies the control 

recommendations only to individual surface coating lines with the potential to emit, prior to controls, at 

least 25 tpy of VOC from coatings. The rule provides the affected facilities with the option of using an 

enforceable limitation on potential emissions to keep an individual paper, film, and foil surface coating 

line below this 25 tpy potential to emit threshold. This limit can be met by use of low-VOC content 

materials or combinations of materials and controls. 

In 2002, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and 

Other Web Coating (2002 NESHAP), 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, which applies to major sources of 

HAP emissions (i.e., stationary sources that have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of any one HAP, or 

25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP). The 2002 NESHAP addresses organic HAP emissions, 

VI-9 A-137 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
including VOC HAP emissions, from all existing web coating lines at a paper, film, and foil surface 

coating facilities, which includes coating applications and any associated curing and/or drying equipment 

between an unwind station and a rewind or cutting station. The existing Rule 15A NCAC 02D .1110, 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, reflects all provisions of the 2002 NESHAP. 

Due to the fact that NESHAP limits are more stringent than RACT, there is no cost involved to achieve 

compliance with new RACT standards. 

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0967, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 

To control VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic part surface coatings, the rule provides 

the following three options: (1) VOC content limits for each coating category based on the use of lowVOC content coatings and specified application methods to achieve good transfer efficiency; (2) 

equivalent VOC emission rate limits based on the use of a combination of low-VOC coatings, specified 

application methods, and add-on controls; or (3) an overall VOC control efficiency of 90 percent for 

facilities that choose to use add-on controls instead of low-VOC content coatings and specified 

application methods. 

In addition, the rule requires the specified use of one or more coating application methods capable of 

achieving an efficiency equivalent to, or better than that achieved by high volume low pressure (HVLP) 

spraying in conjunction with the use of low-VOC content coatings in options (1) and (2). 

 Under option (3), a facility will use an emission capture system and add-on control device to achieve an 

overall emission capture and control efficiency of at least 90 percent. The facility does not have to limit 

the VOC content of the coating materials, and does not need to use any particular coating application 

method. 

Currently, the flexible Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings are regulated by Rules 15A NCAC 

02D .0934, Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, and 15A NCAC 02D .0951, 

Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compound Emissions which requires 80-85 percent overall maximum 

reduction of VOC. 

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0968, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings 

The proposed rule offers emission limit options depending on coating operations for automobile and 

light-duty truck assembly coatings and for miscellaneous materials used at automobile and light-duty 

truck assembly coating facilities. It establishes VOC emission limits based on application processes 

(general adhesive application processes, specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primer 

application processes.) 

The recommended emission limits for primer-surfacer and topcoat operations can be achieved with a 

combination of higher-solid solvent-borne coatings, efficient application equipment and bake oven 

exhaust control. 

In 2004, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 

Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. The areas covered by the 

NESHAP include all the equipment used to apply coating to new automobile or light-duty truck bodies or 

body parts and to dry or cure the coatings after application; all storage containers and mixing vessels in 

which vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored and mixed; all manual and 

automated equipment and containers used for conveying vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used to 

convey waste materials generated by an automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating operation. 

The 2004 NESHAP for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating imposed VOC HAP emission 

limitations calculated on a monthly basis for existing sources. More stringent limits apply to new sources 

A-138 VI-10 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
(i.e., sources that commenced construction after December 24, 2002). The existing Rule 15A NCAC 02D 

.1110, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, reflects all provisions of the 2004 

NESHAP. Due to the fact that NESHAP limits are more stringent than RACT, there is no cost involved to 

achieve compliance with new RACT standards. 

Repeal of Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0917, Automobile and Light-duty Truck Manufacturing; 

15A NCAC 02D .0921, Fabric and Vinyl Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0920, Paper Coating; 15A NCAC 

02D .0934, Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; and 15A NCAC 02D .0936, Graphic 

Art, 

DAQ is proposing new rules for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, paper, film and foil 

coatings, miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, flexible package printing and, offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing. 

Due to this fact, the existing Rules: 15A NCAC 02D .0917, Automobile and Light-duty Truck 

Manufacturing; 15A NCAC 02D .0921, Fabric and Vinyl Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0920, Paper 

Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0934, Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; and, 15A NCAC 

02D .0936, Graphic Arts, become obsolete and have to be repealed in accordance with NCGS 150B-2(1b) 

and 150B-21.5(b). 

The following changes are necessary to implement a proper work practice. 

 

Amendment of 15A NCAC 02D .0902, Applicability 

In addition to the adoptions, amendments and repeals to the above CTGs, the rulemaking also includes 

amendment to the applicability rule to extend the work practice standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0958 to all 

sources of VOC in the state. Currently, 02D .0958 applies only to sources of VOC with emissions greater 

than 15 lbs per day. This change is being made to simplify the compliance inspection process for both the 

facility and state inspector, but it doesn’t change the established inspection routine. Additional changes to 

02D .0902 include the removal of obsolete language in paragraphs (d), (f), and (g). A new paragraph (g) 

is inserted to make it clear that all areas that become subject to the VOC RACT rules shall continue to 

comply with those rules after the area is redesignated to attainment. This amendment doesn’t change 

applicability of the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0928, Gasoline Service Stations Stage I. 

IV. AFFECTED PARTIES. 

The changes to the Section .0900-Volatile Organic Compounds have the potential to create two categories 

of interested parties: the regulated community and the implementing agency. The regulated community 

includes the owners or operators of the affected facilities (see Attachment B through F). More than 90 

percent of the regulated community consists of the small business (facilities with 500 or less employees). 

This estimation is made using database presented by www.referenceusagov.com. The implementing 

agency is DAQ, which is responsible for implementation and enforcement of all changes to these rules. 

V. ESTIMATED COST/SAVINGS. 

Algorithm of cost estimation for the facilities with the surface coating operations 

The estimation of the cost/savings is based on the cost of projected VOC emissions reductions only from 

existing facilities that may be affected by these changes. Emissions reductions are calculated as a 

difference caused by these changes to the rules requirements. 

These calculations are based on the assumption supported by DAQ data that the affected facilities will use 

the most cost effective provisions to comply with these changes. The most cost effective provisions are 

switching to low VOC content materials. Due to the current Section .0900 VOC rule provisions, all 

facilities with technological requirements to install add on controls already have it installed. 

VI-11 A-139 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Current VOC rules require emissions reductions of 80 to 85 percent from coating operations. The 

upcoming rule changes require a minimum of 90 percent VOC emission reductions. Consequently, the 

affected facilities shall further reduce their VOC emissions from coating operations by 5 to 10 percent to 

comply with the new requirements. 

 

If EPA's implementation of the new 8-hr ozone standard follows the previous standard, it appears that 

areas designated as moderate or above would be required to do RACT. In moderate areas, facilities with a 

potential to emit (PTE) >100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC would be subject to these RACT rules. If any 

areas are designated as serious nonattainment areas, facilities with PTE > 50 tpy of VOC would be 

subject to these rules. There is another layer of applicability in 02D .0902(b), which narrows the 

applicability to sources whose emissions of VOCs are more than 15 lbs/day. As a conservative approach 

in this analysis, facilities with actual emissions greater than 50 tpy were assumed to meet the applicability 

criteria above. 

In this economic assessment, DAQ assumes that all affected facilities choose to utilize the low-VOC 

materials alternative to implement the levels of control required by these rule changes. This assumption 

was made for two reasons. First, since facilities are already meeting DAQ and equivalent local program 

limits, it is obvious that low-VOC materials that can meet the required control levels in these rules are 

already available at a cost. According to EPA calculations, this cost is not significantly greater than the 

cost of materials with higher VOC contents. Secondly, the use of add-on controls to reduce emissions 

from typical application processes is a more costly alternative. 

Due to the fact that DAQ does not have information regarding which areas will be designated as 

nonattainment at this time; it considers two approaches to the cost calculations: the worst case scenario 

and realistic approach (see Attachment A.) The worst-case approach includes facilities located in 

Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle areas. The realistic approach involves facilities located in Metrolina area. 

They are most probable candidates for RACT limits. 

The costs of compliance for the affected facilities is based on the cost effectiveness calculated by EPA, 

which varies depending on coating unit from $265 up to $2,050 per ton of VOC reduced; VOC emissions 

from the coating unit; and required emission reduction from 80 percent under existing rule provisions to 

85-90 percent to comply with current RACT limits. Such coating units as auto and light-duty truck, metal 

furniture coatings, and paper, film and foil have already reduced the VOC emissions from their coating 

operations by 90-95 percent to comply with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Consequently, they do not need to 

implement further emission reductions and, therefore they would have no additional annual costs. Some 

coating operations are not represented in the affected areas. As a result, only facilities with factory surface 

coating of flat wood paneling, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, flexible package printing, and 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating operations will be affected by these changes. 

The cost estimations for 31 facilities with the surface coating operations located in Metrolina, Triad, and 

Triangle Areas equal $187,229 and are presented in Attachment B. The cost estimations for 9 facilities 

with the surface coating operations located in Metrolina Area equal $82,366 and are presented in 

Attachment C. 

Algorithm of cost estimation for the facilities with the Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

The number of facilities affected by the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0962, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, is 

calculated using standard industrial codes (SIC) for the affected facilities and the state emissions 

database. DAQ applied the same worst-case scenario and realistic approach to calculate the costs/savings 

associated with implementation of the new Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0962 Industrial Cleaning Solvents. 

Total aggregate VOC emissions from the 15 affected facilities with solvent cleaning operations located in 

A-140 VI-12 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle possible nonattainment areas equal 1,226 tpy (see Attachment D.) VOC 

emissions from 1 facility located in Metrolina nonattainment area equal 78 tpy (see Attachment E.) In 

accordance with EPA recommendations, DAQ did not include in this analysis cleaning solvent emissions 

from CAA Section 183(e) sources. It also did not include cleaning solvent emissions from research and 

development facilities, emissions from manufacturing and assembly of electrical and electronic 

components, or emissions from activities that covered by provisions of other rules. 

In order to estimate cost/savings for the facilities with the industrial cleaning solvents, DAQ has made the 

assumption that all VOC emissions come from the cleaning operations, as the worst case scenario. 

Currently, all “degreasing” or cold solvent cleaning/stripping operations are covered by the Rule 15A 

NCAC 02D .0930, Solvent Metal Cleaning and, in accordance with Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, are not a subject of this rule assessment. 

According to EPA estimations eight percent of all VOC emissions come from a “degreasing” or cold 

solvent cleaning/stripping classification and the remaining 92 percent comes from other solvent cleaning 

operations. 

In order to comply with the new rule, the affected facilities shall reduce VOC emissions from other 

solvent cleaning operations by 5 percent more than the reduction required by the current rules to reach 90 

percent overall reduction. 

EPA made an assumption (please see EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning 

Solvents.) that replacing high VOC content cleaning materials with low VOC water-based cleaning 

materials for the cleaning (unit) operations (e.g., cleaning of large manufactured surfaces, tank cleaning, 

and gun cleaning, etc.) would result in an estimated cost savings of -$1,325 (net savings) per ton of VOC 

reduced. 

Finally, cost/savings for the facilities affected by the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0962, Industrial Cleaning 

Solvents, are: 

1,226 tpy X 92% X -$1,325 X 5% = $74,725 savings per year as the worst case scenario 

78 tpy X 92% X -$1,325 X 5% = $4,754 savings per year as a realistic approach 

The savings is a result of lower cost of aqueous cleaners (please see CTG, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, 

Part VI, Impacts of Recommended Controls.) 

 

Algorithm of cost estimation for the local program facilities located in Mecklenburg County 

The cost/savings estimations for the facilities located in Mecklenburg County are based on the same 

assumptions as for the identical cost/savings estimations made for other nonattainment areas. 

Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency provided its database for these 

calculations. The costs of compliance for 8 facilities with surface coating operations located in 

Mecklenburg County equal $27,750 (see Attachment F.) 

Eight percent of VOC emissions from the facilities with cleaning operations located in Mecklenburg 

County come from a “degreasing” or cold solvent cleaning/stripping classification and the remaining 92 

percent comes from other solvent cleaning operations. 

Total VOC emissions from 12 facilities with solvent cleaning operations located in Mecklenburg County 

is 165.6 tpy (see Attachment G.) Eight percent or 13.3 tpy of these emissions comes from a “degreasing” 

or cold solvent cleaning/stripping classification which is, in accordance with Control Techniques 

VI-13 A-141 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning Solvents, are not a subject of this rule assessment. The remaining 92 

percent or 152.3 tpy comes from other solvent cleaning operations identified as solvent cleaning 

operations. The estimated costs/savings for a facility with solvent cleaning operations located in 

Mecklenburg County is: 

152.3 X -$1,325 X 5% = $10,090 savings per year for the facilities with cleaning operations 

The savings is a result of lower cost of aqueous cleaners (Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents, Part VI, Impacts of Recommended Controls.) 

The total cost of the changes in VOC rules are: 

$187,229 - $74,725 + $27,750 - $10,090 = $130,164 cost per year as the worst case scenario

$82,366 - $4,754 + $27,750 - $10,090 = $95,272 cost per year as a realistic approach 

Where: 187,229 cost per year for the facilities with the surface coating operations located in Metrolina, 

Triad, and Triangle areas (see Attachment B.) 

$74,725 savings per year for the facilities with the industrial cleaning solvents located in 

Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle areas. The savings are a result of the lower cost of aqueous 

cleaners in accordance with EPA estimations. 

$27,750 cost per year for the facilities with the surface coating operations located in 

Mecklenburg County (see Attachment F.) 

$10,090 savings per year for the facilities with the industrial cleaning solvents located in 

Mecklenburg County. The savings are a result of the lower cost of aqueous cleaners in 

accordance with EPA estimations. 

$82,366 cost per year for the facilities with the surface coating operations located in Metrolina 

area (see Attachment C.) 

$4,754 savings per year for the facilities with the industrial cleaning solvents located in 

Metrolina area. The savings are a result of the lower cost of aqueous cleaners in accordance 

with EPA estimations. 

It is estimated that there is no cost to extending the work practice standards to all sources of VOC 

compounds. Many of the work practice standards are modeled after safety standards regulated by the 

federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and the North Carolina Fire 

Prevention Code 3502.2.2. Additional equipment and training would not be needed since these facilities 

are already required to comply with OSHA and North Carolina Fire Prevention Code. 

VI. BENEFITS. 

The primary benefit of this set of amendments, adoptions and repeals is to ensure ozone SIP that meets all 

of the requirements of the CAA is submitted to EPA. Meeting these requirements will ensure timely 

approvals of SIPs. Timely SIP submittals and approvals can mitigate the possibility of more dire 

consequences of nonattainment such as more stringent controls on new stationary sources or even 

additional transportation conformity analyses. Unfortunately, additional VOC emission reductions will 

not impact ozone concentrations in NC. This is due to the fact that more than 85% of all VOC emissions 

A-142 VI-14 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
in NC come from biogenic sources. The VOC RACT SIP requirements are simply tied to a CAA 

requirement without regard to the role (or lack thereof) that VOC plays into an area’s ozone 

nonattainment issues. 

The proposed rule changes will decrease VOC emissions from solvent coating and cleaning operations, 

and because many VOCs also are air toxics, the proposed amendments will decrease the emissions of air 

toxics. Air toxics are a group of chemical air contaminants, defined by EPA, that have been associated 

with wide-ranging and significant adverse health effects, including cancer and other serious health effects 

such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Toxics use reduction is 

defined as in-plant or in-process practices that reduce or eliminate the use and emissions of toxic 

materials into the environment. Implementation of toxics use reduction, when possible, is a DAQ 

priority. 

An added co-benefit of lower VOC emissions from the implementation of the CTGs and work practice 

standards includes less exposure to hazardous air pollutants to those working at such facilities. 

VII. CONCLUSION. 

The DAQ is required, under provisions of CAA Section 172(c)(1), to submit a SIP that will lead to 

attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Section 182(b)(2) of CAA provides that States must revise their 

ozone SIP to include RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by any CTG document issued 

after November 15, 1990, and prior to the date of attainment. After the EPA revised VOC regulations 

several times through issuance of NSPS and NESHAP regulations to related industries, it provided States 

with guidance concerning what types of controls could constitute RACT for a given source category 

through the issuance of CTGs to comply with the requirements of Section 182(b)(2). EPA has issued 11 

CTGs since 2006. The rules analyzed herein address these 11 CTGs. The DAQ must amend its VOC rules 

in accordance with the CTG recommendations or develop its own RACT rules and submit its proposals to 

EPA for review and approval. EPA approval of these rules is necessary for an adequate ozone SIP 

submittal under the new 8-hr ozone standard. 

If EPA's implementation of the new 8-hr ozone standard follows the previous standard, it appears that 

areas designated as moderate or above would be required to do RACT. In moderate areas, facilities with a 

potential to emit (PTE) >100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC would be subject to these RACT rules. If any 

areas are designated as serious nonattainment areas, facilities with PTE > 50 tpy of VOC would be 

subject to these rules. There is another layer of applicability in 02D .0902(b), which narrows the 

applicability to sources whose emissions of VOCs are more than 15 lbs/day. As a conservative approach 

in this analysis, facilities with actual emissions greater than 50 tpy were assumed to meet the applicability 

criteria above. 

These changes have the potential to create two categories of interested parties: the regulated community 

and the implementing agency. The regulated community includes the owners or operators of the affected 

facilities. The implementing agency is DAQ, which is responsible for implementation and enforcement of 

all changes to these rules. 

The fiscal impact of compliance with the changes to the Section .0900 is substantially below of the 

$3,000,000 threshold and therefore, has no substantial economic impact for the regulated community. No 

local government sources or facilities are among the affected community. The changes do not alter the 

State’s general funds; they don’t require additional permitting or inspection activity and consequently, 

they have no economic impact on NCDAQ and Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental 

Services Agency. There are no economic impacts related to the permitting of the NC Department of 

Transportation projects. 

VI-15 A-143 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
 

Finally, the total annualized fiscal impact of these changes is $130,164 per year as the worst case scenario 

and $95,272 cost per year as a realistic approach for the next five years, which equals $1,972 for the worst 

case scenario and $3,176 for the realistic approach of annual cost per each facility. This is the total cost of 

switching to lower VOC content materials for the facilities affected by these changes. 

These rule changes are not significant rule changes. They have small economic impact on the regulated 

community and no impact on local funds and on the expenditure or distribution of state funds. 

Therefore, these rule amendments do not cause substantial economic impacts as defined in the 

Administrative Procedures Act in NC § 150B-21.4. Fiscal notes on rules. In addition, these impacts are 

not considered significant based on policy guidance from the Office of State Budget and Management 

(OSBM) regarding review and approval of the economic analysis of rules. 

A-144 VI-16 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
VI-17 A-145 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Attachment B 

Table1. Cost Calculation for Facilities with the Surface Coating Operations Located in Metrolina, Triad, and Tr

CTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOC

EPA Calculated Cost 

Effectiveness Values 

($ per ton VOC 

removed) 

EPA Estimated VOC 

reduction 

% 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 02D .0967 Berenfield Containers 

SE Ltd 

Cabarrus 05577 Title V 81.08 1,758 10 

Flat Wood 

Paneling 

Coating 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0935 02D .0964 

Uniboard USA LLC Chatham 03449 Title V 

185.05 185.05 

1,900 

265 

7 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 

Stanley Furniture 

Company - Lexington 

Mfg 

Davidson 05780 Title V 244.68 NESHAP 0 

Paper, Film, 

& Foil 

Coatings 

Flexible 

Package 

Printing 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0966 02D .0965 02D .0964 

Exopack – 

Thomasville, LLC Davidson 04444 Title V 

44.86 44.86 44.86 

1,200 

2050 

265 

0 (in compliance 

NESHAP 2002) 

20 

5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 The HON Company Franklin 02483 Title V 66.51 NESHAP 0 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 Stabilus, Inc. Gaston 05563 Small 

22.83 22.83 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 

Affinia Group, Inc., 

Wix Filtration Corp. - 

Allen Plant 

Gaston 03860 Title V 

42.21 42.21 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

A-146 VI-18

Enclosure1-VOC 
Attachment B 

CTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOC

EPA Calculated Cost 

Effectiveness Values 

($ per ton VOC 

removed) 

EPA Estimated VOC 

reduction 

% 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 

Freightliner LLC--

Mount Holly Truck 

Manufacturing Plant 

Gaston 03926 Title V 

84.07 84.07 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Bridgestone-Bandag, 

LLC Granville 02889 Title V 124.67 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

102D .0964 

Georgia-Pacific - 

Creedmoor Chip-NSaw Plant Granville 04048 Title V 90.99 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Tegrant Diversified 

Brands, Inc. 

Granville 06727 Title V 91.74 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Marsh Furniture 

Company 

Guilford 03238 Title V 443.62 NESHAP 0 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

Auto & Light 

Duty Track 

02D .0967 02D .0964 02D .0968 

Thomas Built Buses - 

Fairfield Road 

Guilford 05727 Title V 

40.23 40.23 40.23 

1,758 

265 

NESHAP 

40 CFR, part 63, 

subpart IIII. 

10 

5 0 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Pactiv Corporation Guilford 06095 Title V 146.05 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

102D .0964 RF Micro Devices, 

Inc. - FAB 1, FAB 3 

and Packaging 

Guilford 08409 Title V 199.99 265 5 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 

Thomas Built Buses - 

Courtesy Road Guilford 03209 Title V 

36.09 36.09 

1,758 

265 

NESHAP 

10 

5 

VI-19 

Enclosure1-VOC 
Attachment B 

CTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOC

EPA Calculated Cost 

Effectiveness Values 

($ per ton VOC 

removed) 

EPA Estimated VOC 

reduction 

% 

Auto & Light 

Duty 

02D .0968 36.09 40 CFR, part 63, 

subpart IIII. 

0 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Engineered Sintered Components Iredell 09174 Small 94.86 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 ASC Signal Corporation Johnston 05529 Title V 57.27 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Keener Lumber Company Inc Johnston 06600 Small 52.43 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 CPI Packaging, Inc. Lincoln 07362 Title V 221.12 265 5 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

Flexible 

Package 

Printing 

02D .0922 Wireway/Husky 

Systems Lincoln 06182 Title V 

18.81 18.81 18.81 

NSPS, 

Subpart EE 

0 0 0 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 RSI Home Products Lincoln 06883 Title V 83.43 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Armacell LLC Orange 08153 Title V 126.24 265 5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

Flat Wood 

Paneling 

Coating 

02D .0964 02D .0935 

Louisiana-Pacific 

Corp - Roxboro Person 07760 Title V 

74.43 74.43 

265 

1,900 

5 7 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Georgia - Pacific Roxboro Person 07668 Title V 74.59 265 5 

A-148 VI-20

Enclosure1-VOC 
Attachment B 

CTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOC

EPA Calculated Cost 

Effectiveness Values 

($ per ton VOC 

removed) 

EPA Estimated VOC 

reduction 

% 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp Rockingham 03662 Title V 227.47 265 5 

Paper, Film, 

& Foil 

Coatings 

02D .0964 Loparex LLC Rockingham 08031 Title V 52.43 NESHAP 0 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 

Freightliner 

Corporation 

Cleveland Plant 

Rowan 04625 Title V 

140.05 140.05 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Norandal USA Inc Rowan 02397 Title V 714.05 265 5 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

02D .0967 Nomacorc LLC Wake 09471 Title V 134.72 1,758 10 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Nomaco Inc - Zebulon Wake 06734 Title V 285.73 265 5 

 

VI-21 

Enclosure1-VOC 
Attachment C 

Table 2. Cost Calculation for Facilities with the Surface Coating Operations Located in Metrolina Area 

CTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOC

EPA Calculated Cost 

Effectiveness Values 

($ per ton VOC removed)

EPA Estimated VO

reduction 

% 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

02D .0967 Berenfield Containers 

SE Ltd 

Cabarrus 05577 Title V 81.08 1,758 10 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 Stabilus, Inc. Gaston 05563 Small 

22.83 22.83 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 

Affinia Group, Inc., 

Wix Filtration Corp. - 

Allen Plant 

Gaston 03860 Title V 

42.21 42.21 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 

Freightliner LLC--

Mount Holly Truck 

Manufacturing Plant 

Gaston 03926 Title V 

84.07 84.07 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 CPI Packaging, Inc. Lincoln 07362 Title V 221.12 265 5 

A-150 VI-22

Enclosure1-VOC 
Attachment C 

CTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOC

EPA Calculated Cost 

Effectiveness Values 

($ per ton VOC removed)

EPA Estimated VO

reduction 

% 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

Flexible 

Package 

Printing 

02D .0967 

02D .0964 02D .0965 

Wireway/Husky 

Systems Lincoln 06182 Title V 

18.81 18.81 18.81 

NSPS, 

Subpart EE 

0 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 RSI Home Products Lincoln 06883 Title V 83.43 265 5 

Misc. Metal 

& Plastic 

Parts 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0967 02D .0964 

Freightliner 

Corporation 

Cleveland Plant 

Rowan 04625 Title V 

140.05 140.05 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Misc. 

Industrial 

Adhesives 

02D .0964 Norandal USA Inc Rowan 02397 Title V 714.05 265 5 

 

VI-23 

Enclosure1-VOC 
Attachment D 

Table 3. Emission Calculation of the Facilities with Industrial Cleaning Operations Located 

 In Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle Possible Nonattainment Areas 

∑ = 1,226 tpy 

N FACILITY_NAME COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT_TYPE FACILITY_VOC

1 Performance Fibers, Inc. Chatham 02657 NSPS 0 2 Kimberly Clark Corporation Davidson 05635 Title V 67.523 Evonik Stockhausen, Inc. Guilford 04535 Synthetic Minor 60.854 Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. a subsidiary of Sobel USA Guilford 08141 Small 60.075 Shamrock Corporation Tipping Division Guilford 04900 Title V 191.266 Greensboro Flexible Packaging LLC dba North State Flexibles Guilford 02221 Title V 115.277 PGI Nonwovens DBA Chicopee Inc Johnston 03422 Title V 68.968 Norcraft Companies, LP, dba UltraCraft Cabinetry Randolph 05951 Title V 119.349 Braxton Culler, Incorporated Randolph 06253 Title V 124

10 B & H Panel Company Randolph 06559 Title V 102.1111 Oliver Rubber Company Randolph 05051 Title V 144.8712 MillerCoors LLC Rockingham 03116 Title V 93.7313 Indopco, Inc. dba Henkel, Rowan 05279 MACT 014 Performance Fibers Operations, Inc. - Salisbury Plant Rowan 03325 MACT 015 OMNOVA Solutions, Inc. Union 03281 Title V 77.76

A-152 VI-24

Enclosure1-VOC 
 Attachment E 

Table 4. Emission Calculation from the facilities with the Industrial Cleaning Operations loc

in Metrolina nonattainment area 

N FACILITY_NAME COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT_TYPE FACILITY_V

1 OMNOVA Solutions, Inc. Union 03281 Title V 77.76

∑ = 78 

VI-25 

Enclosure1-VOC 
 Attachment F 

Table 5. Cost Calculation for the Surface Coating Operations Facilities Located in Mecklenburg County

Site Class Pollutant Actual 

EPA Calculated Cost 

Effectiveness Values 

$ per ton VOC 

removed 

EPA 

Estimate

VOC 

reduction 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives Forbo Movement Systems SM VOC 48.8 265 5 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Company, Inc. TITLEV VOC 64.2 265 5 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

Industrial Container Services - NC, LLC (Matthews) SM VOC 

36.8 36.8 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. Charlotte Steel Mill Div TITLEV VOC 

28.2 28.2 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

Industrial Container Services -NC, LLC (Charlotte) TITLEV VOC 

35.4 35.4 

1,758 

265 

10 

5 

Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing Cadmus SM VOC 

18.7 18.7 18.7 

Inks 2,010fountain solutions 0Cleaning 855

10 

0 

10 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives Genpak LLC SM VOC 50.6 265 5 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives General Steel Drum Corporation SM VOC 94.4 265 5 A-154 VI-26

Enclosure1-VOC 
 Attachment G 

Table 6. Emission Calculation for the facilities with the Industrial Cleaning Operatiolocated in Mecklenburg nonattainment area. 

N Facility Pollutant Actual VOC Emissions 

1 Labeltec, Inc./Pharmaprint, Inc. VOC 7.948 2 Blythe Construction, Inc. - North Plant VOC 5.74 3 Emerald Carolina Chemical, LLC VOC 26.442 3 Exopack Advanced Coatings VOC 12.569 4 Aplix, Incorporated VOC 19.03 5 CCL Label, Inc. VOC 10.66 6 Cognis Corporation VOC 27.938 7 Process Innovation LLC VOC 0.051 8 SteelFab, Inc. VOC 20.428 9 Sun Chemical Corporation - Printing & Ink VOC 14.11 

10 INX International Ink Company VOC 11.072 11 Ashland Distribution VOC 4.8681 12 International Paper Company VOC 4.751 

∑ = 165.6 

VI-27 

Enclosure1-VOC 
REFERENCES TO SUPPORTING MATERIALS 

1. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture 

Coatings EPA 453/R-07-005 2007/09. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200709_voc_epa453_r-07-

005_metal_furniture_coating.pdf

2. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance 

Coatings EPA 453/R-07-004 2007/09. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200709_voc_epa453_r-07-

004_lg_appliance_coating.pdf

3. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling 

Coatings EPA-453/R-06-004 2006/09. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200609_voc_epa453_r-06-

004_wood_panel_coatings.pdf

4. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic 

Printing and Letterpress Printing EPA-453/R-06-002 2006/09. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200609_voc_epa453_r-06-002_litho_letterpress_printing.pdf

5. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning 

Solvents EPA-453/R-06-001 2006/09. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200609_voc_epa453_r-06-

001_ind_cleaning_solvents.pdf

6. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials EPA 453/R-08-004 2008/09. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200809_voc_epa453_r-08-

004_fiberglass_boat_manufacturing_materials.pdf

7. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous 

Industrial Adhesives EPA 453/R-08-005 2008/09. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200809_voc_epa453_r-08-

005_miscellaneous_industrial_adhesives.pdf

8. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package

Printing. EPA-453/R-06-003 2006/09. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200609_voc_epa453_r-06-

003_flexible_package_printing.pdf

9. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil 

Coatings EPA 453/R-07-003 2007/09. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200709_voc_epa453_r-07-

003_paper_film_coating.pdf

10. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal 

and Plastic Parts Coatings EPA 453/R-08-003 2008/09. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200809_voc_epa453_r-08-003_misc_metal_plasticparts_coating.pdf

11. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and LightDuty Truck Assembly Coatings EPA 453/R-08-006 2008/09. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200809_voc_epa453_r-08-006_auto_ldtruck_assembly_coating.pdf 

A-156 VI-28 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Friday, 

August 4, 2006 

Part VI 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 59 

Consumer and Commercial Products: 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

Regulations for Lithographic Printing 

Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, 

Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat 

Wood Paneling Coatings, and Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents; Proposed Rule 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-29 A-157 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44522 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 59 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0672; FRL–8204–9] 

Consumer and Commercial Products: 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations for Lithographic 

Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing 

Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing 

Materials, Flat Wood Paneling 

Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning 

Solvents 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

determination and availability of draft 

control techniques guidelines. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 

183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act), EPA proposes to determine 

that control techniques guidelines 

documents (CTGs) will be substantially 

as effective as national regulations in 

reducing emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) in ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment areas from the following 

five product categories: Lithographic 

printing materials, letterpress printing 

materials, flexible packaging printing 

materials, flat wood paneling coatings, 

and industrial cleaning solvents. Based 

on this determination, EPA may issue 

CTGs in lieu of national regulations for 

these product categories. EPA has 

prepared draft CTGs for the control of 

VOC emissions from each of the product 

categories covered by this proposed 

determination. Once finalized, these 

CTGs will provide guidance to the 

States concerning EPA’s 

recommendations for reasonably 

available control technology (RACT)- 

level controls for these product 

categories. EPA further proposes to take 

final action to list the five Group II 

consumer and commercial product 

categories addressed in this notice 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e). 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

on the proposed determination must be 

received by September 5, 2006, unless a 

public hearing is requested by August 

11, 2006. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed determination, written 

comments must be received by 

September 13, 2006. We are also 

soliciting written comments on the draft 

CTGs and those comments must be 

submitted within the comment period 

for the proposed determination. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing concerning the proposed 

determination by August 11, 2006, we 

will hold a public hearing on August 14, 

2006. The substance of any such hearing 

will be limited solely to EPA’s proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) that the CTGs for the five 

Group II product categories will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas. Accordingly, if a 

commenter has no objection to EPA’s 

proposed determination under CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C), but has comments 

on the substance of a draft CTG, the 

commenter should submit those 

comments in writing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by applicable docket ID 

number, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Comments concerning the 

Proposed Determination should be sent 

to: Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group II—Determination to Issue 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0672. 

Comments concerning any draft CTG 

should be sent to the applicable docket, 

as noted below: Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Lithographic 

Printing Materials and Letterpress 

Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0536; Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Flexible 

Packaging Printing Materials, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0537; 

Consumer and Commercial Products— 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0535; or 

Consumer and Commercial Products— 

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0538, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the applicable docket. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at 

Building C on the EPA campus in 

Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an 

alternate site nearby. Persons interested 

in presenting oral testimony must 

contact Ms. Dorothy Apple, 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) 541–4487, fax 

number (919) 541–3470, e-mail address: 

apple.dorothy@epa.gov, no later than 

August 11, 2006. Persons interested in 

attending the public hearing must also 

call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date, 

and location of the hearing. If no one 

contacts Ms. Apple by August 11, 2006 

with a request to present oral testimony 

at the hearing, we will cancel the 

hearing. 

Docket: 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., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-158 VI-30 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44523 

1North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Industrial cleaning solvents are used in various 

manufacturing, repair, and service operations that 

span many industry sectors. A detailed list of 

affected industries and their respective NAICS 

codes are presented in the draft CTG for industrial 

cleaning solvents. 

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West, Room B102, 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. 

Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered 

damage due to flooding during the last week 

of June 2006. The Docket Center is 

continuing to operate. However, during the 

cleanup, there will be temporary changes to 

Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, 

and hours of operation for people who wish 

to make hand deliveries or visit the Public 

Reading Room to view documents. Consult 

EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 

(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm 

for current information on docket operations, 

locations and telephone numbers. The 

Docket Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail 

and the procedure for submitting comments 

to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected 

by the flooding and will remain the same. 

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: 

(919) 541–5460, fax number (919) 541–

3470, e-mail address: 

moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determinations 

and draft CTG for lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials, contact: Mr. Dave Salman, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–0859, email address: salman.dave@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft CTG for flexible packaging 

printing materials, contact: Ms. Paula 

Hirtz, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–2618, email address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft CTG for flat wood paneling 

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: (919) 541–2363, email address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft CTG for industrial cleaning 

solvents, contact: Dr. Mohamed 

Serageldin, 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) 541–2379, e-mail address: 

serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov. 

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: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of affected entities 

Flexible packaging printing materials.322221, 326112, 322223, 

3265111, 322224, 322225, 

332999.

Facilities that use rotogravure or flexographic processes to print materials such as bags, pouches, labels, liners, and wraps using 

paper, plastic film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, 

or any combination of these materials. 

Lithographic printing materials ........ 323110 ........................................... Facilities engaged in lithographic printing on individual sheets or continuous rolls of substrate material. 

Letterpress printing materials .......... 323119 ........................................... Facilities engaged in letterpress printing on individual sheets or continuous rolls of substrate material. 

Industrial cleaning solvents ............. various 2 ......................................... Facilities engaged in cleaning activities associated with manufacturing, repair, and service operations across a wide variety of industry sectors. 

Flat wood paneling coatings ........... 321211, 321212, 321219, 321999 Facilities that apply protective, decorative, or functional material to 

any interior, exterior, or hardboard panel product. 

Federal Government ....................... ........................................................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ........... ........................................................ Not affected. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicable industry description in 

sections II.A, III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this 

notice. 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. 

Preparation of Comments. Do not 

submit information containing CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket 

ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0672, 0535, 

0536, 0537, or 0538 (as applicable). 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD–

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed action 

will also be available on the Worldwide 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-31 A-159 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44524 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

3Pursuant 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 II by September 30, 2006. 

4See 63 FR 48792 (September 11, 1998). 

Web (WWW) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following 

signature, a copy of the proposed 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. 

Organization of This Document. The 

information presented in this notice is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background Information and Proposed 

Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

C. Significance of a CTG 

D. General Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

E. Proposed Determination 

F. Availability of Documents 

II. Lithographic Printing Materials and 

Letterpress Printing Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

III. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

VI. 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 

I. Background Information and 

Proposed Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

Ground-level ozone, a major 

component of smog, is formed in the 

atmosphere by reactions of 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, agricultural crop loss, and 

damage to forests and ecosystems. Acute 

health effects are induced by short-term 

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 exposures to ozone (observed 

at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), 

typically while individuals are engaged 

in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion 

levels are more frequently experienced 

by individuals than heavy exertion 

levels. The acute health effects include 

respiratory symptoms, effects on 

exercise performance, increased airway 

responsiveness, increased susceptibility 

to respiratory infection, increased 

hospital admissions and emergency 

room visits, and pulmonary 

inflammation. Groups at increased risk 

of experiencing such effects include 

active children, outdoor workers, and 

others who regularly engage in outdoor 

activities, as well as those with 

preexisting respiratory disease. 

Currently available information also 

suggests 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 (Nov. 17, 2005); 64 FR 

13422 (Mar. 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 II of the list now comprises the 

five product categories that are the 

subject of this action.3

Any regulations issued under section 

CAA 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 architectural 

and industrial maintenance coatings, 

autobody refinishing coatings and 

consumer products.4

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 the 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, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-160 VI-32 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44525 

5 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile 

Organic Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 

13, 2005). 

6See, 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.’’

7Memorandum 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.’’

8 ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs, January 2001,’’ available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/ 

policy/search.htm. 

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 the measures 

applicable to manufacturers, processors, 

distributors, or importers of the 

solvents, materials, or products 

supplied to the consumer or industry. 

CAA section 183(e) does not authorize 

EPA to issue regulations that would 

directly regulate end-users of these 

products. By contrast, CTG are guidance 

documents that recommend 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 endusers 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 CTG 

CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that 

state implementation plans (SIPs) for 

nonattainment areas must include 

‘‘reasonably available control measures’’

(RACM), including ‘‘reasonably 

available control technology’’ (RACT), 

for sources of emissions. Section 

182(b)(2) provides that States must 

revise their ozone SIPs to include RACT 

for VOC sources covered by any CTG 

document issued after November 15, 

1990, and prior to the date of 

attainment. Those ozone nonattainment 

areas that are subject to CAA section 

172(c)(1) and submit an attainment 

demonstration seeking more than five 

years from the date of designation to 

attain must also meet the requirements 

of CAA section 182(b)(2) and revise 

their ozone SIPs in response to any CTG 

issued after November 15, 1990, and 

prior to the date of attainment. Other 

ozone nonattainment areas subject to 

CAA section 172(c)(1) may take action 

in response to this guidance, as 

necessary to attain. 

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 (Sept. 17, 1979).’’ In 

subsequent Federal Register 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. 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 process, whether 

they meet the RACT requirements of the 

Act 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.5

Finally, if States consider requiring 

more stringent VOC content limits than 

those recommended in the draft CTGs, 

states may also wish to consider 

averaging, as appropriate. In general, the 

RACT requirement is applied on a shortterm basis up to 24 hours.6 However, 

EPA guidance permits averaging times 

longer than 24 hours under certain 

conditions.7 The EPA’s Economic 

Incentive Policy’’ 8 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 

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. 

By this action, we are making 

available four draft CTGs that cover the 

five product categories in Group II of the 

CAA section 183(e) list. We are 

consolidating lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials into one CTG document. 

These CTGs are guidance to the States 

and provide recommendations only. A 

State can develop its own strategy for 

what constitutes RACT for the Group II 

product categories, and EPA will review 

that strategy in the context of the SIP 

process and determine whether it meets 

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 draft CTGs at issue here, 

EPA provides that States should submit 

their SIP revisions within one year of 

the date that the CTGs are finalized. 

D. General Considerations in 

Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 

Substantially as Effective as a 

Regulation 

CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes 

EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a 

regulation for a category of consumer 

and commercial products if a CTG ‘‘will 

be substantially as effective as 

regulations in reducing [VOC] 

emissions’’ in ozone nonattainment 

areas. The statute does not specify how 

EPA is to make this determination. 

On July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37773), EPA 

issued a final determination pursuant to 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), concluding 

that CTGs for wood furniture coatings, 

aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding 

and repair coatings were substantially as 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-33 A-161 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44526 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

effective as national regulations in 

reducing emissions of VOC from these 

products in areas that violate the 

NAAQS for ozone. Recognizing that the 

statute does not specify any criteria for 

making a determination under CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999 

considered several relevant factors, 

including: (1) The product’s distribution 

and place of use; (2) the most effective 

entity to target to control emissions—in 

other words, whether it is more effective 

to achieve VOC reductions at the point 

of manufacture of the product or at the 

point of use of the product; (3) 

consistency with other VOC control 

strategies; and (4) estimates of likely 

VOC emission reductions in ozone 

nonattainment areas which would result 

from the regulation or CTG. EPA 

believes that these factors are useful for 

evaluating whether the rule or CTG 

approach would be best from the 

perspective of implementation and 

enforcement of an effective strategy to 

achieve the intended VOC emission 

reductions. As we consider other 

product categories in the current and 

future phases of regulation under CAA 

section 183(e), there may be other 

factors that are relevant to the CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C) determination for 

given product categories. EPA believes 

that in making these determinations, no 

single factor is dispositive. On the 

contrary, for each product category, we 

must weigh the factors and make our 

determination based on the unique set 

of facts and circumstances associated 

with each product category. For 

purposes of making the determination, 

EPA analyzed the components of the 

draft CTGs for the product categories at 

issue and compared the CTGs to the 

types of controls and emission strategies 

possible through a regulation. As we 

explained in 1999, it would be 

unreasonable for EPA, in effect, to have 

to complete both the full rulemaking 

and full CTG development processes 

before being able to make a 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) validly. EPA believes that 

for most product categories, it is 

possible for the Agency to make a 

determination between what a rule 

might reasonably be expected to achieve 

versus what a CTG might reasonably be 

expected to achieve, without having to 

complete the entire rulemaking and 

CTG processes. To conclude otherwise 

would result in unnecessary wasting of 

limited time and resources by the 

Agency and the stakeholders 

participating in the processes. 

Moreover, such an approach would be 

directly contrary to CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), which authorizes EPA to 

issue a CTG in lieu of a regulation if it 

determines that the CTG ‘‘will be 

substantially as effective as’’ a 

regulation in reducing VOC emissions 

in ozone nonattainment areas. 

With regard to the five product 

categories at issue here, EPA notes that 

it does not have reliable quantitative 

data that would enable it to conduct a 

ton-by-ton comparison of the likely 

emission reductions associated with a 

national regulation versus a CTG. 

Although we conducted such a 

comparative analysis in 1999 for the 

product categories of wood furniture 

coatings, aerospace coatings and 

shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 

37773, July 13, 1999), such analysis is 

not necessary for evaluating likely VOC 

emission reductions, particularly, 

where, as here, a CTG can achieve 

significant emission reductions from 

end-users, which cannot be achieved 

through regulation under CAA section 

183(e). 

E. Proposed Determination 

Based on the factors identified above 

and the facts and circumstances 

associated with each of the Group II 

product categories, EPA proposes to 

determine that CTGs for lithographic 

printing materials, letterpress printing 

materials, flexible packaging printing 

materials, flat wood paneling coatings 

and industrial cleaning solvents will be 

substantially as effective as national 

regulations in reducing VOC emissions 

from facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

The following four sections address 

the five product categories that 

comprise Group II of the CAA section 

183(e) list. We address lithographic 

printing materials and letterpress 

printing materials in one section below. 

Although these are two distinct product 

categories in the CAA section 183(e) list, 

offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing have many 

similarities in terms of the types of inks 

and cleaning materials used, the sources 

of VOC emissions and the controls 

available to address those emissions. 

Based on these similarities, EPA has 

concluded that it is appropriate to 

address the categories together and to 

issue a single CTG that covers both 

product categories. 

In each of the product-category 

sections below, we provide a general 

description of the industry, identify the 

sources of VOC emissions associated 

with the industry, summarize the 

recommended control techniques in the 

draft CTG and describe the impacts of 

those techniques, and discuss the 

considerations supporting our proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a regulation 

in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas from the product 

category at issue. 

The specific subsections below that 

address our proposed determination for 

each product category are organized into 

two parts, each of which addresses two 

of the factors relevant to the CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C) determination. The 

first part addresses whether it is more 

effective to target the point of 

manufacture of the product or the point 

of use for purposes of reducing VOC 

emissions and discusses whether our 

proposed approach is consistent with 

state and local VOC reduction strategies. 

The second part addresses the product’s 

distribution and place of use and 

discusses the likely VOC emission 

reductions associated with a CTG, as 

compared to a regulation. 

Finally, we propose to find that these 

five product categories are appropriate 

for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) 

list in accordance with the factors and 

criteria that EPA used to develop the 

original list. See Consumer and 

Commercial Products: Schedule for 

Regulation, 60 FR 15264 (Mar. 23, 

1995). 

F. Availability of Documents 

EPA has prepared four draft CTG 

documents covering the five consumer 

and commercial products source 

categories addressed in this action. 

Lithographic printing materials and 

letterpress printing materials are 

included in one draft CTG document. 

Each of the draft CTGs addresses, among 

other things, RACT recommendations, 

cost impacts, and State and local 

regulations. These draft CTGs are 

available for public comment and are 

contained in the respective dockets 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

notice. 

II. Lithographic Printing Materials and 

Letterpress Printing Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

Lithographic printing materials and 

letterpress printing materials are two of 

the product categories in Group II of the 

section 183(e) list. Not only are these 

distinct product categories, they are 

distinct printing processes. 

Nevertheless, offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing have 

many similarities in terms of the types 

of inks and cleaning materials used, the 

sources of VOC emissions and the 

controls available to address these 

emissions. Accordingly, for purposes of 

simplifying the discussion in this 

notice, we have combined the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-162 VI-34 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44527 

discussion of offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing. 

1. Source Category Description 

These categories of consumer and 

commercial products include the inks 

and other associated materials used by 

offset lithographic printers and 

letterpress printers. 

Offset lithography is a planographic 

method of printing. The term 

‘‘planographic’’ denotes that the 

printing and non-printing areas are in 

the same plane on the surface of a thin 

metal lithographic plate. To maintain 

the distinction between the areas on the 

lithographic plate, the image area is 

rendered oil receptive, and the nonimage area is rendered water receptive. 

Offset lithography is an indirect 

printing method; that is, ink is not 

transferred directly to a substrate. 

Rather, ink is transferred from the 

lithographic plate to a rubber-covered, 

intermediate ‘‘blanket’’ cylinder and 

then transferred from the blanket 

cylinder to the substrate. The offset 

lithographic process is used for a broad 

range of printing applications, including 

books, magazines, periodicals, labels 

and wrappers, catalogs and directories, 

financial and legal documents, business 

forms, advertising brochures, 

newspapers, newspaper inserts, charts 

and maps, calendars, tickets and 

coupons, greeting cards, and stamps. 

Letterpress printing is a printing 

process in which the image area is 

raised relative to the nonimage area and 

the paste ink is transferred to the 

substrate directly from the image 

surface. Letterpress printing is no longer 

an economically significant segment of 

the printing market. Some newspapers, 

corrugated boxes and kraft paper are 

still printed by letterpress. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

a. Offset Lithographic Printing 

There are two types of offset 

lithography characterized by the method 

in which the substrate is fed to the 

press. In sheet-fed printing, individual 

sheets of paper or other substrate are fed 

to the press. In web printing, continuous 

rolls of substrate material are fed to the 

press and rewound or cut to size after 

printing. VOC emissions from offset 

lithographic printing result from 

evaporation of components of the inks, 

fountain solutions, and cleaning 

materials. 

The inks used in offset lithographic 

printing are a source of VOC emissions. 

The amount of VOC emitted varies 

depending on the type of offset 

lithographic printing process. 

Heatset web offset lithographic inks 

require heat to set the ink. Heatset web 

inks may contain up to 45 weight 

percent VOC (ink oils). In heatset web 

offset lithographic printing, 20 percent 

of the petroleum ink oils and essentially 

all of the vegetable ink oils are retained 

in the substrate and dry ink film. The 

remaining 80 percent of the petroleum 

ink oil is volatilized in and then 

exhausted from the dryer. Consequently, 

volatilized ink oils can be a significant 

source of VOC emissions from heatset 

web offset lithographic printing 

operations. Most heatset web offset 

lithographic printing dryers, however, 

are equipped with control devices such 

as a thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, 

or chiller condenser. These control 

devices significantly reduce VOC 

emissions from heatset web offset 

lithographic printing. 

Coldset web and sheet-fed offset 

lithographic inks dry by absorption into 

the substrate or by oxidation. The 

petroleum ink oils in sheet-fed and 

coldset web inks have higher boiling 

points than the petroleum ink oils in 

heatset inks. Coldset web inks usually 

contain below 35 percent weight VOC 

(ink oils). Most sheet-fed inks contain 

below 25 weight percent VOC (ink oils). 

In sheet-fed and coldset web offset 

lithographic printing, 95 percent of the 

petroleum ink oils and essentially all of 

the vegetable oils are retained in the 

substrate and dry ink film. As a result, 

VOC emissions from sheet-fed and 

coldset web offset lithographic inks are 

very low. 

Some radiation (ultra-violet and 

electron beam) cured offset lithographic 

materials are also used. These materials 

do not contain ink oils. Their VOC 

content and emissions are usually 

extremely low. 

The second source of VOC emissions 

from offset lithographic printing is the 

fountain solution used in conjunction 

with the inks. Fountain solution is 

unique to lithography and is not used in 

other printing processes. 

Fountain solution is applied to the 

lithographic plate to render the nonimage areas unreceptive to ink. The onpress fountain solution is typically a 

mixture of water and fountain solution 

concentrate. The concentrate contains 

additives such as gum arabic or 

synthetic resins, acids, and buffer salts 

to maintain the pH of the solution, and 

a wetting agent or ‘‘dampening aid’’ to 

enhance the spreadability of the 

fountain solution across the plate. The 

dampening aid reduces the surface 

tension of the water as well as increases 

viscosity. 

Fountain solutions can be the source 

of a significant portion of the VOC 

emitted by offset lithographic printing 

operations. Historically, alcohols such 

as isopropyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol 

and ethanol were used as the 

dampening aid. Over the past 20 years, 

many printers have reduced their 

emissions from fountain solution by 

reducing the alcohol content of the 

fountain solution or refrigerating the 

fountain solution. In addition, many 

printers have further reduced VOC 

emissions by switching to alcohol 

substitutes, most commonly certain 

glycol ethers. 

The third source of VOC emissions 

from offset lithographic printing is 

cleaning materials. Cleaning materials 

are used to wash the blankets, rollers, 

and outside of presses, and to remove 

residues of excess ink between color 

changes. These materials are typically 

mixtures of organic (often petroleumbased) solvents. Cleaning materials can 

be the source of a significant portion of 

the VOC emitted by lithographic 

printing operations. The keys to 

reducing VOC emissions from offset 

lithographic printing cleaning materials 

are reducing the composite vapor 

pressure of the material used and work 

practices. Low-VOC content waterborne 

cleaning materials have been tested but 

have not proven to be a satisfactory 

alternative. 

b. Letterpress Printing 

The VOC emissions from letterpress 

printing result from the evaporation of 

components of the inks and cleaning 

materials. Fountain solution is not used 

in letterpress printing. Letterpress inks 

are similar to offset lithographic inks. 

They are paste inks containing 

petroleum oils or vegetable oils. Both 

sheet-fed and web presses are used for 

letterpress printing. 

Sheet-fed letterpress presses use 

coldset inks. Most web letterpress 

equipment use coldset inks. These 

letterpress inks are similar in 

composition and behavior to sheet-fed 

and coldset web lithographic inks. In 

sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress 

printing, 95 percent of the petroleum 

ink oils and essentially all of the 

vegetable oils are retained in the 

substrate and dry ink film. As a result, 

VOC emissions from sheet-fed and 

coldset web letterpress inks are very 

low. 

There are also some heatset web 

letterpress printers. Heatset letterpress 

ink is similar to heatset lithographic ink 

with 20 percent of the petroleum ink 

oils and essentially all of the vegetable 

ink oils retained in the substrate and dry 

ink film. The remaining ink oil is 

volatilized in and then exhausted from 

the dryer. Heatset web letterpress 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-35 A-163 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44528 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

9See. e.g., Model Volatile Organic Compound 

Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology: 

Planning for Ozone Nonattainment Pursuant to 

Title I of the Clean Air Act, dated June 1992 

(establishing the 15 lb of VOC per day applicability 

threshold for coating applications for eleven 

industries, including automobile and light duty 

truck coating operations and coating of cans, coil, 

paper, fabric, vinyl, metal furniture, large 

appliances, magnet wire, miscellaneous metal parts, 

and flatwood paneling). 

printing dryers may be equipped with 

control devices such as a thermal 

oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or chiller 

condenser. These control devices would 

significantly reduce VOC emissions 

from heatset letterpress printing. 

The most significant source of VOC 

emissions in the letterpress process is 

cleaning materials. Cleaning materials 

are used to wash the rollers, plates and 

outside of presses. The cleaning 

materials used for letterpress printing 

are similar to those used in lithographic 

printing. These materials are typically 

mixtures of organic (often petroleumbased) solvents. The keys to reducing 

VOC emissions from letterpress printing 

cleaning materials are reducing the 

composite vapor pressure of the 

material used and work practices. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

Seventeen States or local areas have 

VOC emission regulations for offset 

lithographic printing operations. Five 

states or local areas have regulations for 

letterpress printing operations. These 

rules generally limit the alcohol or 

alcohol substitute content of fountain 

solutions and the composite vapor 

pressure of cleaning materials, and 

require control of heatset dryer exhaust. 

More detail on these rules is provided 

in the draft CTG. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for heatset dryers, 

fountain solution and cleaning. The 

recommendations in the draft CTG 

apply to offset lithographic printing 

operations or letterpress printing 

operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day 

(15 lb/day) of VOC before consideration 

of control. The 15 lb/day level of 

emissions has been the applicability 

threshold for many CTGs in the past.9

For purposes of determining whether 

this applicability threshold is met, 

emissions from all offset lithographic 

printing, letterpress printing, and 

cleaning activities associated with offset 

lithographic printing or letterpress 

printing at a given facility are included. 

The only exception to this threshold 

relates to the add-on control 

recommendations provided below for 

heatset web offset lithographic printing 

operations and heatset web letterpress 

printing operations, and that exception 

is described below. 

1. Offset Lithographic Printing 

In the draft CTG, the recommended 

level of control for VOC emissions from 

exhaust from heatset web offset 

lithographic dryers is a 90 percent 

reduction in VOC for control equipment 

installed before March 14, 1995. The 

draft CTG further recommends that 

control equipment installed on or after 

March 14, 1995, achieve 95 percent 

efficiency. These levels of control can be 

achieved by thermal oxidizers, catalytic 

oxidizers and chiller condensers. In 

light of technological improvements, 

add-on controls installed on or after 

March 14, 1995 can achieve 95 percent 

VOC reduction. To accommodate 

situations where the inlet VOC 

concentration is so low that a 90 or 95 

percent reduction may not be 

achievable, an outlet concentration 

alternative is also recommended. 

The above recommended levels of 

control apply only to heatset web offset 

lithographic printing operations with 

potential to emit from the dryers of at 

least 25 tpy of VOC combined from 

heatset inks and carryover of alcohol 

substitutes (fountain solution) and low 

vapor pressure automatic blanket wash 

materials, before consideration of 

controls. We are recommending the 25 

tpy threshold for add-on controls for 

heatset ink printers because the limited 

information currently available to us 

suggests that controls for small printers 

may be more costly for a given amount 

of emission reduction. In the 1993 draft 

CTG, EPA examined the cost of 

controlling heatset dryer emissions from 

four different size model plants. Annual 

ink oil emissions, before control, from 

the dryers at these facilities were 

approximately 25, 50, 100 and 200 tons 

per year (tpy). The cost-effectiveness of 

controlling these ink oil emissions was 

estimated to range from $1,300 per ton 

at the largest model facility to $2,300 

per ton at the smallest model facility 

(1990 dollars). In 2005 dollars, this 

equates to $1,800 per ton at the largest 

model facility and $3,100 per ton at the 

smallest model facility. More recently, 

EPA learned of a heatset web offset 

lithographic book printing facility with 

potential to emit 26 tpy of VOC from ink 

and alcohol substitute (fountain 

solution) carryover, before control, from 

the dryers on five heatset web offset 

lithographic presses. Book printing 

tends to have much lighter coverage and 

lower dryer exhaust VOC concentration 

than other types of heatset printing (e.g., 

magazine printing). In this case the VOC 

concentration of the dryer exhaust was 

very low. A 2004 state BACT analysis 

for this facility did not require the 

installation of control equipment. The 

cost per ton of controlling heatset dryer 

emissions was estimated by the facility 

to be $15,500 per ton which is 

significantly higher than that estimated 

for the smallest model facility in the 

1993 draft CTG. 

We recognize that we have limited 

information on small heatset web 

facilities and the costs of controlling 

VOCs emitted from the dryers at these 

smaller sources. To allow us to assess 

the cost of controlling dryer emissions 

at small heatset web facilities and the 

appropriateness of the 25 tpy threshold 

for controlling dryer exhaust from 

heatset web printers, we request 

information on the mass of ink oil 

emissions and mass of alcohol 

substitute and automatic blanket wash 

carryover before control, dryer exhaust 

rates, and other relevant operating 

parameters for facilities with potential 

to emit from heatset dryers up to 100 

tpy. We would also welcome 

information on the experience of 

smaller facilities in controlling their 

dryer emissions, including any 

alternative control approaches, and the 

cost of such controls. 

No limits or controls are 

recommended for VOC emissions from 

sheet-fed and coldset web offset 

lithographic inks. In sheet-fed and 

coldset web offset lithographic printing, 

95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and 

essentially all of the vegetable oils are 

retained in the substrate and dry ink 

film. As a result, VOC emissions from 

sheet-fed and coldset web offset 

lithographic inks are already very low. 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from fountain solution 

for heatset web printing is 1.6 percent 

alcohol (by weight) in the fountain or 

equivalent. The draft CTG recommends 

three different approaches for achieving 

this recommended level of control. The 

first approach involves reducing the 

alcohol content to 1.6 percent alcohol or 

less (by weight). The second approach 

involves using 3 percent alcohol or less 

(by weight) in the fountain solution 

provided the fountain solution is 

refrigerated to below 60 °F (15.5 °C). 

The third approach involves using 5 

percent alcohol substitute or less (by 

weight) and no alcohol in the fountain 

solution. 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from fountain solution 

for sheet-fed printing is equivalent to 5 

percent alcohol (by weight) in the 

fountain or equivalent The draft CTG 

recommends three different approaches 

for achieving this recommended level of 

control. The first approach involves 

reducing the alcohol content to 5.0 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-164 VI-36 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44529 

percent alcohol or less (by weight). The 

second approach involves using 8.5 

percent alcohol or less (by weight) in 

the fountain solution provided the 

fountain solution is refrigerated to 

below 60°F (15.5° C). The third 

approach involves using 5 percent 

alcohol substitute or less (by weight) 

and no alcohol in the fountain solution. 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from fountain solution 

for coldset web is 5 percent alcohol 

substitute or less (by weight) and no 

alcohol in the fountain solution. 

For all types of offset lithographic 

printing, the draft CTG recommends the 

use of cleaning materials with a VOC 

composite partial pressure less than 10 

mm Hg at 20 °C, and that cleaning 

materials and used shop towels be kept 

in closed containers. The draft CTG also 

recommends an allowance for limited, 

209 or 418 liters (55 or 110 gallons) per 

year, use of higher vapor pressure 

cleaning materials. We request 

comments on the appropriate size for 

this allowance and additional 

information on the specific cleaning 

activities which require the use of 

higher vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. 

2. Letterpress Printing 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from exhaust from 

heatset letterpress dryers is a 90 percent 

reduction in VOC for control equipment 

installed before March 14, 1995. The 

draft CTG further recommends that new 

control equipment installed on or after 

March 14, 1995, be required to achieve 

95 percent efficiency. These levels of 

control can be achieved by thermal 

oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and 

chiller condensers. In light of 

technological improvements, add-on 

controls installed after March 14, 1995 

can achieve 95 percent VOC reduction. 

To accommodate situations where the 

inlet VOC concentration is low, an 

outlet concentration alternative is also 

recommended. 

The above recommended levels of 

control apply only to heatset web 

letterpress printing operations with 

potential to emit from the dryers of at 

least 25 tpy of VOC combined from 

heatset inks and carryover of 

automatically applied low vapor 

pressure cleaning materials, before 

consideration of controls. For the 

reasons explained above, we are 

recommending the 25 tpy threshold for 

add-on controls for heatset ink 

letterpress printers because the limited 

information currently available to us 

suggests that controls for small heatset 

printers may be more costly for a given 

amount of emission reduction. Because 

we have limited information on small 

heatset web letterpress facilities and the 

costs of controlling VOCs emitted from 

the dryers at these smaller sources, we 

request additional information on these 

facilities. The type of information we 

are requesting is specified above in the 

discussion concerning add-on controls 

for heatset web offset lithographic 

printers. 

No limits are recommended for VOC 

emissions from sheet-fed and coldset 

letterpress inks. In sheet-fed and coldset 

web letterpress printing, 95 percent of 

the petroleum ink oils and essentially 

all of the vegetable oils are retained in 

the substrate and dry ink film. As a 

result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed 

and coldset web letterpress inks are 

already very low. 

The draft CTG recommends the use of 

letterpress cleaning materials with a 

VOC composite partial pressure less 

than 10 mm Hg at 20 °C, and that 

cleaning materials and shop used towels 

be kept in closed containers. The 

document also recommends an 

allowance for limited, 209 or 418 liters 

(55 or 110 gallons) per year, use of 

higher vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. We request comments on the 

appropriate size for this allowance and 

additional information on the specific 

cleaning activities which require the use 

of higher vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

In the 1993 draft CTG, EPA estimated 

baseline emissions from the offset 

lithographic printing industry in ozone 

nonattainment areas, based on 1990 

data, to be 820,000 tons per year (with 

62,000 tpy coming from ink, 631,000 tpy 

from fountain solution and 126,000 tpy 

from cleaning.) Commenters on the 1993 

draft CTG asserted that the alcohol 

content (17 percent) used to generate 

this estimate was too high and that the 

assumed ratio of fountain solution usage 

to ink usage was also too high. Baseline 

emissions from fountain solution may 

have been overestimated in 1993 by a 

factor of 2 to 3. This would reduce 

industry wide baseline emissions to 

between 400,000 to 500,000 tpy. As for 

letterpress printers, we have limited 

emissions data information for this 

industry. Based on available 

information, we estimate that VOC 

emissions from the letterpress printing 

industry as of 1990 were about 28,000 

tons per year. 

Based on VOC emissions data and 

April 2006 ozone nonattainment 

designations, EPA estimates that 6,700 

offset lithographic printing facilities and 

2,200 letterpress printing facilities 

would be affected by the draft CTG. We 

estimate the cost effectiveness of the 

recommended control techniques for 

offset lithographic printing to be $2,000/ 

ton of VOC removed for heatset web 

dryers and $850/ton of VOC removed 

for cleaning materials. A cost savings is 

estimated for fountain solution. We 

estimate the cost effectiveness of the 

recommended control techniques for 

letterpress heatset web dryers and 

letterpress printing cleaning materials to 

be similar to the cost effectiveness for 

offset lithographic heatset dryers and 

offset lithographic printing cleaning 

materials. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

categories of lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials under section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with these product 

categories. Based on that analysis, we 

propose to determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from 

lithographic printing materials and 

letterpress printing materials. 

As noted above, this section is 

divided into two parts. In the first part, 

we discuss our belief that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in these two 

categories is through controls at the 

point of use of the product (i.e., through 

controls on printers), and this can only 

be accomplished through a CTG. We 

further explain that the approaches in 

the draft CTG are consistent with 

existing effective state and local VOC 

strategies. In the second part, we discuss 

how the distribution and place of use of 

the products in each of these categories 

also support the use of a CTG. We 

further explain that there are control 

approaches for these two categories that 

result in significant VOC emission 

reductions and that such reductions 

could only be obtained by controlling 

the use of the product through a CTG. 

Such reductions could not be obtained 

through a regulation under section 

183(e) because the controls affect the 

end-user, which cannot be a regulated 

entity under section 183(e)(1)(C). 

Accordingly, for these reasons and the 

reasons described more fully below, we 

believe that a CTG will achieve greater 

VOC emission reductions than a rule for 

these two categories. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-37 A-165 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44530 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

10This section addresses offset lithographic 

printing only because fountain solutions are not 

used in letterpress printing. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important to first identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

three main sources of VOC emissions 

from offset lithography: (1) Evaporation 

of VOC from the inks; (2) evaporation of 

VOC from the fountain solution; and (3) 

evaporation of VOC from the cleaning 

materials. VOC emissions associated 

with letterpress printing stem from inks 

and cleaning materials only; fountain 

solutions are not used in letterpress 

printing. We address each of these 

sources of VOC emissions, in turn, 

below, as we discuss the CTG versus 

regulation approach. 

a. Inks 

A national rule could contain limits 

for the as-sold VOC content of offset 

lithographic inks and letterpress inks, 

but given the nature of the offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing processes, this would result, in 

little, if any, reduction in VOC 

emissions. 

Inks are a significant source of VOC 

emissions from heatset web offset 

lithographic printing and heatset web 

letterpress printing. In these processes, 

heat is applied in a dryer to set the inks. 

As a result of the heating process, about 

80 percent of the petroleum ink oil 

(VOC) is volatilized in the dryer. The 

remaining 20 percent of petroleum ink 

oil and all of the vegetable ink oil is 

retained in the substrate and dry ink 

film. Since the vegetable ink oil does 

not volatilize in the dryer, the amount 

of vegetable ink oil that can be used in 

heatset inks is very limited. If there is 

too much vegetable oil in a heatset ink, 

the ink will not dry properly. 

Control devices, such as thermal 

oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or chiller 

condensers, can achieve a 90 percent or 

greater reduction in VOC emissions 

from heatset dryers. In light of the 

significant reductions in VOC emissions 

obtained with such devices, existing 

State and local regulations that address 

offset lithography require the use of 

controls on heatset dryer exhaust. The 

same controls are equally applicable to 

heatset letterpress dryers. 

We could not require such control 

devices at printers through a national 

rule, because, pursuant to CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated 

entities subject to a national rule would 

be the ink manufacturers and suppliers, 

not the printers. The draft CTG applies 

to printers, as the end users of the inks, 

and specifically recommends limiting 

emissions by requiring printers to install 

and operate control devices on heatset 

dryers. 

Although both a national rule and a 

CTG could, in theory, achieve some 

reduction in VOC emissions from 

heatset web inks by requiring minimum 

vegetable oil content or limiting the 

ratio of petroleum oil to vegetable oil, 

we do not believe that such an approach 

is appropriate for addressing the 

emissions associated with these inks. As 

noted above, only very limited amounts 

of vegetable oil can be used in heatset 

inks. As a result, only a small emission 

reduction could be achieved, and we 

believe that this emission reduction—

whether pursued through a rule or 

CTG—would not be cost-effective. 

Accordingly, the draft CTG does not 

contain restrictions on vegetable oil 

content. Given the significant 

reductions achievable through use of 

add-on control devices and the limited 

reductions that would be achieved by a 

national rule for heatset inks, the most 

effective entity to regulate VOC 

emissions associated with heatset web 

offset lithographic inks and heatset 

letterpress inks is the printer. 

The VOC emissions from sheet-fed 

and coldset web lithographic inks and 

sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress 

inks are inherently very low. First, these 

inks are lower VOC-content inks than 

heatset web inks. Second, 95 percent of 

the petroleum ink oil and essentially all 

of the vegetable ink oil in sheet-fed and 

coldset web lithographic inks and sheetfed and coldset web letterpress inks do 

not evaporate and are retained in the 

substrate and dry ink film. Because only 

a small percentage of the sheet-fed and 

coldset web lithographic and letterpress 

ink oils evaporate, VOC emissions 

associated with these inks are small. 

Although both a national rule and a 

CTG could, in theory, achieve some 

reduction in VOC emissions from sheetfed and coldset web inks by requiring a 

minimum vegetable oil content or 

limiting the ratio of petroleum oil to 

vegetable oil, we do not believe that 

such an approach is appropriate for 

addressing the limited emissions 

associated with these inks. Only a small 

emission reduction could be achieved, 

and we believe that this emission 

reduction—whether pursued through a 

rule or a CTG—would not be costeffective. There are therefore no 

restrictions on vegetable oil content in 

the draft CTG. 

In addition, there are no cost-effective 

control devices to address VOC 

emissions from sheet-fed and coldset 

web lithographic and letterpress 

printers because the emissions that 

occur from these processes are diffuse 

and spread over a large area. Such 

emissions stand in contrast to those 

associated with heatset offset web 

lithographic inks and heatset letterpress 

inks, as the petroleum oils in those inks 

volatilize in a dryer and can be 

controlled in a cost-effective manner 

because they are emitted in a more 

concentrated form from a discrete 

source. Thus, the draft CTG, while a 

viable approach for addressing VOC 

emissions associated with heatset web 

inks with add-on controls, does not 

contain any add-on control 

recommendations for sheet-fed and 

coldset web inks because of the absence 

of any cost-effective control devices. 

b. Fountain Solutions 10

Fountain solutions contain alcohol or 

alcohol substitutes, which are VOCs. 

Fountain solutions are generally 

purchased in the form of fountain 

solution concentrate from vendors 

serving offset lithographic printers. The 

printers—the end-users of the fountain 

solution—buy the concentrate and 

dilute it with water to make ‘‘pressready’’ fountain solution. The more the 

concentrate is diluted, the lower the 

VOC content of the press-ready fountain 

solution and the fewer VOC emissions 

result. 

A national rule requiring fountain 

solution concentrate manufacturers and 

suppliers to package the fountain 

solution concentrate with less VOC 

would not be an effective means of 

addressing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas. In this regard, we 

could, in theory, require the 

manufacturer or supplier to sell only 

pre-diluted fountain solution with a 

specified amount of VOC content. The 

effect of such a rule could be easily 

subverted, however, because the rule 

would not, in any way, affect the actions 

of the end-user of the fountain solution, 

i.e., the printers. In particular, printers 

can purchase alcohol or alcohol 

substitutes from a variety of sources and 

add these to the pre-diluted fountain 

solution concentrate, which would 

effectively nullify the reformulation 

actions of the manufacturer and 

supplier, resulting in no net change in 

VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment 

areas. By contrast, a CTG can reach the 

users of the product and can therefore 

implement controls or practices by the 

user that are more likely to achieve the 

intended VOC emission reduction goal. 

In addition, printers purchase 

fountain solution concentrate with the 

intention of diluting the solution with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-166 VI-38 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44531 

water, as appropriate, for the particular 

printing at issue. Thus, a regulation 

requiring dilution of the fountain 

solution concentrate by the 

manufacturer would be redundant of the 

actions that will be taken by the 

printers. The only result of such a 

national regulation would be increased 

shipping costs for printers. Shipping 

costs would increase because diluting 

the fountain solution concentrate would 

increase the volume of material to be 

shipped to the printers. 

A national rule also, in theory, could 

prohibit fountain solution 

manufacturers and suppliers from 

selling fountain solution concentrates 

which contain alcohol or alcohol 

substitutes. Similar to the reformulation 

strategy described above, the net effect 

of such a rule could be easily nullified 

by actions of the printers, because 

nothing precludes the printers from 

purchasing alcohol or alcohol 

substitutes from vendors that would not 

be subject to the section 183(e) 

regulation. Moreover, most offset 

lithographic printing requires some 

alcohol or alcohol substitute in the 

fountain solution, so prohibiting alcohol 

or alcohol substitutes in fountain 

solution concentrate would be 

impractical. 

Although a national rule could, in 

theory, prohibit the sale of all alcohol 

and alcohol substitutes regardless of 

specified end use for purposes of 

reducing VOC emissions from the offset 

lithographic and letterpress printing 

industries, such an approach is 

unreasonable and impractical, as it 

would preclude the use of alcohol in all 

contexts just to obtain VOC reductions 

in ozone nonattainment areas from two 

limited product categories. A more 

effective approach is to target reductions 

through controls on the end-user, the 

printers, through a CTG. Specifically, 

the draft CTG recommends limiting the 

on-press VOC (alcohol or alcohol 

substitute) content of fountain solutions, 

or refrigerating the fountain solution to 

reduce evaporation of VOC. These 

approaches are consistent with 

approaches already taken by State and 

local authorities, and they have proven 

effective in reducing VOC emissions. 

c. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the offset 

lithographic printing process and the 

letterpress printing process: (1) Limiting 

the composite vapor pressure of the 

cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the product. A national rule 

affecting lithographic cleaning material 

and letterpress cleaning material 

manufacturers that limits the composite 

vapor pressure of VOC in the cleaning 

materials sold suffers from the same 

deficiencies noted above with regard to 

fountain solutions. Specifically, 

although lithographic printers and 

letterpress printers generally purchase 

cleaning materials from vendors serving 

their respective industry, nothing in a 

national rule governing manufacturers 

would preclude them from purchasing 

bulk solvents or other multipurpose 

cleaning materials from other vendors. 

The general availability of bulk solvents 

or multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the composite vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low composite 

vapor pressure materials are available 

for lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing. Such an approach is 

unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning 

materials and solvents are sold for 

multiple different commercial and 

industrial purposes. Reducing the vapor 

pressure of all materials merely to 

achieve VOC emission reduction from 

two limited product categories, could 

preclude the use of such materials in 

many important, legitimate contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from cleaning 

materials used by offset lithographic 

printers and letterpress printers is to 

control the use of such materials by the 

printers through a CTG. The draft CTG 

recommends limiting the composite 

vapor pressure of offset lithographic and 

letterpress cleaning materials. With the 

CTG, the composite vapor pressure 

restrictions would apply to the printer 

regardless of the source of the cleaning 

materials and solvents. 

Significantly, we could not impose 

work practices through a section 183(e) 

rule. Work practices, by their nature, are 

directed at the end-user of the product. 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices such as keeping shop towels in 

closed containers. This measure alone 

results in significant reductions in VOC 

cleaning emissions, when used in 

conjunction with low composite vapor 

pressure cleaning materials. These 

reductions would not be possible 

through a section 183(e) regulation 

because, by statute, such regulations do 

not apply to the end-user. Finally, the 

approaches recommended in the CTG 

are consistent with approaches taken by 

States and localities for cleaning 

materials, and these approaches have 

proven effective in reducing VOC 

emissions. 

Based on the nature of the offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing processes, the sources of 

significant VOC emissions from those 

processes, and the available strategies 

for reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from these product 

categories is through controls at the 

point of use of the products, (i.e., 

through controls on printers), and this 

can only be accomplished through a 

CTG. The approaches described in the 

draft CTG are also consistent with 

effective state and local VOC control 

strategies. These two factors alone 

demonstrate that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only 

further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing 

products. 

First, the products described above 

are used at commercial printing 

facilities in specific, identifiable 

locations. This stands in contrast to 

other consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

printing facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of products are feasible and 

therefore the nature of the product’s 

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve equal or 

greater emission reduction than a 

national rule for each source of VOC 

emissions from offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing. In 

total, the CTG will achieve greater 

emission reductions because, as 

explained above, there are certain 

control strategies, applicable to the enduser of the product, that achieve 

significant VOC reductions. In 

particular, a CTG will achieve a 

significant reduction of VOC emissions 

(90 percent or greater) from heatset inks 

through the use of control devices on 

dryers used in heatset web offset 

lithographic printing and heatset web 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-39 A-167 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44532 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

letterpress printing. A CTG also 

provides for work practices associated 

with cleaning materials. The VOC 

reductions associated with these 

measures could not be obtained through 

a national regulation because they 

require the implementation of measures 

by the end-user. 

In addition, there are certain strategies 

that arguably could be implemented 

through rulemaking, but are far more 

effective if implemented directly at the 

point of use of the product. For the 

reasons described above, it is more 

effective to control the alcohol or 

alcohol-substitutes content of fountain 

solution concentrate and the composite 

vapor pressure of cleaning materials 

through a CTG, than a regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of sources 

affected by a CTG, as compared to the 

number of sources in nonattainment 

areas does not change our conclusion 

that the CTG would, in total, achieve 

greater VOC emission reductions than a 

rule. Based on the April 2006 

designations, we estimate that 6,700 

offset lithographic printing facilities, 

and 2,200 letterpress printing facilities 

would be affected by the draft CTG. We 

further estimate that there are 30,500 

offset lithographic printing facilities and 

11,000 letterpress printing facilities 

located in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Although there is a large difference 

between the number of facilities affected 

by the CTG, as compared to the number 

of facilities in nonattainment areas, the 

facilities not covered by the CTG are 

predominantly small sheet-fed printing 

facilities that, as demonstrated above, 

are inherently low VOC emitters. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with these product 

categories, we propose to determine that 

a CTG for offset lithographic printing 

and letterpress printing will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

III. Flexible Packaging Printing 

Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

Flexible packaging refers to any 

package or part of a package the shape 

of which can be readily changed. 

Flexible packaging includes, but is not 

limited to, bags, pouches, labels, liners, 

and wraps utilizing paper, plastic, film, 

aluminum foil, metalized or coated 

paper or film, or any combination of 

these materials. Printing, coating, 

laminating, and the use of adhesives, 

primers, and varnishes may all be 

performed on or in-line with a flexible 

packaging printing press, and these 

activities are included in the source 

category. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The primary source of VOC emissions 

from the flexible packaging printing 

industry is evaporation of components 

of the printing inks, coatings, adhesives 

and cleaning materials. 

About 80 percent of flexible 

packaging printing is performed using 

rotogravure processes. Gravure printing 

is a printing process in which an image 

(type and art) is etched or engraved 

below the surface of a plate or cylinder. 

Rotogravure package printing uses a 

wide variety of different ink systems, 

including solvent systems (using 

aromatic, aliphatic and oxygenated 

hydrocarbon solvent-borne inks), and 

waterborne inks. VOC are contained in 

the printing inks, coatings, adhesives 

and cleaning materials. 

In flexographic printing, the image is 

raised above the printing plate, and the 

image carrier is made of rubber or other 

elastomeric materials. The major 

applications of flexographic printing are 

flexible and rigid packaging; tags and 

labels; newspapers, magazines, and 

directories; and paper towels, tissues, 

etc. Flexographic inks include both 

waterborne and solvent-based systems. 

Solvents used must be compatible with 

the rubber or polymeric plates; thus, 

aromatic solvents are not used. VOC are 

contained in the printing inks, coatings, 

adhesives and cleaning materials. 

There are two approaches to reducing 

VOC emissions from the inks, coatings 

and adhesives used in the flexible 

packaging printing industry. The first 

approach includes improving existing 

capture and/or control systems or 

adding control systems where none are 

in use. The second approach, focusing 

on pollution prevention, is to substitute 

lower VOC content or VOC-free inks, 

coatings and adhesives for higher VOC 

content materials presently in use. The 

controls employed are influenced by the 

type of inks, coatings and adhesives 

used, the printing process being used, 

the substrate, and performance 

requirements for the end product. 

Capture systems in use include 

combinations of dryer exhausts, floor 

sweeps, hoods, and total enclosures. 

Pressroom ventilation air can also be 

exhausted to a control device. Capture 

efficiencies can vary widely; the 

differences in efficiency contribute 

much more to the variation in overall 

efficiencies than the choice of control 

device. Control devices in use include 

carbon adsorbers, thermal oxidizers, and 

catalytic oxidizers. 

Many facilities in the packaging 

rotogravure and flexographic printing 

industries use waterborne inks. These 

inks typically contain a small 

proportion of alcohols or glycol ethers 

which function to reduce surface 

tension and improve flow 

characteristics. Waterborne inks are 

being used successfully for printing on 

paper packaging and for printing on 

non-absorbent packaging substrates 

such as plastics, aluminum, and 

laminates. 

Use of waterborne inks for rotogravure 

printing is increasing; however, 

problems still limit their use at press 

speeds above 1,000 feet per minute. 

Their use may require redesign of the 

system (e.g., changes in ink formulation, 

cylinder engraving, press operation, and 

dryer design) for rotogravure flexible 

packaging printing. While use of 

waterborne inks reduces or eliminates 

VOC emissions, their higher surface 

tension and slower drying rate continue 

to be obstacles to their expanded use. 

There is widespread use of 

waterborne inks in flexographic 

printing. Most of these facilities have no 

control devices, and may have 

converted from solvent-borne to 

waterborne materials to avoid the need 

to install control devices to comply with 

VOC regulations. Flexographic printing 

is more easily adapted to the use of 

waterborne materials, and may not 

require redesign of the system. 

Flexible packaging producers print on 

many different substrates within the 

same facility. Low-VOC inks are not 

available to meet all of the performance 

requirements of the products produced 

at these facilities or for all substrates in 

all of the colors required by some 

facilities. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

At least 34 States and several more 

local agencies have regulations that 

control VOC emissions from rotogravure 

and flexographic printing for flexible 

packaging. The majority of these 

agencies have adopted control levels 

consistent with the 1978 RACT levels of 

65 percent overall control for 

rotogravure, 60 percent overall control 

for flexography, or use of inks, coatings 

and adhesives with less than or equal to 

25 percent by volume VOC in their 

volatile fraction, more than 60 volume 

percent solids less water, or less than 

0.5 kg of VOC per kg of solids. More 

recently issued regulations for flexible 

package printing operations are more 

stringent than the recommendations 

found in the 1978 CTG. These 

regulations have overall control 

efficiency requirements ranging from 66 

percent to 85 percent. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-168 VI-40 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44533 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for flexible 

packaging printing (inks, coatings and 

adhesives) and cleaning. The 

recommendations in the draft CTG 

apply to flexible packaging printing 

operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day 

(15 lb/day) of VOC before consideration 

of control. This level of emissions has 

been the applicability threshold for 

many CTG in the past. For purposes of 

this threshold, emissions from all 

flexible packaging printing and cleaning 

activities associated with flexible 

packaging printing at a given facility are 

included. The only exception to this 

threshold relates to the control 

recommendations provided below for 

emissions from inks, coatings and 

adhesives, and that exception is 

described below. 

1. Inks, Coatings and Adhesives 

More recently installed presses are 

capable of achieving greater capture 

efficiencies than older presses. For 

presses first installed prior to March 14, 

1995, the draft CTG recommends an 

overall capture and control efficiency of 

70 percent for flexible packaging 

printers. Alternative ‘‘as-applied’’ ink, 

coating and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg of 

VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of 

VOC/lb of solids applied) or 0.10 kg of 

VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb of 

VOC/lb of materials applied) are also 

recommended. 

For presses installed on or after March 

14, 1995, the draft CTG recommends an 

overall capture and control efficiency of 

80 percent for flexible packaging 

printers. Alternative ‘‘as-applied’’ ink, 

coating and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg 

VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of 

VOC/lb of solids applied) or 0.10 kg 

VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb of 

VOC/lb of materials applied) are also 

recommended. 

The above recommended levels of 

control apply only to flexible packaging 

printing operations with potential to 

emit at least 25 tpy of VOC from inks, 

coatings and adhesives combined before 

consideration of controls. We are 

recommending the 25 tpy threshold 

because not all flexible packaging 

facilities can use low VOC content inks, 

coatings and adhesives, and because the 

limited information currently available 

to us suggests that add-on controls for 

small printers may be more costly for a 

given amount of emission reduction. 

Based on available information, we 

estimate that for a press exhausting 

approximately 5,800 cubic feet per 

minute, operating 2000 hours per year, 

and achieving 70 percent capture 

efficiency, the VOC emission reduction 

achieved by add-on controls would 

range from 30 to 60 megagrams (Mg) (33 

to 66 tons) per year and the cost 

effectiveness would range from $1,400/ 

Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ton to 2,800/ 

ton) depending on the average hourly 

solvent use rate. At lower solvent use 

rates, the cost per ton of emission 

controlled would likely be higher. 

We recognize that we have limited 

information on small flexible packaging 

printing facilities and the cost of add-on 

controls to reduce VOCs emitted from 

inks, coatings and adhesives at these 

smaller sources. To allow us to assess 

the cost of controlling emissions from 

inks, coatings and adhesives at small 

flexible packaging printing facilities and 

the appropriateness of the 25 tpy 

threshold for recommending control of 

these emissions, we request information 

on the mass of VOC emissions from 

inks, coatings and adhesives before 

control, dryer exhaust rates, press 

utilization rates and other relevant 

operating parameters for these smaller 

facilities. We would also welcome 

information on the experience of 

smaller facilities in controlling these 

emissions, including any alternative 

control approaches, and the cost of such 

controls. 

2. Work Practices for Cleaning Materials 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practice requirements to ensure that all 

cleaning materials are stored in closed 

containers; spills are minimized; 

cleaning materials are conveyed from 

one location to another in closed 

containers or pipes; and emissions of 

VOC are minimized during cleaning of 

equipment. The draft CTG also 

recommends that used shop towels be 

stored in closed containers. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

EPA estimates that there are a total of 

219 facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas (based on April 

2006 designations). Based on VOC 

emissions data, EPA estimates that there 

are approximately 100 facilities in 

ozone nonattainment areas that would 

be affected based on the 6.8 kg/day (15 

lb/day) VOC emissions applicability 

threshold. 

Nonattainment area VOC emissions 

(based on April 2006 designations) are 

estimated to range from 8,636 to 16,364 

Mg/yr (9,500 to 18,000 tpy). Many 

facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas are already meeting 

the control levels recommended in the 

draft CTG. These facilities may be using 

capture and control systems or low VOC 

content inks, coatings and adhesives. 

The costs for facilities using higher VOC 

materials that are not currently 

controlled and will be subject to RACT 

for the first time will vary depending on 

the flow rate, hourly solvent use rate, 

and operating hours. Although we do 

not have sufficient information for the 

industry as a whole to estimate the costs 

of the recommended control 

approaches, we have information on 

certain sources from which we can 

estimate the likely emissions reductions 

and costs for a typical source subject to 

control for the first time. 

As noted above, on a relatively small 

flexible packaging press exhausting 

approximately 5,800 cubic feet per 

minute, operating 2000 hours per year, 

and achieving 70 percent capture 

efficiency, we estimate the VOC 

emission reduction to range from 30 to 

60 megagrams (Mg) (33 to 66 tons) per 

year and the cost effectiveness to range 

from $1,400/Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ 

ton to $2,800/ton) depending on the 

average hourly solvent use rate. 

Increasing the hourly solvent use rate, 

annual operating hours, or capture 

efficiency of this size press would 

increase the annual VOC emission 

reduction and improve the cost 

effectiveness. Larger presses with 

proportionately larger hourly solvent 

use rates would also have larger annual 

VOC emission reductions and better 

cost effectiveness than smaller presses. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to do a 

national rule or a CTG for the flexible 

packaging printing materials category, 

we evaluated the factors noted above in 

Section I.D of this notice in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Given the nature of the flexible 

packaging printing process, the sources 

of VOC emissions from this process and 

the available strategies for reducing 

VOC emissions from this process, we 

propose to determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from the 

flexible packaging printing materials 

product category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important to first identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from flexible package printing: (1) 

Evaporation of VOC from inks, coatings, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-41 A-169 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44534 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

and adhesives; and (2) evaporation of 

VOC from cleaning materials. We 

address each of these sources of VOC 

emissions, in turn, below, as we discuss 

the CTG versus regulation approach. 

a. Inks, Coatings, and Adhesives 

While there is already significant use 

of low-VOC inks, coatings and 

adhesives, not all flexible packaging 

printing can be done with low-VOC 

content materials. In addition, in some 

cases where low-VOC content materials 

could be used for some or all of the 

products produced by a particular 

printer, there can be significant 

equipment costs associated with 

switching to low-VOC content materials. 

For example, in order to switch from 

solvent-borne materials to waterborne 

materials, a rotogravure printer would 

need to re-engrave all of its rotogravure 

cylinders. In other cases significant 

modifications may need to be made to 

dryers. 

A national rule could, in theory, limit 

the as-sold VOC content of inks, 

coatings and adhesives used for specific 

purposes in flexible packaging printing. 

This would in essence be specifying 

which print work must be done with 

waterborne or other low-VOC content 

materials and which print work may be 

done with solvent-borne materials. 

During the development of the national 

emission standard for hazardous air 

pollutants for the printing and 

publishing industry, we identified many 

inks, coatings and adhesives with low 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) content; 

however, we were unable to identify 

specific print work that could always be 

performed with low HAP content 

materials. Similarly, given the wide 

variety of flexible packaging products; 

the wide variety of combinations of 

substrates, inks, coatings and adhesives 

used to make these products; the wide 

variety of products that may be printed 

on an individual press; and the wide 

variation in the capabilities of 

individual presses, we do not believe 

that we would be able to identify 

specific print work that could always be 

performed with waterborne or other 

low-VOC content materials. As a result, 

we do not believe we could create an 

effective national rule which specified 

which print work must be done with 

waterborne or other low-VOC content 

materials and which print work may be 

done with solvent-borne materials. 

Alternatively, a national rule could 

contain limits for the as-sold VOC 

content of broad categories of flexible 

packaging printing inks, coatings, and 

adhesives, but given the nature of the 

flexible package printing process, this 

would result in little, if any, reduction 

in VOC emissions. For example, a 

national rule could categorize inks by 

their chemistry into waterborne inks, 

other low-VOC content inks, and 

solvent-borne inks and set VOC content 

limits for each category. Such a rule 

would not restrict the type of work that 

could be conducted with each type of 

ink. Structuring a rule in this fashion 

would not result in significant 

reductions in VOC emissions because 

solvent-borne inks, which are the 

primary source of VOC emissions, 

would still be allowed to have high VOC 

content, and a national rule would not 

require printers to use add-on controls 

in conjunction with these high VOC 

content materials. It is more effective to 

address the emissions associated with 

solvent-borne inks at the point of use 

through a CTG. 

Indeed, control devices, such as 

thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or 

carbon adsorbers, can achieve 

significant reductions in VOC emissions 

from high VOC content inks, coatings 

and adhesives. Existing State and local 

regulations that address flexible 

packaging printing authorize the use of 

high VOC content materials in 

conjunction with control devices or the 

use equivalent low-VOC content 

materials. 

We could not require control devices 

at printers through a national rule, 

because, pursuant to CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated 

entities subject to a national rule would 

be the ink, coating and adhesive 

manufacturers and suppliers, not the 

printers. The draft CTG applies to 

printers, as the end users of the inks, 

coatings and adhesives, and specifically 

recommends limiting emissions by 

requiring printers to install and operate 

control devices or to use equivalent lowVOC content materials. Given the 

significant reductions achievable 

through use of add-on control devices, 

the most effective entity to regulate to 

address VOC emissions associated with 

flexible packaging inks, coatings and 

adhesives is the printer. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the 

flexible packaging printing process: (1) 

Limiting the composite vapor pressure 

of the cleaning materials and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the product. 

A national rule affecting flexible 

packaging printing cleaning material 

manufacturers that limits the composite 

vapor pressure of VOC in the cleaning 

materials sold would suffer from the 

same deficiencies noted above with 

regard lithographic printing fountain 

solutions and lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing cleaning materials. 

Specifically, although flexible packaging 

printers may purchase cleaning 

materials from vendors serving their 

respective industry, nothing in a 

national rule governing manufacturers 

would preclude them from purchasing 

bulk solvents or other multipurpose 

cleaning materials from other vendors. 

The general availability of bulk solvents 

or multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the composite vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low composite 

vapor pressure materials are available 

for flexible packaging printing. Such an 

approach is unreasonable and 

impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Reducing the vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and solvents merely 

to achieve VOC emission reduction from 

flexible packaging printing, would 

preclude the use of such materials in 

many important, legitimate contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from cleaning 

materials used by flexible packaging 

printers is to control the use of such 

materials by the printers through a CTG. 

The draft CTG recommends limiting the 

composite vapor pressure of flexible 

packaging cleaning materials. With the 

CTG, the composite vapor pressure 

restrictions would apply to the printer 

regardless of the source of the cleaning 

materials and solvents. 

Significantly, we could not impose 

work practices through a CAA section 

183(e) rule. Work practices, by their 

nature, are directed at the end-user of 

the product. The draft CTG recommends 

work practices such as keeping shop 

towels in closed containers. This 

measure alone results in significant 

reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, 

when used in conjunction with low 

composite vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. These reductions would not 

be possible through a CAA section 

183(e) regulation because, by statute, 

such regulations do not apply to the 

end-user. Finally, the approaches 

recommended in the CTG are consistent 

with approaches taken by States and 

localities for cleaning materials, and 

these approaches have proven effective 

in reducing VOC emissions. 

Based on the nature of the flexible 

packaging printing process, the sources 

of significant VOC emissions from this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-170 VI-42 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44535 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the products, (i.e., through 

controls on printers), and this can only 

be accomplished through a CTG. The 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective state 

and local VOC control strategies. These 

two factors alone demonstrate that a 

CTG will be substantially as effective as 

a national regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for flexible packaging 

printing products. 

First, the products described above 

are used at commercial printing 

facilities in specific, identifiable 

locations. This stands in contrast to 

other consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

printing facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of products are feasible and 

therefore the nature of the product’s 

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 

Second, as described above, a CTG 

will achieve equal or greater emission 

reductions than a national rule for each 

source of VOC emissions from flexible 

packaging printing. In total, the CTG 

will achieve greater emission reductions 

because, as explained above, there are 

certain control strategies, applicable to 

the end-user of the product, that achieve 

significant VOC reductions. In 

particular, the only mechanism by 

which to achieve the significant VOC 

reductions associated with installing 

add-on controls, which is one of the 

recommended approaches for 

addressing VOC emissions from inks, 

coatings, and adhesives, is through a 

CTG. The VOC reductions associated 

with work practices similarly can only 

be achieved through a CTG as it affects 

the end-user. Although a regulation 

could impose low VOC content 

restrictions for inks, coatings, and 

adhesives, and vapor pressure limits for 

cleaning materials, we believe, for the 

reasons described above, that it is far 

more effective to control these materials 

at the point of use, rather than the point 

of manufacture. 

Furthermore, the number of sources 

affected by a CTG, as compared to the 

number of sources in nonattainment 

areas does not change our conclusion 

that the CTG would, in total, achieve 

greater VOC emission reductions than a 

rule. Based on the April 2006 

designations, we estimate that 

approximately 100 flexible packaging 

printing facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas would meet the 

applicability criteria in the CTG (i.e., 6.8 

kg/day (15 lb/day)) VOC emissions. We 

further estimate that there are 219 

flexible packaging printing facilities 

located in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Although the CTG would apply only to 

about half of the facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas, the facilities that 

are not covered by the CTG are, by 

themselves, low VOC emitters in that 

they emit less than 15 lb VOC per day 

(which is less than 2.5 tpy). 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

flexible packaging printing will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

Flat wood paneling coatings include, 

but are not limited to, paints, stains, 

sealers, topcoats, basecoats, primers, 

enamels, inks and adhesives used in the 

manufacture of flat wood paneling. The 

coatings provide a protective or 

decorative layer to paneling products 

used in interior and exterior 

construction of residential, commercial 

and institutional buildings. These 

paneling products can be classified into 

three main product types: decorative 

interior panels, exterior siding, and 

tileboard. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The primary VOC emissions from flat 

wood paneling surface coating 

operations occur during coating 

application and drying/curing of the 

coatings. The remaining emissions are 

primarily from mixing and/or thinning 

and cleaning operations. In most cases, 

VOC emissions from surface 

preparation, storage, handling, and 

waste/wastewater operations are 

relatively small. 

After being coated by any of the 

conventional wet coating operations 

(such as spray coating, roll coating, or 

dip coating), the flat wood paneling 

products are cured using heated dryers. 

This step removes any remaining 

volatiles from the coating so that the 

surface of the flat wood paneling 

product meets the hardness, durability, 

and appearance requirements of the 

customer. 

The industry currently uses primarily 

waterborne coatings, although some 

products (e.g., tileboard and fireresistant paneling) still require solventborne coatings to provide adequate 

water, weather, and fire resistance. 

Quick drying time is another important 

reason why manufacturers use solventborne coatings, especially when fast line 

speeds are used. Solvent-borne coatings 

contain higher amounts of VOC 

materials so they evaporate more readily 

than water and the products take less 

time to cure in the ovens. Curing time 

is an important variable because the 

applied coating must be dry, hard, and 

cool prior to packaging, otherwise the 

products have the potential to stick 

together when stacked, causing defects 

or rejected material. 

Decorative interior panels require 

multiple coating layers and coating 

steps. Production speeds of 30 to 35 

boards per minute require the use of 

solvents that evaporate without leaving 

cure blisters and without leaving 

residual solvent in the coating film or 

substrate. Exterior siding products must 

have coatings able to withstand extreme 

and long-term weather conditions and 

resist ultra-violet radiation. These 

performance requirements impact the 

amount of VOC emitted from the coating 

of exterior siding. Tileboard is a 

premium interior wall paneling product 

made of hardboard that is used in high 

moisture areas of the home such as 

kitchens and bathrooms. Tileboard has 

more stringent product performance 

requirements compared to standard 

interior wall paneling. 

Common techniques to reduce 

emissions include use of low-VOC 

coatings and operation of add-on control 

devices where low-VOC materials 

cannot be used due to performance 

requirements calling for solvent-borne 

coatings. In addition, emissions from 

cleaning operations can be reduced 

through use of work practices such as 

keeping cleaning solvents and shop 

towels in covered containers. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

At least 28 State and local 

jurisdictions have regulations that 

control VOC emissions from surface 

coating operations that include flat 

wood paneling. Most of these 

regulations are general surface coating 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-43 A-171 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44536 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

rules; a few are specific to flat wood 

paneling. In addition to the State and 

local requirements, there are two 

previous EPA actions that affect surface 

coating operations for flat wood 

paneling. In 1978, EPA issued a CTG 

document (EPA–450/2–78–032) that 

provided RACT recommendations for 

controlling VOC emissions from this 

industry. In 2003, EPA promulgated 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

covering surface coating of wood 

building products. See 68 FR 31746 

(May 28, 2003). The 1978 CTG and the 

2003 NESHAP are further discussed in 

the current draft CTG document. 

Almost all of the jurisdictions that 

specifically address flat wood paneling 

have based their rules on the old 1978 

CTG. However, there are two 

jurisdictions in California that have 

requirements specific to flat wood 

paneling that are more current than the 

1978 CTG. In the Placer County 

California Air Pollution Control District, 

VOC emissions from flat wood paneling 

operations in a nonattainment area are 

limited to 250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) 

of coating (excluding water) or the 

overall control device efficiency must be 

at least 90 percent. 

The California South Coast AQMD 

defines flat wood paneling as ‘‘interior 

wood panels and exterior wood siding, 

which include, by way of illustration 

and not limitation, redwood, cedar or 

plywood stocks, plywood panels, 

particle boards, composition hard 

boards, and any other panels or siding 

constructed of solid wood or a woodcontaining product.’’ The emissions 

limit established by the South Coast rule 

is identical to the emission limit 

established by Placer County, California 

and also covers exterior siding, which 

the Placer County rule does not. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG provides flexibility by 

recommending either low-VOC 

materials or, as an option, add-on 

controls as an alternative to low-VOC 

materials. The low-VOC materials 

recommendations include an emissions 

limit of 250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) of 

material (minus water). An equivalent 

limit, expressed as units of weight of 

VOC per volume of solids in all coatings 

would be 350 grams of VOC per liter 

solids (2.9 lb of VOC per gal of solids). 

Or, alternatively, a facility could choose 

to use add-on control equipment to meet 

an overall control efficiency of 90 

percent. These control options would 

apply to surface coatings, inks, and 

adhesives applied to all types of flat 

wood paneling. 

The draft CTG also recommends work 

practice standards. The work practice 

plan must include steps to ensure that 

VOC emissions are minimized from 

mixing operations, storage tanks and 

other containers, and handling 

operations for coatings, thinners, 

cleaning materials, and waste materials. 

Examples of work practice standards 

include: Storing all VOC coatings, 

thinners, and cleaning materials in 

closed containers, minimizing spills of 

VOC containing coatings, thinners, 

cleaning up spills immediately, 

conveying any coatings, thinners, and 

cleaning materials in closed containers 

or pipes, closing mixing vessels which 

contain VOC coatings and other 

materials except when specifically in 

use, and minimizing emissions of VOC 

during cleaning of storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

EPA estimates that there are a total of 

24 flat wood paneling facilities located 

in ozone nonattainment areas (based on 

April 2006 designations). Based on VOC 

emissions data, all of the 24 facilities in 

ozone nonattainment areas would be 

affected considering the 6.8 kg/day (15 

lb/day) VOC emissions applicability 

threshold. This level of emissions has 

been the applicability threshold for 

many CTG in the past. For purposes of 

this threshold, aggregate emissions from 

all flat wood paneling coating 

operations and cleaning activities 

associated with flat wood paneling 

coating at a given facility are included. 

These facilities emit about 4,400 Mg 

(4,000 tons) of VOC per year. The cost 

effectiveness estimates vary according to 

the type of flat wood paneling. Based on 

studies conducted as part of 

development of the Placer County and 

South Coast regulations, the cost 

effectiveness is estimated at $4,400 per 

ton of VOC for exterior siding and 

$1,900 per ton of VOC for interior 

paneling and tileboard. Due to the 

higher estimated cost for a given amount 

of emission reductions from exterior 

siding, and because exterior siding is 

not covered by the 1978 CTG and by 

several current State rules based on that 

CTG, EPA solicits comments on whether 

it is appropriate to exclude exterior 

siding from applicability of the draft 

CTG. As discussed above, the draft CTG 

recommends three alternatives, plus 

work practices, for reducing VOC 

emissions from these operations. Two of 

the alternatives focus on use of lowVOC coatings that are readily available. 

For those facilities that choose to use 

high-VOC coatings, they may choose to 

employ the third alternative, the use of 

add-on controls. From information in 

the NEI database, there is no indication 

that any of the 24 facilities currently 

have add-on controls, but may be using 

low-VOC coatings for compliance with 

any existing State or local requirements. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to develop a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of flat wood paneling coatings 

under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Based on that analysis, we propose to 

determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from flat 

wood paneling coatings. 

This section is divided into two parts, 

each of which addresses two of the 

factors relevant to the CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) determination. In the first 

part, we determine that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in this category is 

through controls at the point of use of 

the product, (i.e., through controls on 

facilities that apply surface coatings to 

flat wood paneling products), and this 

can only be accomplished through a 

CTG. We further explain that the 

approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective state 

and local VOC strategies. In the second 

part, we discuss how the distribution 

and place of use of the products in this 

category also support the use of a CTG. 

We further explain that there are control 

approaches for this category that result 

in significant VOC emission reductions 

and that such reductions could only be 

obtained by controlling the use of the 

product through a CTG. Such reductions 

could not be obtained through a 

regulation under CAA section 183(e) 

because the controls affect the end-user, 

which is not a regulated entity under 

CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, 

for these reasons and the reasons 

described more fully below, we believe 

that a CTG will achieve much greater 

VOC emission reductions than a rule for 

this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important to first identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from flat wood paneling coating: (1) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-172 VI-44 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44537 

Evaporation of VOC from coatings and 

adhesives; and (2) evaporation of VOC 

from cleaning materials. We address 

each of these sources of VOC emissions, 

in turn, below, as we discuss the CTG 

versus regulation approach. 

a. Coatings and Adhesives 

The industry currently uses primarily 

waterborne coatings, although some 

products (e.g., tileboard and fireresistant paneling) still require solventborne coatings to provide adequate 

water, weather, and fire resistance. 

Quick drying time is another important 

reason why manufacturers use solventborne coatings, especially when fast line 

speeds are used. A national rule could 

contain limits for the as-sold VOC 

content of coatings and adhesives, but 

given the nature of the flat wood 

paneling coating process, this would 

result, in little, if any, reduction in VOC 

emissions. A national rule could, for 

example, set lower VOC content limits 

for waterborne and other low-VOC 

content materials and higher VOC 

content limits for solvent-borne 

materials without specifying which flat 

wood paneling products must be coated 

with each type of material. This rule 

structure would leave facilities free to 

choose which type of material to use. 

Further, many coatings and adhesives 

used in flat wood paneling coating are 

not identified by the supplier 

specifically as flat wood paneling 

coatings and would fall outside of the 

scope of such a national rule. Thus, 

such a rule would not compel anyone to 

use lower VOC content materials and 

would achieve little, if any, VOC 

emission reduction. 

Control devices, such as thermal 

oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or carbon 

adsorbers, can achieve a significant 

reduction in VOC emissions from high 

VOC content materials. In light of the 

significant reductions in VOC emissions 

obtained with such devices, existing 

State and local regulations that address 

flat wood paneling coating allow the use 

of high VOC content materials in 

conjunction with control devices. These 

regulations require the use of such 

controls or the use of equivalent lowVOC content materials. In addition, the 

2003 NESHAP contains a compliance 

option that allows the facility to lower 

the emission rate by using add-on 

controls. 

We could not require such control 

devices at flat wood paneling facilities 

through a national rule, because, 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities 

subject to a national rule would be the 

coating and adhesive manufacturers and 

suppliers, not the flat wood paneling 

facilities. The draft CTG applies to these 

facilities, as the end users of the 

coatings and adhesives, and specifically 

recommends limiting emissions by the 

use of low-VOC coatings or to control 

emissions through the operation of 

control devices. Given the significant 

reductions achievable through available 

use of add-on control devices, the most 

effective entity to regulate to address 

VOC emissions associated with flat 

wood paneling coatings is the facility 

using the coatings. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the flat 

wood paneling coating process: (1) 

Limiting the VOC content of the 

cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the product. 

A national rule affecting solvent 

manufacturers that supply cleaning 

materials to the flat wood paneling 

industry that limits the VOC content of 

VOC in the cleaning materials sold 

would suffer from the same deficiencies 

noted above with regard to lithographic 

printing fountain solutions, lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing 

cleaning materials, and flexible 

packaging printing cleaning materials. 

Specifically, although flat wood 

paneling coaters may purchase cleaning 

materials from vendors serving their 

respective industry, nothing in a 

national rule governing manufacturers 

would preclude them from purchasing 

bulk solvents or other multipurpose 

cleaning materials from other vendors. 

The general availability of bulk solvents 

or multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the VOC content of all cleaning 

materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low-VOC 

materials are available to the flat wood 

paneling coating industry. Such an 

approach is unreasonable and 

impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Reducing the vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and solvents merely 

to achieve VOC emission reductions 

from the flat wood paneling coating 

industry would preclude the use of such 

materials in many important, legitimate 

contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from cleaning 

materials used by flat wood paneling 

coaters is to control the use of such 

materials by the coaters through a CTG. 

Significantly, we could not impose work 

practices through a CAA section 183(e) 

rule. Work practices, by their nature, are 

directed at the end-user of the product. 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices such as keeping solvents and 

shop towels in closed containers. This 

measure alone results in significant 

reductions in VOC cleaning emissions. 

These reductions would not be possible 

through a CAA section 183(e) regulation 

because, by statute, such regulations do 

not apply to the end-user. Finally, the 

approaches recommended in the CTG 

are consistent with approaches taken by 

States and localities for cleaning 

materials, and these approaches have 

proven effective in reducing VOC 

emissions. 

Based on the nature of the flat wood 

paneling coating process, the sources of 

significant VOC emissions from this 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the products, (i.e., through 

controls on flat wood paneling coaters), 

and this can only be accomplished 

through a CTG. The approaches 

described in the draft CTG are also 

consistent with effective state and local 

VOC control strategies. These two 

factors alone demonstrate that a CTG 

will be substantially as effective as a 

national regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for flat wood paneling 

coatings. 

First, the products described above 

are used at commercial facilities in 

specific, identifiable locations. This 

stands in contrast to other consumer 

products, such as architectural coatings, 

that are widely distributed and used by 

innumerable small users (e.g., 

individual consumers in the general 

public). Because the VOC emissions are 

occurring at commercial manufacturing 

facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of products are feasible and 

therefore the nature of the product’s 

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-45 A-173 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44538 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Second, as described above, a CTG 

will achieve equal or greater emission 

reduction than a national rule for each 

source of VOC emissions from flat wood 

paneling coating. In total, a CTG will 

achieve significantly more emission 

reduction than a national rule for this 

category. A CTG will achieve a 

significant greater emission reductions 

because, as explained above, there are 

certain control strategies, applicable to 

the end-user of the product, that achieve 

significant emission reductions. In 

particular, a CTG will achieve a 

significant reduction of VOC emissions 

from coatings and adhesives through the 

use of control devices. A CTG provides 

for work practices associated with 

cleaning materials. The VOC reductions 

associated with these measures could 

not be obtained through a national 

regulation, because they require the 

implementation of measures by the enduser. 

In addition, there are certain strategies 

that arguably could be implemented 

through rulemaking, but are far more 

effective if implemented directly at the 

point of use of the product. For the 

reasons stated above it is more effective 

to control the VOC content of coatings 

and adhesives through a CTG than 

through a regulation 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

flat wood paneling coatings will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

flat wood paneling coatings will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

This category of consumer and 

commercial products includes the 

industrial cleaning solvents used by 

many industries. This category includes 

a variety of products used to remove 

contaminants such as adhesives, inks, 

paint, dirt, soil, oil, and grease from 

parts, products, tools, machinery, 

equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and 

other production related work areas. 

Cleaning operations are performed for a 

variety of reasons including safety, 

operability, and to avoid contamination 

of the products being manufactured or 

repaired at the facility. The cleaning 

solvents used in these operations are, in 

many cases, generally available bulk 

solvents that are used for a multitude of 

applications not limited to cleaning. For 

example, naphtha may be used as a 

cleaning solvent, as a paint thinner, or 

as an ingredient used in the 

manufacture of paint. 

2. Sources of VOC Emissions and 

Controls 

In general, VOC emissions occur from 

industrial cleaning solvents through 

evaporation during cleaning activities 

such as wiping, flushing, and brushing, 

as well as from storage and disposal of 

used shop towels and solvent. Because 

a portion of all solvents evaporate 

during use, such solvent-based cleaning 

materials can result in large amounts of 

emissions of VOC. 

In 1994, EPA completed a study of 

industrial cleaning solvents that 

characterized cleaning operations 

carried out within six focus industries 

(automotive, electrical equipment, 

magnetic tape, furniture, packaging, and 

photographic supplies) to evaluate 

sources of evaporative emissions from 

VOC solvents used as cleaning 

materials. We believe that the range of 

cleaning activities performed in these 

industries provided a good variety of 

cleaning operations for the study, and 

that the information obtained relevant to 

VOC emission sources and possible 

control techniques can be applied to 

virtually any industry. During the study, 

EPA collected information on emissions 

from industrial cleaning solvents used 

in approximately 300 individual 

cleaning operations across the six focus 

industries. EPA classified these 

operations into nine ‘‘unit operations’’

(UO). We believe that any given 

industrial cleaning activity would fall 

into one or more of these UO: (1) Spray 

gun cleaning; (2) spray booth cleaning; 

(3) large manufactured components 

cleaning; (4) small manufactured 

components cleaning; (5) parts cleaning; 

(6) equipment cleaning; (7) floor 

cleaning; (8) line cleaning; and (9) tank 

cleaning. The purpose of identifying 

these UO is to assist State and local 

agencies in identifying the sources of 

VOC emissions from cleaning activities 

and to provide a structure for 

developing and applying control 

techniques to mitigate VOC emissions 

from industrial cleaning solvents used 

in these UO. 

In February 1994, EPA published an 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

document (EPA–453/R–94–015) to 

provide information to State and local 

agencies on sources and various means 

of controlling VOC emissions from 

industrial cleaning operations. The ACT 

document identified the cleaning UO 

listed above and presented techniques 

available to reduce solvent losses, 

including the anticipated costs of 

control and potential for emissions 

reductions for these options. The ACT 

document also provided a quantitative 

overview of cleaning solvents used and 

a model solvent management system for 

accounting and tracking solvent usage. 

The model solvent management system 

was provided as a tool for facilities to 

use in tracking their solvent usage. The 

ACT document also provided a 

methodology for calculating emissions 

in a consistent way. 

Although the industrial cleaning 

solvent product category includes a 

variety of different products with 

differing VOC contents, and although 

these products are used in different 

ways by a wide range of industries, we 

believe that there are two basic 

approaches to achieve VOC emission 

reductions. First, the users of the 

products can control emissions through 

work practices targeted at the activities 

and sources of emissions specific to the 

user’s industry (e.g., keeping solvent 

containers covered, properly storing and 

disposing of used shop towels and 

solvent, etc.). Second, users can also 

reduce overall VOC emissions through 

solvent substitution (e.g., use of lowVOC, no-VOC, or low-vapor pressure 

solvents). Theoretically, solvent 

substitution could be achieved at the 

point of manufacture or at the point of 

use, but in practice it is usually the user 

who selects the solvent or mixture of 

solvents to use in the various industrial 

cleaning operations throughout a 

facility. Either individually or in 

tandem, these two general approaches 

are effective strategies to achieve 

significant emission reductions from 

this product category, notwithstanding 

the variation in the products, their 

users, and their specific uses. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

Many State and local agencies, 

including a number of the California Air 

Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), 

have developed strategies for reducing 

VOC emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents. Typically, these strategies 

include both work practices governing 

the use of the products and VOC limits 

governing the VOC content of the 

products. A table identifying and 

summarizing some of these existing 

State and local measures is included in 

the draft CTG document for this product 

category. 

To identify potential control 

recommendations for the draft CTG, 

EPA reviewed the existing State and 

local regulations governing VOC 

emissions from this product category. 

The review indicated that the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-174 VI-46 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44539 

regulations in three of the California 

AQMDs (South Coast, Bay Area, and 

Sacramento) are good models to 

evaluate, because these rules are 

consistent with each other in format and 

approach, the technical information 

developed to support these regulations 

is readily available, and these 

regulations are more current than those 

of other jurisdictions. Additionally, 

several case studies were available from 

the California AQMDs pertaining to 

their rules that help illustrate how 

specific facilities achieved VOC 

reductions and at what cost. Moreover, 

many other State and local agencies 

either have, or are considering, using 

the current regulations from the 

California AQMDs as models for the 

format and content their own control 

strategies. If the California AQMD 

strategies are effective, EPA believes 

that there can be a benefit to extending 

these measures to other nonattainment 

areas and maintaining nationwide 

consistency, as appropriate. 

The regulations adopted in the 

California AQMDs all have 

requirements for both work practices 

and VOC content limits for solvent 

cleaning materials. A comparison of the 

various AQMD regulations governing 

VOC emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents indicates that the work practice 

provisions are similar and require 

product users to implement generally 

accepted practices that have been 

shown to be effective in mitigating 

evaporative losses from solvent storage, 

handling, and disposal activities. These 

work practices are further discussed in 

the draft CTG and in section B below. 

Although the work practice 

requirements are similar among the 

AQMDs, the VOC content limits and 

rule applicability differ somewhat from 

District to District. For example, South 

Coast AQMD Rule 1171 (2005) has a 

‘‘general use’’ VOC limit of 25 grams 

VOC per liter of cleaning material that 

applies to most industries. In cases 

where water based cleaners or low-VOC 

solvent cleaners cannot be used, 

however, South Coast AQMD allows 

higher limits for a number of specific 

industries as provided for in section 

1171(c) of their rule. 

By comparison, Bay Area AQMD 

Regulation 8, Rule 4, provides for a 

‘‘general use’’ limit of 50 grams VOC per 

liter of cleaning material, unless 

emissions are controlled by an emission 

control system with an overall 

abatement efficiency of at least 85 

percent. The Bay Area rule exempts 

relatively few specific operations (e.g., 

electrical apparatus components, 

electronic components, precision optics, 

research and development laboratories, 

etc.) from the ‘‘general use’’ limit (see 

Bay Area AQMD’s section 8–4–116). In 

addition, the Bay Area rule exempts 

cleaning operations subject to other 

specific Bay Area AQMD rules. There 

are 18 such exemptions listed in Bay 

Area AQMD’s section 8–4–117 (e.g., 

architectural coating, light and medium 

duty motor vehicle assembly plants, 

plastic parts and products, etc.). 

EPA’s review of existing and State 

and local approaches to reduce VOC 

emissions from this product category 

indicates that strategies that include 

both work practices and VOC content 

limits can be effective and should be the 

basis for a CTG under CAA section 

183(e). 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The following sections describe 

recommendations EPA is providing in 

the draft CTG document for industrial 

cleaning solvents, including a 

discussion of the recommended control 

measures and a description of industries 

to which these recommendations apply. 

These recommendations are discussed 

in more detail in the draft CTG 

document, which also incorporates the 

entire 1994 ACT document. 

1. Control Measures 

Based on our analysis of State and 

local requirements, primarily the 

California AQMD measures, the draft 

CTG recommends both work practices 

and a generally applicable VOC content 

limit for most operations modeled after 

the Bay Area AQMD rule. 

a. Work Practices 

The draft CTG recommends practices 

similar to those required by the 

California AQMDs. Specifically, these 

are: (1) Covering open containers and 

used applicators; (2) minimizing air 

circulation around cleaning operations; 

(3) properly disposing of used solvent 

and shop towels; and (4) implementing 

equipment practices that minimize 

emissions (e.g., keeping parts cleaners 

covered, maintenance of cleaning 

equipment to repair solvent leaks, etc.). 

b. VOC Content Limit 

The draft CTG recommends a 

generally applicable VOC content limit 

of 50 grams VOC per liter (0.42 1b/gal) 

of cleaning material, unless emissions 

are controlled by an emission control 

system with an overall abatement 

efficiency of at least 85 percent. This 

limit is modeled on the ‘‘general use’’

category of the Bay Area AQMD solvent 

cleaning regulations, taking into account 

the specific exclusions provided for in 

the Bay Area AQMD rule and described 

earlier. In addition to the Bay Area 

exclusions, and as discussed earlier, the 

more stringent South Coast AQMD 

‘‘general use’’ limit is accompanied by 

higher limits for several individual 

operations (e.g., cleaning of ultraviolet 

ink application equipment, screen 

printing, cleaning of coating application 

equipment, etc.). When developing 

RACT measures for industrial cleaning 

operations, we suggest that State and 

local agencies consider the specific 

industries and operations in their 

jurisdictions and the individual 

requirements of those operations and 

tailor their rules to those specific 

scenarios accordingly. Furthermore, in 

considering existing cleaning 

requirements as bases for specific 

exemptions from their general industrial 

cleaning solvents rules, State and local 

agencies should take into account how 

current those measures are. EPA 

believes that more recent rules are likely 

to be more effective than older, possibly 

outdated, rules. We remind the States 

that the ultimate determination of 

whether any specific State or local 

measures meet any applicable RACT 

requirement will occur during the 

notice and comment rulemaking process 

associated with EPA action on SIP 

submissions. 

c. Alternative Vapor Pressure Limit 

In addition to the VOC content limit 

recommended here, EPA solicits 

comment on possible use of a composite 

vapor pressure limit, for example, 8 

millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 20 

degrees Celsius, as (1) a replacement for 

the 50 g/l VOC content limit entirely; or 

(2) an alternative limit that may be used 

in lieu of the 50 g/l VOC content limit 

for specific operations as determined by 

the State or local agency. 

EPA is considering this option 

because, historically, some State and 

local agencies have specified composite 

vapor pressure limits in their cleaning 

requirements. For example some States 

(e.g., Illinois, Connecticut, New York, 

etc.) limit solvents used in cold cleaning 

to 1.0 mmHg. California’s Ventura 

County Air Pollution Control District 

allows a composite vapor pressure of 33 

mmHg for solvents used for cleaning of 

coating application equipment and 

other cleanup of uncured coatings, 

adhesives, inks, and resins and for 

cleaning of electronic and electrical 

components, medical devices, and 

aerospace components. 

2. Applicability 

In the draft CTG, EPA recommends 

that, in general, these measures should 

have broad applicability to any 

industrial cleaning operations that have 

VOC emissions of at least 6.8 kg/day (15 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-47 A-175 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44540 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

11EPA may amend the list and exercise its 

discretion in scheduling its actions under CAA 

section 183(e) in order to achieve an effective 

regulatory program. Should EPA revise the list in 

the future, these categories could change. 

12From a purely economic perspective, the CTG 

does not produce a cost savings, because the 

recommendations contained in the document 

represent control methods that are currently 

available to facilities. Facilities can implement the 

recommended approach of using low-VOC 

materials today and recognize a cost savings. 

lb/day), before controls. This level of 

emissions has been the applicability 

threshold for many CTG in the past. 

Furthermore, it is consistent with the 

intent of CAA section 183(e) to address 

individually small uses of consumer 

and commercial products that, in the 

aggregate, are significant sources of VOC 

emissions. We recommend that, for 

purposes of determining this threshold, 

aggregate emissions from all solvent 

cleaning activities associated with 

covered operations at a given facility are 

included. As described above, we also 

recommend that specific industry 

category exclusions, similar to the ones 

provided for in the Bay Area and South 

Coast rules but tailored to the States’’

individual situations, accompany the 

applicability threshold. 

In addition to the exclusions a State 

or local agency may specify as a result 

of the existence of effective measures 

that address cleaning operations 

associated with specific source 

categories within its jurisdiction, we 

recommend that the States exclude from 

applicability those cleaning operations 

in the following categories listed for 

regulation under CAA section 183(e): 

Aerospace coatings, wood furniture 

coatings, shipbuilding and repair 

coatings, flexible packaging printing 

materials, lithographic printing 

materials, letterpress printing materials, 

flat wood paneling coatings, large 

appliance coatings, metal furniture 

coatings, paper film and foil coating, 

plastic parts coatings, miscellaneous 

metals parts coatings, fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials, miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives, and auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings.11 For 

three of these product categories (i.e., 

aerospace coatings, wood furniture 

coatings, and shipbuilding and repair 

coatings), EPA has already issued CTGs 

that address cleaning operations. For the 

remaining categories, EPA intends to 

include control measures for cleaning 

associated with these categories if the 

Agency determines that a CTG is 

appropriate for the respective categories. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 2,550 facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas that would be 

affected by the draft CTG. These 

facilities had emissions that exceed the 

emission threshold of 6.8 kg (15 1b) of 

VOC per day. Total aggregate VOC 

emissions from solvent cleaning 

operations from these sources are 

approximately 64,000 Mg/yr (71,000 

tpy). EPA used studies published by the 

Bay Area AQMD to estimate the cost of 

compliance for the measures 

recommended in the draft CTG. 

According to these estimates, EPA 

believes that affected sources may either 

incur minimal additional costs or 

realize a savings on a case-by-case basis, 

depending primarily on facts such as 

how much they currently spend to 

operate high-VOC content solvent-based 

parts cleaners, and the cost of organic 

solvent disposal. 

The Bay Area AQMD studies indicate 

that replacing high-VOC cleaning 

materials with low-VOC, water-based 

cleaning materials, for applications in 

which these materials are similar in 

effectiveness to high-VOC materials, 

results in a cost savings. The CTG for 

industrial cleaning solvents is guidance 

for the States. Although States can adopt 

the recommendations in the CTG, they 

may choose not to follow those 

recommendations and instead adopt 

other technically-sound approaches that 

meet the requirements of RACT in the 

CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations. Accordingly, there is 

necessarily some uncertainty in any 

prediction of costs and emission 

impacts associated with the 

recommendations in the CTG. 

Nevertheless, assuming that States 

address the VOC emissions from this 

product category in accordance with the 

recommendations in the CTG or 

comparable approaches, EPA anticipates 

a net cost savings.12 We based this 

prediction on an assumption that 

substitution of low-VOC materials for 

high-VOC materials is possible for all 

uses. Because this assumption is not 

true for some applications, this 

prediction may not be valid in all cases. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to develop a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of industrial cleaning solvents 

under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Based on that analysis, we propose to 

determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from 

industrial cleaning solvents. 

This section is divided into two parts, 

each of which addresses two of the 

factors relevant to the CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) determination. In the first 

part, we determine that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in this category is 

through controls at the point of use of 

the product, (i.e., through controls on 

facilities that conduct solvent cleaning), 

and this can only be accomplished 

through a CTG. We further explain that 

the approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective state 

and local VOC strategies. In the second 

part, we discuss how the distribution 

and place of use of the products in this 

category also support the use of a CTG. 

We further explain that there are control 

approaches for this category that result 

in significant VOC emission reductions 

and that such reductions could only be 

obtained by controlling the use of the 

product through a CTG. Such reductions 

could not be obtained through a 

regulation under CAA section 183(e) 

because the controls affect the end-user, 

which is not a regulated entity under 

CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, 

for these reasons and the reasons 

described more fully below, we believe 

that a CTG will achieve much greater 

VOC emission reductions than a rule for 

this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the industrial cleaning solvents product 

category: (1) Limiting the VOC content 

of the cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the products. 

A national rule affecting industrial 

cleaning solvent manufacturers that 

limits the VOC content of the cleaning 

materials sold suffers from the same 

deficiencies noted above with regard to 

lithographic printing, letterpress 

printing, flexible packaging printing, 

and flat wood paneling coating. 

Specifically, although facilities 

performing cleaning operations 

generally purchase cleaning materials 

from vendors serving their respective 

industry, nothing in a national rule 

governing manufacturers would 

preclude them from purchasing bulk 

solvents or other multipurpose cleaning 

materials from other vendors. The 

general availability of bulk solvents or 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-176 VI-48 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44541 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the VOC content of all cleaning 

materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low-VOC 

materials are available for any use. Such 

an approach is unreasonable and 

impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Reducing the VOC content of all 

materials merely to achieve VOC 

emission reduction from two limited 

product categories, could preclude the 

use of such materials in many 

important, legitimate contexts. 

Furthermore, many general-purpose 

solvents used for cleaning are single 

compounds (e.g., toluene) or are 

mixtures (e.g., mineral spirits) that are 

by nature 100 percent VOC. 

Consequently, they cannot be 

reformulated to low-VOC content. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from 

industrial cleaning solvents is to control 

the use of such materials through a CTG. 

The draft CTG recommends limiting the 

VOC content of cleaning materials. With 

the CTG, the VOC content restrictions 

would apply to the facility performing 

cleaning operations regardless of the 

source of the cleaning materials. 

Significantly, we could not impose 

work practices through a CAA section 

183(e) rule. Work practices, by their 

nature, are directed at the end-user of 

the product. The draft CTG recommends 

work practices such as keeping solvents 

and shop towels in closed containers. 

This measure alone results in significant 

reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, 

when used in conjunction with lowVOC cleaning materials. These 

reductions would not be possible 

through a CAA section 183(e) regulation 

because, by statute, such regulations do 

not apply to the end-user. Finally, the 

approaches recommended in the CTG 

are consistent with approaches taken by 

States and localities for industrial 

cleaning operations, and these 

approaches have proven effective in 

reducing VOC emissions. 

Based on the sources of significant 

VOC emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the product (i.e., through 

controls on facilities performing solvent 

cleaning activities), and this can only be 

accomplished through a CTG. The 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective state 

and local VOC control strategies. These 

two factors alone demonstrate that a 

CTG will be substantially as effective as 

a national regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for industrial cleaning 

solvents. 

First, the products described above 

are used at manufacturing, repair, 

service, and other facilities in specific, 

identifiable locations. This stands in 

contrast to other consumer products, 

such as architectural coatings, that are 

widely distributed and used by 

innumerable small users (e.g. individual 

consumers in the general public). 

Because the VOC emissions are 

occurring at commercial facilities, 

implementation and enforcement of 

controls concerning the use of products 

are feasible and therefore the nature of 

the product’s place of use further 

counsels in favor of the CTG approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve equal or 

greater emission reduction than a 

national rule for each source of VOC 

emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents, and, in total, a CTG will 

achieve significantly more emission 

reduction than a national rule for this 

category. A CTG will achieve a 

significant VOC emission reduction 

from cleaning materials through the 

combined use of low-VOC cleaning 

materials and work practices. A national 

rule could not effectively regulate the 

VOC content of cleaning materials, and 

a national rule cannot require work 

practices. In summary, a CTG will 

achieve a significant reduction in VOC 

emissions from the industrial cleaning 

solvents category while a national rule 

would achieve little, if any, emission 

reduction. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

industrial cleaning solvents will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

1. Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

2. Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

3. Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, EPA has determined that 

this action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ within the meaning 

of the Executive Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not contain any 

information collection requirements and 

therefore is not subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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 today’s 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-49 A-177 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
44542 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed determination, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because it imposes no regulatory 

requirements. EPA is proposing take 

final action to list the five Group II 

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’s proposed determination that a 

CTG will be substantially as effective as 

a national regulation in achieving VOC 

emission reductions in ozone 

nonattainment areas 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 five product 

categories. Instead, EPA has concluded 

that it is appropriate to issue guidance 

in the form of CTG that provide 

recommendations to States concerning 

potential methods to achieve needed 

VOC emission reductions from these 

product categories. In addition to the 

proposed determination, EPA is also 

taking comment on draft CTG for these 

five product categories. When finalized, 

these CTG will be 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 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 the States to 

issue State regulations, but States are 

not obligated to issue regulations 

identical to the Agency’s CTG. States 

may follow the guidance 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 what 

degree to follow the CTGs. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 

U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must 

prepare a written statement, including a 

cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed 

or final rule that ‘‘includes any Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

* * * in any one year.’’ A ‘‘Federal 

mandate’’ is defined under section 

421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’

and a ‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’

A ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ in turn, is defined to include 

a regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments,’’ section 

421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), 

except for, among other things, a duty 

that is ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance,’’ section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A 

‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’

includes a regulation that ‘‘would 

impose an enforceable duty upon the 

private sector,’’ with certain exceptions, 

section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A). 

EPA has determined that the listing 

action, the proposed determination that 

a CTG would be substantially as 

effective as a regulation for these 

product categories, and the proposed 

draft CTGs for these categories, do not 

contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Thus, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. In addition, we have 

determined that the listing action, the 

proposed determination and the 

proposed draft CTGs contain 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.’’

The listing action, the proposed 

determination that CTGs are 

substantially as effective as regulations 

for these product categories, and the 

proposed draft CTGs do not have 

federalism implications. They do 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 EO 

13132. The CAA establishes the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, and this 

action does not impact that relationship. 

Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to the 

proposed determination and proposed 

draft CTGs. However, in the spirit of EO 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 

EPA is soliciting comment on the listing 

action, the proposed determination, and 

the proposed draft CTGs from State and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

EO 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.’’

The listing action, the proposed 

determination that CTGs would be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

to achieve VOC emission reductions 

from these product categories, and the 

proposed draft CTGs do not have Tribal 

implications as defined by EO 13175. 

They do not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in 

that the listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs impose no regulatory burdens on 

tribes. Furthermore, the listing action, 

the proposed determination, and the 

proposed draft CTGs 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. 

Because listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs do not have Tribal implications, 

EO 13175 does not apply. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

A-178 VI-50 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44543 

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, Section 

5B501 of the EO directs the Agency to 

evaluate the environmental health or 

safety effects of the planned rule on 

children, and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

The listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs are not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because they are not 

economically significant regulatory 

actions as defined by Executive Order 

12866. In addition, 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. 

The listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs are not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because they do not include 

regulatory requirements based on health 

or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) provides that agencies 

shall prepare and submit to the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of 

Energy Effects for certain actions 

identified as ‘‘significant energy 

actions.’’ Section 4(b) of EO 13211 

defines ‘‘significant energy actions’’ as 

‘‘any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of final rulemaking, and 

notices of final rulemaking: (1)(i) That is 

a significant regulatory action under EO 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

‘‘significant energy action.’’ EPA has 

determined that listing action, the 

proposed determination, and the 

proposed draft CTGs are a not 

significant regulatory action under EO 

12866, and that they are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 

Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in their regulatory and 

procurement 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) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when an agency does not use available 

and applicable VCS. 

The listing action, the proposed 

determination that CTGS will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

to achieve VOC emission reductions, 

and the proposed draft CTGs do not 

involve technical standards and 

therefore the NTTAA does not apply. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,’’ provides for 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income 

populations, including tribes. 

EPA believes that the listing action, 

the proposed determination, and the 

proposed draft CTGs should not raise 

any environmental justice issues. 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, determination that 

CTGs are substantially as effective as 

regulations, and proposed draft CTGs, 

are actions intended to help States 

achieve the NAAQS in the most 

appropriate fashion. 

Dated: July 27, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, part 59, Subpart A is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 59—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Subpart A is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart A—General 

§ 59.1 Final Determinations Under Section 

183(e)(3)(C). 

This section identifies the consumer 

and commercial product categories for 

which EPA has determined that CTGs 

will be substantially as effective as 

regulations in reducing 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; and 

(h) Industrial cleaning solvents. 

[FR Doc. 06–6640 Filed 8–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4

VI-51 A-179 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 58745 

closed-to-navigation position and 75 

feet above mean high water in the opento-navigation position. Navigation on 

the waterway consists mainly of tugs 

with tows. Mariners may use the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate 

Route) to avoid unnecessary delays. 

The Coast Guard has coordinated the 

closure with waterway users, industry, 

and other Coast Guard units. It has been 

determined that this closure will not 

have a significant effect on vessel traffic. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), 

this work will be performed with all due 

speed in order to return the bridge to 

normal operation as soon as possible. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: September 15, 2006. 

Marcus Redford, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E6–16428 Filed 10–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 59 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0672; FRL–8228–4] 

Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group II: Control Techniques 

Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for 

Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, 

Lithographic Printing Materials, 

Letterpress Printing Materials, 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, and Flat 

Wood Paneling Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final determination 

and availability of final control 

techniques guidelines. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 

183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

EPA has determined that control 

technique guideline (CTG) documents 

will be substantially as effective as 

national regulations in reducing 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) in ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment areas from the following 

Group II product categories: 

Lithographic printing materials, 

letterpress printing materials, flexible 

packaging printing materials, flat wood 

paneling coatings, and industrial 

cleaning solvents. EPA is taking final 

action to list these product categories 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e). Based 

on this determination, EPA is issuing 

final CTGs in lieu of national 

regulations for the control of VOC 

emissions from each of these product 

categories. These CTGs provide 

guidance to the States concerning EPA(s 

recommendations for reasonably 

available control technology (RACT)- 

level controls for the product categories. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

October 5, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established the 

following dockets for these actions: 

Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group II—Determination to Issue 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations, Docket No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2006–0672; Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Lithographic 

Printing Materials and Letterpress 

Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA–

HQ–OAR–2006–0536; Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Flexible 

Packaging Printing Materials, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0537; 

Consumer and Commercial Products—

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0535; and 

Consumer and Commercial Products—

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0538. 

All documents in the dockets are 

listed on the http://www.regulations.gov 

indexes. Although listed in the indexes, 

some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute.) Certain other materials, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0672, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0535, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0536, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0537, 

and/or Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–

2006–0538, EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West, Room B102, 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 and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered 

damage due to flooding during the last week 

of June 2006. The Docket Center is 

continuing to operate. However, during the 

cleanup, there will be temporary changes to 

Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, 

and hours of operation for people who wish 

to visit the Public Reading Room to view 

documents. Consult EPA’s Federal Register 

notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the 

EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm for current information on 

docket operations, locations and telephone 

numbers. The Docket Center(s mailing 

address for U.S. mail and the procedure for 

submitting comments to www.regulations.gov 

are not affected by the flooding and will 

remain the same. 

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: 

(919) 541–5460, fax number (919) 541–

3470, e-mail address: 

moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the final determination and 

final CTG for lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials, contact: Mr. Dave Salman, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–0859, email address: salman.dave@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the final determination and 

final CTG for flexible packaging printing 

materials, contact: Ms. Paula Hirtz, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group 

(E143–01, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number: 

(919) 541–2618, e-mail address: 

hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the final determination and 

final CTG for flat wood paneling 

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: (919) 541–2363, email address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the final determination and 

final CTG for industrial cleaning 

solvents, contact: Dr. Mohamed 

Serageldin, 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) 541–2379, e-mail address: 

serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in the preamble. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

A-180 VI-52 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58746 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

I. General Information 

A. Entities Potentially Affected by This 

Action 

B. Worldwide Web 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information and Final 

Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

C. Significance of Control Technique 

Guidelines 

III. Summary of Changes to the Final CTGs 

A. Lithographic Printing Materials and 

Letterpress Printing Materials 

B. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials 

C. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

IV. Responses to Significant Comments on 

EPA’s Decision To Take Final Action To 

List Product Categories Under CAA 

Section 183(e) 

V. Responses to Significant Comments on 

EPA’s Determination 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 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. General Information 

A. Entities Potentially Affected by This 

Action 

The categories and entities potentially 

affected by this action include: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of affected entities 

Flexible packaging printing materials.322221, 326112, 322223, 

3265111, 322224, 322225, 

332999.

Facilities that use rotogravure or flexographic processes to print materials such as bags, pouches, labels, liners, and wraps using 

paper, plastic film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, 

or any combination of these materials. 

Lithographic printing materials ........ 323110 ........................................... Facilities engaged in lithographic printing on individual sheets or continuous rolls of substrate material. 

Letterpress printing materials .......... 323119 ........................................... Facilities engaged in letterpress printing on individual sheets or continuous rolls of substrate material. 

Industrial cleaning solvents ............. Various 2 ........................................ Facilities using industrial cleaning solvents in cleaning activities associated with manufacturing, repair, and service operations across a 

wide variety of industry sectors. 

Flat wood paneling coatings ........... 321211, 321212, 321219, 321999 Flat wood paneling coating facilities that apply protective, decorative, 

or functional material to any interior, exterior, or hardboard panel 

product. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Industrial cleaning solvents are used in various manufacturing, repair, and service operations that span many industry sectors. A detailed list 

of affected industries and their respective NAICS codes are presented in the docket for the final CTG for industrial cleaning solvents. 

B. 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. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of EPA’s 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 4, 2006. 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. 

II. Background Information and Final 

Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

Ground-level ozone, a major 

component of smog, is formed in the 

atmosphere by reactions of 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 sufficient concentrations 

of ground-level ozone is associated with 

a wide variety of human health effects, 

agricultural crop loss, and damage to 

forests and ecosystems. Acute 

respiratory symptoms can be induced by 

short-term exposures (observed in some 

studies at concentrations as low as 0.12 

parts per million (ppm)). Other studies 

have shown effects on exercise 

performance while individuals are 

engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, 

and by prolonged exposures to ozone 

(observed at concentrations as low as 

0.08 ppm), typically while individuals 

are engaged in moderate exertion. Other 

health effects seen in studies of ambient 

exposures include increased airway 

responsiveness, increased susceptibility 

to respiratory infection, increased 

hospital admissions and emergency 

room visits, and pulmonary 

inflammation. Groups at increased risk 

of experiencing elevated exposures 

include active children, outdoor 

workers, and others who regularly 

engage in outdoor activities. Those with 

preexisting respiratory disease may be 

more susceptible to ozone exposure. 

Currently available information also 

suggests that long-term exposures to 

sufficiently elevated ozone levels 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 CAA section 183(e), 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 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 reactivityadjusted basis, from consumer and 

commercial products in areas that 

violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

VI-53 A-181 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 58747 

1Pursuant 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 II by September 30, 2006. 

2See 63 FR 48792 (September 11, 1998). 

3 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile 

Organic Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 

13, 2005). 

4See, e.g. 52 FR 45108 (November 24, 1987), col. 

2, ‘‘Compliance Periods.’’ ‘‘VOC rules should 

describe explicitly the compliance timeframe 

associated with each emission limit (e.g., 

instantaneous or daily). However, where rules are 

Continued 

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 II of the list now comprises the 

five product categories that are the 

subject of this action.1

Any regulations issued under section 

CAA 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 architectural 

and industrial maintenance coatings, 

autobody refinishing coatings and 

consumer products.2

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 the 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 the measures 

applicable to manufacturers, processors, 

distributors, or importers of the 

solvents, materials, or products 

supplied to the consumer or industry. 

CAA section 183(e) does not authorize 

EPA to issue regulations that would 

directly regulate end-users of these 

products. By contrast, CTG are guidance 

documents that recommend 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 endusers 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 Control Technique 

Guidelines 

CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that 

State implementation plans (SIP) for 

nonattainment areas must include 

‘‘reasonably available control 

measures’’, including RACT, for sources 

of emissions. Section 182(b)(2) provides 

that States must revise their ozone SIP 

to include RACT for VOC sources 

covered by any CTG document issued 

after November 15, 1990, and prior to 

the date of attainment. Those ozone 

nonattainment areas that are subject to 

CAA section 172(c)(1) and submit an 

attainment demonstration seeking more 

than 5 years from the date of 

designation to attain must also meet the 

requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) 

and revise their ozone SIP in response 

to any CTG issued after November 15, 

1990, and prior to the date of 

attainment. Other ozone nonattainment 

areas subject to CAA section 172(c)(1) 

may take action in response to this 

guidance, as necessary to attain the 

NAAQS. For the specific requirements, 

see 40 CFR 51.912. 

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 Federal Register notices, 

EPA has addressed how States can meet 

the RACT requirements of the CAA. 

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. 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 process, whether 

they 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 

increased 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 final CTGs, 

States may also wish to consider 

averaging, as appropriate. In general, the 

RACT requirement is applied on a shortterm basis up to 24 hours.4 However, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

A-182 VI-54 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58748 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret it as 

instantaneous.’’

5Memorandum 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. 

EPA guidance permits averaging times 

longer than 24 hours under certain 

conditions.5 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 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. 

By this action, we are issuing four 

final CTGs that cover the five product 

categories in Group II of the CAA 

section 183(e) list. We have 

consolidated lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials into one CTG document. 

These CTGs are guidance to the States 

and provide recommendations only. A 

State can develop its own strategy for 

what constitutes RACT for each of the 

Group II product categories, and EPA 

will review that strategy in the context 

of the SIP process and determine 

whether it meets the RACT 

requirements of the CAA 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 final CTGs at issue here, 

EPA provides that States should submit 

their SIP revisions within 1 year of the 

date that the CTGs are finalized. 

III. Summary of Changes to the Final 

CTGs 

Based on information received during 

the public comment period, we made 

several substantive changes to the 

lithographic printing materials and 

letterpress printing materials CTG and 

the flexible packaging printing materials 

CTG. In addition, based on public 

comment, we incorporated an option 

into the industrial cleaning solvents 

CTG on which we had requested 

comments at proposal. Although we 

made some minor clarifying changes to 

the flat wood paneling coatings CTG, no 

changes were made regarding EPA’s 

recommendations concerning the nature 

or applicability of control measures for 

that product category. Significant 

changes are described below. 

A. Lithographic Printing Materials and 

Letterpress Printing Materials 

Several significant changes were 

made to the draft CTG for offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing as a result of comments 

received during the comment period. 

Each of the changes is discussed briefly 

below. 

(1) Cleaning 

The scope of the recommendations for 

cleaning has been clarified to include 

blanket wash, roller wash, plate cleaner, 

metering roller cleaner, impression 

cylinder cleaner, rubber rejuvenator and 

other cleaners used for cleaning a press, 

press parts or to remove dried ink from 

areas around a press; and to exclude 

cleaners used to clean electronic 

components of a press, cleaning in prepress (e.g., platemaking) or post-press 

(e.g., binding) operations, use of 

janitorial supplies (e.g., detergents or 

floor cleaners) to clean areas around a 

press, and cleaning done in parts 

washers or cold cleaners. We also agree 

with commenters that in order to carry 

out all of these cleaning tasks, some 

cleaning materials with VOC composite 

greater than 10 millimeters (mm) 

mercury (Hg) at 20° C may be required. 

Many of the cleaning tasks that cannot 

be carried out with low VOC composite 

vapor pressure cleaning materials can be 

carried out with reduced VOC content 

cleaning materials. We have, therefore, 

added a recommendation for cleaning 

materials which contain 70 weight 

percent or less VOC. A small number of 

cleaning tasks cannot be carried out 

with low VOC composite vapor pressure 

cleaning materials or reduced VOC 

content cleaning materials. We have, 

therefore, added a recommendation to 

exclude 110 gallons per year of cleaning 

materials which meet neither the low 

VOC composite vapor pressure 

recommendation nor the lower VOC 

content recommendation. 

(2) Fountain Solution 

The recommendations for fountain 

solution have been clarified as applying 

to the on-press (as-applied) fountain 

solution, not to the fountain solution 

concentrate. We also agree with 

commenters that for certain small 

presses, the recommended VOC (alcohol 

or alcohol substitute) content levels 

would yield a small emission reduction 

relative to the cost of achieving that 

reduction (e.g., changing and 

maintaining rollers). We have, therefore, 

modified our recommendations for 

fountain solution to exclude sheet-fed 

presses with sheet size 11x17 inches or 

smaller and to exclude any press with 

total fountain solution reservoir of less 

than 1 gallon. 

(3) Heatset Dryers 

The draft CTG recommended 

controlling emissions from heatset 

dryers at facilities with potential to emit 

from all dryers combined, prior to 

control, of at least 25 tons per year (tpy) 

of VOC from heatset inks and carryover 

of VOC from other materials. We agree 

with commenters that this applicability 

threshold is more appropriately 

expressed on a per press basis. We also 

believe that it is simpler and sufficient 

to make this applicability determination 

based solely on the emissions from the 

heatset inks. In the final CTG, we 

therefore recommend controlling 

emissions from each heatset dryer with 

potential to emit, prior to controls, of at 

least 25 tpy of VOC (petroleum ink oils) 

from heatset inks. We recommend 

providing printers with the option of 

using an enforceable limitation on 

potential emissions to keep an 

individual press below this 25 tpy 

potential to emit threshold. Add-on 

controls for heatset presses with 

potential to emit below 25 tpy may be 

too costly for the emission reduction 

that would be achieved. We also 

recommend excluding heatset presses 

used for book printing and excluding 

heatset presses with maximum web 

width of 22 inches or less. Add-on 

controls for such heatset presses may be 

too costly for the emission reduction 

that would be achieved. 

The draft CTG recommended 90 

percent control device efficiency for 

control devices first installed before 

March 14, 1995, and 95 percent control 

device efficiency for control devices 

first installed on or after March 14, 

1995. We agree with commenters that 

control devices first installed on or after 

March 14, 1995 may, for a variety of 

reasons, not be achieving 95 percent 

control device efficiency, and that a 

retroactive 95 percent control device 

efficiency recommendation for the 

control devices is not appropriate. In the 

final CTG, we therefore recommend that 

95 percent control device efficiency for 

brand new control devices installed 

after the effective date of a new or 

revised State or local regulation adopted 

after publication of the CTG. 

(4) Applicability 

The draft CTG recommended general 

applicability levels of 6.8 kilograms per 

day (kg/day) (15 pounds per day (lb/ 

day)) of VOC before consideration of 

controls for offset lithographic printing 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

VI-55 A-183 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 58749 

and 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) of VOC 

before consideration of controls for 

letterpress printing. These 

recommended general applicability 

levels were relevant to the draft CTG 

recommendations for controlling 

emissions from cleaning and fountain 

solution. 

The draft CTG recommended higher 

applicability levels for controlling 

emissions from heatset dryers. The final 

CTG recommendations for controlling 

emissions from heatset dryers, including 

recommended applicability criteria, are 

presented in the discussion of heatset 

dryers above. 

The final CTG recommends these 

same general applicability levels for 

cleaning and fountain solution with the 

addition of several exclusions. The 

reasons for the recommended 

exclusions are presented in the 

discussions of cleaning and fountain 

solution above. 

The final CTG recommendations for 

cleaning apply to offset lithographic 

printing facilities emitting 15 lb/day or 

more before consideration of controls 

from all covered offset lithographic 

printing and cleaning activities at the 

facility with an exclusion provided for 

use of 110 gallons per year of offset 

lithographic cleaning materials which 

meet neither the low VOC composite 

vapor pressure recommendation nor the 

lower VOC content recommendation. 

The final CTG recommendations for 

cleaning also apply to letterpress 

printing facilities emitting 15 lb/day or 

more before consideration of controls 

from all covered letterpress printing and 

cleaning activities with an exclusion 

provided for use of 110 gallons per year 

of letterpress cleaning materials which 

meet neither the low VOC composite 

vapor pressure recommendation nor the 

lower VOC content recommendation. 

Further, the final CTG recommendations 

for fountain solution apply to offset 

lithographic printing facilities emitting 

15 lb/day or more before consideration 

of controls from all covered offset 

lithographic printing and cleaning 

activities at the facility with an 

exclusion provided for sheet-fed presses 

with sheet size 11x17 inches or smaller 

and an exclusion provided for any press 

with total fountain solution reservoir of 

less than 1 gallon. State and local 

agencies have discretion to consider 

these applicability levels, equivalent 

applicability levels expressed on a 

monthly basis (e.g., 450 pounds per 

month (lb/month)), equivalent 

applicability levels expressed on a 12- 

month rolling basis (e.g., 3 tons per 12- 

month rolling period), or other 

applicability levels for their regulations. 

B. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials 

Four significant changes were made to 

the draft flexible packaging printing 

CTG as a result of comments received 

during the comment period. These 

include: (1) Removing the 

recommended VOC composite vapor 

pressure limit for cleaning solvents; (2) 

changing the recommended 

applicability threshold for controlling 

VOC emissions from inks, coatings and 

adhesives from 25 tpy per facility to 25 

tpy per press; (3) providing additional 

overall control efficiency 

recommendations ranging from 65 to 80 

percent and changing the installation 

date of the add-on air pollution control 

device (APCD) from the March 1995 

date to the effective date of state rule; 

and (4) changing the recommended low 

VOC compliance option limits from 0.5 

kg VOC/kg solids applied and 0.10 kg 

VOC/kg material applied to 0.8 kg VOC/ 

kg solids applied and 0.16 kg VOC/kg 

material applied. Each of the changes is 

discussed briefly below. 

(1) VOC Composite Vapor Pressure of 

Cleaning Solvents 

We removed the recommended VOC 

composite vapor pressure limit for 

cleaning solvents. This change was 

made based on additional information 

provided by the commenters related to 

the vapor pressure of cleaning solvents 

typically used in the industry that have 

vapor pressures above the suggested 25 

mm Hg (20° C) limit and for which 

material substitution is not feasible. 

Within the industry, there are controlled 

cleaning operations where cleaning is 

automated, enclosed, and vented to an 

APCD, and vapor pressure limits are not 

necessary. Use of recycled solvents for 

cleaning is also typical in the industry; 

solvent mixture components and the 

corresponding vapor pressure vary 

frequently. EPA supports industry’s use 

of recycled solvents for cleaning and 

supports minimal usage of effective 

solvents and accordingly, for this 

additional reason, we have removed the 

vapor pressure limit. The 

recommendations for cleaning 

operations in the final CTG include the 

work practice recommendations from 

the draft CTG. 

(2) Applicability Threshold for 

Controlling Emissions From Inks, 

Coatings, and Adhesives 

We changed the recommended 25 tpy 

per facility VOC applicability threshold 

for controlling ink, coating and adhesive 

emissions to 25 tpy per press. As 

suggested by several commenters, EPA 

has reevaluated this threshold. Rather 

than basing the annual threshold on all 

printing operations at the facility, the 

recommended applicability threshold 

has been revised to apply to each press. 

We believe an applicability threshold 

for control of these emissions on a 

press-by-press basis is the most 

appropriate way to assess the 

reasonableness of controlling emissions 

from inks, coatings and adhesives. 

We have not changed the 

recommended general applicability 

level of 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) of VOC 

before consideration of controls for 

flexible packaging printing. This 

recommended general applicability 

level is relevant only to the 

recommendations for controlling 

emissions from cleaning. 

The final CTG work practice 

recommendations for cleaning apply to 

flexible packaging printing facilities 

emitting 15 lb/day or more actual 

emissions before consideration of 

controls from all covered flexible 

packaging printing and cleaning 

activities at the facility. Since work 

practices are carried out on a facilitywide basis, we believe it is most 

appropriate for the applicability of work 

practices to be determined on a facilitywide basis. State and local agencies 

have discretion to consider this 

recommended applicability level, an 

equivalent applicability level expressed 

on a monthly basis (e.g., 450 lb/month), 

an equivalent applicability level 

expressed on a 12-month rolling basis 

(e.g., 3 tons per 12-month rolling 

period), or other applicability levels for 

the cleaning requirements in their 

regulations. 

(3) Control Efficiency Recommendations 

We provided additional overall 

control efficiency recommendations 

ranging from 65 to 80 percent and 

changed the installation date of the 

APCD from the March 1995 date to the 

effective date of an applicable State rule. 

The recommendations in the draft CTG 

included control levels based on the 

installation date of the press. These 

control levels included overall control 

levels that reflected increased capture 

efficiencies and increased control 

device efficiencies. The commenters’

concern that new presses may be 

installed at a facility but may be vented 

to existing control devices is valid, and 

EPA agrees that additional 

consideration be made regarding the 

installation date of the APCD. EPA has 

added recommendations for control 

levels related to the add-on APCD 

installation date that are based on new 

control devices installed after the 

effective date of the State RACT rule. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

A-184 VI-56 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58750 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Low VOC Compliance Option 

We changed the recommended low 

VOC compliance option limits of 0.5 kg 

VOC/kg solids applied to 0.8 kg VOC/ 

kg solids applied and 0.10 kg VOC/kg 

material applied to 0.16 kg VOC/kg 

material applied. EPA reanalyzed these 

limits based on comments and revised 

the recommended limits to more readily 

reflect the overall control efficiency 

recommendations in the final CTG. 

C. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

In the draft industrial cleaning 

solvents CTG, we had solicited 

comments on possible use of a 

composite vapor pressure limit (for 

example, 8 mmHg at 20° C) either as: (1) 

A replacement for 50 g/l VOC content 

limit entirely; or (2) an alternative limit 

that may be used in lieu of the 50 g/l 

VOC content limit for specific 

operations as determined by the State or 

local agency. We included in the final 

CTG the vapor pressure limit of 8 mm 

Hg at 20° C for cleaning solvents as an 

additional control option for the States 

to consider. This change was made 

based on comments received indicating 

that a number of States have used low 

vapor pressure cleaning solvents as a 

means of controlling cleaning emissions 

when aqueous solvents could not be 

used. Also, this vapor pressure limit 

would allow the use of higher VOC 

content solvents for specific cleaning 

applications. 

IV. Responses to Significant Comments 

on EPA’s Decision To Take Final Action 

To List Product Categories Under CAA 

Section 183(e) 

A few commenters on the proposal 

questioned whether certain product 

categories are properly on the CAA 

section 183(e) list of products for 

regulation. As EPA has stated in the 

past, the list of products for regulation 

is not itself a final Agency action and it 

is, therefore, appropriate to comment 

upon the inclusion of the product 

category on the list at the time EPA 

takes action to address the product, 

whether through issuance of a national 

regulation or through issuance of a CTG. 

However, the issues raised by the 

commenters concerned whether EPA 

had erred by including the product on 

the list of product categories for 

regulation because of incorrect estimates 

of the total amount of VOC emissions 

from the product category at the time of 

the initial listing exercise or 

subsequently. 

As explained in more detail in the 

Response to Comments document for 

this action, EPA believes that these 

products are appropriate for regulation 

under CAA section 183(e). The Agency 

based the listing on reasonable estimates 

of the total VOC emissions as of the base 

year. The total VOC emissions were 

only one factor that EPA considered in 

the initial listing decision. Even if the 

Agency overestimated the total VOC 

emissions from this category, that would 

not alter the Agency’s decision that this 

category is suitable for regulation, and 

would only affect whether EPA has 

identified sufficient categories to list 

those that emitted at least 80 percent of 

the VOC emissions as required by the 

statute. EPA believes that the 

overarching purpose of CAA section 

183(e) is to achieve reasonable VOC 

emission reductions from consumer and 

commercial products because of their 

aggregate impact on ozone 

nonattainment. Thus, the statute 

contemplates that EPA will regulate 

many categories of products, including 

some that might be relatively small 

components of the emissions inventory. 

V. Responses to Significant Comments 

on EPA’s Determination 

With the exception of one commenter, 

every other commenter 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 five Group 

II consumer and commercial product 

categories agreed with the 

determination. Two commenters stated 

that the CTG approach provides 

flexibility to local air quality districts 

and enables them to more readily 

address local air quality issues. One 

commenter supported EPA’s decision to 

issue CTGs rather than promulgating 

national rules, and agreed that the CTG 

approach will result in additional VOC 

emission reductions over the rule 

approach. Another commenter further 

stated that the proposed CTGs utilize 

cost effective approaches to VOC control 

that will help States achieve the 

ambient ozone standards. EPA 

appreciates the commenters’ support of 

its CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) 

determination. 

One commenter disagreed with the 

proposed CTG approach, stating, ‘‘a 

national rule designed to limit potential 

VOC emissions from industrial solvents 

is preferred, given that such a rule 

would not impose direct regulatory 

burdens on end users such as 

dealerships.’’

The commenter explained that 

automobile dealerships use solvents for: 

(1) Parts cleaners, in conjunction with 

mechanical service and repair; (2) 

surface preparation, in conjunction with 

autobody repair; (3) spray gun cleaning, 

in conjunction with autobody 

refinishing; and (4) various spray 

applications using refillable or nonrefillable containers, in conjunction 

with mechanical service and repair and 

autobody operations. 

In further support for its position that 

EPA should pursue a rulemaking for 

industrial solvents, the commenter 

stated that ‘‘EPA presently is 

considering automobile refinish air 

toxics controls that may impact the use 

of surface preparation and gun cleaning 

solvents,’’ used by automobile and truck 

dealerships. The commenter suggested 

that before moving forward with a CTG 

that covers, among other things, controls 

VOC emissions from autobody cleaning 

solvents, EPA should review potential 

controls under consideration in the air 

toxics proceeding. The commenter 

further stated that if EPA regulates 

automobile refinish cleaning solvents, a 

national rule should be used to regulate 

the VOC content of the cleaning 

solvents themselves, thereby avoiding 

any unnecessary and burdensome 

regulation of end users. 

In summary, the commenter urged 

EPA to issue a national rule that: (1) 

Only regulates parts cleaner solvent 

formulations with greater than 5 percent 

VOC, by weight; and 

(2) sets a composite vapor pressure 

limit of 8 mm Hg for such solvent 

formulations. 

We disagree with the commenter. The 

commenter’s primary argument 

supporting a national rule regulating the 

VOC content of cleaning solvents is that 

a national rule ‘‘would not impose 

direct regulatory burdens on end users 

such as dealerships.’’ The commenter is 

correct that a regulation issued pursuant 

to section 183(e) would not regulate 

end-users because such entities do not 

qualify as ‘‘regulated entities’’ within 

the meaning of section 183(e)(1)(C). The 

burden on the end-user is, however, not 

the test for evaluating the 

reasonableness of EPA’s proposed 

section 183(e)(3)(C) determination that 

CTGs will be substantially as effective 

as regulations in reducing VOC 

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas 

from the five Group II product 

categories. Were that the case, EPA 

could never pursue the CTG approach, 

which is expressly contemplated by 

section 183(e)(3)(C), because CTGs 

apply to end-users. 

As explained in the proposed rule, the 

statute does not specify how EPA is to 

make the determination under section 

183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

rule in reducing VOC emissions in 

ozone nonattainment areas. EPA, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

VI-57 A-185 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 58751 

therefore, has discretion in identifying 

factors relevant to making this 

determination. EPA identified in the 

proposed rule several factors that it 

considered in making its proposed 

section 183(e)(3)(C) determination. The 

commenter neither references these 

factors, nor challenges EPA’s 

application of the factors to the Group 

II product categories. Although the 

commenter suggests requirements for a 

national rule, it does not address the 

arguments presented in the proposal, 

explaining why regulation of solvent 

manufacturers is not effective in 

reducing VOC emissions. The 

commenter’s blanket assertion that it 

would prefer an approach that does not 

result in a ‘‘direct regulatory burden on 

end-users’’ does not constitute a basis 

for changing EPA’s determination 

regarding the five Group II product 

categories. 

Furthermore, the commenter’s 

concern that the CTG results in a ‘‘direct 

regulatory burden’’ mischaracterizes the 

nature of a CTG. A CTG is a guidance 

document that provides 

recommendations to State and local 

pollution control agencies to consider in 

determining RACT for a particular 

product category. As explained in the 

proposal and in the draft CTGs, State 

and local pollution control agencies are 

not required to follow EPA’s RACT 

recommendations contained in the CTG. 

Instead, they are free to implement other 

technically-sound approaches that are 

consistent with the CAA and its 

implementing regulations. Thus, it is 

not the CTG itself that has the direct 

regulatory burden, but rather it is the 

regulations that States may develop in 

response to the CTG that might impose 

any such burden. To the extent a State 

adopts any of the recommendations in 

the CTG, interested parties can always 

raise questions and objections about the 

substance of the CTG during the 

development of the State rules or during 

EPA’s SIP approval process, both of 

which provide for public notice and 

comment. The commenter’s assertion 

that the CTG imposes direct regulatory 

burdens is thus misplaced. 

Finally, that EPA, in the future, 

intends to develop an air toxics rule for 

automobile refinishing provides no 

basis for changing our determination 

that CTGs for the Group II product 

categories will be substantially as 

effective at reducing VOC emissions in 

ozone nonattainment areas as national 

regulations. EPA assumes that the 

commenter is referring to the area 

source automobile refinishing category 

that is currently listed pursuant to 

section 112(c)(3), but it is not entirely 

clear from the comment the precise ‘‘air 

toxics’’ rule to which the commenter is 

referring. EPA has not yet proposed a 

rule under CAA section 112 for 

automobile refinishing. A future rule 

addressing hazardous air pollutants 

does not provide a basis for reversing 

the proposed section 183(e)(3)(C) 

determination. Moreover, to the extent 

an interested facility is concerned about 

a potentially duplicative regulatory 

requirement, it can raise that issue 

during the State RACT rulemaking 

process, as States have discretion to 

make their own determination as to 

what constitutes RACT in their 

particular nonattainment area based on 

the facts and circumstances of the 

category. EPA will review that 

determination in the SIP approval 

process. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

OMB has determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and is therefore not subject to review 

under the Executive Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not contain any 

information collection requirements and 

therefore is not subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s 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 action on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because it imposes no regulatory 

requirements. In this notice, EPA is 

taking final action to list the five Group 

II consumer and commercial product 

categories for purposes of CAA section 

183(e). This listing action alone does not 

impose any regulatory requirements. In 

this notice, EPA is also taking final 

action on its determination that a CTG 

will be substantially as effective as a 

national regulation in achieving VOC 

emission reductions in ozone 

nonattainment areas from the five Group 

II product categories. In the 

determination, EPA has concluded that 

it is not appropriate to issue Federal 

regulations under CAA section 183(e) to 

regulate VOC emissions from the five 

Group II 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 in 

ozone nonattainment areas from the 

Group II product categories. This 

determination does not impose any 

regulatory requirements. 

In addition to today’s final action, 

EPA is issuing CTGs for the five Group 

II product categories. The CTGs are 

guidance and thus the requirements of 

the RFA do not apply. In any event, EPA 

does not directly regulate any small 

entities through the issuance of a CTG. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

A-186 VI-58 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58752 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA issues CTGs to provide States 

guidance in developing their own 

regulations for obtaining VOC emission 

reductions from affected sources within 

certain nonattainment areas. EPA’s 

issuance of a CTG does trigger an 

obligation on the part of the States to 

issue State regulations, but States are 

not obligated to issue regulations that 

adopt the recommendations in the 

Agency’s CTG. States may follow the 

recommendations provided in the CTG 

or they can adopt other technicallysound approaches that are consistent 

with the CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations. The ultimate determination 

of whether a State regulation meets the 

RACT requirements of the CAA is 

determined through notice and 

comment rulemaking in the Agency’s 

action on each State’s SIP. Thus, States 

retain discretion in determining to what 

degree to follow the RACT 

recommendations contained in the 

CTGs. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 

U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must 

prepare a written statement, including a 

cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and 

final rules with a ‘‘Federal mandate’’

that may result in expenditures by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

A ‘‘Federal mandate’’ is defined under 

section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to 

include a ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ and a ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate.’’ A ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ in turn, is 

defined to include a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal 

governments,’’ section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 

U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), except for, among 

other things, a duty that is ‘‘a condition 

of Federal assistance,’’ section 

421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector,’’ with certain 

exceptions, section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 

658(7)(A). 

EPA has determined that the listing 

action and the final determination that 

a CTG will be substantially as effective 

as a regulation for the Group II product 

categories do not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

Thus, this final action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have 

determined that the listing action and 

the final determination contain 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. 

As noted above, the CTGs for the 

Group II product categories are guidance 

and thus the requirements of the UMRA 

do not apply. The CTGs do not impose 

any legally binding requirements on any 

entity and consequently do not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, or tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. 

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 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.’’

The listing action, the final 

determination that CTGs are 

substantially as effective as regulations 

for these product categories, and the 

final CTGs do not have federalism 

implications. They do 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 the final 

determination and final CTGs. 

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.’’

The listing action, the final 

determination that CTGs will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

to achieve VOC emission reductions 

from these product categories, and the 

final CTGs do not have tribal 

implications as defined by Executive 

Order 13175. They do not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, in that the listing action, 

the final determination, and the final 

CTGs impose no regulatory burdens on 

tribes. Furthermore, the listing action, 

the final determination, and the final 

CTGs 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 establish 

the relationship of the Federal 

government and tribes in implementing 

the CAA. Because listing action, the 

final determination, and the final CTGs 

do not have tribal implications, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply. 

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 Executive 

Order 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, 

Section 5–501 of the Executive Order 

directs the Agency to evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

The listing action, the final 

determination, and the final CTGs are 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because they are not economically 

significant regulatory actions as defined 

by Executive Order 12866. In addition, 

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. The listing 

action, the final determination, and the 

final CTGs are not subject to Executive 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

VI-59 A-187 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 58753 

Order 13045 because they do not 

include regulatory requirements based 

on health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This final action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy; Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 

104–113; Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in their 

regulatory and procurement activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. VOC are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when an agency does not use available 

and applicable VCS. 

The listing action, the final 

determination that CTGs will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

to achieve VOC emission reductions, 

and the final CTGs do not involve 

technical standards and therefore the 

NTTAA does not apply. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,’’ provides for 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income 

populations, including tribes. 

EPA believes that the listing action, 

the final determination, and the final 

CTGs should not raise any 

environmental justice issues. 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, determination that 

CTGs are substantially as effective as 

regulations, and final CTGs, 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. 

The final action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final 

rule will be effective October 5, 2006. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Confidential business 

information, Labeling, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: September 29, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 59 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 59—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 59 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Subpart A is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart A—General 

§ 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 

technique 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; and 

(h) Industrial cleaning solvents. 

[FR Doc. E6–16485 Filed 10–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 060216044–6044–01; I.D. 

100206B] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pelagic Shelf 

Rockfish in the Central Regulatory 

Area of the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; opening. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is opening directed 

fishing for pelagic shelf rockfish in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 

to fully use the 2006 total allowable 

catch (TAC) of pelagic shelf rockfish 

specified for the Central Regulatory 

Area of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), October 2, 2006, through 

2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2006. 

Comments must be received at the 

following address no later than 4:30 

p.m., A.l.t., October 17, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Walsh. Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• Mail to: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802; 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, Alaska; 

• FAX to 907–586–7557; 

• E-mail to dusky@noaa.gov and 

include in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the document identifier: 

cgpsrro (E-mail comments, with or 

without attachments, are limited to 5 

megabytes); or 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Hogan, 907–586–7228. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES

A-188 VI-60 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Tuesday, 

July 10, 2007 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 59 

Consumer and Commercial Products: 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil 

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and 

Large Appliance Coatings; Proposed Rule 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-61 A-189 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37582 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 59 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0454; FRL–8336–7] 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 

183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

proposes to determine 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 product categories: Paper, film, 

and foil coatings; metal furniture 

coatings; and large appliance coatings. 

Based on this determination, EPA may 

issue Control Techniques Guidelines in 

lieu of national regulations for these 

product categories. EPA has prepared 

draft Control Techniques Guidelines for 

the control of volatile organic 

compound emissions from each of the 

product categories covered by this 

proposed determination. Once finalized, 

these Control Techniques Guidelines 

will provide guidance to the States 

concerning EPA’s recommendations for 

reasonably available control technologylevel controls for these product 

categories. EPA further proposes to take 

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: Comments: Written comments 

on the proposed determination must be 

received by August 9, 2007, unless a 

public hearing is requested by July 20, 

2007. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed determination, written 

comments must be received by August 

24, 2007. We are also soliciting written 

comments on the draft CTGs and those 

comments must be submitted within the 

comment period for the proposed 

determination. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing concerning the proposed 

determination by July 20, 2007, we will 

hold a public hearing on July 25, 2007. 

The substance of any such hearing will 

be limited solely to EPA’s proposed 

determination under Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) section 183(e)(3)(C) 

that the Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTGs) for the three Group III product 

categories will be substantially as 

effective as regulations in reducing 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, if a commenter has no 

objection to EPA’s proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), but has comments on the 

substance of a draft CTG, the commenter 

should submit those comments in 

writing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by applicable docket ID 

number, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Comments concerning the 

Proposed Determination should be sent 

to: Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group III—Determination to Issue 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0454. Comments concerning 

any draft CTG should be sent to the 

applicable docket, as noted below: 

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; or 

Consumer and Commercial Products— 

Large Appliance Coatings, Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0329, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the applicable docket. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Public Hearing: If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at 10 a.m. on July 

25, 2007 at Building C on the EPA 

campus in Research Triangle Park, NC, 

or at an alternate site nearby. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony 

must contact Ms. Dorothy Apple, 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) 541–4487, fax 

number (919) 541–3470, e-mail address: 

apple.dorothy@epa.gov, no later than 

July 20, 2007. Persons interested in 

attending the public hearing must also 

call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date, 

and location of the hearing. If no one 

contacts Ms. Apple by July 20, 2007 

with a request to present oral testimony 

at the hearing, we will cancel the 

hearing. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-190 VI-62 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37583 

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: 

(919) 541–5460, fax number (919) 541–

3470, e-mail address: 

moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft 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, email address: teal.kim@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft 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: (919) 541–

2421, e-mail address: 

smith.martha@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft 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: (919) 541–2363, email address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. 

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: 

Category NAICS code a Examples of affected entities 

Paper, film, and foil coatings .............................. 322221, 322222, 322223, 322224, 322225, 

322226, 322229, 325992, 326111, 326112, 

326113, 32613, 32791, 339944.

Facilities that apply coatings to packaging 

paper, paper bags, laminated aluminum foil, 

coated paperboard, photographic film, abrasives, carbon paper, and other coated 

paper, film and foil products. 

Metal furniture coatings ...................................... 337124, 337214, 337127, 337215, 337127, 

332951, 332116, 332612, 337215, 335121, 

335122, 339111, 339114, 337127, 81142.

Facilities that apply protective, decorative, or 

functional material to metal furniture components or products. 

Large appliance coatings ................................... 335221, 335222, 335224, 335228, 333312, 

333319.

Facilities that apply coatings to household and 

commercial cooking equipment, refrigerators, laundry equipment, laundry drycleaning and pressing equipment. 

Federal Government .......................................... .......................................................................... Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government .............................. .......................................................................... State, local and 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. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicable industry description in 

sections II.A, III.A, and IV.A of this 

notice. 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. 

Preparation of Comments. Do not 

submit information containing CBI to 

EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket 

ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0454, 0336, 

0334, or 0329 (as applicable). Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed action 

will also be available on the World 

Wide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the 

proposed 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. 

Organization of this Document. The 

information presented in this notice is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background Information and Proposed 

Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

C. Significance of CTGs 

D. General Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

E. Proposed Determination 

F. Availability of Documents 

II. Paper, Film and Foil Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

III. Metal Furniture Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

IV. Large Appliance Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-63 A-191 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37584 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2EPA promulgated a national regulation for VOC 

emissions from portable fuel containers on February 

26, 2007 (72 FR 8428). National VOC emission 

standards for aerosol coatings currently are under 

development. 

3Pursuant 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. 

4See 63 FR 48792, 48819, and 48848 (September 

11, 1998); and 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007). 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

V. 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 

I. Background Information and 

Proposed Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

Ground-level ozone, a major 

component of smog, is formed in the 

atmosphere by reactions of 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 (Nov. 17, 2005); 64 FR 

13422 (Mar. 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. 

The portable fuel containers 2 and 

aerosol spray paints categories are 

addressed in separate rulemaking 

actions 3; the remaining three categories 

are the subject of this action. 

Any regulations issued under section 

CAA 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 architectural 

and industrial maintenance coatings, 

autobody refinishing coatings, consumer 

products, and portable fuel containers.4

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 the 

solvents, materials, or 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 endusers through a CTG) created by 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-192 VI-64 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37585 

5 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile 

Organic Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 

13, 2005). 

6See, 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.’’

7Memorandum 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.’’

8 ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs, January 2001,’’ available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/ 

policy/search.htm. 

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. Section 182(b)(2) provides 

that States must revise their ozone SIPs 

to include RACT for each category of 

VOC sources covered by any CTG 

document issued after November 15, 

1990, and prior to the date of 

attainment. Those ozone nonattainment 

areas that are subject to CAA section 

172(c)(1) and submit an attainment 

demonstration seeking more than 5 

years from the date of designation to 

attain must also meet the requirements 

of CAA section 182(b)(2) and revise 

their ozone SIPs in response to any CTG 

issued after November 15, 1990, and 

prior to the date of attainment. Other 

ozone nonattainment areas subject to 

CAA section 172(c)(1) may take action 

in response to this guidance, as 

necessary to attain. 

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 (Sept. 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. 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 process, whether 

they meet the RACT requirements of the 

Act 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.5

Finally, if States consider requiring 

more stringent VOC content limits than 

those recommended in the draft CTGs, 

states may also wish to consider 

averaging, as appropriate. In general, the 

RACT requirement is applied on a shortterm basis up to 24 hours.6 However, 

EPA guidance permits averaging times 

longer than 24 hours under certain 

conditions.7 The EPA’s ‘‘Economic 

Incentive Policy’’ 8 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 

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. 

By this action, we are making 

available draft 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 

develop its own strategy for what 

constitutes RACT for these three 

product categories, and EPA will review 

that strategy in the context of the SIP 

process and determine whether it meets 

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 draft CTGs at issue here, 

EPA provides that States should submit 

their SIP revisions within 1 year of the 

date that the CTGs are finalized. 

D. General Considerations in 

Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 

Substantially as Effective as a 

Regulation 

CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes 

EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a 

regulation for a category of consumer 

and commercial products if a CTG ‘‘will 

be substantially as effective as 

regulations in reducing VOC emissions’’

in ozone nonattainment areas. The 

statute does not specify how EPA is to 

make this determination. 

On July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37773), EPA 

issued a final determination pursuant to 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), concluding 

that CTGs for wood furniture coatings, 

aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding 

and repair coatings were substantially as 

effective as national regulations in 

reducing emissions of VOC from these 

products in areas that violate the 

NAAQS for ozone. On October 5, 2006 

(71 FR 58745), EPA issued a similar 

final determination for flexible 

packaging printing materials, 

lithographic printing materials, 

letterpress printing materials, industrial 

cleaning solvents, and flat wood 

paneling coatings. Recognizing that the 

statute does not specify any criteria for 

making a determination under CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999 and 

2006, considered several relevant 

factors, including: (1) The product’s 

distribution and place of use; (2) the 

most effective entity to target to control 

emissions—in other words, whether it is 

more effective to achieve VOC 

reductions at the point of manufacture 

of the product or at the point of use of 

the product; (3) consistency with other 

VOC control strategies; and (4) estimates 

of likely VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas which 

would result from the regulation or 

CTG. EPA believes that these factors are 

useful for evaluating whether the rule or 

CTG approach would be best from the 

perspective of implementation and 

enforcement of an effective strategy to 

achieve the intended VOC emission 

reductions. As we consider other 

product categories in the current and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-65 A-193 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37586 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

9Coating performed on or in-line with any offset 

lithographic, screen, letterpress, flexographic, 

rotogravure, or digital printing press is not part of 

the paper, film and foil coating category. The 

application of inks, coatings and adhesives on or inline with rotogravure or flexographic printing 

presses used in the production of flexible packaging 

is addressed in the CTG for Flexible Package 

Printing (EPA 453/R–06–003, September 2006). The 

application of inks, coatings and adhesives on or inline with publication rotogravure printing presses is 

addressed in the CTG for Graphic Arts: Rotogravure 

and Flexography (EPA 450/2–78–033). The 

application of inks, coatings and adhesives on or inline with offset lithographic or letterpress printing 

presses is addressed in the CTG for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing (EPA 

453/R–06–002, September 2006). 

10 In a previous notice, EPA identified specific 

categories, including paper, film, and foil coating, 

the cleaning operations of which would not be 

future phases of regulation under CAA 

section 183(e), there may be other 

factors that are relevant to the CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C) determination for 

given product categories. EPA believes 

that in making these determinations, no 

single factor is dispositive. On the 

contrary, for each product category, we 

must weigh the factors and make our 

determination based on the unique set 

of facts and circumstances associated 

with that product category. For 

purposes of making the determination, 

EPA analyzed the components of the 

draft CTGs for the product categories at 

issue and compared the draft CTGs to 

the types of controls and emission 

strategies possible through a regulation. 

As we explained in 1999, it would be 

unreasonable for EPA, in effect, to have 

to complete both the full rulemaking 

and full CTG development processes 

before being able to make a 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) validly. EPA believes that it 

is possible for the Agency to make a 

determination between what a rule 

might reasonably be expected to achieve 

versus what a CTG might reasonably be 

expected to achieve, without having to 

complete the entire rulemaking and 

CTG processes. To conclude otherwise 

would result in unnecessary wasting of 

limited time and resources by the 

Agency and the stakeholders 

participating in the processes. 

Moreover, such an approach would be 

directly contrary to CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), which authorizes EPA to 

issue a CTG in lieu of a regulation if it 

determines that the CTG ‘‘will be 

substantially as effective as’’ a 

regulation in reducing VOC emissions 

in ozone nonattainment areas. 

With regard to the three product 

categories at issue here, EPA notes that 

it does not have reliable quantitative 

data that would enable it to conduct a 

ton-by-ton comparison of the likely 

emission reductions associated with a 

national regulation versus a CTG. 

Although we conducted such a 

comparative analysis in 1999 for the 

product categories of wood furniture 

coatings, aerospace coatings and 

shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 

37773, July 13, 1999), such analysis is 

not necessary for evaluating likely VOC 

emission reductions, particularly, 

where, as in our Group II action (71 FR 

58745, October 5, 2006) and here, a CTG 

can achieve significant emission 

reductions from end-users of the 

consumer and/or commercial products 

at issue, which cannot be achieved 

through regulation under CAA section 

183(e). In addition, for the reasons 

described below, a regulation governing 

the manufacturers and suppliers of 

these products would be unlikely to 

achieve the objective of reducing VOC 

emissions from these products in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

E. Proposed Determination 

Based on the factors identified above 

and the facts and circumstances 

associated with each of the Group III 

product categories, EPA proposes to 

determine that CTGs for paper, film, and 

foil coatings; metal furniture coatings; 

and large appliance coatings will be 

substantially as effective as national 

regulations in reducing VOC emissions 

from facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

In each of the three product category 

sections below, we provide a general 

description of the industry, identify the 

sources of VOC emissions associated 

with the industry, summarize the 

recommended control techniques in the 

draft CTG and describe the impacts of 

those techniques, and discuss the 

considerations supporting our proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a regulation 

in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas from the product 

category at issue. 

The specific subsections below that 

address our proposed determination for 

each product category are organized into 

two parts, each of which addresses two 

of the factors relevant to the CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C) determination. The 

first part addresses whether it is more 

effective to target the point of 

manufacture of the product or the point 

of use for purposes of reducing VOC 

emissions and discusses whether our 

proposed approach is consistent with 

existing Federal, State and local VOC 

reduction strategies. The second part 

addresses the product’s distribution and 

place of use and discusses the likely 

VOC emission reductions associated 

with a CTG, as compared to a 

regulation. 

Finally, we propose to find that these 

three product categories are appropriate 

for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) 

list in accordance with the factors and 

criteria that EPA used to develop the 

original list. See Consumer and 

Commercial Products: Schedule for 

Regulation, 60 FR 15264 (Mar. 23, 

1995). 

F. Availability of Documents 

EPA has prepared draft CTG 

documents covering the three consumer 

and commercial products source 

categories addressed in this action. Each 

of the draft CTGs addresses, among 

other things, RACT recommendations, 

cost impacts, and existing Federal, state 

and local VOC control strategies. These 

draft CTGs are available for public 

comment and are contained in the 

respective dockets listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

II. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

This category of consumer and 

commercial products includes the 

coatings that are applied to paper, film, 

and foil in manufacturing products for 

the following industry sectors: Pressure 

sensitive tapes and labels, photographic 

film; industrial and decorative 

laminates; and flexible packaging.9 The 

category also includes coatings applied 

during miscellaneous paper, film, and 

foil surface coating operations for 

several products including: corrugated 

and solid fiber boxes; die-cut paper, 

paperboard, and cardboard; converted 

paper and paperboard, not elsewhere 

classified; folding paperboard boxes, 

including sanitary boxes; manifold 

business forms and related products; 

plastic aseptic packaging; and carbon 

paper and inked ribbons. Paper, film, 

and foil surface coating can be described 

as a web coating process, which is a 

process that applies a continuous layer 

of coating material across the entire 

width or any portion of the width of a 

web substrate for any of the following 

reasons: (1) To provide a covering, 

finish, or functional or protective layer 

to a substrate; (2) to saturate a substrate 

for lamination; or (3) to provide 

adhesion between two substrates for 

lamination. The web coating operations 

and emission control techniques do not 

vary significantly among the sectors of 

the paper, film, and foil industry. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The coatings and cleaning materials 10

used in paper, film, and foil surface 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-194 VI-66 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37587 

covered by EPA’s 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning 

solvents (71 FR 44522, 44540 (2006)). In the notice, 

EPA expressed its intention to address cleaning 

operations associated with these categories in the 

CTGs for these specified categories if the Agency 

determines that a CTG is appropriate for the 

respective categories. 

11Fabric coating operations for use in pressure 

sensitive tape and abrasive materials are included 

under paper, film, and foil surface coating. 

12The 1983 NSPS applies to sources that 

commenced construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after December 30, 1980. 

coating operations are sources of VOC 

emissions. The coating line is the main 

source of VOC emissions. The 

remaining emissions are principally 

from cleaning operations. VOC 

emissions from surface preparation, 

solvent handling and storage, and 

waste/wastewater operations are small. 

The following discussion describes the 

sources of VOC from the coatings and 

cleaning materials. 

The VOC in coatings are emitted from 

the coating line. In general, a coating 

line consists of a series of one or more 

unwind/feed stations; one or more 

coating applicators; one or more flashoff areas (the area between two 

consecutive coating applicators or 

between a coating applicator and a 

drying oven); one or more drying ovens; 

and one or more rewind/cutting 

stations. The majority, usually greater 

than 90 percent, of the VOC in the 

coatings volatilizes in the drying ovens. 

A smaller amount of VOC in the 

coatings volatilizes at the coating 

applicator and flash-off area. The 

amount of VOC emitted from coatings 

varies depending on the type of coatings 

being used. The types of coatings used 

in the paper, film, and foil surface 

coating industry include solvent-borne 

and waterborne coatings, as well as 

radiation-cure coatings, hot-melt 

adhesives and other 100 percent solids 

coatings. 

Solvent-borne coatings are widely 

used in the paper, film, and foil surface 

coating industry. Solvent-borne coating 

formulations typically range from 40 to 

80 percent solvents by weight, as 

supplied by the manufacturer. The 

solvent-borne coatings may be diluted 

by the users with additional solvents 

prior to being used. The primary 

solvents in solvent-borne coatings 

include methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, 

toluene, and xylene. A significant part 

of the volatiles in waterborne coating is 

water, although some VOC-containing 

solvents may be used at up to 30 percent 

of the volatiles. Most coating equipment 

used for solvent-borne coatings can also 

be used for waterborne coatings. 

Radiation cure coatings, hot-melt 

adhesives and other 100 percent solids 

coatings such as wax coatings, wax 

laminations, extrusion coatings, 

extrusion laminations, and cold seal 

coatings typically contain no solvent. 

Accordingly, these coatings emit very 

little VOC. More information on 

coatings is provided in the draft CTG. 

Common techniques to reduce 

emissions from paper, film, and foil 

coatings include the use of low-VOC 

content coatings and the operation of 

add-on control systems where low-VOC 

content coatings cannot be used due to 

performance requirements calling for 

higher VOC coatings. An add-on control 

system consists of a capture system and 

a control device. The majority of VOC 

emissions from paper, film and foil 

coating occur in the drying oven. These 

emissions can be ducted from the drying 

oven directly to a control device. The 

drying oven is therefore typically the 

principal element of the capture system. 

In addition, hoods, floor sweeps or 

enclosures can be used to collect VOC 

emissions that occur in the coating 

application and flash-off areas, and 

route them to a control device. 

The most common add-on controls in 

use at paper, film, and foil surface 

coating facilities are thermal oxidizers 

and carbon adsorbers, both of which 

achieve greater than 90 percent control. 

The design of the capture system and 

the choice of the control device can 

greatly contribute to the overall VOC 

control efficiency, which is a 

combination of both capture and control 

efficiency. Please see the draft CTG for 

further detailed descriptions of add-on 

controls and capture systems that we 

reviewed in developing the draft CTG. 

As previously mentioned, another 

source of VOC emissions from paper, 

film, and foil surface coating operations 

is cleaning materials. Cleaning materials 

are used for several purposes, including 

washing equipment, removing residues 

from coating applicators, and cleaning 

spray guns. These materials are 

typically mixtures of organic solvents 

and represent less than 2 percent of the 

VOC emissions from paper, film, and 

foil surface coating operations. Work 

practices are widely used throughout 

the paper, film, and foil surface coating 

industry as a means of reducing VOC 

emissions from the cleaning materials 

during cleaning operations. These 

measures include covering cleaning 

material mixing tanks; storing cleaning 

solvents and solvent-soaked rags and 

wipes in closed containers; and cleaning 

spray guns in an enclosed system. 

Another means of reducing VOC 

emission from paper, film, and foil 

cleaning materials is the use of low-VOC 

content or low vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. Within the industry, there are 

controlled cleaning operations where 

cleaning is automated, enclosed and 

vented to a control device. Use of 

recycled solvents for cleaning is also 

typical in the industry. 

3. Existing Federal, State and Local VOC 

Control Strategies 

There are three previous EPA actions 

that affect paper, film, and foil surface 

coating operations. In 1977, EPA issued 

a CTG document entitled ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: 

Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, 

Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty 

Trucks’’ (EPA–450/2–77–008) (1977 

CTG). The 1977 CTG provided RACT 

recommendations for controlling VOC 

emissions from paper coating and 

fabric 11 coating operations. The 1977 

CTG recommended RACT for paper 

coating as 0.35 kilogram/liter (kg/l) (2.9 

pound/gallon (lb/gal)) of coating, 

excluding water and exempt 

compounds, as applied. These 

recommended limits were based on the 

use of conventional solvent-borne 

coatings and oxidation of the dryer oven 

exhaust which achieved an overall VOC 

control efficiency of 81 percent. These 

recommended limits were expressed in 

terms of a compliant coating’s VOC 

content to encourage the development 

and use of low-VOC content coatings. 

Equivalent solids-based limits were 

presented in ‘‘A Guideline for Surface 

Coating Calculations’’ (EPA–340/1–86–

016). For paper coating, the equivalent 

limit was 0.58 kg/l (4.8 lb/gal) of solids. 

These equivalent limits were calculated 

using an assumed VOC density of 0.88 

kg/l (7.36 lb/gal). This assumed VOC 

density is the same as that used in 

calculating the limits recommended in 

the 1977 CTG. 

In 1983, EPA promulgated new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for 

pressure sensitive tape and label surface 

coating operations (40 CFR part 60 

subpart RR).12 The 1983 NSPS differs 

from the 1977 CTG in that it only 

applies to pressure sensitive tape and 

label surface coating lines. The 1983 

NSPS emission limits do not apply to 

pressure sensitive tape and label surface 

coating operations that input 45 

megagrams/year (Mg/yr) (50 tons per 

year (tpy)) or less VOC into the coating 

process (other requirements such as 

recordkeeping and reporting do apply). 

The 1983 NSPS requires a 90 percent 

reduction of VOC emission. 

Alternatively it establishes an emission 

limit of 0.20 kg VOC/kg (0.20 lb VOC/ 

lb) solids applied based on VOC 

emission reduction of 90 percent. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-67 A-195 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37588 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

In 2002, EPA promulgated the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): 

Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC), 

40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, which 

applies to paper, film, and foil surface 

coating as well as other coating 

operations. The 2002 NESHAP 

addresses organic hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emissions, including 

VOC HAP emissions, from all web 

coating lines at a paper, film, and foil 

surface coating facility. 

The 2002 NESHAP has different 

emission limitations for sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before September 

13, 2000 (existing sources), and sources 

that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after September 13, 2000 

(new sources). The 2002 NESHAP 

emission limits for existing sources and 

new sources are based on overall HAP 

control efficiencies of 95 percent and 98 

percent, respectively (65 FR 55334). 

The 1977 CTG, the 1983 NSPS, and 

the 2002 NESHAP are further discussed 

in the current draft CTG document. 

In addition to the EPA actions 

mentioned above, at least 44 State and 

several local jurisdictions have 

regulations that affect VOC emissions 

from paper, film, and foil surface 

coating. Fourteen local jurisdictions in 

California have generic surface coating 

rules. These generic surface coating 

rules regulate all machinery with the 

potential to emit organic compounds. 

All 44 of the States and 6 of the 

California jurisdictions have regulations 

that address all or part of the paper, 

film, and foil surface coating industry. 

The regulations in these State and local 

jurisdictions cover the coating lines. 

Generally, these regulations establish 

emission limits and allow compliance 

with the limits to be demonstrated by 

using low-VOC content coatings or addon control systems in conjunction with 

higher-VOC content coatings. 

Almost all of the jurisdictions that 

specifically address all or part of the 

paper, film, and foil surface coating 

industry have adopted the 

recommended VOC emission limits in 

the 1977 CTG. However, there are 

fourteen jurisdictions that have more 

stringent requirements than the 1977 

CTG. These jurisdictions allow 

compliance either using compliant 

coatings, or by using an add-on control 

system. Seven jurisdictions have VOC 

emission limits that are more stringent 

than the 1977 CTG, five in California 

and two in Illinois. The California 

jurisdictions limit VOC emissions to 265 

g/l (2.2 lb/gal) of coating, excluding 

water and exempt compounds, as 

applied. The two jurisdictions in Illinois 

limit VOC emissions to 0.28 kg/l (2.3 lb/ 

gal) of coating, excluding water and 

exempt compounds, as applied. As an 

alternative to the VOC emission limits 

the California and Illinois jurisdictions 

allow facilities to install capture 

systems and control devices to reduce 

VOC emissions from these coating 

operations. The required overall 

emission reduction, including capture 

and control efficiency, ranges from 55 

percent to 90 percent. Specifically, the 

San Diego County Air Pollution Control 

District (San Diego) and the Ventura 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(Ventura) both require an overall control 

efficiency of 90 percent. Finally, there 

are seven jurisdictions that have VOC 

emission limits that are the same as the 

1977 CTG. However, these jurisdictions 

require 95 percent emission reduction 

as an alternative to the VOC emission 

limit. The 95 percent overall control 

efficiency is the most stringent and 

likely can only be met with a permanent 

total enclosure that achieves 100 

percent capture efficiency. A detailed 

summary of the State and local 

regulations is presented in the draft 

CTG. 

Several jurisdictions in California 

have requirements to regulate the VOC 

content of cleaning materials used in the 

paper, film and foil surface coating 

industry. These regulations are aimed at 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials by combining work practice 

standards with limits on the VOC 

content or composite vapor pressure of 

the solvent being used. In some cases, 

the jurisdictions allow the use of addon controls as an alternative to the VOC 

content/vapor pressure limits. The 

different air pollution control 

authorities in California have 

established similar work practice 

standards. However, the cleaning 

material VOC content/vapor pressure 

limits vary by jurisdiction, as do the 

overall control efficiency required when 

add-on controls are used as an 

alternative. 

There are 10 States that have cleaning 

material regulations that apply to paper, 

film, and foil surface coating operations. 

Of these, 9 States do not limit the VOC 

content/vapor pressure of cleaning 

materials. Instead, they have established 

equipment standards, work practices, 

and/or recordkeeping requirements. 

There is one State that requires work 

practices as well as limiting the vapor 

pressure of the cleaning materials. The 

cleaning material regulations are 

summarized in detail in the draft CTG. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for reducing VOC 

emissions from paper, film, and foil 

coatings and cleaning materials. As 

explained in the draft CTG, we are 

recommending these control options for 

facilities whose paper, film, and foil 

surface coating operations emit 6.8 kg 

VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tons 

VOC/year) or more before the 

consideration of control. We do not 

recommend these control approaches 

for facilities that emit below this level 

because of the very small VOC emission 

reductions that can be achieved. The 

recommended threshold level is 

equivalent to the evaporation of 

approximately 2 gallons of solvent per 

day. Such a level is considered to be an 

incidental level of solvent usage that 

could be expected even in facilities that 

use very low-VOC content coatings, 

such as ultraviolet (UV) cure coatings. 

Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI 

data and the 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, facilities emitting below 

the recommended threshold level 

collectively emit less than 2 percent of 

the total reported VOC emissions from 

paper, film, and foil coating facilities in 

ozone nonattainment areas. For these 

reasons, we did not extend our 

recommendations in the draft CTG to 

these low emitting facilities. For 

purposes of determining whether a 

facility meets the above recommended 

threshold, aggregate emissions from all 

paper, film, and foil surface coating 

operations and related cleaning 

activities at a given facility are included. 

This recommended threshold is also 

consistent with our recommendations in 

many previous CTGs. 

We nevertheless solicit comment on 

the above proposed applicability 

threshold of the coating and cleaning 

recommendations in the draft CTG for 

paper, film, and foil coating facilities. 

We specifically solicit comment on 

whether there are small operations 

emitting at or immediately above the 

proposed threshold and how many of 

these facilities exist. If information is 

provided during the comment period 

indicating that there are many small 

operations emitting at and/or 

immediately above the proposed 

threshold, we may consider modifying 

the recommended threshold. We 

specifically solicit comment on whether 

a slightly higher threshold of 12.3 kg 

VOC/day (27 lb VOC/day or 5 tons 

VOC/year) would be more appropriate 

for this category, and we solicit data and 

analyses supporting such a threshold. 

Coating performed on or in-line with 

any offset lithographic, screen, 

letterpress, flexographic, rotogravure, or 

digital printing press is not subject to 

the recommendations in the draft CTG. 

Printing, coating and laminating 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-196 VI-68 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37589 

13We are defining a paper, film, and foil surface 

coating line as a series of coating applicator(s), 

flash-off area(s), and any associated curing/drying 

equipment between one or more an unwind (or 

feed) stations and one or more rewind (or cutting) 

stations. 

performed on or in-line with such 

presses is addressed in other CTGs. 

1. Coatings 

Coatings are defined in the draft CTG 

as material applied onto or impregnated 

into a substrate for decorative, 

protective, or functional purposes. Such 

materials include, but are not limited to, 

solvent-borne coatings, waterborne 

coatings, adhesives, wax coatings, wax 

laminations, extrusion coatings, 

extrusion laminations, 100 percent solid 

adhesives, UV cured coatings, electron 

beam cured coatings, hot melt coatings, 

and cold seal coatings. Materials used to 

form unsupported substrates, such as 

calendaring of vinyl, blown film, cast 

film, extruded film, and co-extruded 

film, are not considered coatings. 

In the draft CTG, we recommend an 

overall VOC control efficiency of 90 

percent for each paper, film, and foil 

surface coating line.13 This emission 

reduction is based on the San Diego and 

Ventura levels of control, as well as the 

1983 NSPS. As an alternative, we 

recommend VOC content based 

emission limits that are equivalent to 90 

percent overall control. Specifically, we 

recommend the ‘‘as-applied’’ VOC 

limits of 0.40 kg VOC/kg (0.40 lb VOC/ 

lb) solids applied and 0.08 kg VOC/kg 

(0.08 lb VOC/lb) coating for this product 

category except for pressure sensitive 

tape and label surface coating lines. The 

derivation of these limits is discussed in 

detail in the draft CTG. 

For pressure sensitive tape and label 

surface coating lines, we recommend 

0.20 kg VOC/kg (0.20 lb VOC/lb) solids 

applied, which is based on 90 percent 

control efficiency. We also recommend 

an equivalent value of 0.067 kg VOC/kg 

(0.067 lb VOC/lb) coating. The 

development of the recommended 

limitations is presented in more detail 

in the draft CTG. 

2. Cleaning Materials 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials used in paper, film, 

and foil surface coating operations. 

Specifically, we recommend the 

following work practices: (1) Store all 

VOC-containing cleaning materials and 

used shop towels in closed containers; 

(2) ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOC-containing 

cleaning materials are kept closed at all 

times except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize 

spills of VOC-containing cleaning 

materials; (4) convey VOC-containing 

cleaning materials from one location to 

another in closed containers or pipes; 

and (5) minimize VOC emissions from 

cleaning of storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

Based on the 2002 NEI database, we 

estimate that there are a total of 474 

paper, film, and foil surface coating 

facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas (using April 2004 

designations). As previously mentioned, 

we are recommending the control 

options described in this draft CTG 

apply to facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas that emit 6.8 kg/ 

day (15 lb/day) or more of VOC. Based 

on VOC emissions data in the 2002 NEI 

database, 251 of the facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas emit VOC at or 

above this level. 

Although there is limited cost 

information available, we believe that 

the cost estimates and other related 

studies developed for the 2002 NESHAP 

are appropriate for estimating the cost 

impact of our recommendations in the 

draft CTG for the following reasons. The 

recommended level of control in the 

draft CTG covers the same processes as 

the 2002 NESHAP (i.e., all coating 

applicators and any associated drying/ 

curing equipment between the unwind/ 

feed station and the rewind/cutting 

station). In addition, the annual costs 

estimates developed for the 2002 

NESHAP were based on the use of 

thermal oxidizers to control HAP 

emissions and these oxidizers achieve 

the same level of control for VOC. 

Finally, both the 2002 NESHAP 

emission limits and the limits 

recommended in the draft CTG can be 

met by the same options (i.e., use of 

low-VOC content coatings or add-on 

control systems when high-VOC content 

coatings are used). 

According to studies performed for 

the development of the 2002 NESHAP, 

47 percent of the existing facilities 

would be subject to the 2002 NESHAP. 

To estimate the costs associated with 

the add-on control recommendation in 

the draft CTG, we assumed that all 

facilities subject to the NESHAP (i.e., 47 

percent of the facilities in the 2002 NEI 

database (119 facilities)) are currently in 

compliance with the NESHAP. We 

assume that facilities already in 

compliance with the 2002 NESHAP 

would not be required to upgrade or 

install capture and/or thermal oxidizers 

to achieve the emission reduction 

recommended in the draft CTG and 

therefore would have no additional 

annual costs associated with the draft 

CTG. 

We estimated that the nationwide 

emission reduction would be 20,000 

Mg/yr (22,000 tpy) and nationwide total 

annual costs were $26 million per year, 

resulting in cost effectiveness of $1,320 

per Mg ($1,200 per ton). These costs 

represent worst-case costs, using 

thermal oxidizers. Other control options 

(i.e., carbon adsorbers or solvent 

recovery systems) can be expected to 

have lower costs. 

We believe that our work practice 

recommendations in the draft CTG will 

result in a net cost savings. 

Implementing work practices reduce the 

amount cleaning materials used by 

reducing the amount that evaporates 

and is wasted. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the paper, 

film, and foil coatings product category 

under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified in 

Section I.D of this notice in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Based on that analysis, we propose to 

determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from paper, 

film, and foil surface coating operations. 

As noted above, this section is 

divided into two parts, each of which 

addresses two of the factors relevant to 

the CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

determination. In the first part, we 

discuss our belief that the most effective 

means of achieving VOC emission 

reductions in this category is through 

controls at the point of use of the 

product (i.e., through controls on the 

use of coatings at facilities that apply 

surface coatings to paper, film, and foil 

products), and this can only be 

accomplished through a CTG. We 

further explain that the approaches in 

the draft CTG are consistent with 

existing effective Federal, State and 

local VOC control strategies. In the 

second part, we discuss how the 

distribution and place of use of the 

products in this category also support 

the use of a CTG. We also discuss the 

likely VOC emission reductions 

associated with a CTG, as compared to 

a regulation. We further explain that 

there are control approaches for this 

category that result in significant VOC 

emission reductions and that such 

reductions could only be obtained by 

controlling the use of the products 

through a CTG. Such reductions could 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-69 A-197 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37590 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

14The 2002 NESHAP requires reduction of 

organic HAP, over 99 percent of which are VOC. 

not be obtained through a regulation 

under CAA section 183(e) because the 

controls affect the end-user, which 

cannot be a regulated entity under CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, 

which are described more fully below, 

we believe that a CTG will achieve 

greater VOC emission reductions than a 

rule for this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important to first identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from paper, film, and foil surface 

coating operations: (1) Evaporation of 

VOC from coatings; and (2) evaporation 

of VOC from cleaning materials. We 

address each of these sources of VOC 

emissions in turn below as we discuss 

the CTG versus regulation approach. 

a. Coatings 

A national rule could contain limits 

for the as-sold VOC content of paper, 

film, and foil coatings. However, given 

the nature of the paper, film, and foil 

surface coating process, we believe that 

such a rule would result in little 

reduction in VOC emissions. 

Although significant amounts of lowVOC content coatings are currently 

being used for paper, film, and foil 

surface coating, they cannot replace the 

traditional solvent-borne coatings in 

some instances. Performance 

specifications and other functional 

characteristics determine the types of 

coatings that can be used. For example, 

hot-melt coatings are virtually solvent 

free, but cannot be used on film 

substrates that are sensitive to heat 

because the substrate could melt during 

the coating process. Accordingly, a 

national rule that requires low VOC 

content in paper, film, and foil coatings 

would nevertheless need to include 

higher VOC limits to allow for the use 

of solvent-borne materials when 

necessary and to maintain these 

materials’ intended effect. Because such 

a rule would merely codify what the 

paper, film, and foil coating facilities are 

already doing, we do not expect that it 

would result in significant VOC 

reductions from these facilities. 

Furthermore, the effect of a national 

rule setting low VOC content limits for 

paper, film, and foil coatings could be 

easily subverted because it does not 

guarantee that only those low-VOC 

content coating materials will be used 

for paper, film, and foil surface coating. 

Many coatings used in the paper, film, 

and foil surface coating industry are not 

specifically identified by the supplier as 

paper, film, and foil coatings. Therefore, 

these facilities can purchase and use 

coating materials not specified as paper, 

film, and foil coatings, which would 

effectively nullify the reformulation 

actions of the manufacturers and 

suppliers, resulting in no net change in 

VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment 

areas. 

Alternatively, a national rule could 

set low VOC content limits for all 

coatings sold, regardless of specified 

end use, thus ensuring that only lowVOC coatings are available for paper, 

film, and foil surface coatings. Such an 

approach would be unreasonable and 

impractical. Coatings are sold for 

multiple different commercial and 

industrial purposes. Reducing the VOC 

content of all coatings would impact 

uses of these materials in operations 

other than paper, film, and foil surface 

coating and may inadvertently preclude 

the use of higher VOC containing 

materials in many important, legitimate 

contexts. 

By contrast, a CTG can reach the end 

users of the coating materials and can 

therefore implement the control 

measures that are more likely to achieve 

the objective of reducing VOC emissions 

from this product category in ozone 

nonattainment areas. As previously 

discussed, the draft CTG recommends 

two VOC control options for this 

product category: (1) Emission limits for 

paper, film, and foil surface coating 

operations that can be achieved through 

the use of low-VOC content coatings; 

and (2) a 90 percent control efficiency 

for facilities that choose to use add-on 

controls in conjunction with high-VOC 

content coatings. The draft CTG also 

recommends work practices to reduce 

VOC emissions from cleaning materials. 

The use of low-VOC content coatings, 

which are available for paper, film, and 

foil surface coating, can greatly reduce 

VOC emissions. Alternatively, control 

devices, such as oxidizers or carbon 

adsorbers, can achieve a significant 

reduction in VOC emissions from highVOC content materials during surface 

coating operations. The recommended 

work practices have also been shown to 

be effective VOC reduction measures. 

Given the significant reductions 

achievable through these recommended 

VOC control measures, the most 

effective entity to address VOC 

emissions associated with paper, film, 

and foil coatings is the facility using the 

coating. 

These control measures are consistent 

with existing Federal, State and local 

VOC control strategies applicable to 

paper, film, and foil surface coating. As 

mentioned above, previous EPA actions 

and existing State and local regulations 

applicable to paper, film, and foil 

surface coating similarly call for VOC 

emission reduction 14 either through the 

use of control devices in conjunction 

with high-VOC content coatings or the 

use of equivalent low-VOC content 

coatings. 

We cannot issue a national rule 

directly requiring paper, film, and foil 

surface coating facilities to use low-VOC 

content coating materials or control 

devices because, pursuant to CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the 

regulated entities subject to a national 

rule would be the coating manufacturers 

and suppliers, not the paper, film, and 

foil surface coating facilities. By 

contrast, a CTG can reach these end 

users of paper, film, and foil coatings, 

and can therefore implement the 

measures by the users that are identified 

above as more likely to achieve the 

intended VOC emission reduction goal. 

Accordingly, we are including these 

control measures in the draft CTG that 

applies to paper, film, and foil surface 

coating facilities as the end users of 

these materials. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in paper, 

film, and foil surface coating: (1) 

Limiting the VOC content or vapor 

pressure of the cleaning materials, and 

(2) implementing work practices 

governing the use of the cleaning 

materials. A national rule requiring that 

manufacturers of cleaning materials for 

paper, film, and foil coating operations 

provide low-VOC content or low vapor 

pressure (i.e., replace VOC that have a 

high vapor pressure with low vapor 

pressure VOC) cleaning materials would 

suffer from the same deficiencies noted 

above with regard to the coatings. 

Specifically, nothing in a national rule 

that specifically regulates manufacturers 

and suppliers of cleaning materials 

specified for use in paper, film, and foil 

surface coating operations would 

preclude the industry from purchasing 

bulk solvents or other multipurpose 

cleaning materials from other vendors. 

The general availability of bulk solvents 

or multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to 

such regulation would directly 

undermine the effectiveness of such a 

national regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the VOC content or vapor pressure 

of all cleaning materials and all solvents 

sold regardless of specified end use, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-198 VI-70 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37591 

which would ensure that only low-VOC 

content or low vapor pressure cleaning 

materials are available for cleaning 

operations associated with paper, film, 

and foil surface coating. As with a lowVOC content limit on coatings, setting a 

low-VOC content or low vapor pressure 

limit for all cleaning materials and 

solvents would be unreasonable and 

impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Replacing highly volatile cleaning 

materials with less volatile cleaning 

materials and solvents would impact 

uses of these materials other than 

cleaning operations at paper, film, and 

foil surface coating facilities and may 

inadvertently preclude the use of such 

materials in many important, legitimate 

contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials used by paper, film, and foil 

surface coaters is to control the use of 

the cleaning materials through work 

practices. The draft CTG recommends 

that paper, film, and foil surface coating 

facilities implement work practices to 

reduce VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials during paper, film, and foil 

surface coating operations. An example 

of an effective work practice is keeping 

solvents and used shop towels in closed 

containers. This measure alone results 

in significant reduction of VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials. 

Provided immediately below are 

examples of other effective work 

practices that are being required by 

State and local regulations. Given the 

significant VOC reductions achievable 

through implementation of work 

practices, we conclude that the most 

effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in paper, film, and foil surface coating 

operations is the facility using the 

cleaning materials during surface 

coating operations. 

This recommendation is consistent 

with measures required by State and 

local jurisdictions for reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in paper, film, and foil surface coating 

operations. In addition to keeping 

solvents and shop towels in closed 

containers, State and local requirements 

include: Minimizing spills of VOCcontaining cleaning materials; cleaning 

up spills immediately; and conveying 

any VOC-containing cleaning materials 

in closed containers or pipes. Work 

practices have proven to be effective in 

reducing VOC emissions. 

We cannot issue a national rule 

requiring such work practices for paper, 

film, and foil surface coating facilities 

because, pursuant to CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated 

entities subject to a national rule would 

be the cleaning materials manufactures 

and suppliers and not the paper, film, 

and foil surface coating facilities. 

Accordingly, we are including these 

work practices in the draft CTG that 

applies to these facilities as the end 

users of the cleaning materials. 

Based on the nature of the paper, film, 

and foil surface coating process, the 

sources of significant VOC emissions 

from this process, and the available 

strategies for reducing such emissions, 

the most effective means of achieving 

VOC emission reductions from this 

product category is through controls at 

the point of use of the products (i.e., 

through controls on surface coating 

facilities), and this can only be 

accomplished through a CTG. The 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective State 

and local VOC control strategies. These 

two factors alone demonstrate that a 

CTG will be substantially as effective as 

a national regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for paper, film, and foil 

coatings and cleaning materials. 

First, paper, film, and foil coatings 

and associated cleaning materials are 

used at commercial facilities in specific, 

identifiable locations. Specifically, these 

materials are used in commercial 

facilities that coat paper, film, and foil 

products, as described in Section II.A. 

This stands in contrast to other 

consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

manufacturing facilities, 

implementation and enforcement of 

controls concerning the use of these 

products are feasible. Therefore, the 

nature of these products’ place of use 

further counsels in favor of the CTG 

approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve greater 

emission reduction than a national rule 

for each source of VOC emissions from 

paper, film, and foil surface coating and 

associated cleaning materials. For the 

reasons described above, we believe that 

a national rule limiting the VOC content 

in coatings and cleaning materials used 

in paper, film, and foil surface coating 

operations would result in little VOC 

emission reduction. By contrast, a CTG 

can achieve significant VOC emission 

reductions because it can provide for 

the highly effective emission control 

strategies described above that are 

applicable to the end-users of the 

coatings and cleaning materials at 

paper, film, and foil surface coating 

facilities. Specifically, this draft CTG 

can provide for the use of control 

devices in conjunction with high VOC 

content coatings and work practices 

associated with cleaning materials. 

These significant VOC reductions could 

not be obtained through a national 

regulation, because they require the 

implementation of measures by the enduser. In addition, as previously 

explained, strategies that arguably could 

be implemented through rulemaking, 

such as a limit on VOC content in 

coatings and cleaning materials, are far 

more effective if implemented directly 

at the point of use of the product. For 

the reasons stated above it is more 

effective to control the VOC content of 

coatings through a CTG than through a 

national regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of paper, 

film, and foil surface coating facilities 

affected by our recommendations in this 

draft CTG, as compared to the total 

number of such facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas, does not change 

our conclusion that the CTG would be 

more effective than a rule in controlling 

VOC emissions for this product 

category. As previously mentioned, we 

recommend the control measures 

described in the draft CTG for paper, 

film, and foil surface coating facilities 

that emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more 

VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone 

nonattainment designations, we 

estimate that 251 of the 474 paper, film, 

and foil surface coating facilities located 

in ozone nonattainment areas emit 6.8 

kg/day (15 lb/day) or more and are 

therefore addressed by our 

recommendations in the draft CTG. 

There are 223 paper, film, and foil 

surface coating facilities that would not 

be covered by the recommendations in 

the draft CTG. According to the 2002 

NEI database, these 223 facilities 

collectively emitted less than 150 Mg/yr 

(170 tpy), which is less than 2 percent 

of the total VOC reported emissions (an 

average of 0.68 Mg/yr (0.75 tpy) per 

facility) in ozone nonattainment areas. 

The CTG thus addresses 98 percent of 

the VOC emissions from these paper, 

film, and foil surface coating facilities in 

ozone nonattainment areas, which 

further supports our conclusion that a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-71 A-199 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37592 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

15 In a previous notice, EPA identified specific 

categories, including metal furniture coating, the 

cleaning operations of which would not be covered 

by EPA’s 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning solvents 

(71 FR 44522 and 44540, October 5, 2006). In the 

notice, EPA expressed its intention to address 

cleaning operations associated with these categories 

in the CTGs for these specified categories if the 

Agency determines that a CTG is appropriate for the 

respective categories. 

CTG is more likely to achieve the 

intended VOC emission reduction goal 

for this product category than a national 

rule. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

paper, film, and foil coatings and 

cleaning materials will be substantially 

as effective as a national regulation. 

III. Metal Furniture Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

This category of consumer and 

commercial products includes the 

coatings that are applied to metal 

furniture surfaces at facilities that 

manufacture metal furniture. Metal 

furniture includes household, office, 

institutional, laboratory, hospital, public 

building, restaurant, barber and beauty 

shop, and dental furniture, as well as 

components of these products. Metal 

furniture also includes office and store 

fixtures, partitions, shelving, lockers, 

lamps and lighting fixtures, and 

wastebaskets. Metal furniture coatings 

include paints and adhesives, and are 

typically applied without a primer. 

Higher solids and powder coatings are 

used extensively in the metal furniture 

industry. Metal furniture coatings 

provide a covering, finish, or functional 

or protective layer, and also provide a 

decorative finish to metal furniture. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The VOC emissions from metal 

furniture surface coating operations are 

a result of evaporation of the VOC 

contained in many of the coatings and 

cleaning materials 15 used in these 

operations. The primary VOC emissions 

from metal furniture coatings occur 

during coating application, flash-off, 

and coating drying/curing. The 

remaining emissions are primarily from 

mixing and thinning of the coatings, and 

evaporation of the VOC contained in the 

cleaning materials during cleaning 

activities, such as spray gun cleaning, 

paint line flushing, rework operations, 

and touchup cleaning at final assembly. 

VOC emissions from surface preparation 

(where metal furniture components and 

products are treated and/or cleaned 

prior to coating application), coating 

storage and handling, and waste/ 

wastewater operations (i.e., handling 

waste/wastewater that may contain 

residues from both coatings and 

cleaning materials) are small. 

As previously mentioned, some VOC 

emissions occur during mixing and 

thinning operations. These VOC 

emissions occur from displacement of 

VOC-laden air in containers used to mix 

coatings before coating application. The 

displacement of VOC-laden air can 

occur during the filling of containers. It 

can also be caused by changes in 

temperature or barometric pressure, or 

by agitation during mixing. 

The majority of VOC emissions occur 

from evaporation of solvents during 

coating application. The transfer 

efficiency (the percent of coating solids 

deposited on the metal furniture 

component or product) of a coating 

application method affects the amount 

of VOC emissions during coating 

application. The more efficient a coating 

application method is in transferring 

coatings to the metal furniture 

component or product, the lower the 

volume of coatings (and therefore 

solvents) needed per given amount of 

production, thus resulting in lower VOC 

emissions. 

The coatings used in the metal 

furniture surface coating industry may 

be in the form of a liquid or powder, 

and may be applied by means of spray 

or dip coating. Conventional air 

atomized spray application systems 

utilize higher atomizing air pressure and 

typically have transfer efficiencies 

ranging between 25 and 40 percent. Dip 

coating is the immersion of metal 

furniture components or products into a 

coating bath and is typically used on 

parts that do not require high quality 

appearance. The transfer efficiency of a 

dip coater is very high (approximately 

90 percent); however, some VOC is 

emitted from the liquid coating bath due 

to its large exposed surface area. 

Most spray applied coatings are 

electrostatically applied. In electrostatic 

coating, the presence of an electrostatic 

field creates an electrical attraction 

between the paint, which is positively 

charged, and the grounded metal 

furniture component or product and 

enhances the amount of coating 

deposited on the surface. This coating 

method is more efficient than 

conventional air atomized spray, with 

transfer efficiency typically ranging 

from 60 to 90 percent. 

Other coatings application methods 

used in the metal furniture surface 

coating industry include flow coating, 

roll coating, high volume/low pressure 

(HVLP) spray, electrocoating, 

autophoretic coating, and application of 

coatings by hand. These coating 

methods are described in more detail in 

the draft CTG. 

The coated metal furniture 

components and products are usually 

baked or cured in heated drying ovens, 

but some are air dried. For liquid spray 

and dip coating operations, the coated 

components or products are typically 

first moved through a flash-off area after 

the coating application operation. The 

flash-off area, which lies between the 

coating application area and the oven, 

allows solvents in the wet coating film 

to evaporate slowly, thus avoiding 

bubbling of the coating while it is curing 

in the oven. The amount of VOC emitted 

from the flash-off area depends on the 

type of coating used, the speed of the 

coating line (i.e., how quickly the 

component or product moves through 

the flash-off area), and the distance 

between the application area and bake 

oven. 

After the flash-off area, the metal 

furniture components or products are 

usually cured or dried. For powder 

coatings, the curing/drying step melts 

the powder and forms a continuous 

coating on the component or product. 

For liquid coatings, this step removes 

any remaining volatiles from the 

coating. The cured coatings provide the 

desired decorative and/or protective 

characteristics. The VOC emissions 

during the curing/drying process result 

from the evaporation of the remaining 

solvents in the dryer. 

Until the late 1970’s, conventional 

solvent-borne coatings were used in the 

metal furniture surface coating industry. 

Since then, the industry has steadily 

moved towards alternative coating 

formulations that eliminate or reduce 

the amount of solvent in the 

formulations, thus reducing VOC 

emissions per unit amount of coating 

solids used. 

Currently the metal furniture surface 

coating industry uses primarily higher 

solids solvent-borne coatings and 

powder coatings and applies them by 

electrostatic spraying. This combination 

of coating type and application method 

is an effective measure for reducing 

VOC emissions. Not only are VOC 

emissions reduced by using coatings 

with low VOC content, the use of an 

application method with a high transfer 

efficiency, such as electrostatic 

spraying, lowers the volume of coatings 

needed per given amount of production, 

thus further reducing the amount of 

VOC emitted during the coating 

application. 

Other alternative coatings include 

waterborne coatings and UV cured 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-200 VI-72 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37593 

16The 1982 NSPS applies to sources that 

commenced construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after November 28, 1980. 

coatings. These coatings are described 

in more detail in the CTG. 

The most common approach to reduce 

emission from metal furniture coating 

operations is to use low-VOC content 

coatings, including powder coatings, 

higher solids solvent-borne coatings, 

and UV cured coatings. Add-on controls 

may also be used to reduce VOC 

emissions from metal furniture coating 

operations. The majority of VOC 

emissions from spray coating operations 

occur in the spray booth. The volume of 

air exhausted from a spray booth is 

typically high and the VOC 

concentration in spray booth exhaust is 

typically low. The cost of controlling 

VOC in spray booth exhaust is therefore 

greater than the cost of using low-VOC 

content coatings. The wide availability 

and lower cost of low-VOC content 

coatings makes them a more attractive 

option than add-on controls. For those 

situations where an add-on control 

device is used, thermal oxidation and 

carbon adsorption are most widely used. 

Please see the draft CTG for a detailed 

discussion of these and other available 

control devices. 

To control VOC emissions from 

containers used to store VOC-containing 

solvents or to mix coatings containing 

VOC solvents, work practices (e.g., 

using closed storage containers) are 

used throughout the metal furniture 

surface coating industry. 

As previously mentioned, another 

source of VOC emissions from metal 

furniture surface coating is cleaning 

materials. The VOC are emitted when 

solvents evaporate from the cleaning 

materials. Cleaning materials are used 

for several purposes, including the 

removal of coating residue or other 

unwanted materials from equipment 

related to the coating operations, as well 

as the cleaning of spray guns, transfer 

lines (e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and 

the interior of spray booths. These 

cleaning materials are typically 

mixtures of organic solvents. Work 

practices are widely used throughout 

the metal furniture surface coating 

industry as a means of reducing VOC 

emissions from these types of cleaning 

operations. These measures include 

covering mixing tanks, storing solvents 

and solvent soaked rags and wipes in 

closed containers, and cleaning spray 

guns in an enclosed system. Another 

means of reducing VOC emissions from 

cleaning operations associated with 

surface coating operations is the use of 

low-VOC content or low vapor pressure 

cleaning materials. However, little 

information is available regarding the 

effectiveness of the use of these types of 

cleaning materials to reduce VOC 

emissions in the metal furniture surface 

coating industry. 

3. Existing Federal, State, and Local 

VOC Control Strategies 

There are three previous EPA actions 

that affect metal furniture surface 

coating operations. In 1977, EPA issued 

a CTG document entitled ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources Volume III: 

Surface Coating of Metal Furniture’’

(EPA–450/2–77–032) (1977 CTG) that 

provided RACT recommendations for 

controlling VOC emissions from metal 

furniture surface coating operations. 

The 1977 CTG addresses VOC emissions 

from metal furniture coating lines, 

which include the coating application 

area, the flash-off area, and the drying/ 

curing ovens. The 1977 CTG 

recommended RACT for metal furniture 

surface coating operations as 0.36 kg 

VOC/l (3.0 lb/gal) of coating, excluding 

water and exempt compounds, as 

applied. This recommendation was 

derived using an assumed VOC density 

of 0.88 kg/l (7.36 lb/gal). The 

recommended limit represents a higher 

solids solvent-borne coating with 

approximately 59 percent volume solids 

and is equivalent to 0.61 kg VOC/l (5.1 

lb VOC/gal) coating solids (the 1977 

CTG-equivalent limit). This equates to 

an 81 percent reduction of VOC 

emissions from a conventional highVOC content solvent-borne coating. 

In 1982, EPA promulgated the metal 

furniture surface coating NSPS) (40 CFR 

part 60 subpart EE.16 The 1982 NSPS is 

similar to the 1977 CTG in that it 

applies to metal furniture surface 

coating operations which include the 

coating application station, the flash-off 

area, and the drying/curing oven. In 

contrast to the 1977 CTG, metal 

furniture surface coating operations that 

use less than 3,842 l/yr (1,015 gal/yr) of 

coating as-applied, are not subject to the 

emission limits (other requirements, 

such as recordkeeping and reporting, in 

the 1982 NSPS do apply). The 1982 

NSPS VOC limit is 0.90 kg VOC/l (7.5 

lb VOC/gal) coating solids deposited. 

Because the 1982 NSPS limit is in terms 

of coating solids deposited and the 1977 

CTG-equivalent limit is in terms of 

coating solids used, these limits cannot 

be compared directly. During the 

implementation of the 1977 CTG, a 

baseline transfer efficiency of 60 percent 

(i.e., 0.60 volume of solids deposited per 

unit volume of solids used) was used to 

express the CTG-equivalent limit on a 

solids deposited basis. The CTGequivalent limit on a solids deposited 

basis is 1.01 kg VOC/l (8.4 lb VOC/gal) 

coating solids deposited. The 1982 

NSPS limit is more stringent than the 

1977 CTG-equivalent limit on a solids 

deposited basis. 

In 2003, EPA promulgated the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 

Coating of Metal Furniture, 40 CFR part 

63, subpart RRRR, which applies to 

metal furniture surface coating 

operations. The 2003 NESHAP 

addresses organic HAP emissions, 

including VOC HAP emissions, from all 

activities at a facility that involve 

coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials used in metal furniture surface 

coating operations. The areas covered by 

the 2003 NESHAP include: Coating 

operations; vessels used for storage and 

mixing of coatings, thinners, and 

cleaning materials; equipment, 

containers, pipes and pumps used for 

conveying coatings, thinners, and 

cleaning materials; and storage vessels, 

pumps and piping, and conveying 

equipment and containers used for 

waste materials. 

The 2003 NESHAP imposes an 

organic HAP emission limitation for 

sources that commenced construction 

on or before April 24, 2002 (existing 

sources), of 0.10 kg organic HAP/l (0.83 

lb organic HAP/gal) of coating solids 

used. For sources that commenced 

construction after April 24, 2002 (new 

sources) the 2003 NESHAP prohibits 

organic HAP emissions. The 2003 

NESHAP also specifies work practices 

to minimize organic HAP emissions 

from the storage, mixing, and conveying 

of coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials used in and waste materials 

generated by the coating operation. 

In addition to the EPA actions 

mentioned above, at least 36 States and 

several local jurisdictions have specific 

regulations that control VOC emissions 

from metal furniture surface coating 

operations. Almost all of the 

jurisdictions that specifically address 

metal furniture coatings have adopted 

the emission limit recommended in the 

1977 CTG. The California Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District (Bay Area), 

however, has adopted more stringent 

limits. The Bay Area has established 

two VOC emission limits for metal 

furniture surface coatings: (1) 275 g 

VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) of coating, 

excluding water and exempt 

compounds, as applied, for baked 

coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/l (2.8 lb 

VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water 

and exempt compounds, as applied, for 

air-dried coating. Under the Bay Area 

regulation, metal furniture surface 

coating facilities must use coatings that 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-73 A-201 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37594 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

comply with the VOC emission limit or 

as an alternative to using low-VOC 

content coatings, the facility may choose 

to install add-on controls. If add-on 

controls are used, the Bay Area requires 

that the VOC emissions generated by all 

sources of VOC emissions (i.e., the 

coating line) are reduced by at least 85 

percent. The Bay Area’s emission limit 

for air dried coating is also more 

stringent than the 1977 CTG 

recommended limit. In addition, its rule 

requires the use of coating application 

equipment that can meet a 65 percent or 

greater transfer efficiency. Compliance 

with the standard’s 65 percent or greater 

transfer efficiency can be achieved by 

properly operated electrostatic 

application or HVLP spray, flow coat, 

roller coat, dip coat including 

electrodeposition, and brush coat. 

Like the Bay Area’s limits the VOC 

emission limits established by the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(South Coast) for the coating of metal 

parts and products (which includes 

metal furniture using a baked general 

multi-component coating) are: (1) 275 g 

VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) coating, 

excluding water and exempt 

compounds, as applied, for baked 

coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/l (2.8 lb 

VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water 

and exempt compounds, as applied, for 

air-dried coating. In addition to the VOC 

emission limits, the South Coast 

regulation specifies the use of the 

following application methods: 

Electrostatic application, flow coat, dip 

coat, roll coat, HVLP spray, hand 

application methods, or other coating 

application method capable of achieving 

a transfer efficiency equivalent or better 

than that achieved by HVLP spraying. 

As an alternative to the VOC emission 

limit and specified operating 

equipment, the South Coast regulation 

allows metal furniture facilities to 

choose to install emission capture 

systems and add-on control devices. 

The South Coast regulation requires that 

if a facility chooses the capture and addon control device alternative, 90 percent 

of the VOC emissions must be captured 

and the add-on control device must 

have a control efficiency of 95 percent. 

Several jurisdictions in California 

have requirements to regulate the VOC 

content of cleaning materials used in the 

metal furniture surface coating industry. 

These regulations are aimed at reducing 

VOC emissions from cleaning materials 

by combining work practice standards 

with limits on the VOC content or 

composite vapor pressure of the solvent 

being used. In some cases, the 

jurisdictions allow the use of add-on 

controls as an alternative to the VOC 

content/vapor pressure limits. The 

different air pollution control 

authorities in California have 

established similar work practice 

standards. However, the cleaning 

material VOC content/vapor pressure 

limits vary by jurisdiction, as do the 

overall control efficiency required when 

add-on controls are used as an 

alternative. 

There are ten States that have 

cleaning material regulations that apply 

to metal furniture surface coating 

operations. Of these, nine States do not 

limit the VOC content/vapor pressure of 

cleaning materials. Instead, they have 

established equipment standards, work 

practices, and/or recordkeeping 

requirements. There is one State that 

requires work practices as well as 

limiting the vapor pressure of the 

cleaning materials. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for reducing VOC 

emissions from metal furniture coatings 

and cleaning materials. As explained in 

the draft CTG, we are recommending 

these control options for the metal 

furniture surface coating operations that 

emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 

3 tons/year) or more before 

consideration of control. We do not 

recommend these control approaches 

for facilities that emit below this level 

because of the very small VOC emission 

reductions that can be achieved. The 

recommended threshold level is 

equivalent to the evaporation of 

approximately 2 gallons of solvent per 

day. Such a level is considered to be an 

incidental level of solvent usage that 

could be expected even in facilities that 

use very low-VOC content coatings, 

such as powder or UV cure coatings. 

Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI 

data and the 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, facilities emitting below 

the recommended threshold level 

collectively emit less than 4 percent of 

the total reported VOC emissions from 

metal furniture surface coating facilities 

in ozone nonattainment areas. For these 

reasons, we did not extend our 

recommendations in the draft CTG to 

these low emitting facilities. This 

recommended threshold is also 

consistent with our recommendations in 

many previous CTGs. 

For purposes of determining whether 

a facility meets the 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/ 

day) threshold, aggregate emissions 

from all metal furniture surface coating 

operations and related cleaning 

activities at a given facility are included. 

1. Coatings 

The draft CTG provides flexibility by 

recommending two options for 

controlling VOC emissions from 

coatings: (1) An emission limit that can 

be achieved through the use of low-VOC 

content coatings; or (2) an overall 

control efficiency of 90 percent for 

facilities that choose to use add-on 

controls instead of low-VOC content 

coating. Specifically, the low-VOC 

content coatings recommendation 

includes a limit of 0.275 kg VOC/l (2.3 

lb VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water 

and exempt compounds, as applied, and 

the use of the following application 

methods: Electrostatic spray, HVLP 

spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip coat 

including electrodeposition, brush coat, 

or other coating application method 

capable of achieving a transfer 

efficiency equivalent or better than that 

achieved by HVLP spraying. As an 

alternative to using low-VOC content 

coatings, a facility could choose to use 

combinations of capture and add-on 

control equipment to meet an overall 

control efficiency of 90 percent. 

Furthermore, the draft CTG 

recommends work practices to control 

VOC emissions from metal furniture 

surface coating-related activities. The 

draft CTG recommends that these work 

practices include the following: (1) 

Store all VOC-containing coatings, 

thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials in closed containers; (2) 

ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOC-containing 

coatings, thinners, and coating-related 

waste materials are kept closed at all 

times except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize 

spills of VOC-containing coatings, 

thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials; and (4) convey coatings, 

thinners and coating-related waste 

materials from one location to another 

in closed containers or pipes. 

2. Cleaning Materials 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials used in metal 

furniture surface coating operations. 

The draft CTG recommends that, at a 

minimum, these work practices include 

the following: (1) Store all VOCcontaining cleaning materials and used 

shop towels in closed containers; (2) 

ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOC-containing 

cleaning materials are kept closed at all 

times except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize 

spills of VOC-containing cleaning 

materials; (4) convey cleaning materials 

from one location to another in closed 

containers or pipes; and (5) minimize 

VOC emissions from cleaning of storage, 

mixing, and conveying equipment. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-202 VI-74 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37595 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

Based on the 2002 NEI database, we 

estimate that there are a total of 456 

metal furniture facilities in the U.S. 

Using the April 2004 ozone 

nonattainment designations, we 

estimated that a total of 289 of these 

facilities are in ozone nonattainment 

areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC 

emissions data, 143 of the 289 facilities 

in ozone nonattainment areas emitted 

VOC at or above the recommended 6.8- 

kg/day (15-lb/day) VOC emissions 

applicability threshold. According to 

the 2002 NEI, these 143 facilities, in 

aggregate, emit about 3,100 Megagrams 

per year (Mg/yr) (3,400 tons per year 

(tpy)) of VOC per year, or an average of 

about 21 Mg/yr (23 tpy) of VOC per 

facility. 

As previously mentioned, the draft 

CTG recommends either the use of lowVOC content coatings with specified 

application methods or optional add-on 

control technology. Both 

recommendations also include certain 

work practices to further reduce 

emission from coatings, as well as 

controlling VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials. Because the industry 

is already using predominantly lowVOC content coatings, such as powder 

coatings, we have estimated the total 

annual costs to be approximately 

$240,500. Since these recommended 

measures are expected to result in a 

VOC emissions reduction of 1855 Mg/yr 

(2040 tpy), the cost-effectiveness is 

estimated to be $130/Mg ($118/ton). The 

impacts are further discussed in the 

draft CTG document. 

The draft CTG also recommends work 

practices for reducing VOC emissions 

from both coatings and cleaning 

materials. We believe that our work 

practice recommendations in the draft 

CTG will result in a net cost savings. 

Implementing work practices reduce the 

amount of cleaning materials used by 

decreasing the amount that evaporates 

and is wasted. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of metal furniture coatings 

under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Based on that analysis, we propose to 

determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from metal 

furniture surface coating operations. 

As noted above, this section is 

divided into two parts. In the first part, 

we discuss our belief that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in this category is 

through controls at the point of use of 

the product, (i.e., through controls on 

the use of coating and cleaning 

materials at metal furniture surface 

coating facilities), and this can only be 

accomplished through a CTG. We 

further explain that the recommended 

approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective EPA, 

State, and local VOC control strategies. 

In the second part, we discuss how the 

distribution and place of use of the 

products in this category also support 

the use of a CTG. We also discuss the 

likely VOC emission reductions 

associated with a CTG, as compared to 

a regulation. We further explain that 

there are control approaches for this 

category that result in significant VOC 

emission reductions and that such 

reductions could only be obtained by 

controlling the use of the products 

through a CTG. Such reductions could 

not be obtained through a regulation 

under CAA section 183(e) because the 

controls affect the end-user, which is 

not a regulated entity under CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, 

which are described more fully below, 

we believe that a CTG will achieve 

greater VOC emission reductions than a 

rule for this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With Existing Federal, State, and Local 

VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important first to identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from metal furniture coating: (1) 

Evaporation of VOC from coatings; and 

(2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning 

materials. We address each of these 

sources of VOC emissions, in turn, 

below, as we discuss the CTG versus 

regulation approach. 

a. Coatings 

A national rule could contain limits 

for the as-sold VOC content of metal 

furniture coatings. However, given the 

nature of the metal furniture surface 

coating process, we believe that such a 

rule would result in little reduction in 

VOC emissions. 

Although the metal furniture surface 

coating industry currently uses 

primarily low-VOC content coatings 

(such as high solids and powder 

coatings), these low-VOC content 

coatings cannot replace the traditional 

solvent-borne coatings in some 

instances. Specialized appearance and 

other functional characteristics 

determine the types of coatings that can 

be used. For example, some products 

(e.g., recliner mechanisms) require a 

thin dried film thickness that can only 

be achieved using solvent-borne 

coatings. Accordingly, a national rule 

that requires low VOC content in metal 

furniture surface coatings would 

nevertheless need to include higher 

VOC limits to allow for the use of 

solvent-borne coatings when necessary 

and to maintain these materials’

intended effect. Because such a rule 

would merely codify what the metal 

furniture surface coating facilities are 

already doing, we do not expect that it 

would result in significant reductions 

from these facilities. 

Furthermore, the effect of a national 

rule setting low VOC content limits for 

metal furniture coatings could be easily 

subverted because it does not guarantee 

that only those low-VOC content coating 

materials will be used for metal 

furniture surface coating. Many coatings 

used in metal furniture surface coating 

are not specifically identified by the 

supplier as metal furniture coatings. 

Therefore, these facilities can purchase 

and use coating materials not specified 

as metal furniture coatings, which 

would effective nullify the 

reformulation actions of the 

manufacturers and suppliers, resulting 

in no net change in VOC emissions in 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Alternatively, a national rule could 

set low VOC content limits for all 

coatings sold, regardless of specified 

end use, thus ensuring that only lowVOC materials are available for metal 

furniture surface coating. Such an 

approach would be unreasonable and 

impractical. Coatings are sold for 

multiple different commercial and 

industrial purposes. Reducing the VOC 

content of all coatings would impact 

uses of these materials in operations 

other than metal furniture surface 

coating and may inadvertently preclude 

the use of higher VOC containing 

materials in many important, legitimate 

contexts. 

By contrast, a CTG can reach the end 

users of the coating materials and can 

therefore implement the control 

measures that are more likely to achieve 

the objective of reducing VOC emissions 

from this product category in ozone 

nonattainment areas. As previously 

discussed, the draft CTG recommends 

an emission limit for metal furniture 

surface coating operations that can be 

achieved through the use of low-VOC 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-75 A-203 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37596 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

content coatings, and specific 

application methods. Alternatively, the 

draft CTG recommends an overall 90 

percent control efficiency should a 

facility choose to use add-on controls in 

conjunction with high-VOC content 

coatings. In addition, both 

recommendations in the draft CTG 

include work practices to further reduce 

VOC emissions from coatings as well as 

controlling VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials. The use of low-VOC 

content coatings, which are available for 

metal furniture surface coating, can 

greatly reduce VOC emissions. 

Alternatively, control devices, such as 

thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or 

carbon adsorbers, can achieve a 

significant reduction in VOC emissions 

from high-VOC content coatings. The 

recommended work practices and 

application methods have also been 

shown to be effective VOC reduction 

measures. Given the significant 

reductions achievable through the use of 

these recommended control measures, 

the most effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from metal furniture coatings 

is the facility using the coating. 

These control measures are consistent 

with existing EPA, State, and local VOC 

control strategies applicable to metal 

furniture surface coating. As mentioned 

above, previous EPA actions and 

existing State and local regulations (in 

particular, the majority of the California 

jurisdictions) that address metal 

furniture surface coating similarly call 

for VOC emission reduction either 

through the use of control devices in 

conjunction with high-VOC content 

coating materials or the use of 

equivalent low-VOC content coating 

materials; some also include work 

practices and specific application 

methods. 

We cannot, however, issue a national 

rule directly requiring metal furniture 

surface coating facilities to use low-VOC 

content coatings, control devices or 

specific application methods, or to 

implement work practices to reduce 

VOC emissions because, pursuant to 

CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), 

the regulated entities subject to a 

national rule would be the coating 

manufacturers and suppliers, not the 

metal furniture surface coating facilities. 

By contrast, a CTG can reach the end 

users of the metal furniture coatings, 

and can therefore implement the 

measures by the users that are identified 

above as more likely to achieve the 

intended VOC emission reduction goal. 

Accordingly, we are including these 

recommended control measures in the 

draft CTG that applies to metal furniture 

surface coatings facilities as the end 

users of the coating materials. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the metal 

furniture surface coating process: (1) 

Limiting the VOC content or VOC vapor 

pressure of the cleaning materials, and 

(2) implementing work practices 

governing the use of the cleaning 

materials. A national rule requiring that 

manufacturers of cleaning materials for 

metal furniture coating operations 

provide low-VOC content or low vapor 

pressure (i.e., replacing VOC that have 

a high vapor pressure with low vapor 

pressure VOC) cleaning materials would 

suffer from the same deficiencies noted 

above with regard to the coatings. 

Specifically, nothing in a national rule 

that specifically regulates manufacturers 

and suppliers of cleaning materials 

specified for use in metal furniture 

surface coating operations would 

preclude the metal furniture surface 

coating industry from purchasing bulk 

solvents or other multipurpose cleaning 

materials from other vendors. The 

general availability of bulk solvents or 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to 

such regulation would directly 

undermine the effectiveness of such a 

national regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the VOC content or vapor pressure 

of all cleaning materials and all solvents 

sold regardless of specified end use, 

which would ensure that only low-VOC 

content or low vapor pressure cleaning 

materials are available for cleaning 

operations associated with metal 

furniture surface coating. As with a lowVOC content limit on coatings, setting a 

low-VOC content or a low vapor 

pressure limit for all cleaning materials 

and solvents would be unreasonable 

and impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Replacing highly volatile cleaning 

materials and solvents would impact 

uses of these materials other than 

cleaning operations at metal furniture 

surface coating facilities and may 

inadvertently preclude the use of such 

materials in many important, legitimate 

contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials used by metal furniture 

surface coaters is to control the use of 

cleaning materials through work 

practices. The draft CTG recommends 

that metal furniture surface coating 

facilities implement work practices to 

reduce VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials during metal furniture surface 

coating operations. An example of an 

effective work practice is keeping 

solvents and used shop towels in closed 

containers. This measure alone can 

significantly reduce VOC emissions 

from cleaning materials. Provided 

immediately below are examples of 

other effective work practices that are 

being required by State and local 

regulations. Given the significant VOC 

reductions achievable through the 

implementation of work practices, we 

conclude that the most effective entity 

to address VOC emission from cleaning 

materials used in metal furniture surface 

coating operations is the facility using 

the cleaning materials during surface 

coating operations. 

This recommendation is consistent 

with measures required by State and 

local jurisdictions for reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in metal furniture surface coating 

operations. In addition to keeping 

solvents and shop towels in closed 

containers, State and local requirements 

include: Minimizing spills of VOCcontaining cleaning materials; cleaning 

up spills immediately; and conveying 

any VOC-containing cleaning materials 

in closed containers or pipes. Work 

practices have proven to be effective in 

reducing VOC emissions. 

We cannot, however, issue a rule 

requiring such work practices for metal 

furniture surface coating facilities 

because, pursuant to CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated 

entities subject to a national rule would 

be the cleaning materials manufactures 

and suppliers and not the metal 

furniture surface coating facilities. 

Accordingly, we are including these 

work practices in the draft CTG that 

applies to metal furniture surface 

coating facilities as the end users of the 

cleaning materials. 

Based on the nature of the metal 

furniture surface coating process, the 

sources of significant VOC emissions 

from this process, and the available 

strategies for reducing such emissions, 

the most effective means of achieving 

VOC emission reductions from this 

product category is through controls at 

the point of use of the products, (i.e., 

through controls on metal furniture 

surface coaters), and this can only be 

accomplished through a CTG. The 

recommended approaches described in 

the draft CTG are also consistent with 

effective existing EPA, State, and local 

VOC control strategies for metal 

furniture surface coating operations. 

These two factors alone demonstrate 

that a CTG will be substantially as 

effective as a national regulation. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-204 VI-76 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37597 

17 In a previous notice, EPA stated that the 

cleaning operations associated with certain 

specified section 183(e) consumer and commercial 

product categories, including large appliances 

coatings, would not be covered by EPA’s 2006 CTG 

for industrial cleaning solvents. 71 Fed. Reg. 44522, 

44540 (2006). In that notice, EPA expressed its 

intention to address cleaning operations associated 

with these categories in the CTGs for these specific 

categories if the Agency determines that a CTG is 

appropriate for a respective category. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for metal furniture coatings. 

First, metal furniture coatings and 

associated cleaning materials are used at 

commercial facilities in specific, 

identifiable locations. Specifically, these 

materials are used in commercial 

facilities that apply surface coating to 

metal furniture as described in section 

III.A. This stands in contrast to other 

consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

manufacturing facilities, 

implementation and enforcement of 

controls concerning the use of these 

products are feasible. Therefore the 

nature of the products’ place of use 

further counsels in favor of the CTG 

approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve greater 

emission reduction than a national rule 

for each source of VOC emissions from 

metal furniture coating and associated 

cleaning materials. For the reasons 

described above, we believe that a 

national rule limiting the VOC content 

in coatings and cleaning materials used 

in metal furniture surface coating 

operations would result in little VOC 

emissions reduction. By contrast, a CTG 

can achieve significant VOC emissions 

reduction because it can provide for the 

highly effective emission control 

strategies described above that are 

applicable to the end-users of the 

coatings and cleaning materials at metal 

furniture surface coating facilities. 

Specifically, the draft CTG can provide 

for the use of control devices in 

conjunction with high-VOC content 

coatings, specific application methods, 

and work practices. These significant 

VOC reductions could not be obtained 

through a national regulation, because 

they require the implementation of 

measures by the end-user. In addition, 

as previously explained, strategies that 

arguably could be implemented through 

rulemaking, such as a limit on VOC 

content in coatings and cleaning 

materials, are far more effective if 

implemented directly at the point of use 

of the product. For the reasons stated 

above, it is more effective to control the 

VOC content of coatings and cleaning 

materials used for metal furniture 

surface coating through a CTG than 

through a national regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of metal 

furniture surface coating facilities 

affected by our recommendations in this 

draft CTG, as compared to the total 

number of such facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas, does not affect our 

conclusion that the CTG would be 

substantially more effective than a rule 

in controlling VOC emissions for this 

product category. As previously 

mentioned, we recommend the control 

measures described in the draft CTG for 

metal furniture surface coating facilities 

that emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more 

VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone 

nonattainment designations, we 

estimate that 143 of the 289 metal 

furniture surface coating facilities 

located in ozone nonattainment areas 

emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more and 

are therefore addressed by our 

recommendations in the draft CTG. 

There are 146 metal furniture surface 

coating facilities that would not be 

covered by the recommendations in the 

draft CTG. According to the 2002 NEI 

database, these 146 facilities collectively 

emitted less than 103 Mg/yr (115 tpy), 

which is less than 4 percent of the total 

reported VOC (an average of 0.71 Mg/yr 

(0.78 tpy) per facility) in ozone 

nonattainment areas. The fact that the 

CTG addresses more than 96 percent of 

the VOC emissions from metal furniture 

surface coating facilities in an ozone 

nonattainment area further supports our 

conclusion that a CTG is more likely to 

achieve the intended VOC emission 

reduction goal for this product category 

than a national rule. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

metal furniture coatings will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

IV. Large Appliances Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

This category of consumer and 

commercial products includes the 

coatings that are applied to the surfaces 

of large appliances parts and products at 

facilities that manufacture or assemble 

large appliances. Large appliances 

coatings include, but are not limited to, 

primers, basecoats, topcoats, and 

adhesives used in the manufacture of 

large appliance parts or products. A 

large appliance part is defined as any 

organic surface-coated metal lid, door, 

casing, panel, or other interior or 

exterior metal part or accessory that is 

assembled to form a large appliance 

product. A large appliance product is 

defined as any organic surface-coated 

metal range, oven, microwave oven, 

refrigerator, freezer, washer, dryer, 

dishwasher, water heater, trash 

compactor, or any other large appliance 

or equipment manufactured for 

household, commercial, or recreational 

use. The coatings provide a protective 

and/or decorative layer to the surface of 

large appliance products. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

VOC emissions from large appliance 

surface coating operations result from 

the evaporation of VOC contained in 

many of the coatings or used as cleaning 

materials.17 The primary VOC emissions 

from large appliances coatings occur 

during coating application (prime, 

single or topcoat application), flash-off, 

and drying/curing of the coatings. Some 

emissions also occur during mixing or 

thinning of the coatings. The primary 

VOC emissions from the cleaning 

materials occur during cleaning 

operations. VOC emissions from surface 

preparation (i.e., wiping with cleaning 

materials), storage and handling of 

coatings and cleaning materials, and 

waste/wastewater operations (i.e. 

handling waste/wastewater that may 

contain residues from both coatings and 

cleaning materials) are small. 

VOC emissions from mixing and/or 

thinning of the coatings occur from 

displacement of organic vapor-laden air 

in containers used to mix coatings 

containing solvents (thinners) prior to 

coating applications. The displacement 

of vapor-laden air can occur during the 

filling of containers and can also be 

caused by changes in temperature or 

barometric pressure, or by agitation 

during mixing. 

The majority of VOC emissions occur 

from evaporation of solvents during 

coating application. The transfer 

efficiency (the percent of coating solids 

deposited on the large appliance part or 

product) of a coating application 

method affects the amount of VOC 

emissions during coating application. 

The more efficient a coating application 

method is in transferring coatings to the 

large appliance part or product, the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-77 A-205 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37598 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

lower the volume of coatings (and 

therefore solvents) needed per given 

amount of production, thus resulting in 

lower VOC emissions. 

Most spray applied coatings are 

electrostatically applied. In electrostatic 

coating, the presence of an electrostatic 

field creates an electrical attraction 

between the paint, which is positively 

charged, and the grounded metal 

furniture component or product and 

enhances the amount of coating 

deposited on the surface. This coating 

method is more efficient than 

conventional air atomized spray, with 

transfer efficiency typically ranging 

from 60 to 90 percent. 

Other coatings application methods 

used in the large appliance surface 

coating industry include flow coating, 

roll coating, high volume/low pressure 

(HVLP) spray, electrocoating, 

autophoretic coating, and application of 

coatings by hand. These coating 

methods are described in more detail in 

the draft CTG. 

In typical liquid spray and dip coating 

operations, the coated parts/products 

move from the coating application area 

through a flash-off area, where solvents 

in the wet coating film evaporate 

slowly, thus avoiding bubbling of the 

coating while it is curing in the oven. 

After being coated by any of the typical 

coating operations, large appliance parts 

and products are dried and cured using 

heated dryers or by air drying. This step 

removes any remaining volatiles from 

the coatings so that the surfaces of the 

large appliance parts and products meet 

the hardness, durability, and 

appearance requirements of customers. 

Until the late 1970’s, the large 

appliances industry used conventional 

solvent-borne coatings almost 

exclusively. Since then, the industry has 

steadily moved towards alternative 

coating formulations that eliminate or 

reduce the amount of solvent in the 

formulations, thus reducing VOC 

emissions per unit amount of coating 

solids used. 

Currently the large appliance surface 

coating industry uses primarily higher 

solids solvent-borne coatings and 

powder coatings and applies them by 

electrostatic spraying. This combination 

of coating type and application method 

is an effective measure for reducing 

VOC emissions. Not only are VOC 

emissions reduced by using coatings 

with low VOC content, the use of an 

application method with a high transfer 

efficiency, such as electrostatic 

spraying, lowers the volume of coatings 

needed per given amount of production, 

thus further reducing the amount of 

VOC emitted during the coating 

application. 

Other alternative coatings include 

waterborne coatings and UV cured 

coatings. These coatings are described 

in more detail in the CTG. 

The most common approach to reduce 

emissions from large appliance coating 

operations is to use low-VOC content 

coatings, including powder coatings, 

higher solids solvent-borne coatings, 

waterborne coatings and UV cured 

coatings. Add-on controls may also be 

used to reduce VOC emissions from 

large appliance coating operations. The 

majority of VOC emissions from spray 

coating operations occur in the spray 

booth. The volume of air exhausted 

from a spray booth is typically high and 

the VOC concentration in spray booth 

exhaust is typically low. The cost of 

controlling VOC in spray booth exhaust 

is therefore greater than the cost of using 

low-VOC content coatings. The wide 

availability and lower cost of low-VOC 

content coatings makes them a more 

attractive option than add-on controls. 

For those situations where an add-on 

control device is used, thermal 

oxidation and carbon adsorption are 

most widely used. Please see the draft 

CTG for a detailed discussion of these 

and other available control devices. As 

previously mentioned, another main 

source of VOC emissions from large 

appliances coating is the cleaning 

materials. The VOC are emitted when 

solvents that are used as cleaning 

materials evaporate. Cleaning materials 

are used for several purposes, including 

the removal of coating residue or other 

unwanted materials from coating 

operations equipment, such as spray 

guns, transfer lines (e.g., tubing or 

piping), tanks, and the interior of spray 

booths. These cleaning materials are 

typically VOC solvents such as methyl 

ethyl ketone (MEK) and toluene. 

However, there has been an increase in 

the use of alcohol and water-based 

cleaners. Work practices and 

housekeeping measures are widely used 

throughout the large appliances coating 

industry as a means of reducing VOC 

emissions from these types of cleaning 

operations. These measures include 

covering mixing tanks, storing solvents 

and solvent soaked rags and wipes in 

closed containers, and cleaning spray 

guns in an enclosed system. Another 

means of reducing VOC emissions from 

cleaning operations is the use of lowVOC content cleaning materials. 

However, little information is available 

regarding the extent of the use of these 

types of cleaning materials to reduce 

VOC emissions in the large appliances 

coating industry. 

3. Existing Federal, State and Local VOC 

Control Strategies 

There are three previous EPA actions 

that affect surface coating operations for 

large appliances. In 1977, EPA issued 

the Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of 

Large Appliances (EPA–450/2–77–034, 

December 1977) document (1977 CTG), 

which provided RACT 

recommendations for controlling VOC 

emissions from this industry. The 1977 

CTG is applicable to prime, single and 

topcoat application area(s), flash-off 

area, and ovens. The 1977 CTG 

recommended a VOC emission limit of 

0.34 kg VOC/l (2.8 lb/gal) of coating, 

excluding water and exempt 

compounds, as applied. This 

recommendation was derived using an 

assumed VOC density of 0.88 kg/l (7.36 

lb/gal). The recommended limit 

represents a higher solids solvent-borne 

coating with approximately 62 percent 

volume solids and is equivalent to 0.55 

kg VOC/l (4.5 lb VOC/gal) coating solids 

(the 1977 CTG-equivalent limit). This 

equates to an 81 percent reduction of 

VOC emissions from a conventional 

high-VOC content solvent-borne 

coating. 

In 1982, EPA promulgated the 

Standards of Performance for Industrial 

Surface Coating: Large Appliances, 40 

CFR part 60, subpart SS (47 FR 47785, 

October 27, 1982). The 1982 NSPS is 

applicable to large appliance surface 

coating operations which are defined as 

prime coat or a topcoat operation and 

includes the coating application 

station(s), flash-off area, and curing 

oven. The 1982 NSPS requires new large 

appliances coating facilities to comply 

with an emission limit of 0.9 kg 

VOC/l(7.5 lb VOC/gal) of solids 

deposited. Because the 1982 NSPS limit 

is in terms of coating solids deposited 

and the 1977 CTG-equivalent limit is in 

terms of coating solids used, these limits 

cannot be compared directly. During the 

implementation of the 1977 CTG, a 

baseline transfer efficiency of 60 percent 

(i.e., 0.60 volume of solids deposited per 

unit volume of solids used) was used to 

express the CTG-equivalent limit on a 

solids deposited basis. The CTGequivalent limit on a solids deposited 

basis is 0.9 kg VOC/l (7.5 lb VOC/gal) 

coating solids deposited which is the 

same as the 1982 NSPS limit. 

In 2002, EPA promulgated the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 

Coating of Large Appliances, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart NNNN (67 FR 48254, 

July 23, 2002). The 2002 NESHAP 

addresses organic HAP emissions, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-206 VI-78 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37599 

including VOC HAP emissions, from all 

activities that involve coatings, thinners, 

and cleaning materials used in large 

appliance coating operations. The areas 

covered by the 2002 NESHAP include: 

Coating operations; vessels used for 

storage and mixing of coatings, thinners, 

and cleaning materials; equipment, 

containers, pipes and pumps used for 

conveying coatings, thinners, and 

cleaning materials; and storage vessels, 

pumps and piping, and conveying 

equipment and containers used for 

waste materials. The 2002 NESHAP 

limits organic HAP to 0.13 kg/l (1.1 lb/ 

gal) of coating solids used during each 

compliance period (monthly) for 

existing sources and 0.022 kg/l (0.18 lb/ 

gal) of coating solids used for new 

sources. 

In addition to the EPA actions 

mentioned above, at least 24 State and 

local jurisdictions have specific 

regulations that control VOC emissions 

from large appliances coating 

operations. Almost all of the 

jurisdictions that specifically address 

large appliances coatings have adopted 

the emission limit recommended in the 

1977 CTG. The California Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District (Bay Area), 

however, has adopted more stringent 

limits. The Bay Area has established 

two VOC emission limits for surface 

coatings of large appliances: (1) 275 g 

VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) of coating, 

excluding water and exempt 

compounds, as applied, for baked 

coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/l (2.8 lb 

VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water 

and exempt compounds, as applied, for 

air-dried coating. Under the Bay Area 

regulation, large appliances coating 

facilities must use coatings that comply 

with the VOC emissions limit or as an 

alternative to using low-VOC content 

coatings, the facility may choose to 

install add-on controls. If add-on 

controls are used, the Bay Area requires 

that the VOC emissions generated by all 

sources of VOC emissions (i.e., the 

coating line) are reduced by at least 85 

percent. The Bay Area rule also requires 

the use of coating application 

equipment that can meet a 65 percent or 

greater transfer efficiency. Compliance 

with the standard’s 65 percent or greater 

transfer efficiency requirement can be 

achieved by properly operated 

electrostatic application or HVLP spray, 

flow coat, roller coat, dip coat including 

electrodeposition, and brush coat. 

Like the Bay Area’s limits, the VOC 

emissions limits established by the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (South Coast) for the coating of 

metal parts and products (which 

includes large appliances using a 

general multi-component coating) are: 

(1) 275 g VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) of 

coating, excluding water and exempt 

compounds, as applied, for baked 

coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/l (2.8 lb 

VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water 

and exempt compounds, as applied, for 

air-dried coating. The South Coast 

regulation specifies the use of the 

following application methods: 

Electrostatic application, flow coat, dip 

coat, roll coat, HVLP spray, hand 

application methods, or other coating 

application method capable of achieving 

a transfer efficiency equivalent or better 

than that achieved by HVLP spraying. 

As an alternative to the VOC emissions 

limit and specified operating 

equipment, the South Coast regulation 

allows large appliances coating facilities 

to choose to install emission capture 

systems and add-on control devices. 

The South Coast regulation requires that 

if a facility chooses the capture and addon control device alternative, 90 percent 

of the VOC emissions must be captured 

and the add-on control device must 

have a control efficiency of 95 percent. 

Of the existing Federal, State, and 

local large appliances coating 

regulations discussed, the 2002 

NESHAP, the Bay Area, the South Coast, 

and some other State regulations 

contain work practices as a control 

strategy for controlling VOC emissions 

from coating and cleaning materials. 

Under the 2002 NESHAP, the large 

appliances coating facility must develop 

and implement a work practice plan to 

minimize volatile organic HAP 

emissions if they comply with the 

standard using the emission rate with 

add-on controls option. The California 

regulations emphasize the work practice 

of keeping coating and cleaning material 

containers closed. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for reducing VOC 

emissions from large appliance coatings 

and cleaning materials. As explained in 

the draft CTG, we are recommending 

these control options for the large 

appliance furniture surface coating 

operations that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 

lb VOC/day) or more before 

consideration of control. We do not 

recommend these control approaches 

for facilities that emit below this level 

because of the very small VOC emission 

reductions that can be achieved. The 

recommended threshold level is 

equivalent to the evaporation of 

approximately 2 gallons of solvent per 

day. Such a level is considered to be an 

incidental level of solvent usage that 

could be expected even in facilities that 

use very low-VOC content coatings, 

such as powder or UV cure coatings. 

Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI 

data and the 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, we estimate that all 68 of 

the large appliance surface coating 

facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas currently emit at or 

above this level. For these reasons, we 

did not extend our recommendations in 

the draft CTG to these low emitting 

facilities. This recommended threshold 

is also consistent with our 

recommendations in many previous 

CTGs. 

For purposes of determining whether 

a facility meets the 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/ 

day) threshold, aggregate emissions 

from all large appliance surface coating 

operations and related cleaning 

activities at a given facility are included. 

1. Coatings 

The draft CTG provides flexibility by 

recommending two options for 

controlling VOC emissions from 

coatings: (1) An emission limit that can 

be achieved through the use of low VOC 

content coatings; or (2) an overall 

control efficiency of 90 percent for 

facilities that choose to use add-on 

controls instead of low-VOC content 

coating. Specifically, the low-VOC 

content coatings recommendation 

includes a limit of 0.275 kg VOC/l (2.3 

lb VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water 

and exempt compounds, as applied, and 

the use of the following application 

methods: Electrostatic spray, HVLP 

spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip coat 

including electrodeposition, brush coat, 

or other coating application method 

capable of achieving a transfer 

efficiency equivalent or better than that 

achieved by HVLP spraying. As an 

alternative to using low-VOC content 

coatings, a facility could choose to use 

combinations of capture and add-on 

control equipment to meet an overall 

control efficiency of 90 percent. 

Furthermore, the draft CTG 

recommends work practices to control 

VOC emissions from large appliance 

surface coating-related activities. The 

draft CTG recommends that these work 

practices include the following: (1) 

Store all VOC-containing coatings, 

thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials in closed containers; (2) 

ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOC-containing 

coatings, thinners, and coating-related 

waste materials are kept closed at all 

times except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize 

spills of VOC-containing coatings, 

thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials; and (4) convey coatings, 

thinners and coating-related waste 

materials from one location to another 

in closed containers or pipes. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-79 A-207 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37600 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

18We believe that this assumption is reasonable 

because 24 states have adopted the 1977 CTG limit. 

2. Cleaning Materials 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials used in large 

appliance surface coating operations. 

The draft CTG recommends that, at a 

minimum, these work practices include 

the following: (1) Store all VOCcontaining cleaning materials and used 

shop towels in closed containers; (2) 

ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOC-containing 

cleaning materials are kept closed at all 

times except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize 

spills of VOC-containing cleaning 

materials; (4) convey cleaning materials 

from one location to another in closed 

containers or pipes; and (5) minimize 

VOC emissions from cleaning of storage, 

mixing, and conveying equipment. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

EPA estimates that approximately 34 

percent of the large appliances coating 

facilities are located in ozone 

nonattainment areas (based on the 2004 

designations). Accordingly, of the 

estimated 200 large appliances coating 

facilities nationwide, 68 are projected to 

be in nonattainment areas. As 

previously mentioned, the control 

strategies in the draft CTG are 

recommended for large appliances 

coating operations that emit at least 6.8 

kg/day (15 lb/day). As noted above, 

based on available data, we estimate 

that all of the facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas emit at or above 

this level. 

Assuming that the 68 facilities 

projected to be in nonattainment areas 

are currently controlled at the 1977 CTG 

recommended level of control,18 they 

are estimated to emit, in total, about 

3,064 Mg (3,370 tons) of VOC per year. 

As discussed above, the draft CTG 

recommends either the use of low-VOC 

content coatings with specified 

application methods or add-on control 

technology. Both recommendations also 

include certain work practices to further 

reduce emissions from coatings as well 

as controlling VOC emission from 

cleaning materials. We estimated that 

the control measures under either 

recommendation would reduce VOC 

emissions from large appliances coating 

operations by about 32 percent (a 

reduction of 989 Mg (1,088 tons) of VOC 

from the nonattainment area facilities). 

In our analysis of the impacts of the 

recommended level of control, we have 

assumed that all facilities will choose to 

utilize the low-VOC content coatings 

alternative. We made this assumption 

for two reasons. First, we believe that 

complying low-VOC content coatings 

are already widely available at a cost 

that is not significantly greater than the 

cost of coatings with higher VOC 

contents. Secondly, the use of add-on 

controls to reduce emissions from 

typical spray coating operations is a 

more costly alternative because the 

spray booths and flash-off areas are 

often quite large and, thus, very large 

volumes of air must be captured and 

directed to the control device. 

The compliance cost information that 

was obtained during the development of 

the NSPS and the NESHAP were used 

to estimate the impacts of the 

recommended level of control. This 

information is believed to be applicable 

because the primary means of 

compliance with the NSPS and the 

NESHAP was projected to be through 

the use of complying low-VOC content 

and low-HAP content coatings, 

respectively. The coating reformulation 

costs that were developed for estimating 

the impacts of the NESHAP are also the 

most recent information available. Using 

relevant information from coating 

reformulation studies and/or analyses 

conducted as part of the development of 

the NSPS and NESHAP, we estimate 

that the recommended level of control 

can be achieved at a total cost of 

$544,000. Based on the associated VOC 

emission reductions of 989 Mg/yr (1088 

tpy), the estimated cost-effectiveness is 

$550/Mg ($500/ton). These estimates are 

further discussed in the draft CTG 

document. 

The draft CTG also recommends work 

practices for reducing VOC emissions 

from both coatings and cleaning 

materials. We believe that our work 

practice recommendations in the draft 

CTG will result in a net cost savings. 

Implementing work practices reduce the 

amount of cleaning materials used by 

decreasing the amount that evaporates 

and is wasted. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of large appliances coatings 

under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Based on that analysis, we propose to 

determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from large 

appliance surface coating operations. 

As noted above, this section is 

divided into two parts. In the first part, 

we discuss our belief that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in this category is 

through controls at the point of use of 

the products, (i.e., through controls on 

the use of coating and cleaning 

materials at large appliances coating 

facilities), and this can only be 

accomplished through a CTG. We 

further explain that the recommended 

approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective 

Federal, State and local VOC control 

strategies. In the second part, we discuss 

how the distribution and place of use of 

the products in this category also 

support the use of a CTG. We also 

discuss the likely VOC emission 

reductions associated with a CTG, as 

compared to a regulation. We further 

explain that there are control 

approaches for this category that result 

in significant VOC emission reductions 

and that such reductions could only be 

obtained by controlling the use of the 

products through a CTG. Such 

reductions could not be obtained 

through a regulation under CAA section 

183(e) because the controls affect the 

end-user, which is not a regulated entity 

under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For 

these reasons, which are described more 

fully below, we believe that a CTG will 

achieve much greater VOC emission 

reductions than a national rule 

developed under CAA section 183(e) for 

this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With Existing Federal, State and Local 

VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important first to identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from large appliances coating: (1) 

Evaporation of VOC from coatings; and 

(2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning 

materials. We address each of these 

sources of VOC emissions, in turn, 

below, as we discuss the CTG versus 

regulation approach. 

a. Coatings 

A national rule could contain limits 

for the as-sold VOC content of large 

appliance coatings. However, given the 

nature of the large appliances coating 

process, we believe that such a rule 

would result in little reduction in VOC 

emissions. 

Although significant amounts of lowVOC content coatings are currently 

being used for large appliances coating, 

they cannot replace the traditional 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-208 VI-80 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37601 

solvent-borne coatings in some 

instances. As described above, customer 

specifications, quick drying time 

(needed to meet production demands 

and prevent surface damage) and capital 

investments are reasons why solventborne coatings are still being used. 

Accordingly, a national rule that 

requires low VOC content in large 

appliance coatings would nevertheless 

need to include higher VOC content 

limits to allow for the use of solventborne coatings when necessary and to 

maintain these materials’ intended 

effect. Because such a rule would 

merely codify what the large appliance 

surface coating facilities are already 

doing, we do not expect that it would 

result in significant VOC reductions 

from these facilities. 

Furthermore, the effect of a national 

rule setting low VOC content limits for 

large appliance surface coatings could 

be easily subverted because it does not 

guarantee that only those low VOC 

coating materials will be used for large 

appliance surface coating. Many 

coatings used in large appliance surface 

coating are not identified by the 

supplier specifically as large appliances 

coatings. Therefore, these facilities can 

purchase and use coating materials not 

specified as large appliance coatings, 

which would effectively nullify the 

reformulation actions of the 

manufacturers and suppliers, resulting 

in no net change in VOC emissions in 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Alternatively, a national rule could, in 

theory, limit the VOC content of all 

coatings sold regardless of specified end 

use, thus ensuring that only low-VOC 

materials are available for large 

appliances coatings. Such an approach 

would be unreasonable and impractical. 

Coatings are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Coating reformulation could impact 

uses of these materials other than large 

appliances coating and may 

inadvertently preclude the use of such 

materials in many important, legitimate 

contexts. 

By contrast, a CTG can reach the end 

users of the coating materials and can 

therefore implement the control 

measures that are more likely to achieve 

the objective of reducing VOC emissions 

from this product category in ozone 

nonattainment areas. As previously 

discussed, the draft CTG recommends 

an emission limit for large appliances 

surface coating operations that can be 

achieved through the use of low-VOC 

content coatings and specific 

application methods. Alternatively, the 

draft CTG recommends an overall 90 

percent control efficiency should a 

facility choose to use add-on controls in 

conjunction with high VOC content 

coatings. In addition, both 

recommendations in the draft CTG 

include work practices to further reduce 

VOC emissions from coatings as well as 

controlling VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials. The use of low-VOC 

content coatings can greatly reduce VOC 

emissions. Alternatively, control 

devices, such as thermal oxidizers, 

catalytic oxidizers, or carbon adsorbers, 

can achieve a significant reduction in 

VOC emissions from high VOC content 

coatings. The recommended work 

practices and application methods have 

also been shown to be effective VOC 

reduction measures. Given the 

significant reductions achievable 

through use of these recommended 

control measures, the most effective 

entity to address VOC emissions from 

large appliances coatings is the facility 

using the coatings. 

These control measures are consistent 

with existing EPA, State and local VOC 

control strategies applicable to large 

appliances coating. As mentioned 

above, previous EPA actions and 

existing State and local regulations that 

address large appliance surface coating 

similarly call for VOC emission 

reduction through the use of control 

devices in conjunction with high-VOC 

content coating materials or the use of 

equivalent low-VOC content coating 

materials; some also include work 

practices and specific application 

methods. 

We cannot, however, issue a national 

rule directly requiring large appliances 

coating facilities to use low-VOC 

content coatings, specific application 

methods, or control devices, or to 

implement work practices to reduce 

VOC emissions because, pursuant to 

CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), 

the regulated entities subject to a 

national rule would be the coating 

manufacturers and suppliers, not the 

large appliances facilities. By contrast, a 

CTG can reach the end users of the large 

appliances coatings and can therefore 

implement the measures by the users 

that are identified above as more likely 

to achieve the intended VOC emission 

reduction goal. Accordingly, we are 

including these control measures in the 

draft CTG that applies to large 

appliances coating facilities as the end 

users of the coating materials. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in large 

appliances coating process: (1) Limiting 

the VOC content or vapor pressure of 

the cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the product. A national rule 

requiring that manufacturers of cleaning 

materials for large appliance coating 

operations provide low-VOC content or 

low vapor pressure cleaning materials 

would suffer from the same deficiencies 

noted above with regard to coatings. 

Specifically, nothing in a national rule 

governing manufacturers of the cleaning 

materials would preclude the large 

appliances products facilities from 

purchasing bulk solvents or other 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

other vendors. The general availability 

of bulk solvents or multipurpose 

cleaning materials from vendors that 

would not be subject to the regulation 

would directly undermine the 

effectiveness of such a national 

regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the VOC content or vapor pressure 

of all cleaning materials and all solvents 

sold regardless of specified end use, 

which would ensure that only low-VOC 

content or low vapor pressure cleaning 

materials are available for cleaning 

operations associated with large 

appliance surface coating. As with a 

low-VOC content limit on coatings, 

setting a low-VOC content or a low 

vapor pressure limit for all cleaning 

materials and solvents would be 

unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning 

materials and solvents are sold for 

multiple different commercial and 

industrial purposes. Replacing highly 

volatile cleaning materials and solvents 

would impact uses of these materials 

other than cleaning operations at large 

appliance surface coating facilities and 

may inadvertently preclude the use of 

such materials in many important, 

legitimate contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from cleaning 

materials used by large appliances 

coaters is to control the use of such 

materials. The draft CTG recommends 

large appliance coaters implement work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials during large 

appliances coating operations. An 

example of an effective work practice is 

keeping solvents and used shop towels 

in closed containers. This measure 

alone can significantly reduce VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials. 

Provided immediately below are 

examples of other effective work 

practices that are being required by 

State and local regulations. Given the 

significant VOC reductions achievable 

through implementation of work 

practices, we conclude that the most 

effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in large appliances coating operations is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-81 A-209 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37602 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the facility using the cleaning materials 

during these operations. 

This recommendation is consistent 

with measures required by Federal, 

States, and localities for reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in large appliances coating operations. 

In addition to keeping solvents and 

shop towels in closed containers, State 

and local requirements include: 

Cleaning and wash-off solvent 

accounting systems (i.e., log of solvent 

purchase, usage, and disposal); 

collecting and containing all VOC when 

cleaning coating lines and spray guns, 

and using low-VOC cleaning materials. 

Work practices have proven to be 

effective in reducing VOC emissions. 

We cannot, however, issue a rule 

requiring such work practices at large 

appliances facilities because, pursuant 

to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and 

(e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject 

to a national rule would be the cleaning 

materials manufacturers and suppliers 

and not the large appliances facilities. 

Accordingly, we are including these 

work practices in the draft CTG that 

applies to large appliances coating 

facilities as the end users of the cleaning 

materials. 

Based on the nature of large 

appliances coating process, the sources 

of significant VOC emissions from this 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the products, (i.e., through 

controls on large appliances coaters), 

and this can only be accomplished 

through a CTG. The approaches 

described in the draft CTG are also 

consistent with effective existing EPA, 

State, local VOC control strategies for 

large appliances coating operations. 

These two factors alone demonstrate 

that a CTG will be substantially as 

effective as a national regulation under 

CAA section 183(e). 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for large appliances coatings. 

First, the products described above 

are used at commercial facilities in 

specific, identifiable locations. 

Specifically, these materials are used in 

commercial facilities that coat large 

appliance products and parts, as 

described in Section IV.A. This stands 

in contrast to other consumer products, 

such as architectural coatings, that are 

widely distributed and used by 

innumerable small users (e.g., 

individual consumers in the general 

public). Because the VOC emissions are 

occurring at commercial manufacturing 

facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of these products are feasible and 

therefore the nature of these products’

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve greater 

emission reduction than a national rule 

for each source of VOC emissions from 

large appliances coatings and associated 

cleaning materials. For the reasons 

described above, we believe that a 

national rule limiting the VOC content 

in coatings and cleaning materials used 

in large appliance surface coating 

operations would result in little VOC 

emissions reduction. By contrast, a CTG 

can achieve significant VOC emission 

reduction because it can provide for the 

highly effective emission control 

strategies described above that are 

applicable to the end-users of the 

coating and cleaning materials at large 

appliance facilities. Specifically, the 

draft CTG can provide for the use of 

add-on control devices in conjunction 

with high-VOC coatings and work 

practices. These significant VOC 

reductions associated with these 

measures could not be obtained through 

a national regulation because they are 

achieved through the implementation of 

measures by the end-user. In addition, 

as previously explained, strategies that 

arguably could be implemented through 

rulemaking, such as limiting the VOC 

content in large appliances coatings and 

cleaning materials, are far more effective 

if implemented directly at the point of 

use of the product. For the reasons 

stated above, it is more effective to 

control the VOC content of coatings and 

cleaning materials used for large 

appliances coating through a CTG than 

through a national regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of large 

appliances coating facilities affected by 

our recommendations in this draft CTG, 

as compared to the number of such 

facilities in nonattainment areas does 

not affect our conclusion that the CTG 

would be more effective than a rule in 

controlling VOC emissions for this 

product category. As previously 

mentioned, we recommend the control 

measures described in the draft CTG for 

large appliances surface coating 

facilities that emit at or above 6.8 

kilograms per day (15 pounds per day). 

Based on the 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, we estimate that all of the 

large appliances surface coating 

facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas (68 facilities) emit 

at or above this level and are therefore 

addressed by our recommendations in 

the draft CTG. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

large appliances coatings will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

V. 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-210 VI-82 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37603 

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 proposed determination, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed action will not impose 

any requirements on small entities. EPA 

is proposing to take 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 is also 

proposing to determine that, for 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. The proposed 

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 

proposed determination, EPA is also 

taking comment on the draft CTGs for 

these three product categories. When 

finalized, these CTG will be 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 what 

degree to follow the CTGs. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 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 costeffective 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. 

EPA has determined that the listing 

action and the proposed determination 

for each of the three product categories 

that a CTG would be substantially as 

effective as a regulation for these 

product categories contain 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 action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, 

we have determined that the listing 

action and the proposed determination 

contain 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.’’

The listing action and the proposed 

determination that CTGs are 

substantially as effective as regulations 

for these product categories do not have 

federalism implications. They do 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 the listing 

action and the proposed determination. 

However, in the spirit of EO 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-83 A-211 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
37604 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

and local governments, EPA is soliciting 

comment on the listing action, the 

proposed determination, and the 

proposed draft CTGs from State and 

local officials. 

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.’’

The listing action and the proposed 

determination that CTGs would be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

to achieve VOC emission reductions 

from these product categories do 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 proposed determination 

impose no regulatory burdens on tribes. 

Furthermore, the listing action and the 

proposed 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. 

Because listing action and the proposed 

determination do not have Tribal 

implications, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply. 

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. 

The listing action and the proposed 

determination are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because they are 

not economically significant regulatory 

actions as defined by Executive Order 

12866. In addition, 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. 

The listing action and the proposed 

determination are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because they do 

not include regulatory requirements 

based on 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 

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. 

The listing action and the proposed 

do not involve technical standards. 

Therefore, EPA is not considering 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 proposed determination 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on 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. Accordingly, 

these actions would help increase 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Consumer and 

commercial products, Confidential 

business information, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: June 29, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 59—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General 

2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

A-212 VI-84 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37605 

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. E7–13104 Filed 7–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2

VI-85 A-213 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57215 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 97 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Electric utilities, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: September 26, 2007. 

J.I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 2. In § 52.2120, paragraph (c) is 

amended by revising the entry for 

Regulation 62.96 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * * 

(c) * * * 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

State citation Title/subject State effective date 

EPA approval date Federal Register 

notice 

*******

Regulation No. 62.96 ......... Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Budget Trading Program General Provisions.8/14/07 10/09/07 [Insert first page of publication]. 

*******

* * * * * 

PART 97—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

■ 4. Appendix A to Subpart EE is 

amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘South Carolina’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97—States 

With Approved State Implementation Plan 

Revisions Concerning Allocations 

1. * * * 

South Carolina 

2. * * * 

South Carolina 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97 

is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘South Carolina’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97—States 

With Approved State Implementation Plan 

Revisions Concerning CAIR NOX Opt-In 

Units 

1. * * * 

South Carolina 

2. * * * 

South Carolina 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Appendix A to Subpart III of Part 

97 is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘South Carolina’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart III of Part 97—States 

With Approved State Implementation Plan 

Revisions Concerning CAIR SO2 Opt-In 

Units 

1. * * * 

South Carolina 

2. * * * 

South Carolina 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of 

Part 97 is amended by adding in 

alphabetical order the entry ‘‘South 

Carolina’’ under the introductory text to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97—

States With Approved State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations 

* * * * * 

South Carolina 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 

97 is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘South Carolina’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 97—

States With Approved State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR NOX Ozone 

Season Opt-In Units 

1. * * * 

South Carolina 

2. * * * 

South Carolina 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–19646 Filed 10–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 technologylevel controls for these product 

categories. EPA further takes final action 

to list the three Group III consumer and 

commercial product categories 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


A-214 VI-86 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
57216 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

(919) 541–5460, fax number (919) 541–

3470, e-mail address: 

moore.bruce@epa.gov. 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: 

teal.kim@epa.gov. 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: 

(919) 541–2421, e-mail address: 

smith.martha@epa.gov. 

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: (919) 541–2363, e-mail address: 

dail.lynn@epa.gov. 

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: 

Category NAICS code a Examples of affected entities 

Paper, film, and foil coatings 322221, 322222, 322223, 322224, 322225, 322226, 

322229, 325992, 326111, 326112, 326113, 32613, 

32791, 339944.

Facilities that apply coatings to packaging paper, paper 

bags, laminated aluminum foil, coated paperboard, 

photographic film, abrasives, carbon paper, and other 

coated paper, film and foil products. 

Metal furniture coatings ....... 337124, 337214, 337127, 337215, 337127, 332951, 

332116, 332612, 337215, 335121, 335122, 339111, 

339114, 337127, 81142.

Facilities that apply coatings to metal furniture components or products. 

Large appliance coatings ..... 335221, 335222, 335224, 335228, 333312, 333319 ..... Facilities that apply coatings to household and commercial cooking equipment, refrigerators, laundry equipment, laundry drycleaning and pressing equipment. 

Federal Government ............ .......................................................................................... Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government .......................................................................................... State, local and 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


VI-87 A-215 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57217 

1EPA 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. 

2See 63 FR 48806, 48819, and 48848 (September 

11, 1998); and 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007). 

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. 

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

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


A-216 VI-88 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
57218 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile 

Organic Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 

13, 2005). 

4See, 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.’’

5Memorandum 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. 

(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. 

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 addon 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 addon 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


VI-89 A-217 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57219 

control for a coating line with the 

potential to emit 25 or more tpy will 

generally be cost effective and that addon 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 facilitywide 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; electricinsulating and thermal-conducting 

coatings; touch-up and repair coatings; 

and coating application utilizing handheld 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


A-218 VI-90 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
57220 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


VI-91 A-219 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57221 

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, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


A-220 VI-92 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
57222 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 59—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General 

■ 2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0015; FRL–8150–4] 

RIN 2070–AJ18 

Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates; Significant 

New Use Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending a significant 

new use rule (SNUR) under section 

5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) to include certain additional 

perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) 

chemicals. EPA is amending the PFAS 

SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582 by adding a 

new Table 3 which includes the PFAS 

chemicals currently on the public TSCA 

Inventory that are not already covered 

by the SNUR. This rule requires 

manufacturers, including importers, to 

notify EPA at least 90 days before 

commencing the manufacture or import 

of the PFAS chemicals listed in Table 3 

of the regulatory text for the significant 

new uses described in this document on 

or after November 8, 2007. EPA believes 

that this action is appropriate because 

these chemical substances may be 

hazardous to human health and the 

environment. This required notice will 

provide EPA the opportunity to evaluate 

intended significant new uses and 

associated activities before they occur 

and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit 

those uses or activities. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 8, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–

OPPT–2005–0015. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available in regulations.gov. To access 

the electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

website to view the docket index or 

access available documents. 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, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES


VI-93 A-221 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40230 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 1, 2008. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E8–16018 Filed 7–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 59 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0411; FRL–8689–5] 

RIN 2060–AP01 

Consumer and Commercial Products: 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal 

Products Coatings, Plastic Parts 

Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials, and 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed 

determination and availability of draft 

control techniques guidelines. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 

183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

proposes to determine 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 

five product categories: Miscellaneous 

metal products coatings, plastic parts 

coatings, auto and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings, fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials, and 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives. 

Based on this determination, we may 

issue control techniques guidelines in 

lieu of national regulations covering 

these product categories. We have 

prepared draft control techniques 

guidelines for the control of volatile 

organic compound emissions from each 

of the product categories covered by this 

proposed determination. Once finalized, 

these control techniques guidelines will 

provide guidance to the States 

concerning EPA’s recommendations for 

reasonably available control technologylevel controls for these product 

categories. We further propose to take 

final action to list the five Group IV 

consumer and commercial product 

categories addressed in this notice 

pursuant to Clean Air Act section 

183(e). 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

on this proposed action must be 

received by August 13, 2008, unless a 

public hearing is requested by July 24, 

2008. If a hearing is requested on this 

proposed action, written comments 

must be received by August 28, 2008. 

We are also soliciting written comments 

on the draft control techniques 

guidelines (CTG), and those comments 

must be submitted within the comment 

period for this proposed determination. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing concerning this proposed 

determination by July 24, 2008, we will 

hold a public hearing on July 29, 2008. 

The substance of any such hearing will 

be limited solely to EPA’s proposed 

determination under Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 183(e)(3)(C) that the CTGs 

covering the five Group IV product 

categories will be substantially as 

effective as regulations in reducing 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, if a commenter has no 

objection to EPA’s proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), but has comments on the 

substance of a draft CTG, the commenter 

should submit those comments in 

writing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by applicable docket ID 

number, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Comments concerning this 

proposed Determination should be sent 

to: Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group IV—Determination to Issue 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations, Docket No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2008–0411. 

Comments concerning any draft CTG 

should be sent to the applicable docket, 

as noted below: Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Miscellaneous 

Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0412; 

Consumer and Commercial Products—

Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–

2008–0413; Consumer and Commercial 

Products—Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials, Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0415; or 

Consumer and Commercial Products—

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0460, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. Comments concerning the 

draft revision of the Automobile 

Topcoat Protocol, which is referenced in 

the draft CTG for Auto and Light-Duty 

Truck Coatings, should be sent to 

Consumer and Commercial Products—

Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–

2008–0413. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the applicable docket. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at 10 a.m. on July 

29, 2008 at Building C on the EPA 

campus in Research Triangle Park, NC, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-222 VI-94 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40231 

or at an alternate site nearby. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony 

must contact Ms. Joan C. Rogers, 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) 541–4487, fax 

number: (919) 541–3470, e-mail 

address: rogers.joanc@epa.gov, no later 

than July 24, 2008. Persons interested in 

attending the public hearing must also 

call Ms. Rogers to verify the time, date, 

and location of the hearing. If no one 

contacts Ms. Rogers by July 24, 2008 

with a request to present oral testimony 

at the hearing, we will cancel the 

hearing. 

Docket: 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., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

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: 

(919) 541–5460, fax number: (919) 541–

3470, e-mail address: 

moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning this proposed determination 

and draft CTG for miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts coatings, or for 

fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, 

contact: Ms. Kaye Whitfield, 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) 541–2509, fax 

number: (919) 541–3470, e-mail 

address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning this proposed determination 

and draft CTG for auto and light-duty 

truck assembly coatings or the draft 

revision of the Automobile Topcoat 

Protocol, contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group 

(E143–01), Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number: (919) 541–0859, fax number: 

(919) 541–3470, e-mail address: 

salman.dave@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning this proposed determination 

and draft CTG for miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives, 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: 

(919) 541–2421, fax number: (919) 541–

3470, e-mail address: 

smith.martha@epa.gov. 

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: 

Category NAICS code a Examples of affected entities 

Miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts coatings.

331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 482, 811 Facilities that manufacture and repair fabricated metal, machinery, 

computer and electronic equipment, transportation equipment, rail 

transportation equipment. 

Auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings.

336111, 336112, 336211 .............. Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants, producers of automobile and light-duty truck bodies. 

Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.336612 ........................................... Boat building facilities. 

Miscellaneous industrial adhesives 316, 321, 326, 331, 332, 333, 334, 

336, 337, 339, 482, 811.

Facilities that manufacture and repair leather and allied products, 

wood products, plastic and rubber products, fabricated metal, machinery, computer and electronic equipment, transportation equipment, furniture and related products, rail transportation equipment, 

and facilities involved in miscellaneous manufacturing. 

Federal Government ....................... ........................................................ Not Affected. 

State, local and tribal government .. ........................................................ State, local and 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. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicable industry description in 

sections II.A, III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this 

notice. 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. 

Preparation of Comments. Do not 

submit information containing CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket 

ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0411, 0412, 

0413, 0415, or 0460 (as applicable). 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD–

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-95 A-223 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40232 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1Pursuant 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 IV by September 30, 2008. 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed action 

will also be available on the WWW 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a 

copy of this proposed 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. 

Organization of this Document. The 

information presented in this notice is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background Information and Proposed 

Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

C. Significance of CTG 

D. General Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

E. Proposed Determination 

F. Availability of Documents 

II. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

III. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

IV. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

V. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

VI. 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 

I. Background Information and 

Proposed Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

Ground-level ozone, a major 

component of smog, is formed in the 

atmosphere by reactions of 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 EPA’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 IV of the list comprises 

five product categories: Miscellaneous 

metal products coatings, plastic parts 

coatings, auto and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings, fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials, and 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives.1

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, we have previously issued 

‘‘national’’ regulations for autobody 

refinishing coatings, consumer 

products, architectural coatings, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-224 VI-96 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40233 

2See 63 FR 48792, 48819, and 48848 (September 

11, 1998); 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73 

FR 15604 (March 24, 2008). 

3 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile 

Organic Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 

13, 2005). 

4See, 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.’’

5Memorandum 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. 

portable fuel containers, and aerosol 

coatings.2

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) further 

provides that we may issue a CTG in 

lieu of a national regulation for a 

product category where we determine 

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 we are to make this 

determination, but does provide a 

fundamental distinction between 

national regulations and CTG. 

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 the 

solvents, materials, or 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, CTG 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 endusers 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 CTG 

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. Section 182(b)(2) provides 

that States must revise their ozone SIP 

to include RACT for each category of 

VOC sources covered by any CTG 

document issued after November 15, 

1990, and prior to the date of 

attainment. 

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 CAA. 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. 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 process, whether 

they 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 draft CTG, 

States may also wish to consider 

averaging, as appropriate. In general, the 

RACT requirement is applied on a shortterm basis up to 24 hours.4 However, 

EPA guidance permits 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 

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. 

By this action, we are making 

available four draft CTGs that cover the 

five product categories in Group IV of 

the CAA section 183(e) list 

(miscellaneous metal products coatings 

and plastic parts coatings are addressed 

in one draft CTG referred to as 

‘‘miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings’’). These CTGs are guidance to 

the States and provide 

recommendations only. A State can 

develop its own strategy for what 

constitutes RACT for these five product 

categories, and EPA will review that 

strategy in the context of the SIP process 

and determine whether it meets the 

RACT requirements of the CAA 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 draft CTGs at issue here, 

EPA provides that States should submit 

their SIP revisions within one year of 

the date that the CTGs are finalized. 

D. General Considerations in 

Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 

Substantially as Effective as a 

Regulation 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes 

EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a 

regulation for a category of consumer 

and commercial products if a CTG ‘‘will 

be substantially as effective as 

regulations in reducing VOC emissions’’


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-97 A-225 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40234 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

in ozone nonattainment areas. The 

statute does not specify how EPA is to 

make this determination. 

On July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37773), EPA 

issued a final determination pursuant to 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), concluding 

that CTGs for wood furniture coatings, 

aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding 

and repair coatings were substantially as 

effective as national regulations in 

reducing emissions of VOC from these 

products in areas that violate the 

NAAQS for ozone. On October 5, 2006 

(71 FR 58745), EPA issued a similar 

final determination for flexible 

packaging printing materials, 

lithographic printing materials, 

letterpress printing materials, industrial 

cleaning solvents, and flat wood 

paneling coatings. Most recently, on 

October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57215), EPA 

issued a similar final determination for 

paper, film, and foil coatings; metal 

furniture coatings; and large appliance 

coatings. Recognizing that the statute 

does not specify any criteria for making 

a determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999, 2006, and 

2007, considered several relevant 

factors, including: (1) The product’s 

distribution and place of use; (2) the 

most effective entity to target to control 

emissions—in other words, whether it is 

more effective to achieve VOC 

reductions at the point of manufacture 

of the product or at the point of use of 

the product; (3) consistency with other 

VOC control strategies; and (4) estimates 

of likely VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas which 

would result from the regulation or 

CTG. EPA believes that these factors are 

useful for evaluating whether the rule or 

CTG approach would be best from the 

perspective of implementation and 

enforcement of an effective strategy to 

achieve the intended VOC emission 

reductions. EPA believes that in making 

these determinations, no single factor is 

dispositive. On the contrary, for each 

product category, we must weigh the 

factors and make our determination 

based on the unique set of facts and 

circumstances associated with that 

product category. For purposes of 

making this determination, we analyzed 

the components of the draft CTGs for 

the product categories at issue and 

compared the draft CTGs to the types of 

controls and emission strategies 

possible through a regulation. As we 

explained in 1999, it would be 

unreasonable for EPA, in effect, to have 

to complete both the full rulemaking 

and full CTG development processes 

before being able to make a 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) validly. We believe that it is 

possible for the EPA to make a 

determination between what a rule 

might reasonably be expected to achieve 

versus what a CTG might reasonably be 

expected to achieve, without having to 

complete the entire rulemaking and 

CTG processes. To conclude otherwise 

would result in the unnecessary wasting 

of limited time and resources by the 

EPA and the stakeholders participating 

in the processes. Moreover, such an 

approach would be directly contrary to 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), which 

authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu 

of a regulation if it determines that the 

CTG ‘‘will be substantially as effective 

as’’ a regulation in reducing VOC 

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. 

With regard to the five product 

categories at issue here, EPA notes that 

it does not have reliable quantitative 

data that would enable it to conduct a 

ton-by-ton comparison of the likely 

emission reductions associated with a 

national regulation versus a CTG. 

Although we conducted such a 

comparative analysis in 1999 for the 

product categories of wood furniture 

coatings, aerospace coatings and 

shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 

37773, July 13, 1999), such analysis is 

not necessary for evaluating likely VOC 

emission reductions, particularly, 

where, as in our Group II action (71 FR 

58745, October 5, 2006), our Group III 

action (72 FR 57215, October 9, 2007), 

and here, a CTG can achieve significant 

emission reductions from end-users of 

the consumer and/or commercial 

products at issue, which cannot be 

achieved through regulation under CAA 

section 183(e). In addition, for the 

reasons described below, a regulation 

governing the manufacturers and 

suppliers of these products would be 

unlikely to achieve the objective of 

reducing VOC emissions from these 

products in ozone nonattainment areas. 

E. Proposed Determination 

Based on the factors identified above 

and the facts and circumstances 

associated with each of the Group IV 

product categories, EPA proposes to 

determine that CTGs for miscellaneous 

metal products coatings, plastic parts 

coatings, auto and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings, fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials, and 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives will 

be substantially as effective as national 

regulations in reducing VOC emissions 

from facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

In each of the four sections below 

(miscellaneous metal products coatings 

and plastic parts coatings are addressed 

in a single CTG and are therefore 

addressed in the same section below), 

we provide a general description of the 

industry, identify the sources of VOC 

emissions associated with the industry, 

summarize the recommended control 

techniques in the draft CTG and 

describe the impacts of those 

techniques, and discuss the 

considerations supporting our proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a regulation 

in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas from the product 

category at issue. 

The specific subsections below are 

organized into two parts, each of which 

addresses two of the factors relevant to 

the CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

determination. The first part addresses 

whether it is more effective to target the 

point of manufacture of the product or 

the point of use for purposes of reducing 

VOC emissions and discusses whether 

our proposed approach is consistent 

with existing Federal, State and local 

VOC reduction strategies. The second 

part addresses the product’s distribution 

and place of use and discusses the likely 

VOC emission reductions associated 

with a CTG, as compared to a 

regulation. 

Finally, we propose to find that these 

five product categories are appropriate 

for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) 

list in accordance with the factors and 

criteria that EPA used to develop the 

original list. See Consumer and 

Commercial Products: Schedule for 

Regulation, 60 FR 15264 (March 23, 

1995). 

F. Availability of Documents 

We have prepared four draft CTG 

documents covering the five consumer 

and commercial product categories 

addressed in this action (miscellaneous 

metal products coatings and plastic 

parts coatings are addressed in a single 

CTG). Each of the draft CTGs addresses, 

among other things, RACT 

recommendations, cost impacts, and 

existing Federal, State and local VOC 

control strategies. In conjunction with 

the draft CTG for Auto and Light-Duty 

Truck Coating, we have also prepared a 

draft revision of the Automobile 

Topcoat Protocol (please see section 

III.B for a more detailed discussion). 

The draft CTG and the draft revision of 

the Automobile Topcoat Protocol are 

available for public comment and are 

contained in the respective dockets 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

notice. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-226 VI-98 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40235 

7Heavier vehicles includes all vehicles that meet 

the definition of the term ‘‘other motor vehicles,’’

as defined in the National Emission Standards for 

Surface Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty 

Trucks at 40 CFR 63.3176. 

8 In a previous notice, EPA stated that the 

cleaning operations associated with certain 

specified section 183(e) consumer and commercial 

product categories, including the miscellaneous 

metal products coatings category and the plastic 

parts coatings category, would not be covered by 

EPA’s 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning solvents (71 

FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 2006). In the notice, 

EPA expressed its intention to address cleaning 

operations associated with these categories in the 

CTGs for these specified categories if we determine 

that a CTG is appropriate for the respective 

categories. Accordingly, the draft CTG for the 

miscellaneous metal products coatings category and 

the plastic parts coatings category addresses VOC 

emissions from cleaning operations associated with 

these two product categories. 

II. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

Parts Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

The miscellaneous metal products 

coatings category and the plastic parts 

coatings category refer to coatings that 

are applied to miscellaneous metal 

products and plastic parts. 

Miscellaneous metal products and 

plastic parts include, but are not limited 

to, metal and plastic components of the 

following types of products as well as 

the products themselves: Motor vehicle 

parts and accessories, bicycles and 

sporting goods, toys, recreational 

vehicles, extruded aluminum structural 

components, railroad cars, heavier 

vehicles,7 medical equipment, lawn and 

garden equipment, business machines, 

laboratory and medical equipment, 

electronic equipment, steel drums, 

industrial machinery, metal pipes, and 

numerous other industrial and 

household products (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as the 

‘‘miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts’’). The draft CTG applies to 

manufacturers of miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts that surface-coat the 

parts they produce. The draft CTG also 

applies to facilities that perform surface 

coating of miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts on a contract basis. 

Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings do not include coatings that are 

a part of other product categories listed 

under section 183(e) of the CAA and/or 

addressed by other CTGs. These other 

categories that are not part of the 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings categories include shipbuilding 

and repair coatings; aerospace coatings; 

wood furniture coatings; metal furniture 

coatings; large appliance coatings; auto 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings; 

flatwood paneling coatings; and paper, 

film, and foil coatings. Can coatings, 

coil coatings, and magnet wire coatings 

were not listed under section 183(e) of 

the CAA, but were addressed by earlier 

CTGs, and are also not included in the 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings categories. 

Sealers, deadeners, transit coatings 

and cavity waxes applied to new 

automobile or new light-duty truck 

bodies, or body parts for new 

automobiles or new light-duty trucks are 

included in the miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts coatings categories and 

are addressed in the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous metal products and 

plastic parts coatings. In the draft CTG, 

however, we seek comments on whether 

the use of these coatings in the 

production of new automobiles and new 

light-duty trucks should be included in 

the miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts coatings categories and addressed 

in the CTG for miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings, or in the auto and 

light-duty truck assembly coatings 

category and addressed in the CTG for 

auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings. 

Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings include several categories of 

primers, topcoats, and specialty 

coatings, typically defined by the 

coatings function. The types of coating 

technologies used in the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

industry include higher solids, 

waterborne, and powder coatings, as 

well as conventional solvent-borne 

coatings. The coatings provide a 

covering, finish, or functional or 

protective layer to the surface of 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts. 

They also provide a decorative finish to 

these miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coatings are a result of 

evaporation of the VOC contained in 

many of the coatings and cleaning 

materials 8 used in miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

operations. The primary VOC emissions 

from miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts coatings occur during coating 

application, flash-off, and coating 

curing/drying. Some VOC emissions 

also occur during mixing and thinning 

of the coatings. The VOC emissions 

from mixing and thinning operations 

occur from displacement of VOC-laden 

air in containers used to mix coatings 

before coating application. The 

displacement of VOC-laden air can 

occur during the filling of containers. It 

can also be caused by changes in 

temperature or barometric pressure, or 

by agitation during mixing. 

The primary VOC emissions from the 

cleaning materials occur during 

cleaning operations, which include 

spray gun cleaning, paint line flushing, 

rework operations, and touchup 

cleaning at final assembly. VOC 

emissions from surface preparation 

(where miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts are treated and/or cleaned prior to 

coating application), coating storage and 

handling, and waste/wastewater 

operations (i.e., handling waste/ 

wastewater that may contain residues 

from both coatings and cleaning 

materials) are small. 

As mentioned above, the majority of 

VOC emissions from miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings occur 

from evaporation of solvents in the 

coatings during coating application. The 

transfer efficiency (the percent of 

coating solids deposited on the metal 

and plastic parts) of a coating 

application method affects the amount 

of VOC emissions during coating 

application. The more efficient a coating 

application method is in transferring 

coatings to the metal and plastic parts, 

the lower the volume of coatings (and 

therefore solvents) needed per given 

amount of production, thus resulting in 

lower VOC emissions. 

The coatings used in the 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating industry may be in the 

form of a liquid or powder. Liquid 

coatings may be applied by means of 

spray or dip coating. Conventional air 

atomized spray application systems 

utilize higher atomizing air pressure and 

typically have transfer efficiencies 

ranging between 25 and 40 percent. Dip 

coating is the immersion of 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

into a coating bath and is typically used 

on parts that do not require high quality 

appearance. The transfer efficiency of a 

dip coater is very high (approximately 

90 percent); however, some VOC is 

emitted from the liquid coating bath due 

to its large exposed surface area. 

Many spray-applied coatings on metal 

parts are electrostatically applied. 

Electrostatic spray application can be 

done with both liquid and powder 

coatings. In electrostatic coating, an 

electrical attraction between the paint, 

which is positively charged, and the 

grounded metal enhances the amount of 

coating deposited on the surface. For 

liquid coatings, this coating method is 

more efficient than conventional air 

atomized spray, with transfer efficiency 

typically ranging from 60 to 90 percent. 

Other liquid coating application 

methods used in the miscellaneous 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-99 A-227 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40236 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

industry include flow coating, roll 

coating, high volume/low pressure 

(HVLP) spray, electrocoating, 

autophoretic coating, and application by 

hand. These coating methods are 

described in more detail in the draft 

CTG. 

Spray-applied coatings are typically 

applied in a spray booth to capture 

paint overspray, remove solvent vapors 

from the workplace, and to keep the 

coating operation from being 

contaminated by dirt from other 

operations. In spray coating operations, 

the majority of VOC emissions occur in 

the spray booth. 

After coatings are applied, the coated 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

and products are often baked or cured 

in heated drying ovens, but some are air 

dried, especially for some heat-sensitive 

plastic parts. For liquid spray and dip 

coating operations, the coated parts or 

products are typically first moved 

through a flash-off area after the coating 

application operation. The flash-off area 

allows solvents in the wet coating film 

to evaporate slowly, thus avoiding 

bubbling of the coating while it is curing 

in the oven. The amount of VOC emitted 

from the flash-off area depends on the 

type of coating used, the speed of the 

coating line (i.e., how quickly the part 

or product moves through the flash-off 

area), and the distance between the 

application area and bake oven. 

After flash-off, the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts are usually cured 

or dried. For powder coatings on 

miscellaneous metal parts, the curing/ 

drying step melts the powder and forms 

a continuous coating on the part or 

product. For liquid coatings, this step 

removes any remaining volatiles from 

the coating. The cured coatings provide 

the desired decorative and/or protective 

characteristics. The VOC emissions 

during the curing/drying process result 

from the evaporation of the remaining 

solvents in the dryer. 

The VOC emissions from the coating 

process can be controlled and reduced 

through changes in coatings and 

application technology. Until the late 

1970’s, conventional solvent-borne 

coatings were used in the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

industry. Since then, the industry has 

steadily moved towards alternative 

coating formulations that eliminate or 

reduce the amount of solvent in the 

formulations, thus reducing VOC 

emissions per unit amount of coating 

solids used. 

Currently the miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

industry uses primarily higher solids 

solvent-borne coatings and waterborne 

coatings, as well as powder coatings on 

miscellaneous metal parts. Other 

alternative coatings include UV-cured 

coatings. These coatings are described 

in more detail in the CTG. When 

feasible, many coatings are applied by 

electrostatic spraying which, as 

mentioned above, has a higher transfer 

efficiency than the conventional air 

atomized spray. The combination of 

low-VOC coating type and electrostatic 

spraying is an effective measure for 

reducing VOC emissions. Not only are 

VOC emissions reduced by using 

coatings with low-VOC content, the use 

of an application method with a high 

transfer efficiency, such as electrostatic 

spraying, lowers the volume of coatings 

needed per given amount of production, 

thus further reducing the amount of 

VOC emitted during the coating 

application. 

The most common approach to reduce 

emissions from miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coating operations is to use 

low-VOC content coatings, including 

powder coatings, higher solids solventborne coatings, and UV-cured coatings. 

More efficient coating application 

methods can also be used to reduce 

VOC emissions by reducing the amount 

of coating that is used in coating 

operations. Add-on controls may also be 

used to reduce VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings and cleaning materials. In some 

cases, add-on controls are used where it 

is necessary or desirable to use highVOC materials, but they are also used in 

combination with low-VOC coatings 

and/or more efficient coating 

application methods to achieve 

additional emission reductions. 

As previously mentioned, the 

majority of VOC emissions from spray 

coating operations occur in the spray 

booth. The VOC concentration in spray 

booth exhaust is typically low because 

a large volume of exhaust air is used to 

dilute the VOC emissions for safety 

reasons. Although VOC emissions in 

spray booth exhaust can be controlled 

with add-on controls, because of the 

large volume of air that must be treated 

and the low concentration of VOC, it is 

generally not cost-effective to do so. On 

the other hand, the wide availability 

and lower cost of low-VOC content 

coatings makes them a more attractive 

option than add-on controls for 

reducing VOC emissions during coating 

application. For those situations where 

an add-on control device can be 

justified for production or specific 

coating requirements, thermal oxidation 

and carbon adsorption are most widely 

used. Please see the draft CTG for a 

detailed discussion of these and other 

available control devices. 

To control VOC emissions from 

containers used to store or mix coatings 

containing VOC solvents, work practices 

(e.g., using closed storage containers) 

are used throughout the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

industry. 

Work practices are also widely used 

throughout the miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coating industry as 

a means of reducing VOC emissions 

from cleaning operations. These 

measures include covering mixing 

tanks, storing solvents and solvent 

soaked rags and wipes in closed 

containers, and cleaning spray guns in 

an enclosed system. Another means of 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

operations is the use of low-VOC 

content, low vapor pressure, or low 

boiling point cleaning materials. 

However, little information is available 

regarding the effectiveness of the use of 

these types of cleaning materials to 

reduce VOC emissions in the 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating industry. 

3. Existing Federal, State, and Local 

VOC Control Strategies 

There are five previous EPA actions 

that affect miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coating operations. 

These actions are summarized below, 

but are described in more detail in the 

actual proposed CTG. 

• CTG for Surface Coating of 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

(1978). 

• New Source Performance Standards 

for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 

Business Machines (1988). 

• Alternative Control Techniques 

Document for Surface Coating of 

Automotive/Transportation and 

Business Machine Plastic Parts (1994). 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface 

Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 

and Products (2004). 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface 

Coating of Plastic Parts and Products 

(2004). 

In 1978, EPA issued a CTG document 

entitled ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating of 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products’’ (EPA–450/2–78–015) (1978 

CTG) that provided RACT 

recommendations for controlling VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous metal 

part surface coating operations. The 

1978 CTG addressed VOC emissions 

from miscellaneous metal part coating 

lines, which include the coating 

application area, the flash-off area, and 

the curing/drying ovens. The 1978 CTG 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-228 VI-100 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40237 

9The list of exempt compounds that are 

considered to be negligibly photochemically 

reactive in forming ozone can be found in the 

definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

10The 1988 NSPS applies to sources that 

commenced construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after January 8, 1988. 

did not cover can coating, coil coating, 

wire coating, auto and light duty truck 

coating, metal furniture coating, and 

large appliance coating, all of which 

were addressed by other CTGs. The 

1978 CTG recommended RACT VOC 

content limits for five miscellaneous 

metal part surface coating categories. 

These categories included (1) coatings 

for air-dried or forced air-dried items, 

including parts too large or too heavy 

for practical size ovens and/or with 

sensitive heat requirements, for parts to 

which heat-sensitive materials are 

attached, and for equipment assembled 

prior to top coating for specific 

performance or quality standards; (2) 

clear coatings; (3) coatings for outdoor 

or harsh exposure or extreme 

performance characteristics; (4) powder 

coatings; and (5) all other coatings, 

including baked coatings, and the first 

coat applied on an untreated ferrous 

substrate. The recommended VOC 

content limits for these five categories 

were all expressed in the form of kg 

VOC per liter of coating, minus water 

and exempt compounds.9 The 1978 CTG 

did not address VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials. 

In 1988, EPA promulgated new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for the 

surface coating of plastic parts for 

business machines (40 CFR part 60 

subpart TTT).10 Business machines 

include typewriters, electronic 

computers, calculating and accounting 

machines, telephone and telegraph 

equipment, photocopy machines, and 

other office machines not elsewhere 

classified. The NSPS established VOC 

emission limits for spray booths in four 

categories of coating operations (Prime 

coating, Color coating, Texture coating, 

and Touch-up Coating). All of these 

limits were in units of kg VOC per liter 

of coating solids applied to the part, 

which accounts for the transfer 

efficiency of the coating application 

equipment. The NSPS did not address 

cleaning operations or materials. 

In 1994, EPA published ‘‘Alternative 

Control Techniques Document: Surface 

Coating of Automotive/Transportation 

and Business Machine Plastic Parts’’

(EPA–453/R–94–017, February 1994) 

(1994 ACT). The 1994 ACT provides 

information on control techniques for 

VOC emissions from the surface coating 

of plastic parts for automotive/ 

transportation and business machine/ 

electronic products. It provides 

information on emissions, controls, 

control options, and costs that States 

can use in developing rules based on 

RACT, but presents only options in 

terms of coating reformulation control 

levels, and does not contain a 

recommendation on RACT. The 1994 

ACT presented coating reformulation 

control levels for over 20 categories of 

coatings in terms of kg VOC per liter of 

coating, less water and exempt 

compounds. The 1994 ACT did not 

address VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials. 

Because the 1988 NSPS limits are 

expressed in terms of coating solids 

deposited and the 1994 ACT 

recommended limits are expressed in 

terms of VOC per gallon of coating, less 

water and exempt solvents, these limits 

cannot be compared directly for surface 

coating of business machine plastic 

parts without making an assumption for 

the transfer efficiency of the application 

equipment. If we assume a transfer 

efficiency of 40 percent, then the 1988 

NSPS limits for business machine 

coating are less stringent than the most 

stringent control level in the 1994 ACT 

for comparable categories of coatings. 

In 2004, EPA promulgated the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 

Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 

and Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MMMM, which applies to metal part 

surface coating operations. In the same 

year, EPA also promulgated the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic 

Parts and Products, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart PPPP. These two NESHAP 

addressed organic hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emissions, from all 

activities at a facility that involve 

coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials used in metal part and plastic 

part surface coating operations. The two 

NESHAP regulate coating operations 

(including surface cleaning, coating 

application, and equipment cleaning); 

vessels used for storage and mixing of 

coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials; equipment, containers, pipes 

and pumps used for conveying coatings, 

thinners, and cleaning materials; and 

storage vessels, pumps and piping, and 

conveying equipment and containers 

used for waste materials. 

The NESHAP for miscellaneous metal 

parts and products surface coating 

established organic HAP emission 

limitations for five categories of coatings 

(general use, high performance, magnet 

wire, rubber to metal bonding, and 

extreme performance fluoropolymer 

coatings). The NESHAP for plastic parts 

and products surface coating set organic 

HAP emission limitations for four 

categories of coatings (general use, 

automotive lamp, thermoplastic olefin 

substrates, and assembled on-road 

vehicles). In each NESHAP, coatings 

that do not meet one of the specialty 

category definitions are subject to the 

general use emission limitations. In 

demonstrating compliance with the 

HAP content limits for each category in 

both NESHAP, sources have to include 

the HAP emissions from cleaning in 

their emission calculations. Since these 

two NESHAP are both based on coating 

reformulation to lower the HAP content, 

it is not known how compliance has 

affected VOC emissions, if at all, since 

HAP could be replaced with non-HAP 

VOC in many coatings. 

In addition to the EPA actions 

mentioned above, at least 37 States and 

several local jurisdictions have specific 

regulations that control VOC emissions 

from miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts surface coating operations. These 

States and local jurisdictions require 

one or more of the following measures: 

limits on the VOC content of coatings, 

requirements to reduce VOC emissions 

from cleaning operations, and 

requirements to use high transfer 

efficiency application equipment or 

methods to apply coatings. The State 

actions addressing miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating are 

described in detail in the actual draft 

CTG. 

Almost all of the States that 

specifically address metal part coatings 

have adopted the categories and 

corresponding emission limits 

recommended in the 1978 CTG. 

However, 19 States have additional 

categories and limits, usually to address 

high performance architectural coatings, 

steel pail and drum coatings, or heavy 

duty truck coating. 

In 1992, the California Air Resources 

Board (ARB) developed a RACT 

guidance document for metal part 

surface coating operations that included 

separate VOC content limits for baked 

and air dried coatings. The ARB 

guidance contains RACT limits for 

general coatings and 15 categories of 

specialty coatings. Coatings that do not 

meet the definition of one of the 

specialty categories are subject to the 

general coating limit. Compared to the 

1978 CTG, which recommended 

separate limits for five categories, the 

1992 ARB guidance has specific limits 

for more categories of specialty coatings 

that cannot meet the more stringent 

‘‘general use’’ category limits. However, 

overall, the recommended VOC content 

limits in the 1992 ARB guidance are 

more stringent than the recommended 

limits in the 1978 CTG. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-101 A-229 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40238 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

A total of 15 air pollution control 

Districts in California have established 

rules for metal part surface coating 

operations, but they do not all include 

the same categories and limits as the 

ARB RACT guidance. Among these 

Districts, the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) has 

adopted the most stringent VOC content 

limits for 21 categories of metal parts 

coatings in SCAQMD Rule 1107 (South 

Coast Rule 1107). All of these limits, 

except the limits for four categories of 

air dried coatings (general use one 

component coatings, extreme high gloss, 

and one and two component high 

performance architectural component 

coatings), have been in place since the 

rule’s 1996 amendment or earlier. Since 

the 1996 amendment, SCAQMD has 

further tightened the limits for these 

four categories of air dried coatings 

through subsequent amendments to 

Rule 1107. 

As an alternative to meeting VOC 

content limits, South Coast Rule 1107 

requires that, if add-on controls are 

used, the control system must capture at 

least 90 percent of the VOC emissions. 

Rule 1107 further requires that the 

captured VOC emissions be reduced by 

at least 95 percent or the VOC 

concentration at the outlet of the air 

pollution control device be no more 

than 5 ppm VOC by volume calculated 

as carbon with no dilution, and that the 

control system achieves at least 90 

percent capture. The add-on control 

requirements described above have been 

in place since the rule’s 1996 

amendment or earlier. 

In addition to SCAQMD Rule 1107, 

SCAQMD has also issued SCAQMD 

Rule 1125 to regulate VOC emissions 

from steel pail and drum coating 

operations, whose coatings are included 

in the miscellaneous metal products 

coatings category listed under 183(e). 

SCAQMD Rule 1125 establishes limits 

for interior and exterior coatings used 

on new and reconditioned drums and 

pails. At least four other Districts have 

specific limits for these surface coating 

operations in either their metal part 

surface coating rules or rules for metal 

container coating operations. 

For plastic part surface coating, 13 

States have established rules to limit 

VOC emissions, and one State has 

issued a proposed rule. Seven of the 

State rules (Delaware, Illinois, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) 

and the one proposed rule (Ohio) 

adopted the categories and control 

levels in the 1994 ACT for automotive 

and business machine plastic parts. The 

other six States (Arizona, California, 

Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, and New 

York) have not adopted the control 

levels provided in the 1994 ACT. 

Instead, they have adopted limits for 

only one or two categories of plastic 

parts coatings. In some cases, these 

limits apply to all plastic parts coatings 

and are not limited to only automotive 

or business machine plastic parts. These 

limits are generally not as stringent as 

the most stringent control level in the 

1994 ACT for comparable coating 

categories. 

Three California Air Quality 

Management Districts, including the 

SCAQMD, have rules containing 

emission limits for coating plastic parts. 

South Coast Rule 1145 (Plastic, Rubber, 

Leather, And Glass Coatings) has VOC 

content limits for 11 categories of 

coatings that can be applied to plastics. 

All of these limits, except the limits for 

four categories (general use one and two 

component coatings, electrical 

dissipating and shock free coatings, and 

optical coatings), have been in place 

since the rule’s 1997 amendment or 

earlier. Since the 1997 amendment, 

SCAQMD has further tightened the 

limits for the four categories identified 

above through subsequent amendments 

to Rule 1145. 

As an alternative to meeting VOC 

content limits, South Coast Rule 1145 

requires that, if add-on controls are used 

the control system must capture at least 

90 percent of the VOC emissions. Rule 

1145 further requires that the captured 

VOC emissions be reduced by at least 95 

percent or the VOC concentration at the 

outlet of the air pollution control device 

be no more than 5 ppm VOC by volume 

calculated as carbon with no dilution, 

and that the control system achieves at 

least 90 percent capture. The add-on 

control requirements described above 

have been in place since 1997 or earlier. 

Several States (California, Arizona, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire) 

that limit the VOC content of the 

coatings used for miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts coating have 

requirements to use specific types of 

high-efficiency coating application 

methods to further reduce VOC 

emissions. For example, in addition to 

limiting the VOC contents in the 

coatings, SCAQMD Rule 1107 requires 

the use of one of the following types of 

application equipment: Electrostatic 

application; flow coating; dip coating; 

roll coating; hand application; HVLP 

spray; or an alternative method that is 

demonstrated to be capable of achieving 

a transfer efficiency equal to or better 

than HVLP spray. Alternative methods 

must be approved by the District based 

on actual transfer efficiency 

measurements in a side-by-side 

comparison of the alternative method 

and an HVLP spray gun. Rules that 

regulate emissions from miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

from at least nine other Districts are 

similar to SCAQMD Rule 1107 in that 

they also require that sources use 

methods that achieve high transfer 

efficiency. 

California and at least 11 other States 

have requirements to reduce VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in metal and plastic parts surface 

coating operations. At least 12 Districts 

in California regulate the VOC content 

of cleaning materials used in these 

surface coating operations. These 

regulations are aimed at reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials by 

combining work practice and equipment 

standards with limits on the VOC 

content, boiling point, or composite 

vapor pressure of the solvent being 

used. Some District rules allow the use 

of add-on controls as an alternative to 

the VOC content/boiling point/vapor 

pressure limits for cleaning materials. 

As mentioned above, several Districts 

have established work practice and 

equipment standards to minimize VOC 

solvent emissions. These standards 

include, for example, using closed 

containers for storing solvent and 

solvent containing wipes and rags, using 

enclosed and automated spray gun 

washing equipment, and prohibiting 

atomized spraying of solvent during 

spray gun cleaning. However, the 

cleaning material VOC content/boiling 

point/vapor pressure limits, overall 

control efficiency requirements, and 

work practices vary by District. 

Among the other States, besides 

California, with cleaning material 

requirements, only Massachusetts limits 

the VOC content of solvents used for 

surface preparation, and none limit the 

VOC content, boiling point, or vapor 

pressure of solvents used for spray gun 

cleaning. Instead, they have established 

equipment standards and work 

practices, such as using enclosed spray 

gun washers and storing solvents and 

solvent containing rags and wipes in 

closed containers. For metal part surface 

coating operations, seven States require 

that VOC from equipment cleaning be 

considered in determining compliance 

with the emission limit for each coating 

category, unless the solvent is directed 

into containers that prevent evaporation 

into the atmosphere. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for reducing VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coatings and 

associated cleaning materials. As 

explained in the draft CTG, we are 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-230 VI-102 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40239 

11As previously mentioned, heavier vehicles 

refers to all vehicles that meet the definition of the 

term ‘‘other motor vehicles,’’ as defined in the 

NESHAP for Surface Coating of Automobiles and 

Light-Duty Trucks at 40 CFR 63.3176. 

recommending these control options for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating operations that emit 6.8 

kg VOC per day (VOC/day) (15 lb VOC/ 

day or 3 tons per year (tpy)) or more 

before consideration of control. For 

purposes of determining whether a 

facility meets the 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb 

VOC/day or 3 tpy) threshold, aggregate 

emissions from all miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

operations and related cleaning 

activities at a given facility are included. 

The draft CTG would not apply to 

facilities that emit below the threshold 

level because of the very small VOC 

emission reductions that would be 

achieved. The recommended threshold 

level is equivalent to the evaporation of 

approximately two gallons of solvent 

per day. Such a level is considered to 

be an incidental level of solvent usage 

that could be expected even in facilities 

that use very low-VOC content coatings, 

such as powder or UV-cure coatings. 

Furthermore, based on the 2002 

National Emission Inventory (NEI) data 

and the 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, facilities emitting below 

the recommended threshold level 

collectively emit less than four percent 

of the total reported VOC emissions 

from miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts surface coating facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas. For these reasons, 

the draft CTG does not specify control 

for these low emitting facilities. This 

recommended threshold is also 

consistent with our recommendations in 

many previous CTGs. 

In addition, with respect to heavier 

vehicle 11 bodies and body parts 

coatings, which are included in the 

Miscellaneous Metal Products and 

Plastic Parts coatings categories and are 

therefore covered by this draft CTG, we 

recommend certain flexibility in 

applying this draft CTG. Specifically, 

we recommend that States consider 

structuring their RACT rules to provide 

heavier vehicle coating facilities with 

the option of meeting the requirements 

for automobile and light-duty truck 

coating category in lieu of the 

requirements for the miscellaneous 

metal products coatings category or the 

plastic parts coatings category. Please 

see section III.B of this notice for a 

discussion of our reasons for this 

recommendation. 

1. Coatings 

The draft CTG provides flexibility by 

recommending three options for 

controlling VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings: (1) VOC content limits for each 

coating category based on the use of 

low-VOC content coatings (expressed as 

kg VOC per liter (kg VOC/l) coating, less 

water and exempt compounds) and 

specified application methods to 

achieve good coating transfer efficiency; 

(2) emission rate limits (expressed as kg 

VOC/l of coating solids) based on the 

use of a combination of low-VOC 

coatings, specified application methods, 

and add-on controls; or (3) an overall 

control efficiency of 90 percent for 

facilities that choose to use add-on 

controls instead of low-VOC content 

coatings and specified application 

methods. The first two options are 

expected to achieve equivalent VOC 

emission reductions. The third option 

provides facilities the flexibility to use 

a high efficiency add-on control in lieu 

of low-VOC coatings and specified 

application methods, especially when 

the use of high VOC coatings is 

necessary or desirable. The third option 

is expected to achieve an emission 

reduction at least as great as the first two 

options. 

For Option 1, we are recommending 

the VOC content limits and application 

method, as well as the exemptions, in 

the following regulations: 

• South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1107 

(March 6, 1996) for Coating of Metal 

Parts and Products. 

• South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1125 (as 

amended January 13, 1995) for Metal 

Container, Closure, and Coil Coating. 

• South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1145 

(February 14, 1997) for Plastic, Rubber, 

Leather, and Glass Coatings. 

• Michigan Rule 336.1632 (as 

amended April 28, 1993) for Emission of 

Volatile Organic Compounds From 

Existing Automobile, Truck, and 

Business Machine Plastic Part Coating 

Lines. 

The limits in SCAQMD Rule 1125 and 

Michigan Rule 336.1632 have been in 

place since the amendments noted 

above for these rules. As mentioned 

above, SCAQMD has changed the limits 

for several categories in SCAQMD Rules 

1107 and 1145 in subsequent 

amendments to these two rules. These 

new limits, however, have not been in 

place very long. We do not have 

information regarding the cost of 

implementing these new limits. We 

could not conclude that these limits are 

technologically and economically 

feasible and, therefore, reflect RACT for 

all affected facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas nationwide. We 

are, therefore, not recommending the 

limits in SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 

promulgated subsequent to the 

amendments to these rules noted above. 

The recommended limits in SCAQMD 

rules described above are more stringent 

than the limits provided in other 

existing Federal, State, and local actions 

limiting VOC emissions from these 

coating categories. Because of the large 

size of the SCAQMD and the number of 

regulated sources, the facilities subject 

to these three SCAQMD rules are 

considered to be representative of the 

type of sources located in other parts of 

the country. The recommended limits 

have been or were in effect a long time 

(i.e., since 1997 or earlier). Therefore, 

we believe that these limits are 

technically and economically feasible 

for sources in other parts of the country 

and, therefore, have included them as 

our recommendations in the draft CTG. 

The Michigan rule is based on the 

control levels provided in the 1994 

ACT, which is more stringent than the 

1988 NSPS for comparable coating 

categories for business machines. 

Michigan has a substantial number of 

sources subject to Rule 336.1632, and 

these sources’ compliance with 

Michigan Rule 336.1632 shows that the 

VOC content limits in Michigan Rule 

336.1632 are technically and 

economically feasible. The limits in the 

Michigan rule have been in effect since 

1993. Therefore, we recommend in the 

draft CTG the VOC content limits 

contained in Michigan Rule 336.1632. 

Specifically, for miscellaneous metal 

parts surface coatings, Option 1 in the 

draft CTG includes the VOC content 

limits in SCAQMD Rule 1107 (Coating 

of Metal Parts and Products, March 6, 

1996), which sets separate limits for 

baked coatings and air-dried coatings for 

21 categories of coatings used on metal 

parts. Option 1 also includes four limits 

for drum, pail and lid coating in 

SCAQMD Rule 1125 (Metal Container, 

Closure, and Coil Coating Operations, as 

amended January 13, 1995). 

For surface coating of plastic parts 

that are not part of automotive/ 

transportation equipment or business 

machines, the draft CTG includes the 

VOC content limits in SCAQMD Rule 

1145 (Plastic, Rubber, Leather, and 

Glass coatings) (February 14, 1997) for 

11 categories of plastic parts coatings. 

These limits became effective January 1, 

1998. As mentioned above, all but four 

of these limits are still in place. 

For surface coatings for automotive 

plastic parts and business machine 

plastic parts, Option 1 includes the VOC 

content limits in Michigan Rule 

336.1632 (Emission of Volatile Organic 

Compounds from Existing Automobile, 

Truck, and Business Machine Plastic 

Part Coating Lines). 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-103 A-231 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40240 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

As in the SCAQMD rule 1107, for 

metal parts coatings, we recommend in 

the draft CTG that only the 

recommended work practices, but not 

the recommended VOC limits and 

application methods, apply to the 

following types of coatings and coating 

operations: Stencil coatings; safetyindicating coatings; magnetic data 

storage disk coatings; solid-film 

lubricants; electric-insulating and 

thermal-conducting coatings; coating 

application using hand-held aerosol 

cans; plastic extruded onto metal parts 

to form a coating. We also recommend 

that the recommended application 

methods not apply to touch-up coatings, 

repair coatings, and textured finishes, 

but we recommend that the 

recommended VOC limits and work 

practices apply to these coatings and 

coating operations. 

As in SCAQMD Rule 1145, we 

recommend in the draft CTG that the 

recommended application methods and 

work practices, but not the 

recommended VOC limits, apply to the 

following types of coatings and coating 

operations that are not for automotive/ 

transportation equipment or business 

machines: Touch-up and repair 

coatings; stencil coatings applied on 

clear or transparent substrates; clear or 

translucent coatings; coatings applied at 

a paint manufacturing facility while 

conducting performance tests on the 

coatings; any individual coating 

category used in volumes less than 50 

gallons in any one year, if substitute 

compliant coatings are not available, 

provided that the total usage of all such 

coatings does not exceed 200 gallons per 

year, per facility; reflective coating 

applied to highway cones; mask 

coatings that are less than 0.5 millimeter 

thick (dried) and the area coated is less 

than 25 square inches; or coatings that 

are less than 0.5 millimeter thick (dried) 

and/or the area coated is more than 25 

square inches; EMI/RFI shielding 

coatings; heparin-benzalkonium 

chloride (HBAC)-containing coatings 

applied to medical devices, provided 

that the total usage of all such coatings 

does not exceed 100 gallons per year, 

per facility; aerosol coating products; 

and airbrush operations using five 

gallons or less per year. We also 

recommend that the recommended 

application methods not apply to 

airbrush operations using 5 gallons or 

less per year of coating, but we 

recommend that the VOC limits and 

work practices apply to these 

operations. 

For automotive/transportation and 

business machine plastic part coating, 

we also recommend in the draft CTG 

that the recommended application 

methods and work practices, but not the 

recommended VOC limits, apply to the 

following types of coatings and 

operations: Texture coatings; vacuum 

metalizing coatings; gloss reducers; 

texture topcoats; adhesion primers; 

electrostatic preparation coatings; resist 

coatings; and stencil coatings. Further 

details of these recommendations, 

including tables of coating categories 

and limits, can be found in the draft 

CTG. 

The VOC emission rate limits in 

Option 2 (VOC per volume solids) were 

converted from the VOC content limits 

in Option 1 using an assumed VOC 

density of 7.36 lb/gallon (883 g/liter). 

The draft CTG also recommends the 

use of the following application 

methods to achieve good coating 

transfer efficiency when using low-VOC 

coatings under the first or second 

option: Electrostatic spray, HVLP spray, 

flow coat, roller coat, dip coat including 

electrodeposition, brush coat, or other 

coating application methods that are 

capable of achieving a transfer 

efficiency equivalent or better than that 

achieved by HVLP spraying. The draft 

CTG recommends the use of these 

application methods in conjunction 

with the use of low-VOC content 

coatings. 

Furthermore, the draft CTG 

recommends the following work 

practices for use with all three of the 

control options: (1) Store all VOCcontaining coatings, thinners, and 

coating-related waste materials in closed 

containers; (2) ensure that mixing and 

storage containers used for VOCcontaining coatings, thinners, and 

coating-related waste materials are kept 

closed at all times except when 

depositing or removing these materials; 

(3) minimize spills of VOC-containing 

coatings, thinners, and coating-related 

waste materials; and (4) convey 

coatings, thinners and coating-related 

waste materials from one location to 

another in closed containers or pipes. 

2. Cleaning Materials 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials. We recommend that, 

at a minimum, the work practices 

include the following: (1) Store all VOCcontaining cleaning materials and used 

shop towels in closed containers; (2) 

ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOC-containing 

cleaning materials are kept closed at all 

times except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize 

spills of VOC-containing cleaning 

materials; (4) convey cleaning materials 

from one location to another in closed 

containers or pipes; and (5) minimize 

VOC emissions from cleaning of 

application, storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment by ensuring that 

application equipment cleaning is 

performed without atomizing the 

cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure 

and all spent solvent is captured in 

closed containers. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

Based on the 2002 NEI database, we 

estimate that there are 3,925 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating facilities in the United 

States (U.S.). Using the April 2004 

ozone nonattainment designations, we 

estimated that 2,539 of these facilities 

are in ozone nonattainment areas. Based 

on the 2002 NEI VOC emissions data, 

1,296 of the 2,539 facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas emitted VOC at or 

above the recommended 6.8 kg VOC/ 

day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) 

applicability threshold. These 1,296 

facilities, in aggregate, emit an estimated 

20,098 Mg/yr (22,108 tpy) of VOC, or an 

average of about 15.5 Mg/yr (17.0 tpy) 

of VOC per facility. 

We have estimated the total annual 

control costs to be approximately $13.5 

million based on the use of low-VOC 

coatings, and emission reductions will 

be about 35 percent. Since these 

recommended measures are expected to 

result in a VOC emissions reduction of 

7,034 Mg/yr (7,738 tpy), the costeffectiveness is estimated to be $1,919/ 

Mg ($1,745/ton). The impacts are further 

discussed in the draft CTG document. 

We have concluded that the work 

practice recommendations in the draft 

CTG will result in a net cost savings. 

These work practices reduce the amount 

of cleaning materials used by decreasing 

the amount that evaporates and is 

therefore wasted. Similarly, the 

adoption of more efficient spray guns, as 

recommended in the CTG, will reduce 

coating consumption and will also 

result in net cost savings compared to 

conventional spray guns. However, 

because we cannot determine the extent 

to which these practices have already 

been adopted, we cannot quantify these 

savings. Therefore, these cost savings 

are not reflected in the above cost 

impacts. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

categories of miscellaneous metal 

product and plastic parts surface 

coatings under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four 

factors identified above in section I.D in 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-232 VI-104 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40241 

light of the specific facts and 

circumstances associated with these 

product categories. Based on that 

analysis, we propose to determine that 

a CTG will be substantially as effective 

as a rule in achieving VOC emission 

reductions in ozone nonattainment 

areas from miscellaneous metal product 

and plastic parts surface coating and 

associated cleaning materials. 

This section is divided into two parts. 

In the first part, we discuss our belief 

that the most effective means of 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

these two CAA section 183(e) product 

categories is through controls at the 

point of use of the product (i.e., through 

controls on the use of coating and 

cleaning materials at miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

facilities), and these controls can be 

accomplished only through a CTG. We 

further explain that the recommended 

approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective EPA, 

State, and local VOC control strategies. 

In the second part, we discuss how the 

distribution and place of use of the 

products in these two product categories 

also support the use of a CTG. We also 

discuss the likely VOC emission 

reductions associated with a CTG, as 

compared to a regulation. We further 

explain that there are control 

approaches for these categories that 

result in significant VOC emission 

reductions and that such reductions 

could only be obtained by controlling 

the use of the products through a CTG. 

Such reductions could not be obtained 

through a regulation under CAA section 

183(e) because the controls affect the 

end-user, which is not a regulated entity 

under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For 

these reasons, which are described more 

fully below, we believe that a CTG will 

achieve greater VOC emission 

reductions than a rule for these 

categories. 

1. The Most Effective Entity to Target for 

VOC Reductions and Consistency With 

Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC 

Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important first to identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts surface coating: (1) Evaporation of 

VOC from coatings; and (2) evaporation 

of VOC from cleaning materials. We 

address each of these sources of VOC 

emissions, in turn, below, as we discuss 

the CTG versus regulation approach. 

a. Coatings. A national rule could 

contain limits for the as-sold VOC 

content of coatings that are marketed as 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings. However, the effect of such 

national rule setting low-VOC content 

limits for miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coatings could be 

easily subverted because it could not 

guarantee that only those low-VOC 

content coating materials would be used 

for miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts surface coating. Many coatings 

used in miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts surface coating operations are not 

specifically marketed by the supplier as 

coatings for specific products. 

Therefore, these facilities could 

purchase and use high-VOC specialty 

coatings materials for routine coating 

operations, and this practice would 

effectively nullify the reformulation 

actions of the manufacturers and 

suppliers of low-VOC coatings, resulting 

in no net change in VOC emissions in 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

By contrast, a CTG can affect the endusers of the coating materials and, 

therefore, can implement the control 

measures that are more likely to achieve 

the objective of reducing VOC emissions 

from these product categories in ozone 

nonattainment areas. As previously 

discussed, the draft CTG recommends 

three options for reducing VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coatings: (1) VOC 

content limits that can be achieved 

through the use of low-VOC content 

coatings and specific application 

methods; (2) equivalent emission limits 

based on the use of a combination of 

low-VOC coatings, specific application 

methods, and add-on controls; and (3) 

an overall 90 percent control efficiency 

should a facility choose to use add-on 

controls in conjunction with high-VOC 

content coatings. In addition, we 

recommend in the draft CTG that certain 

work practices be implemented in 

conjunction with any of the three 

control options described above to 

further reduce VOC emissions from 

coatings as well as controlling VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials. 

These recommended work practices 

have been shown to effectively reduce 

VOC beyond the level achievable using 

either low-VOC materials and specific 

application methods or add-on controls. 

Given the significant reductions 

achievable through the use of these 

recommended control measures, the 

most effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coatings is the 

facility using the coatings. 

These control measures are consistent 

with existing EPA, State, and local VOC 

control strategies applicable to 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating. As mentioned above, 

previous EPA actions and existing State 

and local regulations (in particular, the 

regulations in the majority of the 

California air Districts and in Michigan) 

that address miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coating similarly 

call for VOC emission reduction through 

the use of low-VOC content materials, or 

the use of control devices in 

conjunction with high-VOC content 

coating materials. Some State and local 

VOC control strategies also include 

work practices and specific application 

methods. 

We cannot, however, issue a national 

rule directly requiring miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

facilities to use low-VOC content 

coatings, control devices or specific 

application methods, or to implement 

work practices to reduce VOC emissions 

because, pursuant to CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the regulated 

entities subject to a national rule would 

be the coating manufacturers and 

suppliers, not the miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

facilities. By contrast, a CTG can reach 

the end-users of the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings and, 

therefore, can implement the control 

recommendations for end-users that are 

identified above as more likely to 

achieve the objective of reducing VOC 

emissions from these product categories 

in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, we are including these 

recommended control measures in the 

draft CTG that applies to miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coatings 

facilities as the end-users of the coating 

materials. 

b. Cleaning Materials. There are two 

primary means to control VOC 

emissions associated with the cleaning 

materials used in the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

process: (1) Limiting the VOC content, 

boiling point, or VOC vapor pressure of 

the cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the cleaning materials. A 

national rule requiring that 

manufacturers of cleaning materials for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating operations provide lowVOC content or low vapor pressure 

(high boiling point) cleaning materials 

would suffer from the same deficiencies 

noted above with regard to the coatings. 

Specifically, nothing in a national rule 

that regulates manufacturers and 

suppliers of cleaning materials specified 

for use in miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coating operations 

would preclude the miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

industry from purchasing bulk solvents 

or other multipurpose cleaning 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-105 A-233 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40242 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

materials from other vendors. The 

general availability of bulk solvents or 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to 

such regulation would directly 

undermine the effectiveness of such a 

national regulation. 

The more effective approach for 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials used by miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coaters is to 

control the use of cleaning materials 

through work practices. The draft CTG 

recommends that miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

facilities implement work practices to 

reduce VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials during surface coating 

operations. Examples of effective work 

practices are: Keeping solvents and used 

shop towels in closed containers; using 

enclosed spray gun cleaners and 

preventing the atomized spraying of 

cleaning solvent outside of an 

enclosure; minimizing spills of VOCcontaining cleaning materials; cleaning 

up spills immediately; and conveying 

any VOC-containing cleaning materials 

in closed containers or pipes. These 

work practices have proven to be 

effective in reducing VOC emissions. 

Given the significant VOC reductions 

achievable through the implementation 

of work practices, we conclude that the 

most effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating operations is the facility 

using the cleaning materials during 

surface coating operations. This 

recommendation is consistent with 

measures required by State and local 

jurisdictions for reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating operations. 

We cannot, however, issue a rule 

requiring such work practices for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating facilities because, 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

and (e)(3)(B), the regulated entities 

subject to a national rule would be the 

cleaning materials manufacturers and 

suppliers and not the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

facilities. By contrast, a CTG can 

address these coating facilities. 

Accordingly, we are including in the 

draft CTG these work practices that 

apply to miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coating facilities as 

the end-users of the cleaning materials. 

Based on the nature of the 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating process, the sources of 

significant VOC emissions from this 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from these product 

categories is through controls at the 

point of use of the products, (i.e., 

through controls on miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coaters). 

This strategy can be accomplished only 

through a CTG. The recommended 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective 

existing EPA, State, and local VOC 

control strategies for miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coating 

operations. These two factors alone 

demonstrate that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation under CAA section 183(e) in 

addressing VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coatings and associated cleaning 

materials in ozone nonattainment areas. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coatings and 

associated cleaning materials. 

First, miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts surface coatings and associated 

cleaning materials are used at 

commercial facilities in specific, 

identifiable locations. Specifically, these 

materials are used in commercial 

manufacturing facilities that apply 

surface coating to miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts, as described in section 

III.A. This stands in contrast to other 

consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g. , individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

manufacturing facilities, 

implementation and enforcement of 

controls concerning the use of these 

products are feasible. Therefore the 

nature of the products’ place of use 

further counsels in favor of the CTG 

approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve greater 

emission reduction than a national rule 

for VOC emissions from miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts surface coatings 

and associated cleaning materials. For 

the reasons described above, we believe 

that a national rule limiting the VOC 

content in coatings and cleaning 

materials used in miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

operations would result in little VOC 

emissions reduction. By contrast, a CTG 

can achieve significant VOC emissions 

reduction because it can provide for the 

highly effective emission control 

strategies described above that are 

applicable to the end-users of the 

coatings and cleaning materials at 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating facilities. As described 

above, our recommendations in the draft 

CTG include the use of control devices, 

specific application methods, and work 

practices. The significant VOC 

reductions associated with these 

measures could not be obtained through 

a national regulation, because they are 

achieved through the implementation of 

measures by the end-user. In addition, 

as previously explained, strategies that 

arguably could be implemented through 

rulemaking, such as limiting the VOC 

content in coatings and cleaning 

materials, are far more effective if 

implemented directly at the point of use 

of the product through a CTG. For the 

reasons stated above, it is more effective 

to control the VOC emissions from 

coatings and cleaning materials used for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating through a CTG than 

through a national regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating facilities affected by our 

recommendations in this draft CTG, as 

compared to the total number of such 

facilities in ozone nonattainment areas, 

does not affect our conclusion that the 

CTG would be substantially more 

effective than a rule in controlling VOC 

emissions for these product categories. 

We recommend the control measures 

described in the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg 

VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or 

more VOC. Based on the April 2004 

ozone nonattainment designations, we 

estimate that 1,296 of the 2,539 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

surface coating facilities located in 

ozone nonattainment areas emit 6.8 kg 

VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or 

more and are therefore addressed by our 

recommendations in the draft CTG. We 

estimate that 1,243 miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts surface coating 

facilities would not be covered by the 

recommendations in the draft CTG. 

However, according to the 2002 NEI 

database, these 1,243 facilities 

collectively emitted about 670 Mg/yr 

(740 tpy) of VOC, which is less than 

four percent of the total reported VOC 

(an average of about 0.5 Mg/yr (0.5 tpy) 

per facility) in ozone nonattainment 

areas. The fact that the CTG addresses 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-234 VI-106 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40243 

12Please see 40 CFR 63.3176 (the NESHAP for 

Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty 

Trucks) for the definitions of ‘‘automobiles’’ and 

‘‘light-duty trucks.’’

13 In a previous notice, EPA stated that the 

cleaning operations associated with certain 

specified 183(e) consumer and commercial product 

categories, including automobile and light dutytruck assembly coatings, would not be covered by 

EPA’s 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning solvents (71 

FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 2006) * * *. In the 

notice, EPA expressed its intention to address 

cleaning operations associated with these categories 

in the CTGs for these specified categories if the EPA 

determines that a CTG is appropriate for a 

respective category * * *. Accordingly, the draft 

CTG for auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings 

category addresses VOC emissions from cleaning 

operations associated with this product category. 

more than 96 percent of the VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coating facilities in 

ozone nonattainment areas further 

supports our conclusion that a CTG is 

more likely to achieve the intended 

VOC emission reduction goal for these 

product categories than a national rule. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with these product 

categories, we propose to determine that 

a CTG for miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts surface coating facilities 

will be substantially as effective as a 

national regulation. 

III. Auto and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

This category of consumer and 

commercial products includes the 

coatings that are applied to new 

automobile or new light-duty truck 

bodies, or body parts for new 

automobiles or new light-duty trucks.12

These bodies or body parts may be made 

of metal or plastic. The large majority of 

these coatings are specifically 

formulated, marketed and sold for this 

end use and are applied at automobile 

or light-duty truck assembly plants. 

However, this CAA section 183(e) 

category also includes coatings applied 

at facilities that perform these coating 

operations on a contractual basis. This 

category does not include coatings used 

at plastic or composites molding 

facilities as described in the Surface 

Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty 

Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart IIII). Automobile and light-duty 

truck coatings enhance a vehicle’s 

durability and appearance. Some of the 

coating system characteristics that 

automobile and light-duty truck 

manufacturers test for include adhesion, 

water resistance, humidity resistance, 

salt spray resistance, color, gloss, acid 

etch resistance, and stone chip 

resistance. The primary coatings used 

are electrodeposition primer (EDP), 

primer-surfacer (including anti-chip 

coatings), topcoat (basecoat and 

clearcoat) and final repair. 

Sealers, deadeners, transit coatings 

and cavity waxes used in the production 

of new automobiles and new light-duty 

trucks are included in the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings 

categories and are addressed in the draft 

CTG for miscellaneous metal products 

and plastic parts coatings. Adhesives, 

glass bonding primers and glass bonding 

adhesives used in the production of new 

automobiles and new light-duty trucks 

are included in the miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives product category 

and are addressed in the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives. In 

the draft CTG, however, we seek 

comments on whether the use of these 

materials in the production of new 

automobiles and new light-duty trucks 

should instead be included in the auto 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings 

category and addressed in the CTG for 

auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings. In addition, in the draft CTG, 

we seek comments, including 

supporting VOC content information, on 

appropriate control recommendations 

specifically for the use of these 

materials in the production of new 

automobiles and new light-duty trucks 

if EPA were to include such use of these 

materials in the auto and light-duty 

truck assembly coatings category and 

address them in the CTG for automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The VOC emissions from automobile 

and light-duty truck surface coating 

operations are primarily a result of 

evaporation of the VOC contained in the 

coatings and cleaning materials used in 

these operations.13 The primary VOC 

emissions from automobile and lightduty truck surface coatings occur during 

coating application/flash-off and curing/ 

drying of the coatings. The remaining 

emissions are mainly from mixing and/ 

or thinning. The VOC emissions from 

mixing and thinning of coatings occur 

from displacement of VOC-laden air in 

containers used to mix coatings 

containing solvents (thinners) prior to 

coating application. The displacement 

of VOC-laden air can also occur during 

filling of containers and can be caused 

by changes in temperature, changes in 

barometric pressure, or agitation during 

mixing. 

The VOC emissions from coating 

application occur when solvent 

evaporates from the coating as it is being 

applied to the vehicle part or body. The 

transfer efficiency (the percent of 

coating solids applied to the automobile 

or light-duty truck body or body part) of 

a coating application method affects the 

amount of VOC emitted during coating 

application. A coating application 

method that is more efficient in 

transferring coatings to the substrate 

will reduce the volume of coatings (and 

therefore solvents) needed per given 

amount of production; thus reducing 

VOC emissions. 

Before coatings are applied, the body 

of an automobile or light-duty truck is 

assembled, anticorrosion operations are 

performed, and any plastic parts to be 

finished with the body are installed. A 

series of coatings are applied to protect 

the metal surface from corrosion and 

assure good adhesion of subsequent 

coatings. First, an EDP coating is 

applied to the body using a method in 

which a negatively charged automobile 

or light-duty truck body is immersed in 

a positively charged bath of waterborne 

EDP. The coating particles (resin and 

pigment) migrate toward the body and 

are deposited onto the body surface, 

creating a strong bond between the 

coating and the body to provide a 

durable coating. Once the coating 

application deposition is completed, the 

body is rinsed in a succession of 

individual spray and/or immersion 

rinse stations and then dried with an 

automatic air blow-off. Following the 

rinsing stage (including the automatic 

air blow-off), the deposited coating is 

cured in an electrodeposition curing 

oven. 

After curing, the body is further 

water-proofed by sealing spot-welded 

joints of the body. After sealing, the 

body proceeds to the anti-chip booth 

where anti-chip coatings are applied to 

protect the vulnerable areas of the body. 

Next, a primer-surfacer coating is 

applied. The purpose of the primersurfacer coating is to provide ‘‘filling’’

or hide minor imperfections in the 

body, provide additional protection to 

the vehicle body, and bolster the 

appearance of the topcoats. Primersurfacer coatings are applied by spray 

application in a water-wash spray 

booth. Following application of the 

primer-surfacer, the body is baked to 

cure the film, minimize dirt pickup, and 

reduce processing time. 

The next step of the coating process 

is the spray application of the topcoat, 

which usually consists of a basecoat 

(color) and a clearcoat. The purpose of 

the clearcoat is to add luster and 

durability to the vehicle finish and 

protect the total coating system against 

solvents, chemical agents, water, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-107 A-235 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40244 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

weather, and other environmental 

effects. 

After the topcoat (i.e., a basecoat and 

a clearcoat) is applied, the automobile 

or light-duty truck body or body parts 

proceed to a flash-off area, where a 

certain level of solvent evaporation 

occurs. This step is designed to prevent 

bubble formation during curing in the 

bake oven. After flash-off, the 

automobile and light-duty truck bodies 

or body parts are then dried/cured in 

bake ovens. 

The amount of VOC emissions from 

the flash-off area depends on the type of 

coating used, how quickly the 

component or product moves through 

the flash-off area, and the distance 

between the application area and the 

bake oven. For liquid spray 

applications, it is estimated that 65–80 

percent of the volatiles are emitted 

during the application and flash-off 

operations, and the remaining 20–35 

percent from the curing/drying 

operation. 

After curing of the topcoat, the 

vehicle proceeds to final assembly. If 

necessary, the fully assembled vehicle 

proceeds to final repair, where coatings 

are applied and other operations are 

performed to correct damage or 

imperfections in the coating. The 

coatings applied during final repair are 

cured at a lower temperature than that 

used for curing primer-surfacer and 

topcoat. The lower cure temperature is 

necessary to protect heat-sensitive 

components on completely assembled 

motor vehicles. 

Until the 1970’s, the majority of 

coatings used in the automobile and 

light-duty truck manufacturing industry 

were conventional solvent-borne 

coatings, with high VOC content. Due to 

a combination of regulation at the State 

and Federal level, technology 

development and competitive factors, 

the industry has steadily moved to 

lower VOC content coatings. These 

alternative coatings include powder 

coatings, waterborne coatings, and 

higher solids coatings. The utilization of 

these alternative coatings in conjunction 

with efficient spray application 

equipment, such as electrostatic spray, 

is the primary method that is currently 

being used at auto and light-duty truck 

surface coating operations to reduce 

VOC emissions from the coatings. In 

addition, many facilities control the 

exhaust from their bake ovens. Some 

facilities have also employed partial 

spray booth controls by venting spray 

booth emissions, principally from 

automated spray zones, through an addon control device such as an oxidizer or 

hybrid (concentrator followed by an 

oxidizer) control system. 

Powder anti-chip and primer-surfacer 

coatings are used at some automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly plants. 

Powder coating produces minimal 

amounts of VOC emissions. Powder 

coating is applied via powder delivery 

systems, which in most cases is an 

electrostatic spray. Because powder 

coatings are applied as dried particles, 

no VOC are released during the 

application operation. Depending on the 

powder formulation, some volatile 

emissions may occur when the powder 

is heated during the curing step. In any 

event, any volatile emissions from the 

heating of powder coatings would 

generally be much less than the volatile 

emissions from the heating of liquid 

coatings during the curing operations. 

Powder coating applications are best 

suited for long production runs of 

consistently sized parts without color 

changes. 

Waterborne coatings produce minimal 

VOC emissions primarily because a 

large portion of the VOC solvent carrier 

is replaced with water. Waterborne 

EDPs are used at almost every 

automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly plant. Waterborne primersurfacer and waterborne basecoat are 

used at some automobile and light-duty 

truck assembly plants. Waterborne 

primer-surfacer and waterborne 

basecoat are applied by a combination 

of manual and automatic, and 

electrodeposition and nonelectrodeposition spray techniques. 

Higher solids coatings contain more 

solids than ‘‘conventional’’ (pre-1980) 

coatings. These coatings reduce VOC 

emissions because they contain less 

VOC solvent per unit volume of solids 

than conventional solvent-borne 

coatings. Thus, a lesser amount of VOC 

emissions are released during coating 

preparation, application, and curing to 

deliver a given amount of coating solids. 

Higher solids primer-surfacer and 

basecoat are used at some automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly plants. 

Higher solids clearcoat is used at every 

automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly plant. Higher solids primersurfacer and basecoat are applied by a 

combination of manual and automatic, 

and electrodeposition and nonelectrodeposition spray techniques. 

As previously mentioned, another 

source of VOC emissions from 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating operations is cleaning materials. 

The VOC are emitted when solvents 

evaporate from the cleaning materials 

during use. Cleaning materials are used 

for several purposes, including the 

cleaning of spray guns, transfer lines 

(e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the 

interior of spray booths, and cleaning 

other unwanted materials from 

equipment related to coating operations. 

These cleaning materials are typically 

mixtures of organic solvents. 

Work practices are widely used 

throughout the automobile and lightduty truck manufacturing industry to 

reduce VOC emissions from cleaning 

operations. These measures include 

covering mixing tanks, storing solvents 

and solvent soaked rags and wipes in 

closed containers, and cleaning spray 

guns in an enclosed system. Low-VOC 

content or low vapor pressure cleaning 

materials are used for certain cleaning 

activities. However, there is insufficient 

information available to correlate VOC 

content or vapor pressure to specific 

cleaning steps. 

3. Existing Federal, State, and Local 

VOC Control Strategies 

Three previous EPA actions addressed 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating operations. 

• CTG for Surface Coating of Cans, 

Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and 

Light-Duty Trucks (1977). 

• New Source Performance Standard 

for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Surface Coating Operations, 40 CFR part 

60, subpart MM (1980). 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface 

Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty 

Trucks, 40 CFR 63, subpart IIII (2004). 

In 1977, EPA issued a CTG document 

entitled ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources Volume II: Surface Coating of 

Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, 

Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks’’

(EPA–450/2–77–008). The 1977 CTG 

and subsequent implementation 

guidance provided RACT 

recommendations for controlling VOC 

emissions from automobile and lightduty trucks surface coating operations. 

These recommendations are 

summarized in Table 1. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-236 VI-108 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40245 

TABLE 1.—1977 CTG RECOMMENDED VOC EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE

COATING

EDP operation ................................................................................................. 0.14 kg VOC/liter (1.2 lbs/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, or 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.4 lb VOC/gallon) of 

coating solids deposited. 

Primer-surfacer (guide coat) operation ........................................................... 1.8 kg VOC/liter (15.1 lb VOC/gallon) of coating solids deposited. 

Topcoat operation ........................................................................................... 1.8 kg VOC/liter (15.1 lb VOC/gallon) of coating solids deposited. 

Final repair operation ...................................................................................... 0.58 kg VOC/liter (4.8 lbs/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds. 

In 1980, EPA promulgated an NSPS 

for surface coating of automobile and 

light-duty trucks (40 CFR part 60 

subpart MM). Due to the differences in 

emission limit formats, the NSPS and 

the 1977 CTG limits cannot be 

compared. The NSPS established the 

emission limits calculated on a monthly 

basis for each primecoat operation, 

guidecoat (primer-surfacer) operation, 

and topcoat operation located in an 

automobile or light-duty truck assembly 

plant constructed, reconstructed, or 

modified after October 5, 1979 (Table 2). 

The NSPS does not apply to plastic 

body component coating operations or 

to all-plastic automobile or light-duty 

truck bodies coated on separate coating 

lines. The VOC emission limit for EDP 

primecoat operations depends on the 

solids turnover ratio (Rt). The solids 

turnover ratio is the ratio of total 

volume of coating solids added to the 

EDP system in a calendar month to the 

total volumetric design capacity of the 

EDP system. 

TABLE 2.—1980 NSPS VOC EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING

Primecoat Operations (Non-EDP) 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42 lb/gal) coating solids applied. 

When Rt = ≥0.16: When 0.040 ≤Rt <0.160: When Rt <0.040: 

Primecoat Operations (EDP) ......... 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42 lb/gal) 

coating solids applied. 

0.17 × 3500.160¥Rtkg VOC/liter 

(0.17 × 3500.160–Rt × 8.34 lb/gal) 

coating solids applied. 

No VOC emission limit. 

Guidecoat Operations (including 

the guide coat application, flashoff area, and oven).

1.40 kg VOC/liter (11.7 lb/gal) coating solids applied. 

Topcoat Operations (including topcoat application, flash-off area, 

and oven).

1.47 kg VOC/liter (12.3 lb/gal) coating solids applied. 

In 2004, EPA promulgated the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 

Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty 

Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. 

The areas covered by the NESHAP 

include all the equipment used to apply 

coating to new automobile or light-duty 

truck bodies or body parts and to dry or 

cure the coatings after application; all 

storage containers and mixing vessels in 

which vehicle body coatings, thinners, 

and cleaning materials are stored and 

mixed; all manual and automated 

equipment and containers used for 

conveying vehicle body coatings, 

thinners, and cleaning materials; and all 

storage containers and all manual and 

automated equipment and containers 

used to convey waste materials 

generated by an automobile and lightduty truck surface coating operation. 

The 2004 NESHAP for automobile 

and light-duty truck surface coating 

established organic HAP emission 

limitations calculated on a monthly 

basis for existing sources. More 

stringent limits apply to new sources, 

which are sources that commence 

construction after December 24, 2002. 

The limits for automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coating for existing and 

new sources are summarized in Table 3 

below. 

TABLE 3.—2004 NESHAP HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING

Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and 

glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for 

deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not 

components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added 

to the affected source.

0.060 kg organic HAP/liter of coating solids deposited (0.50 lb/ 

gal) for new or reconstructed affected sources. 

0.132 kg organic HAP/liter of coating solids deposited (1.10 lb/ 

gal) for existing affected sources. 

Combined EDP, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, 

and glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are 

not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations 

added to the affected source.

0.036 kg organic HAP/liter of coating solids deposited (0.30 lb/ 

gal) for new or reconstructed affected sources. 

0.072 kg organic HAP/liter of coating solids deposited (0.60 lb/ 

gal) for existing affected sources. 

The 2004 NESHAP requires that 

facilities develop and implement a plan 

to minimize HAP emissions from 

cleaning operations for automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating. The 

NESHAP also requires that facilities 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-109 A-237 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40246 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

14Heavy vehicles include all vehicles that are not 

automobiles or light-duty trucks, as those terms are 

defined at 40 CFR 63.3176 (the NESHAP for Surface 

Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks). 

utilize work practices to minimize 

organic HAP emissions from the storage, 

mixing, and conveying of coatings, 

thinners, cleaning materials, and from 

handling waste materials generated by 

the coating operation. 

In addition to the EPA actions 

mentioned above, 14 States and 

California’s Bay Area District, where the 

only automobile and light-duty trucks 

manufacturing facility in California is 

located, have regulations that control 

VOC emissions from surface coating 

operations. These State RACT rules 

have VOC emission limits equivalent to 

the 1977 CTG recommended limits or 

the NSPS limits. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The proposed CTG recommends: VOC 

emission limits for coating operations; 

work practices for storage and handling 

of coatings, thinners, and coating waste 

materials; and work practices for the 

handling and use of cleaning materials. 

The recommended VOC limits are based 

on 2006 and 2007 data from currently 

operating automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coating operations, and the 

work practices recommendations mirror 

those found in the NESHAP. 

During the development of the 2004 

NESHAP, EPA identified 65 automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly facilities 

operating in 1999. For the development 

of this CTG, The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers, an industry trade 

association representing the majority of 

these facilities, provided information 

from member companies and submitted 

this information to EPA. Non-member 

companies also provided information to 

EPA. Information was provided for 56 

facilities. The information included 

VOC emission rates for EDP, primersurfacer, and topcoat operations on a 

daily and monthly average for the 

calendar years 2006 and 2007. Most 

facilities also provided data showing 

maximum and minimum daily values, 

as well. 

1. Applicability 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for reducing VOC 

emissions from automobile and lightduty truck surface coatings and cleaning 

materials. We are recommending that 

these control options apply to surface 

coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/ 

day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more 

before consideration of control. 

We do not recommend these control 

approaches for facilities that emit below 

this level because of the very small VOC 

emission reductions that can be 

achieved. The recommended threshold 

level is equivalent to the evaporation of 

approximately two gallons of solvent 

per day. Such a level is considered to 

be an incidental level of solvent usage 

that could be expected even in facilities 

that use very low-VOC content coatings. 

This recommended threshold is also 

consistent with our recommendations in 

many previous CTGs. 

Although we do not believe that our 

recommendations are appropriate for 

auto and light-duty truck facilities that 

emit less than the applicability 

threshold recommended above, we 

believe that all auto and light-duty truck 

facilities emit at or above that level of 

VOC. 

The draft CTG also recommends that 

States consider structuring their RACT 

rules to provide facilities that coat 

bodies and/or body parts of heavy 

vehicles 14 with the option of meeting 

either the State requirements for 

automobile and light-duty truck coating 

category or the requirements for 

miscellaneous metal products coatings 

category or the plastic parts coatings 

category. As mentioned in section II.B of 

this notice, heavy vehicle coatings are 

included in the Miscellaneous Metal 

Products and Plastic Parts Coatings 

categories under section 183(e) and are 

therefore covered in the draft CTG for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings. We note, however, that some 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating facilities also coat heavy vehicle 

bodies or body parts for heavier 

vehicles. The heavy vehicle bodies or 

body parts for heavier vehicles may be 

coated using the same equipment and 

materials that are used to coat 

automobile and light-duty truck bodies 

or body parts for automobiles and lightduty trucks. The permit requirements 

for the heavier vehicle portion of these 

combined use paint shops are often 

structured in the same way as permit 

requirements for automobile and lightduty truck paint shops. Also, some 

facilities that coat only heavier vehicle 

bodies or body parts for heavier vehicles 

have paint shops that are designed and 

operated in the same manner as paint 

shops that are used to coat automobile 

and light-duty truck bodies and body 

parts for automobiles and light-duty 

trucks. The permit requirements for 

these heavier vehicle paint shops are 

often structured in the same way as 

permit requirements for automobile and 

light-duty truck paint shops. In light of 

the above, providing heavier vehicle 

coating facilities with the option of 

meeting the State RACT requirements 

for the automobile and light-duty truck 

coating category in lieu of the 

requirements for Miscellaneous Metal 

Products or Plastic Parts categories will 

provide for the most consistency with 

existing permit requirements and 

simplify compliance demonstration 

requirements for these facilities. 

Furthermore, in light of the stringency 

of our recommended control measures 

in the draft Auto and Light-Duty Truck 

CTG, we believe that facilities that 

choose this alternative will achieve at 

least equivalent, if not greater, control of 

VOC emissions. For the reasons stated 

above, we recommend that States RACT 

rules provide heavier vehicle coating 

facilities the option of meeting either 

the State requirements for 

miscellaneous metals and plastic parts 

coatings or the requirements for auto 

and light-duty truck coatings. 

2. Coatings 

The VOC emission limits 

recommended in the draft CTG are 

based on the data supplied by the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

member companies and other 

manufacturers in 2008. These 

recommendations are more stringent 

than existing State RACT rules which 

are based on the 1977 CTG or the NSPS 

limits. 

In conjunction with our 

recommended VOC emission limits for 

primer-surfacer and topcoat, we 

recommend in the draft CTG that 

facilities follow the procedures and 

calculations in a draft revised 

‘‘Automobile Topcoat Protocol’’ for 

determining the daily VOC emission 

rates of automobile and light-duty truck 

primer-surfacer and topcoat operations. 

In 1988, EPA published a document 

titled ‘‘Protocol for Determining the 

Daily Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Rate of Automobile and LightDuty Truck Topcoat Operations’’ (EPA–

450/3–88–018). This document is 

commonly referred to as the Automobile 

Topcoat Protocol. The Automobile 

Topcoat Protocol provides procedures 

and calculations for determining the 

daily VOC emission rate of an 

automobile and light-duty truck topcoat 

operation. The 1988 protocol has been 

adopted into many State regulations and 

permits, and is also referenced in the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 

Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty 

Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. 

Most automobile and light-duty truck 

facilities use the 1988 protocol for both 

their topcoat and primer-surfacer 

operation. 

In conjunction with the draft CTG we 

have prepared a draft revision of the 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol. The draft 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-238 VI-110 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40247 

revised protocol includes new sections 

on accounting for control of spray booth 

emissions and instructions for applying 

the protocol to primer-surfacer 

operations. As mentioned above, we 

recommend in the draft CTG that 

facilities refer to the procedures and 

calculations in the draft revised protocol 

for determining the daily VOC emission 

rate of automobile and light-duty truck 

primer-surfacer and topcoat operations. 

We plan to issue the final revised 

protocol concurrently with the final 

CTG. After the final revised protocol has 

been issued, we plan to amend the 

NESHAP for Automobile and Light-Duty 

Trucks (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII) to 

replace the references to the 1988 

protocol with references to the revised 

protocol. 

The draft CTG recommends the 

following VOC emission limits to 

reduce VOC emissions from the coatings 

during the coating operations: 

• EDP operations (including 

application area, spray/rinse stations, 

and curing oven): 0.084 kg VOC/liter of 

deposited solids (0.7 lb VOC/gal 

deposited solids) on a monthly average 

basis. 

• Primer-surfacer operations 

(including application area, flash-off 

area, and oven): 1.44 kg of VOC/liter of 

deposited solids (12.0 lbs VOC/gal 

deposited solids) on a daily average 

basis as determined by following the 

procedures in the draft revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol. 

• Topcoat operations (including 

application area, flash-off area, and 

oven): 1.44 kg VOC/liter of deposited 

solids (12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited 

solids) on a daily average basis as 

determined by following the procedures 

in the draft revised Automobile Topcoat 

Protocol. 

• Final repair: 0.58 kg VOC/liter of 

coating (4.8 lb VOC/gallon of coating) 

less water and less exempt solvents. 

The categories reflect the current 

processes that are used at automobile 

and light-duty truck surface coating 

facilities. In addition to the individual 

limits described above for primersurfacer and topcoat operations, the 

draft CTG recommends that State RACT 

rules provide sources with the option of 

a single emission limit for combined 

primer-surfacer and topcoat operations 

because in many facilities these 

processes are becoming 

indistinguishable from each other. The 

recommended alternative limit for 

combined primer-surfacer and topcoat 

applications is as follows: 

• Combination of primer-surfacer and 

topcoat operations: 1.44 kg VOC/liter of 

deposited solids (12.0 lb VOC/gal 

deposited solids) on a daily average 

basis as determined by following the 

procedures in the draft revised 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol. 

All of the recommended emission 

limits described above reflect the 

combined use of low-VOC content 

coatings, effective application 

equipment, and control devices. 

Additionally, the CTG recommends 

work practices to reduce emissions from 

coating operations, such as covering 

open containers. 

3. Cleaning Materials and Operations 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials used in automobile 

and light-duty truck surface coating 

operations. The draft CTG recommends 

that, at a minimum, these work 

practices include the following: (1) 

Store all VOC-containing cleaning 

materials and used shop towels in 

closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing 

and storage containers used for VOCcontaining cleaning materials are kept 

closed at all times except when 

depositing or removing these materials; 

(3) minimize spills of VOC-containing 

cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning 

materials from one location to another 

in closed containers or pipes; and (5) 

minimize VOC emissions from cleaning 

of application, storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment by ensuring that 

application equipment cleaning is 

performed without atomizing the 

cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure 

and that all spent solvent is captured in 

closed containers. 

The draft CTG also recommends that 

facilities develop and implement plans 

to minimize VOC emissions from 

cleaning operations and from purging of 

equipment associated with all coating 

operations for which the draft CTG 

recommends an emission limit. The 

draft CTG recommends that the plans 

specify the practices and procedures for 

minimizing VOC emissions from the 

following operations: Vehicle body 

wiping, coating line purging, flushing of 

coating systems, cleaning of spray booth 

grates, cleaning of spray booth walls, 

cleaning of spray booth equipment, and 

cleaning external spray booth areas. The 

recommended plan in the draft CTG is 

an enhancement of the plan required in 

the NESHAP, and not an entirely new 

plan. Most elements of the NESHAP 

plan, which is designed to reduce 

organic HAP emissions, are also 

effective in reducing VOC emissions 

and are therefore included in our work 

practice plan recommendation in the 

draft CTG. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

Auto and light-duty truck coating 

facilities have reduced the VOC 

emissions from their coating operations 

to comply with the NSPS, NESHAP, and 

State rules. The recommended VOC 

emission rates described above reflect 

the control measures that are currently 

being implemented by these facilities, 

which surpass requirements in the 

NSPS and State rules based on the 1977 

CTG. Consequently, there is no 

additional cost to implement the draft 

CTG recommendations. For the same 

reason, we do not anticipate additional 

VOC emission reduction. 

The draft CTG also recommends work 

practices for reducing VOC emissions 

from both coatings and cleaning 

materials. We believe that our work 

practice recommendations in the draft 

CTG will result in a net cost savings. 

Implementing work practices reduces 

the amount of coatings and cleaning 

materials used by decreasing 

evaporation. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG will be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coatings under CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the 

four factors identified above in section 

I.D in light of the specific facts and 

circumstances associated with this 

product category. Based on that 

analysis, we propose to determine that 

a CTG will be substantially as effective 

as a rule in achieving VOC emission 

reductions in ozone nonattainment 

areas from automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coatings and associated 

cleaning materials. 

This section is divided into two parts. 

In the first part, we discuss our belief 

that the most effective means of 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

this category is through controls at the 

point of use of the product, (i.e., through 

controls on the use of coatings and 

cleaning materials at automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating 

facilities), and this control can be 

accomplished only through a CTG. We 

further explain that the recommended 

approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective EPA, 

State, and local VOC control strategies. 

In the second part, we discuss how the 

distribution and place of use of the 

products in this category also support 

the use of a CTG. We also discuss the 

likely VOC emission reductions 

associated with a CTG, as compared to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-111 A-239 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40248 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

a regulation. We further explain that 

there are control approaches for this 

category that result in significant VOC 

emission reductions and that such 

reductions could only be obtained by 

controlling the use of the products 

through a CTG. Such reductions could 

not be obtained through a regulation 

under CAA section 183(e) because the 

controls affect the end-user, which is 

not a regulated entity under CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, 

which are described more fully below, 

we believe that a CTG will achieve 

greater VOC emission reductions than a 

rule for this category and therefore 

satisfy the criterion in section 

183(e)(3)(C) of being substantially as 

effective as regulations in reducing VOC 

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. 

1. The Most Effective Entity to Target for 

VOC Reductions and Consistency With 

Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC 

Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important first to identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions and the 

strategies used to reduce these VOC 

emissions. There are two main sources 

of VOC emissions from automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coatings and 

associated cleaning materials: (1) 

Evaporation of VOC from coating 

application, drying, and curing; and (2) 

evaporation of VOC from cleaning of 

spray booths and application 

equipment. We address each of these 

sources of VOC emissions, in turn, 

below, as we discuss the CTG versus 

regulation approach. 

a. Coatings. As previously mentioned, 

VOC emissions from the coatings can be 

effectively controlled through the use of 

a combination of measures, including 

low-VOC content coatings, effective 

application equipment, add-on controls, 

and work practices. Pursuant to CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the 

regulated entities subject to a national 

rule would be the coating manufacturers 

and suppliers, not the automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating 

facilities. The VOC content of 

automobile and light-duty truck 

coatings is within the control of the 

coating manufacturers and suppliers. A 

national rule regulating coating 

manufacturers and suppliers, therefore, 

could contain limits for the as-sold VOC 

content of automobile and light-duty 

truck coatings. However, the coating 

application equipment, add-on controls 

and work practices used at automobile 

and light-duty truck surface coating 

facilities are not within the control of 

the coating manufacturers and 

suppliers. A national rule regulating 

coating manufacturers and suppliers, 

therefore, could not require or otherwise 

ensure that automobile and light-duty 

truck coating facilities use improved 

application methods, add-on controls, 

or work practices to reduce VOC 

emissions. 

A CTG, on the other hand, affects the 

end-users of the coating materials and, 

therefore, can implement all of the 

control measures identified above. The 

draft CTG recommends emission limits 

for automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coating operations based on the 

combined effects of the use of low-VOC 

content coatings, improved transfer 

efficiency and add-on controls. The 

recommended emission limits reflect 

the same levels of coating VOC content 

that would be required by a national 

rule should we decide to issue a rule, 

plus additional VOC reductions through 

the use of efficient coating application 

and add-on controls. The draft CTG also 

recommends certain work practices to 

further reduce VOC emissions from the 

coatings used in automobile and lightduty truck surface coating operations. 

Given the significant reductions 

achievable through the use of these 

recommended control measures, the 

most effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from automobile and lightduty truck surface coatings is the facility 

using the coatings. 

These control measures are consistent 

with existing EPA, State, and local 

emission control strategies applicable to 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating. Previous EPA actions and 

existing State and local regulations that 

address automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coating similarly considered the 

combined effect of the use of low-VOC 

content coatings, improved transfer 

efficiency, add-on controls, and work 

practices. Accordingly, we are including 

these recommended control measures in 

the draft CTG that applies to automobile 

and light-duty truck surface coating 

facilities as the end-users of the coating 

materials. 

b. Cleaning Materials. There are two 

primary means to control VOC 

emissions associated with the cleaning 

materials used in the automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating process: 

(1) Limiting the VOC content or VOC 

vapor pressure of the cleaning materials, 

and (2) implementing work practices 

governing the use of the cleaning 

materials. A national rule could require 

that manufacturers of cleaning materials 

for automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coating operations provide lowVOC content or low vapor pressure 

cleaning materials. However, the effect 

of such a national rule could be easily 

subverted because it could not 

guarantee that only those low-VOC 

content or low vapor pressure cleaning 

materials would be used for cleaning 

associated with automobile and lightduty truck surface coating. Many 

cleaning materials used in automobile 

and light-duty truck surface coating 

operations are not specifically marketed 

by the supplier as cleaning materials 

specific for use at automobile and lightduty truck surface coating operations. 

Nothing in a national rule that 

specifically regulates manufacturers and 

suppliers of cleaning materials specified 

for use in automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coating operations would 

preclude the automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coating industry from 

purchasing bulk solvents or other 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

other vendors. The general availability 

of bulk solvents or multipurpose 

cleaning materials from vendors that 

would not be subject to such regulation 

would directly undermine the 

effectiveness of such a national 

regulation. 

The more effective approach for 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials used by automobile and lightduty truck surface coaters is to control 

the use of cleaning materials through 

work practices. The draft CTG 

recommends work practices to reduce 

VOC emissions from cleaning materials 

used in automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coating operations. The draft 

CTG recommends that, at a minimum, 

these work practices include the 

following: (1) Store all VOC-containing 

cleaning materials and used shop towels 

in closed containers; (2) ensure that 

mixing and storage containers used for 

VOC-containing cleaning materials are 

kept closed at all times except when 

depositing or removing these materials; 

(3) minimize spills of VOC-containing 

cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning 

materials from one location to another 

in closed containers or pipes; and (5) 

minimize VOC emissions from cleaning 

of application, storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment by ensuring that 

application equipment cleaning is 

performed without atomizing the 

cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure 

and that all spent solvent is captured in 

closed containers. The draft CTG also 

recommends that facilities develop and 

implement plans to minimize VOC 

emissions from cleaning operations and 

from purging of equipment associated 

with all coating operations for which 

the draft CTG recommends an emission 

limit. 

Given the significant VOC reductions 

achievable through the implementation 

of work practices, we conclude that the 

most effective entity to address VOC 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-240 VI-112 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40249 

15As noted above, in a previous notice, EPA 

stated that the cleaning operations associated with 

certain specified section 183(e) consumer and 

commercial product categories, including fiberglass 

boat manufacturing, would not be covered by EPA’s 

2006 CTG for industrial cleaning solvents (71 FR 

44522 and 44540, August 4, 2006). In the notice, 

EPA expressed its intention to address cleaning 

operations associated with these categories in the 

CTGs for these specified categories if the EPA 

determines that a CTG is appropriate for the 

respective categories. Accordingly, the draft CTG 

for the fiberglass boat manufacturing category 

addresses the VOC emissions from cleaning 

operations associated with this product category. 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coating operations is the facility 

using the cleaning materials during 

surface coating operations. This 

recommendation is consistent with 

measures required by Federal, State and 

local jurisdictions for reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coating operations and Federal 

rules for HAP cleaning. 

We cannot, however, issue a rule 

requiring such work practices for 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating facilities because, pursuant to 

CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), 

the regulated entities subject to a 

national rule would be the cleaning 

materials manufacturers and suppliers 

and not the automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coating facilities. 

Accordingly, we are including these 

work practices in the draft CTG that 

applies to automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coating facilities as the 

end-users of the cleaning materials. 

Based on the sources of VOC 

emissions from the automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating 

operations and the available strategies 

for reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the products (i.e., through 

controls on automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coating facilities). This 

strategy can be accomplished only 

through a CTG. The recommended 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective 

existing EPA, State, and local VOC 

control strategies for automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating 

operations. These two factors alone 

demonstrate that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for automobile and light-duty 

truck surface coatings and associated 

cleaning materials. 

First, automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coatings and associated cleaning 

materials are used at commercial 

facilities in specific, identifiable 

locations. Specifically, these materials 

are used in commercial facilities that 

apply surface coating to automobiles 

and light-duty trucks as described in 

section III.A. This stands in contrast to 

other consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

manufacturing facilities, 

implementation and enforcement of 

controls concerning the use of these 

products are feasible. Therefore the 

nature of the products’ place of use 

further counsels in favor of the CTG 

approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve greater 

emission reduction than a national rule 

for each source of VOC emissions from 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coatings and associated cleaning 

materials. A CTG will achieve greater 

VOC emission reduction because it can 

provide for the highly effective emission 

control strategies described above that 

are applicable to the end-users of the 

coatings and cleaning materials at 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating facilities. Specifically, the draft 

CTG recommends emission limits for 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating operations based on the 

combined effects of the use of low-VOC 

content coatings, improved transfer 

efficiency, and add-on control devices. 

It also recommends work practices that 

would further reduce VOC emissions 

from coating operations as well as 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials associated with the coating 

operations. These significant VOC 

reductions could not be obtained 

through a national regulation, because 

they require the implementation of 

measures by the end-user. For the 

reasons stated above, it is more effective 

to control VOC emissions from coatings 

and cleaning materials used for 

automobile and light-duty truck surface 

coating through a CTG than through a 

national regulation. 

The number of automobile and lightduty truck surface coating facilities 

affected by our recommendations in this 

draft CTG further supports our proposed 

determination pursuant to section 

183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG would be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

controlling VOC emissions for this 

product category. We recommend the 

control measures described in the draft 

CTG for automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg 

VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or 

more VOC. Based on the April 2004 

ozone nonattainment designations, we 

estimate that all of the automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating facilities 

located in ozone nonattainment areas 

emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 

3 tpy) or more. Therefore, we expect 

that our recommendations in the draft 

CTG would apply to all automobile and 

light-duty truck surface coating facilities 

in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG will 

be substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for reducing VOC emissions 

from automobile and light-duty truck 

surface coatings and associated cleaning 

materials in ozone nonattainment areas. 

IV. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

This category of consumer and 

commercial products includes the 

materials used to manufacture fiberglass 

boats. Fiberglass is also known as fiber 

reinforced plastic (FRP). These materials 

are used to build all types and sizes of 

boats ranging from small kayaks, canoes, 

and rowboats, up to large yachts over 

100 feet in length. The types of boats 

manufactured include both powerboats 

and sailboats, and most are for 

recreation. However, these materials are 

also used to build boats for commercial, 

government, and military uses. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The VOC emissions from fiberglass 

boat manufacturing are a result of 

evaporation of the VOC contained in the 

laminating resins, gel coatings, and 

cleaning materials 15 used to 

manufacture fiberglass boats. These 

VOC are primarily styrene and methyl 

methacrylate (MMA) added to resin and 

gel coats as diluents and cross linking 

agents. Boats made from FRP are 

typically manufactured in a process 

known as open molding. Separate molds 

are used for the boat hull, deck, and 

miscellaneous small FRP parts such as 

fuel tanks, seats, storage lockers, and 

hatches. The parts are built on or inside 

the molds using glass roving, cloth, or 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-113 A-241 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40250 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

mat that is saturated with a 

thermosetting liquid resin such as 

unsaturated polyester or vinylester 

resin. The liquid resin is mixed with a 

catalyst before it is applied to the glass, 

which causes a cross-linking reaction 

between the resin molecules. The 

catalyzed resin hardens to form a rigid 

shape consisting of the plastic resin 

reinforced with glass fibers. 

a. Processes. The FRP boat 

manufacturing process generally follows 

the following production steps: 

(1) Before each use, the molds are 

cleaned and polished and then treated 

with a mold release agent that prevents 

the part from sticking to the mold. 

(2) The open mold is first spraycoated with a pigmented polyester resin 

known as a gel coat. The gel coat will 

become the outer surface of the finished 

part. The gel coat is mixed with a 

catalyst as it is applied with a spray gun 

so that it will harden. The gel coat is 

applied to a thickness of about 18 mils 

(0.018 inches). 

(3) After the gel coat has hardened, 

the inside of the gel coat is coated with 

a thin ‘‘skin’’ coat of polyester resin and 

short glass fibers and then rolled with 

a metal or plastic roller to compact the 

fibers and remove air bubbles. The skin 

coat fibers are randomly oriented and 

form a layer about 90 mils (0.09 inches) 

thick that is intended to prevent 

distortion of the gel coat (known as 

‘‘print through’’) from the subsequent 

layers of fiberglass and resin. 

(4) After the skin coat has hardened, 

additional glass reinforcement in the 

form of chopped fibers and woven 

fiberglass cloth is applied to the inside 

of the mold and saturated with 

catalyzed polyester resin. The resin is 

usually applied with either mechanical 

spray or flow coating equipment, or by 

hand using a bucket and brush or painttype roller. 

(5) The saturated fabric is then rolled 

with a metal or plastic roller to compact 

the fibers and remove air bubbles. 

(6) More layers of woven glass or glass 

mat and resin are applied until the part 

is the desired thickness; the part is then 

allowed to harden while still in the 

mold. The final thickness of the part, for 

example, may be about 0.25 inches for 

the hull of a small motorboat, up to one 

or two inches thick for the hull of a 

large yacht. 

(7) After the resin has cured, the part 

is removed from the mold and the edges 

are trimmed to the final dimensions. 

(8) The different FRP parts of the boat 

are assembled using more fiberglass and 

resin, adhesives, or mechanical 

fasteners. 

(9) Flotation foam is typically injected 

into closed cavities in the hulls of 

smaller boats to make the boat 

unsinkable and capable of floating if 

swamped. 

(10) After the assembly of the hull is 

complete, the electrical and mechanical 

systems and the engine are installed 

along with carpeting, seat cushions, and 

other furnishings and the boat is 

prepared for shipment. 

(11) Some manufacturers paint the 

topsides of their boats to obtain a 

superior finish or paint the bottoms to 

prevent marine growth. 

(12) Larger boats generally also 

require extensive interior woodwork 

and cabin furnishings to be installed. 

Resins and gel coats are also used to 

produce the prototypes and molds (or 

‘‘tools’’) that are used in manufacturing 

fiberglass boats. These ‘‘tooling’’ resins 

and gel coats are different from 

production materials and are specially 

formulated for greater strength, 

hardness, and dimensional stability 

compared to production materials. 

b. Sources of VOC Emissions. The 

primary VOC emissions from fiberglass 

boat manufacturing are styrene and 

MMA released during resin and gel coat 

application and curing, as well as 

emissions from evaporation of the VOC 

contained in the materials used during 

cleaning activities, such as spray gun 

cleaning and cleaning of other 

equipment. VOC emissions from 

cleaning and polishing molds, resin and 

gel coat storage and handling, and waste 

storage and handling are small. There 

are no wastewater streams associated 

with fiberglass boat manufacturing that 

may produce VOC emissions. 

As mentioned above, although small, 

some VOC emissions occur during the 

handling and storage of resin and gel 

coat. These VOC emissions occur from 

displacement of VOC-laden air in 

containers used to store and mix 

materials before application. The 

displacement of VOC-laden air can 

occur during the filling of containers. It 

can also be caused by changes in 

temperature or barometric pressure, or 

by agitation during mixing. 

The majority of VOC emissions occur 

during resin and gel coat application. 

The resins contain styrene, which acts 

as a solvent and a cross-linking agent. 

Gel coats contain both styrene and 

MMA; MMA also acts as a solvent and 

cross-linking agent. A fraction of each 

compound evaporates during resin and 

gel coat application and curing. Not all 

of the styrene and MMA evaporate 

because a majority of these compounds 

are bound in the cross-linking reaction 

between polymer molecules in the 

hardened resin or gel coat and become 

part of the finished product. 

The fraction of VOC that is emitted 

from resin and gel coat materials is 

dependent on several factors, including 

the initial VOC content of the material, 

the application method, and the 

thickness of the part or layer that is 

curing. VOC emission rates are usually 

expressed in terms of lb VOC emitted 

per ton of material applied (lb/ton). 

VOC evaporation from gel coats is 

higher than from resins because gel 

coats are applied in thinner coats, 

which increases evaporation. When 

material is applied in thicker layers, the 

overlying material impedes evaporation 

from the underlying material, so a 

higher fraction is bound up during the 

cross linking reactions before it has a 

chance to evaporate. 

Higher VOC materials also tend to 

emit a higher fraction of the VOC than 

lower VOC materials. Therefore, 

lowering the VOC content of the resin 

or gel coat has a two-fold effect: First, 

it decreases the amount of VOC that 

could be emitted, and second, a smaller 

fraction of the VOC that is present is 

emitted to the atmosphere. 

The type of application equipment 

used also affects the fraction of VOC 

that is emitted. Spray application 

equipment that atomizes the resin as it 

is applied creates droplets with a high 

surface-to-volume ratio, which increases 

the amount of VOC that evaporates 

during application. Non-atomizing 

application methods minimize the 

surface area during application and 

reduce VOC emission rates. These nonatomizing methods include resin flow 

coaters, which create consolidated 

streams of resin (like a shower head) 

instead of atomized droplets, and 

pressure fed resin rollers that apply 

resin directly onto the part. Nonatomized application is not currently 

feasible for gel coat application and gel 

coat is currently spray-applied in almost 

all cases. The only exception is gel coat 

that may be applied with a brush or 

roller to the interior areas of finished 

boats where the cosmetic appearance is 

not as critical as on the exterior. 

Resin and gel coat application 

equipment requires solvent cleaning to 

remove uncured resin or gel coat when 

not in use. If the equipment is not 

flushed and cleaned after each use, the 

resin or gel coat will catalyze inside and 

on the exterior of the application 

equipment within a few minutes. 

c. Controls. Reducing VOC emissions 

from fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials is achieved primarily by 

reducing the VOC content of the 

materials (resin and gel coat) and by 

switching to non-atomizing resin 

application methods. Industry and EPAsponsored testing has experimentally 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-242 VI-114 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40251 

16This testing was done in conjunction with the 

development of the NESHAP for boat 

manufacturing (40 CFR 63, subpart VVVV) and the 

NESHAP for reinforced plastic composite 

manufacturing (40 CFR 63, subpart WWWW). The 

equations that were developed were incorporated 

into both of these final NESHAP. 

measured the amount of VOC that is 

emitted, and equations have been 

developed to predict the VOC emission 

rates (lb VOC/ton of material applied) 

for different materials and application 

methods.16

The different resins and gel coats can 

be reformulated to achieve varying 

levels of lowered VOC contents, 

depending on their use in boat 

manufacturing. Because reducing the 

VOC content reduces emissions by two 

interacting mechanisms (reducing the 

amount of VOC available to be emitted 

and by reducing the fraction of VOC that 

is emitted), VOC emission reduction is 

not linearly related to VOC content. For 

example, reformulating a laminating 

resin from 40 percent VOC, by weight, 

to 35 percent VOC, achieves a 28 

percent VOC emission reduction if the 

resin is spray-applied. 

Changing resin application methods 

can also reduce VOC emissions. For 

example, switching from spray 

application to nonatomizing application 

of a resin with 35 percent styrene 

achieves a 41 percent emission 

reduction. If both styrene content and 

application method are changed to 

reduce emissions, the reductions can be 

greater than changing just resin styrene 

content or application method alone. 

For example, changing from a sprayapplied resin with 40 percent styrene, to 

one with 35 percent styrene that is 

applied with nonatomizing technology 

can achieve a 58 percent emission 

reduction. 

Currently nonatomizing technology is 

feasible for applying production and 

tooling resins only. Gel coats must still 

be applied with atomizing spray guns, 

so VOC reductions from gel coat can 

only be achieved through use of lowVOC gel coats. The control methods for 

reducing VOC emissions from resin and 

gel coat application are described in 

more detail in the draft CTG. 

Another method to reduce VOC 

emissions is the use of closed molding. 

Closed molding is the name given to 

fabrication techniques in which 

reinforced plastic parts are produced 

between the halves of a two-part mold 

or between a mold and a flexible 

membrane, such as a bag. There are four 

types of closed molding methods that 

are being used in fiberglass boat 

manufacturing: Vacuum bagging, 

vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding, 

resin transfer molding, and compression 

molding with sheet molding compound. 

Closed molding processes as they are 

currently practiced cannot reduce 

emissions during gel coat or skin coat 

application because these steps must 

still use conventional open molding 

techniques. However, closed molding 

can be used to reduce VOC emissions 

from the subsequent laminating steps 

after the gel coat and skin coat layers 

have been applied. Closed molding is 

generally applicable to making a large 

number of small parts, such as hatches 

and locker doors, or small numbers of 

high performance boat hulls and decks, 

but it is not feasible to replace open 

molding at all types of boat 

manufacturers. However, one major 

fiberglass boat manufacturer has 

developed a patented closed molding 

process that has replaced open molding 

for the hulls of many of its smaller (17 

to 22 feet long) powerboats. 

The majority of VOC emissions from 

open molding with resin and gel coat 

occur in an open shop environment, 

although some gel coat spraying for 

smaller parts may be done in a spray 

booth. The volume of air exhausted 

from the open shop or from spray 

booths is typically high, and the VOC 

concentration is typically low. 

Therefore, it is generally not costeffective to use add-on controls to 

reduce VOC emissions from fiberglass 

boat manufacturing. Because of the wide 

availability and lower cost (compared to 

add-on controls) of low-VOC content 

materials and alternative application 

equipment/methods, these materials 

and application equipment/methods are 

used instead to reduce VOC emissions 

from fiberglass boat manufacturing 

facilities. In addition, work practices 

(e.g., using closed mixing containers) 

are used throughout the fiberglass boat 

manufacturing industry to reduce VOC 

emissions from containers used to mix 

manufacturing materials containing 

VOC. These work practices are 

described in the draft CTG. 

To control VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials, water-based 

emulsifiers with low-VOC contents, as 

well as organic solvents (e.g., dibasic 

esters) with low vapor pressures, are 

used. 

3. Existing Federal, State, and Local 

VOC Control Strategies 

There are two previous EPA actions 

that address fiberglass boat 

manufacturing. 

• Assessment of VOC Emissions from 

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing (1990). 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat 

Manufacturing (2001). 

In 1990, we completed an 

‘‘Assessment of VOC Emissions from 

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing’’ (EPA/ 

600/S2–90/019). This document 

characterized the fiberglass boat 

manufacturing industry and its 

processes, assessed the extent of VOC 

emissions from this industry, and 

evaluated various control options. The 

assessment described open molding and 

discussed types of closed molding in 

use at the time. The assessment 

determined that acetone (no longer 

considered a VOC) and styrene were the 

two VOCs primarily emitted from the 

industry, and the major sources of 

emissions were resin and gel coat 

application, and evaporation of solvents 

during cleanup. 

The 1990 document discussed process 

changes and add-on controls to reduce 

emissions. Specifically, the 1990 

document recommended substituting 

the high-VOC resins and gel coats that 

were commonly used at that time with 

low-VOC resins and gel coats and vapor 

suppressed resins. The document 

discussed add-on controls but 

considered such controls not 

economically feasible for use in boat 

manufacturing due to high exhaust flow 

rates and low VOC concentrations. The 

document also recommended using 

water-based emulsifiers and low vapor 

pressure dibasic ester compounds for 

equipment cleaning. 

The second action was the 2001 

NESHAP for boat manufacturing (40 

CFR Part 63, subpart VVVV). The 2001 

NESHAP applies to fiberglass boat 

manufacturers using the processes and 

materials listed below: 

• All open molding operations, 

including pigmented gel coat, clear gel 

coat, production resin, tooling resin, 

and tooling gel coat; 

• All closed molding resin 

operations; 

• All resin and gel coat application 

equipment cleaning; and 

• All resin and gel coat mixing 

operations. 

The 2001 NESHAP regulates the total 

HAP content in the materials used in 

each regulated operation. Specifically, 

the 2001 NESHAP sets a HAP content 

limit for each regulated open molding 

resin and gel coat operation. For each 

regulated open molding resin operation, 

the NESHAP established separate HAP 

content limits for atomized and 

nonatomized resin application methods. 

For closed molding operations, no limits 

apply to the resin application operation 

if it meets the specific definition of 

closed molding provided in the 

NESHAP. If a molding operation does 

not meet the definition of closed 

molding that is provided in the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-115 A-243 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40252 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

NESHAP, then it must comply with the 

applicable emission limits for open 

molding. The emission limitations in 

the 2001 NESHAP are described in more 

detail in the actual CTG document. 

A manufacturer can demonstrate 

compliance with the 2001 NESHAP by 

either (1) demonstrating compliance 

with the individual HAP content limit 

for each type of open molding 

operation, (2) averaging emissions 

among resin and gel coat operations 

using equations provided in the 

NESHAP that would estimate the 

emissions from each operation, or (3) 

using an add-on control device. Even 

though add-on controls are not used for 

fiberglass boat manufacturing, this last 

option was included in case feasible 

control technology became available. 

Compliance with each HAP content 

limit in the first option can be 

demonstrated by using only compliant 

materials within a regulated operation, 

or demonstrating compliance based on 

the weighted-average HAP content for 

all materials used within an operation. 

In addition to the resin and gel 

coating open molding operations which, 

as described above, are subject to HAP 

content limits, other operations are 

subject to either work practice 

requirements or HAP content limits in 

the 2001 NESHAP. These operations 

include resin and gel coat mixing 

operations in containers, and routine 

resin and gel coat application 

equipment cleaning operations. 

Very few State and local regulations 

exist that apply to VOC emissions from 

the fiberglass boat manufacturing 

industry. The existing State and local 

regulations apply to all fiberglass 

manufacturing operations, and do not 

distinguish fiberglass boat 

manufacturing from the manufacturing 

of other products made from fiberglass. 

The SCAQMD has the most 

comprehensive regulation, but it is not 

as stringent as the 2001 NESHAP. Since 

styrene and MMA are the primary VOC 

from resin and gel coat and are also 

HAP, the HAP limits in the NESHAP 

and the VOC limits in State and local 

rules can be compared directly. 

Specifically, SCAQMD Rule 1162 

(Polyester Resin Operations) contains 

VOC content limits for specific types of 

resins, gel coats, and cleaning solvents. 

Furthermore, SCAQMD Rule 1162 

requires that all resins be applied with 

nonatomizing techniques, such as resin 

rollers, flow coaters, or hand layup. 

SCAQMD Rule 1162 also requires that 

gel coat be applied with high efficiency 

spray equipment, such as HVLP, air 

assisted airless, or electrostatic spray. 

The San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Bay 

Area Districts also have rules covering 

these operations, but tend to be less 

stringent than SCAQMD Rule 1162. 

State rules for Maryland and the 

Chicago area of Illinois also limit the 

VOC content of resins and gel coats, but 

these are also less stringent than the 

2001 NESHAP. These State and local 

rules are summarized in more detail in 

the draft CTG. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for reducing VOC 

emissions from fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials. As explained 

in the draft CTG, we are recommending 

these control options for the fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities that emit 

6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 

tpy) or more. 

We do not recommend these control 

approaches for facilities that emit below 

this level because of the very small VOC 

emission reductions that can be 

achieved. The recommended threshold 

level is equivalent to the evaporation of 

approximately two gallons of styrene 

per day, or the spray application of 

about 150 lbs of resin. Such a level is 

considered to be an incidental level of 

material usage that could be expected 

even in facilities that perform only boat 

repair and maintenance, where only 

small amounts of material are used each 

day, rather than manufacturing. 

Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI 

data and the 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, facilities emitting below 

the recommended threshold level 

collectively emit less than four percent 

of the total reported VOC emissions 

from fiberglass boat manufacturing 

facilities in ozone nonattainment areas. 

For these reasons, we did not extend our 

recommendations in the draft CTG to 

these low emitting facilities. This 

recommended threshold is also 

consistent with our recommendations in 

many previous CTGs. 

For purposes of determining whether 

a facility meets the 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 

lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) threshold, 

aggregate emissions from all fiberglass 

boat manufacturing and related cleaning 

activities at a given facility are included. 

1. Resin and Gel Coat 

Based on a review of the 2001 

NESHAP, and the current State and 

local requirements discussed above, we 

are recommending VOC content limits 

and alternative VOC emission rate limits 

for resin and gel coats used in open 

molding operations. The VOC content 

limits are paired with specific methods 

(either atomized or non-atomized) for 

resin application. 

The CTG provides flexibility by 

recommending the same options for 

meeting the VOC limits as provided in 

the 2001 NESHAP for meeting the HAP 

emission limits. To meet the 

recommended open molding resin and 

gel coat limits, the CTG recommends 

three options: (1) Achieving the 

individual VOC content limit through 

the use of low-VOC materials, either by 

using only low-VOC materials within a 

covered operation (listed in the CTG), or 

by averaging the VOC contents for all 

materials used within an operation on a 

weight-adjusted basis; (2) meeting 

numerical emission rate limits, which 

would enable a facility to average 

emissions among different operations 

using equations to estimate emission 

rates from each operation based on the 

material and application method; or (3) 

using add-on controls to achieve a 

numerical VOC emission rate that is 

determined for each facility based on 

the mix of application methods and 

materials used at that facility. 

Our recommended VOC content 

limits under Option 1 are as follows: 

For this material— And this application method—

The recommended maximum weighted 

average VOC content (weight percent) is 

Production resin ....................................................................... Atomized (spray) ..................................................................... 28 

Production resin ....................................................................... Nonatomized (nonspray) ......................................................... 35 

Pigmented gel coat .................................................................. Any method ............................................................................. 33 

Clear gel coat .......................................................................... Any method ............................................................................. 48 

Tooling resin ............................................................................ Atomized (spray) ..................................................................... 30 

Tooling resin ............................................................................ Nonatomized (nonspray) ......................................................... 39 

Tooling gel coat ....................................................................... Any method ............................................................................. 40 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-244 VI-116 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40253 

As mentioned above, a facility may 

show that a relevant content limit is met 

by averaging the VOC contents for all 

materials used within an operation on a 

weight-adjusted basis. To facilitate this 

option, the draft CTG provides an 

equation for determining the weighted 

average VOC content for a particular 

open molding resin or gel coat material. 

The emission reductions that are 

achieved using the emissions averaging 

option (Option 2) and the add-on 

control option (Option 3) are equivalent 

to the emission reductions that are 

achieved meeting the VOC content 

limits (Option 1). Options 2 and 3 use 

emission factor equations to convert the 

VOC content limits in Option 1 into 

equivalent emission rates that a facility 

would otherwise achieve by using the 

low VOC materials for specific 

application methods and operations. 

A facility could use emission 

averaging (Option 2) or add-on controls 

(Option 3) for all open molding 

operations or only for some of the 

operations. Operations that a facility 

decides not to include in Options 2 or 

3 would need to use Option 1. For filled 

resins (i.e., resins to which fillers are 

added to acheive certain physical 

propderties), the CTG includes an 

adjustment factor that would allow 

filled resins to use any of the three 

options recommended above. 

2. Mixing Drums and Cleaning Materials 

To control VOC emissions from 

mixing drums, the draft CTG 

recommends that resin and gel coat 

mixing drums have covers with no 

visible gaps, and that these covers be 

kept in place at all times except when 

depositing or removing materials, or 

inserting or removing mixing 

equipment. This is the same practice 

required by the 2001 NESHAP, and is 

the most stringent control option that is 

technically and economically feasible. 

We do not recommend the use of covers 

for smaller containers because they are 

typically only used for small hand 

application operations that require an 

open container. 

The draft CTG also recommends that 

materials used for routine resin and gel 

coat application equipment cleaning 

must contain no more than 5.0 percent 

VOC by weight, or must have a 

composite vapor pressure no greater 

than 0.50 mm Hg at 68 degrees F. These 

limits for cleaning materials are based 

on the properties of water-based 

emulsifiers and dibasic esters that are 

used as alternatives to conventional 

cleaning solvents, and are the basis for 

the equipment cleaning requirements in 

the 2001 NESHAP. Therefore, the same 

cleaning materials used to comply with 

the 2001 NESHAP will meet the 

recommendations in this CTG. 

As mentioned above, both the work 

practice and the cleaning material VOC 

limit recommendations in the draft CTG 

are based on the 2001 NESHAP, which 

are more stringent than the 

requirements in other State and local 

actions. Based on the implementation of 

these measures by all major source 

fiberglass boat manufacturers, we 

believe that these control measures are 

technically and economically feasible 

for reducing VOC emissions from these 

cleaning materials and have therefore 

included them as our recommendations 

in the draft CTG. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

Based on the 2002 NEI database, we 

estimate that there are 223 fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities in the U.S. 

Using the April 2004 ozone 

nonattainment designations, 91 of these 

facilities are in ozone nonattainment 

areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC 

emissions data, we estimated that 67 of 

the 91 facilities in ozone nonattainment 

areas emitted VOC at or above the 

recommended 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb 

VOC/day or 3 tpy) VOC emissions 

applicability threshold. These 67 

facilities, in aggregate, emit about 1,452 

Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (1,601 tons 

per year (tpy)) of VOC per year, or an 

average of about 22 Mg/yr (24 tpy) of 

VOC per facility. 

The draft CTG recommends the use of 

low-VOC content resin and gel coats for 

each type of open molding operation, 

based on the 2001 NESHAP. This 

recommendation also includes the use 

of covers to further reduce VOC 

emissions from mixing drums and the 

use of low-VOC and low-vapor pressure 

cleaning materials. Those facilities that 

are major sources of HAP are already 

complying with the 2001 NESHAP and 

have already adopted these control 

measures. Therefore, we do not 

anticipate additional VOC emission 

reductions from these major source 

facilities. Because the 2001 NESHAP 

does not apply to area sources (i.e., 

sources that are not major sources of 

HAP), we assume that area source 

fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities 

are not currently implementing the 

measures provided in the 2001 NESHAP 

and recommended in the draft CTG. We 

estimate that 23 area source fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities are located 

in ozone nonattainment areas and meet 

the applicability threshold 

recommended in the draft CTG, and that 

these facilities emit, in aggregate, 104 

Mg/yr (115 tpy) of VOC. 

For implementing the 2001 NESHAP, 

the EPA estimated a cost of $3,600 per 

ton of HAP reduced, in 2001 dollars, or 

about $4,200 in 2007 dollars. Nearly all 

of the HAP that are reduced by the 

NESHAP are styrene and MMA, and 

styrene and MMA also account for 

nearly all of the VOC emitted from the 

processes addressed by the 

recommendations in the draft CTG. 

Therefore, we expect that the cost to 

reduce HAP and VOC are nearly equal. 

However, we expect that the cost of 

reducing VOC through the measures 

recommended in the draft CTG would 

be substantially lower than the cost of 

reducing HAP through the 2001 

NESHAP for several reasons. First, the 

NESHAP is now fully implemented at 

major sources of HAP, and resin, gel 

coat, and cleaning materials that are 

compliant with the 2001 NESHAP are 

readily available to all sizes of facilities. 

Second, the industry has experienced a 

shift to non-atomized resin application 

methods that are required to comply 

with the 2001 NESHAP. This shift has 

occurred at all sizes of facilities because 

of the productivity and economic 

benefits of using non-atomizing 

methods over conventional atomizing 

methods. Therefore, with respect to 

those facilities that are not subject to the 

2001 NESHAP, we expect that most, if 

not all, are already using the materials 

and methods recommended by the draft 

CTG. We therefore expect that these 

facilities would incur little, if any, 

increased costs if required by a State 

RACT rule to implement the approaches 

recommended in the draft CTG. We 

estimate that the total cost for the 23 

facilities to implement the 

recommended measures in the draft 

CTG would be substantially less than 

$168,000 in 2007 dollars. The impacts 

are further discussed in the draft CTG 

document. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials under CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the 

four factors identified above in section 

I.D in light of the specific facts and 

circumstances associated with this 

product category. Based on that 

analysis, we propose to determine that 

a CTG will be substantially as effective 

as a rule in achieving VOC emission 

reductions in ozone nonattainment 

areas from fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials. 

This section is divided into two parts. 

In the first part, we discuss our belief 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-117 A-245 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40254 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

that the most effective means of 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

this category is through controls at the 

point of use of the product, (i.e., through 

controls on the use of resin, gel coat, 

and cleaning materials at fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities), and this 

control can be accomplished only 

through a CTG. We further explain that 

the recommended approaches in the 

draft CTG are consistent with existing 

effective EPA, State, and local VOC 

control strategies. In the second part, we 

discuss how the distribution and place 

of use of the products in this category 

also support the use of a CTG. We also 

discuss the likely VOC emission 

reductions associated with a CTG, as 

compared to a regulation. We further 

explain that there are control 

approaches for this category that result 

in significant VOC emission reductions 

and that such reductions could only be 

obtained by controlling the use of the 

products through a CTG. Such 

reductions could not be obtained 

through a regulation under CAA section 

183(e) because the controls affect the 

end-user, which is not a regulated entity 

under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For 

these reasons, which are described more 

fully below, we believe that a CTG will 

achieve greater VOC emission 

reductions than a rule for this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity to Target for 

VOC Reductions and Consistency With 

Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC 

Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important first to identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from fiberglass boat manufacturing: (1) 

evaporation of VOC from resins and gel 

coats; and (2) evaporation of VOC from 

cleaning materials. We address each of 

these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, 

below, as we discuss the CTG versus 

regulation approach. 

a. Resin and Gel Coat Materials. A 

national rule could contain limits for 

the as-sold VOC content of resin and gel 

coat materials that are marketed for use 

in fiberglass boat manufacturing. 

However, the effect of such a rule could 

be easily subverted because it could not 

guarantee that fiberglass boat 

manufacturers would use only low-VOC 

fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. 

There is a broad diversity of resin and 

gel coat materials used in boat 

manufacturing. Many resin and gel coat 

materials used in fiberglass boat 

manufacturing are also used to 

manufacture other fiberglass products 

and are not specifically marketed by the 

supplier as materials for fiberglass boat 

manufacturing. Therefore, fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities could 

purchase and use high-VOC resins and 

gel coats not specified for use in 

fiberglass boat manufacturing. This 

practice would effectively nullify the 

reformulation actions of the 

manufacturers and suppliers of 

fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, 

resulting in no net change in VOC 

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. 

By contrast, a CTG can affect the endusers of the coating materials in the 

fiberglass boat manufacturing industry 

and, therefore, can implement the 

control measures that are more likely to 

achieve the objective of reducing VOC 

emissions from this product category in 

ozone nonattainment areas. As 

previously discussed, the draft CTG 

recommends VOC content limits for 

fiberglass boat manufacturing operations 

that can be achieved through the use of 

either low-VOC content resins and gel 

coats or add-on controls. In addition, 

the recommendations in the draft CTG 

include the use of covers on mixing 

drums to further reduce VOC emissions 

from resin and gel coat materials. These 

practices have been shown to effectively 

reduce VOC emissions beyond the 

levels achievable using low-VOC 

materials. These work practices would 

also reduce emissions beyond the levels 

achievable using an add-on control 

device since the emissions points that 

are affected by the work practices, such 

as mixing drums, would not be located 

in the enclosure that is vented to the 

control device. Given the significant 

reductions achievable through the use of 

these recommended control measures, 

the most effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from fiberglass boat 

manufacturing is the facility using the 

VOC-containing materials. 

The recommended control measures 

are consistent with existing EPA, State, 

and local VOC control strategies 

applicable to fiberglass boat 

manufacturing. As mentioned above, 

previous EPA actions and existing State 

and local regulations (in particular, the 

regulations in the majority of the 

California air Districts that address 

fiberglass boat manufacturing) similarly 

call for VOC emission reduction through 

the use of low-VOC content materials. 

Some also include work practices and 

specific application methods. We 

cannot, however, issue a national rule 

directly requiring fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities to use low-VOC 

content materials or specific application 

methods or to implement work practices 

to reduce VOC emissions because, 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities 

subject to a national rule would be the 

material manufacturers and suppliers, 

not the fiberglass boat manufacturing 

facilities. By contrast, a CTG can reach 

the end-users of fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials and, therefore, 

can implement the control 

recommendations for these users that 

are identified above as more likely to 

achieve the intended VOC emission 

reduction goal. Accordingly, we are 

including these control measures in the 

draft CTG that applies to fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities as the end-users 

of the resin and gel coat materials. 

b. Application Equipment Cleaning 

Materials. The most common method to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the application equipment cleaning 

materials used in the fiberglass boat 

manufacturing process is to limit the 

VOC content or VOC vapor pressure of 

the cleaning materials. A national rule 

requiring that manufacturers of cleaning 

materials for fiberglass boat 

manufacturing operations to provide 

low-VOC content or low vapor pressure 

(i.e., replacing VOC that have a high 

vapor pressure with low vapor pressure 

VOC) cleaning materials would suffer 

from the same deficiencies noted above 

with regard to the resin and gel coat 

materials. Specifically, nothing in a 

national rule that specifically regulates 

manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning 

materials specified for use in fiberglass 

boat manufacturing operations would 

preclude the fiberglass boat 

manufacturing industry from 

purchasing bulk solvents or other 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

other vendors. The general availability 

of bulk solvents or multipurpose 

cleaning materials from vendors that 

would not be subject to such regulation 

would directly undermine the 

effectiveness of such a national 

regulation. 

The more effective approach for 

reducing VOC emissions from 

application equipment cleaning 

materials is to control the types of 

cleaning materials. The draft CTG 

recommends that fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities use low-VOC or 

low vapor pressure cleaning materials. 

Given the significant VOC reductions 

achievable through the use of low-VOC 

or low vapor pressure cleaning 

materials, we conclude that the most 

effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 

in fiberglass boat manufacturing 

operations is the facility using the 

cleaning materials. This 

recommendation is consistent with 

measures required by State and local 

jurisdictions for reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning materials used 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-246 VI-118 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40255 

in fiberglass boat manufacturing 

operations. 

We cannot, however, issue a rule 

requiring the use of low-VOC 

application equipment cleaning 

materials for fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities because, 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities 

subject to a national rule would be the 

cleaning materials manufacturers and 

suppliers and not the fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities. Accordingly, 

we are including the recommendation to 

use low-VOC cleaning materials in the 

draft CTG that applies to fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities as the end-users 

of the cleaning materials. 

Based on the nature of the fiberglass 

boat manufacturing process, the sources 

of significant VOC emissions from this 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the products, (i.e., through 

controls on fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities), and such 

controls can be implemented only 

through a CTG. The recommended 

controls described in the draft CTG are 

also consistent with effective existing 

EPA, State, and local VOC control 

strategies for fiberglass boat 

manufacturing operations. These two 

factors alone demonstrate that a CTG 

will be substantially as effective as a 

national regulation under CAA section 

183(e) in addressing VOC emissions 

from this product category in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for fiberglass boat 

manufacturing. 

First, fiberglass boat manufacturing 

resins and gel coats and associated 

cleaning materials are used at 

commercial facilities in specific, 

identifiable locations. Specifically, these 

materials are used in commercial 

facilities that build fiberglass boats as 

described in section III.A. This stands in 

contrast to other consumer products, 

such as architectural coatings, that are 

widely distributed and used by 

innumerable small users (e.g., 

individual consumers in the general 

public). Because the VOC emissions are 

occurring at commercial manufacturing 

facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of these products are feasible. 

Therefore the nature of the products’

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve greater 

emission reduction than a national rule 

for each source of VOC emissions from 

fiberglass boat manufacturing and 

associated cleaning materials. For the 

reasons described above, we believe that 

a national rule limiting the VOC content 

in the resin, gel coat and cleaning 

materials used in fiberglass boat 

manufacturing operations would result 

in little VOC emissions reduction. By 

contrast, a CTG can achieve significant 

VOC emissions reduction because it can 

provide for the highly effective emission 

control strategies described above that 

are applicable to the end-users of the 

resin, gel coat, and cleaning materials at 

fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. 

Specifically, the draft CTG can provide 

for the use of low-VOC materials, 

specific application methods, and work 

practices. The significant VOC 

reductions associated with these 

measures could not be obtained through 

a national regulation, because they are 

achieved through the implementation of 

measures by the end-user. In addition, 

as previously explained, strategies that 

arguably could be implemented through 

rulemaking, such as limiting the VOC 

contents of the resin, gel coat, and 

cleaning materials used in fiberglass 

boat manufacturing, are far more 

effective if implemented directly at the 

point of use of these materials. For the 

reasons stated above, it is more effective 

to control the VOC contents of the resin, 

gel coat, and cleaning materials used for 

fiberglass boat manufacturing through a 

CTG than through a national regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities affected by 

our recommendations in this draft CTG, 

as compared to the total number of such 

facilities in ozone nonattainment areas, 

does not affect our conclusion that the 

CTG would be substantially more 

effective than a rule in controlling VOC 

emissions for this product category. We 

recommend the control measures 

described in the draft CTG for fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities that emit 

6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 

tpy) or more VOC. Based on the April 

2004 ozone nonattainment designations, 

we estimate that 67 of the 91 fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities located in 

ozone nonattainment areas emit 6.8 kg 

VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or 

more and are therefore addressed by our 

recommendations in the draft CTG. 

There are 24 fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities that would not 

be covered by the recommendations in 

the draft CTG. According to the 2002 

NEI database, these 24 facilities 

collectively emitted less than 12.7 Mg/ 

yr (14 tpy) of VOC, which is less than 

one percent of the total reported VOC 

(1,465 Mg/yr (1,615 tpy)) in ozone 

nonattainment areas. The fact that the 

CTG addresses more than 99 percent of 

the VOC emissions from fiberglass boat 

manufacturing facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas further supports 

our conclusion that a CTG is more likely 

to achieve the intended VOC emission 

reduction goal for this product category 

than a national rule. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities 

will be substantially as effective as a 

national regulation. 

V. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

The miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives product category includes 

adhesives (including adhesive primers 

used in conjunction with certain types 

of adhesives) used at a wide variety of 

industrial manufacturing and repair 

facilities that operate adhesives 

application processes. 

The miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives product category does not 

include adhesives that are addressed by 

CTGs already issued for categories listed 

under CAA Section 183(e) or by earlier 

CTGs. These include the CTGs issued 

under Section 183(e) for aerospace 

coatings; metal furniture coatings; large 

appliance coatings; flat wood paneling 

coatings; paper, film, and foil coatings; 

offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing; and flexible 

package printing. Coil coating, fabric 

coating, and rubber tire manufacturing 

were not listed under CAA Section 

183(e); however, they were the subject 

of earlier CTGs which address adhesives 

used in those processes. In addition, the 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

category does not include adhesives and 

adhesive primers that are subject to the 

National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Consumer 

Products, 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. 

Adhesives, glass bonding primers, 

and glass bonding adhesives applied to 

new automobile or new light-duty truck 

bodies, or body parts for new 

automobiles or new light-duty trucks are 

included in the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives product category and are 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-119 A-247 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40256 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

17 In a previous notice, EPA stated that the 

cleaning operations associated with certain 

specified section 183(e) consumer and commercial 

product categories, including the miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives category, would not be covered 

by EPA’s 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning solvents 

(71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 2006). In the 

notice, EPA expressed its intention to address 

cleaning operations associated with these categories 

in the CTGs for these specified categories if the 

Agency determines that a CTG is appropriate for the 

respective categories. Accordingly, the draft CTG 

for the miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

addresses VOC emissions from cleaning operations 

associated with this product category. 

addressed in the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives. In 

the draft CTG, however, we seek 

comments on whether the use of these 

materials in the production of new 

automobiles and new light-duty trucks 

should be included in the miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives product category 

and addressed in the CTG for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives, or 

in the auto and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings category. 

Adhesives are used for joining 

surfaces in assembly and construction of 

a large variety of products. Adhesives 

allow for faster assembly speeds, less 

labor input, and more ability for joining 

dissimilar materials than other fastening 

methods. The largest use of adhesives is 

for manufacture of pressure sensitive 

tapes and labels. Other large industrial 

users are automobile manufacturing, 

packaging laminating, and shoe 

construction. Although there are a wide 

variety of adhesives formulated from a 

multitude of synthetic and natural raw 

materials, all adhesives can be generally 

classified as solution/waterborne, 

solvent-borne, solventless or solid (e.g., 

hot melt adhesives), pressure sensitive, 

or reactive (e.g., epoxy adhesives and 

ultraviolet-curable adhesives). 

Adhesives can also be generally 

classified according to whether they are 

structural or nonstructural. Structural 

adhesives are commonly used in 

industrial assembly processes and are 

designed to maintain product structural 

integrity. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives are a 

result of evaporation of the solvents 

contained in many of the primers, 

adhesives and cleaning materials 17

during adhesive application and drying 

processes, as well as during surface 

preparation and cleaning processes 

associated with adhesives application. 

The primary VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

occur during application, flash-off, and 

drying. In many cases, the emissions 

from application and flash-off are 

removed from these areas with localized 

ventilation systems. A lesser amount of 

emissions occur as the adhesive dries. 

Essentially all of the remaining VOC in 

the organic solvent contained in the 

adhesives is emitted during the drying 

process. 

Some VOC emissions also occur 

during mixing of the adhesives. The 

VOC emissions from mixing operations 

occur from displacement of VOC-laden 

air in containers used to mix adhesives 

before application. The displacement of 

VOC-laden air can occur during the 

filling of containers. It can also be 

caused by changes in temperature or 

barometric pressure, or by agitation 

during mixing. 

The primary VOC emissions from the 

cleaning materials occur during 

cleaning operations, which include 

application equipment cleaning and line 

flushing. VOC emissions from surface 

preparation (where products and 

materials are primed and/or cleaned 

prior to adhesive application), adhesive 

storage and handling, and waste/ 

wastewater operations (i.e., handling 

waste/wastewater that may contain 

residues from both adhesives and 

cleaning materials) are small. 

As mentioned above, the majority of 

VOC emissions from miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives occur from 

evaporation of solvents in the adhesives 

during application. The transfer 

efficiency (the percent of adhesive 

solids deposited on the material or 

product) of an adhesive application 

method affects the amount of VOC 

emissions during adhesive application. 

The more efficient an adhesive 

application method is in transferring 

adhesives to the material or product, the 

lower the volume of adhesives (and 

therefore solvents) needed per given 

amount of production. High transfer 

efficiency results in lower VOC 

emissions. 

Miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

may be in the form of a liquid or aerosol 

product. Liquid adhesives may be 

applied by means of spray or dip 

coating. Conventional air atomized 

spray application systems utilize higher 

atomizing air pressure and typically 

have transfer efficiencies ranging 

between 25 and 40 percent. Dip coating 

is the immersion of a substrate into a 

coating bath. The transfer efficiency of 

a dip coater is very high (approximately 

90 percent); however, some VOC is 

emitted from the liquid coating bath due 

to its large exposed surface area. 

Many spray applied adhesives are 

electrostatically applied. In electrostatic 

application, an electrical attraction 

between the adhesive, which is 

positively charged, and the grounded 

substrate enhances the amount of 

adhesive deposited on the surface. For 

liquid adhesives, this application 

method is more efficient than 

conventional air atomized spray, with 

transfer efficiency typically ranging 

from 60 to 90 percent. 

Spray applied adhesives are typically 

applied in a spray booth to capture 

adhesive overspray, to remove solvent 

vapors from the workplace, and to keep 

the application operation from being 

contaminated by dirt from other 

operations. In spray application 

operations, the majority of VOC 

emissions occur in the spray booth. 

Other liquid adhesive application 

methods used in adhesive application 

operations include flow coating, roll 

coating, HVLP spray, electrocoating, 

autophoretic coating, and application by 

hand. These application methods are 

described in more detail in the draft 

CTG. 

After application, the adhesives may 

be baked or cured in heated drying 

ovens to speed drying, but many are air 

dried, especially for some heat-sensitive 

substrates. The amount of VOC emitted 

depends on the type of adhesive used, 

the speed of the application line (i.e., 

how quickly the substrate moves 

through the flash-off area), and the 

distance between the application area 

and bake oven (if used). 

The VOC emissions from the adhesive 

application process can be reduced 

through changes in adhesive 

formulations and application 

technology. Add-on controls may also 

be used to reduce VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives and 

cleaning materials. In some cases, addon controls are used where it is 

necessary or desirable to use high-VOC 

materials, but they are also used in 

combination with low-VOC adhesives 

and/or more efficient application 

methods to achieve additional emission 

reductions. 

The trend in control technology for 

solvent-borne adhesives is not to control 

emissions from the adhesives, but rather 

to replace them with low VOC 

adhesives, some of which can perform 

as well as solvent-borne adhesives. 

Since the late 1970s, adhesive 

formulations that eliminate or reduce 

the amount of solvent in the 

formulations have been increasing, thus 

reducing VOC emissions per unit 

amount of adhesive used. 

Various types of low solvent adhesive 

include waterborne, hot-melt, 

solventless two-component, and 

radiation-cured adhesives. Hot-melt 

adhesives are the most widely used of 

these alternative processes. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-248 VI-120 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40257 

The combination of low-VOC 

adhesive type and an application 

method with high transfer efficiency, is 

also an effective measure for reducing 

VOC emissions. Not only are VOC 

emissions reduced by using adhesives 

with low VOC content, the use of an 

application method with high transfer 

efficiency, such as electrostatic 

spraying, lowers the volume of 

adhesives needed per given amount of 

production, thus further reducing the 

amount of VOC emitted during the 

adhesive application process. 

As mentioned above, the majority of 

VOC emissions from spray application 

operations occur in the spray booth. The 

VOC concentration in spray booth 

exhaust is typically low because a large 

volume of exhaust air is used to dilute 

the VOC emissions for safety reasons. 

Although VOC emissions in spray booth 

exhaust can be controlled with add-on 

controls, it is generally not cost effective 

to do so, due to the large volume of air 

that must be treated and the low 

concentration of VOC. On the other 

hand, the wide availability and lower 

cost of low-VOC content adhesives 

makes them a more attractive option. 

For those situations where an add-on 

control device can be justified for 

production or specific adhesive 

requirements, thermal oxidation and 

carbon adsorption are most widely used. 

The draft CTG contains a detailed 

discussion of these and other available 

control devices. 

To control VOC emissions from 

containers used to store or mix 

adhesives containing VOC solvents, 

work practices (e.g., using closed storage 

containers) are implemented at facilities 

that apply miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives. Work practices are also 

widely used at these facilities as a 

means of reducing VOC emissions from 

cleaning operations. These measures 

include covering mixing tanks, storing 

solvents and solvent soaked rags and 

wipes in closed containers, and cleaning 

spray guns in an enclosed system. 

Another means of reducing VOC 

emissions from cleaning operations is 

the use of low-VOC content, low vapor 

pressure, or low boiling point cleaning 

materials. However, little information is 

available regarding the effectiveness of 

the use of these types of cleaning 

materials at miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application processes. 

3. Existing Federal, State, and Local 

VOC Control Strategies 

There are no previous EPA actions 

that address miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application operations. 

However, many California air pollution 

control districts have adhesives 

regulations in place, and some States are 

currently developing regulations. 

In 1998, the California ARB issued a 

guidance document that includes ARB’s 

determination of RACT and best 

available retrofit control technology 

(BARCT) for Adhesives and Sealants. 

The 1998 ARB document presented 

RACT and BARCT for controlling VOC 

emissions from the commercial and 

industrial application of adhesives and 

sealants. The ARB RACT determination 

prescribes VOC emission limits for 

various industrial adhesives and 

sealants and was developed based on 

eight existing California air pollution 

control district rules for adhesives and 

sealants that were in effect in 1998. 

Those eight districts included Bay Area 

(BAAQMD), El Dorado County 

(EDCAPCD), Placer County (PCAPCD), 

Sacramento Metropolitan (SMAQMD), 

South Coast (SCAQMD), Ventura 

County (VCAPCD), Yolo-Solano 

(YSAQMD), and San Diego County 

(SDCAPCD). 

The ARB based the majority of its 

RACT determination on limits already 

in effect in SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and 

VCAPCD, and concluded that the VOC 

limits for adhesives and sealants 

presented in its RACT determination 

were achievable and cost-effective. 

Furthermore, the ARB stated in its 

RACT determination that most of the 

adhesive and sealant products being 

sold in 1998 were already compliant 

with the VOC limits that were 

determined to be RACT. 

Since the development of the ARB 

RACT determination, five additional 

California air pollution control districts 

have adopted rules based on the ARB 

RACT standards. 

In 2007, the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) issued a Model Rule 

for Adhesives and Sealants. The model 

rule was based almost entirely on the 

1998 California ARB RACT 

determination. The model rule is 

designed for adoption by member states 

with compliance dates by 2009. To date, 

only Maryland has adopted an 

adhesives rule based on the OTC model 

rule. Maine and New Jersey are either 

currently considering adopting or are in 

the process of adopting the model rule. 

Some states regulate VOC emissions 

from adhesives as part of their 

regulations for specific surface coating 

operations. 

As discussed above, a total of 13 air 

pollution control districts in California 

have established rules for adhesives. 

The various district adhesives rules do 

not all contain the same categories and 

limits as the ARB RACT guidance. 

Where the categories are the same or 

similar among these District rules, the 

SCAQMD rule (i.e., Rule 1168) generally 

has the most stringent VOC content 

limits. If add-on controls are used, 

SCAQMD Rule 1168 requires that the 

system control at least 80 percent of the 

VOC emissions. Several California air 

Districts require the use of specific types 

of high-efficiency adhesive application 

methods to further reduce VOC 

emissions. For example, in addition to 

limiting the VOC contents in the 

adhesives, SCAQMD Rule 1168 requires 

the use of one of the following types of 

application equipment: Electrostatic 

application; flow coating; dip coating; 

roll coating; hand application; highvolume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray; or 

an alternative method that is 

demonstrated to be capable of achieving 

a transfer efficiency equal to or better 

than 65 percent. At least seven other 

California District rules that regulate 

emissions from adhesives similarly 

require that sources use specified 

application methods that achieve high 

transfer efficiency. 

At least eight California Districts and 

Maryland regulate cleaning materials 

used in adhesive application processes. 

These regulations require a combination 

of work practice, equipment standards, 

and limits on the VOC content, boiling 

point, or composite vapor pressure of 

the solvent. Some California District 

rules allow the use of add-on controls as 

an alternative to the VOC content/ 

boiling point/vapor pressure limits for 

cleaning materials. The work practice 

and equipment standards that have been 

adopted by California Districts include, 

for example, using closed containers for 

storing solvent and solvent containing 

wipes and rags, using enclosed and 

automated spray gun washing 

equipment, and prohibiting atomized 

spraying of solvent during spray gun 

cleaning. However, the cleaning 

material VOC content/boiling point/ 

vapor pressure limits, overall control 

efficiency requirements, and work 

practices vary among the District rules. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for reducing VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives and associated cleaning 

materials. As explained in the draft 

CTG, we are recommending these 

control options for facilities with 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application processes that emit 6.8 kg 

VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day) or more 

before consideration of control. For 

purposes of determining whether a 

facility meets the 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/day) 

threshold, aggregate emissions from all 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application operations and related 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-121 A-249 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40258 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

18The list of exempt compounds that are 

considered to be negligibly photochemically 

reactive in forming ozone can be found in the 

definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

cleaning activities at a given facility are 

included. 

The draft CTG would not apply to 

facilities that emit below the threshold 

level because of the very small VOC 

emission reductions that would be 

achieved. The recommended threshold 

level is equivalent to the evaporation of 

approximately 2 gallons of solvent per 

day. Such a level is considered to be an 

incidental level of solvent usage that 

could be expected even in facilities that 

use very low-VOC content adhesives. 

Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI 

data and the 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, facilities emitting below 

the recommended threshold level 

collectively emit less than 6 percent of 

the total reported VOC emissions from 

facilities with miscellaneous adhesive 

application operations in ozone 

nonattainment areas. For these reasons, 

the draft CTG does not specify control 

for these low emitting facilities. This 

recommended threshold is also 

consistent with our recommendations in 

many previous CTGs. 

1. Adhesives 

The draft CTG provides facilities 

flexibility by recommending various 

options for controlling VOC emissions. 

The draft CTG recommends specific 

VOC emission limits based on 

application processes (i.e., the types of 

adhesives and substrates). The draft 

CTG offers two options for achieving the 

recommended emission limits: (1) 

Through the use of low-VOC content 

adhesives and specified application 

methods with good adhesive transfer 

efficiency; or (2) through the use of a 

combination of low-VOC adhesives, 

specified application methods, and addon controls. As an alternative to the 

emission limits, the draft CTG 

recommends an overall control 

efficiency of 85 percent. This alternative 

provides facilities the operational 

flexibility to use high efficiency add-on 

controls instead of low-VOC content 

adhesives and specified application 

methods, especially when the use of 

high VOC adhesives is necessary or 

desirable for product efficacy. We 

expect the 85 percent control efficiency 

recommendation to result in VOC 

emission reduction that is equivalent to 

or exceed the reduction from our 

recommended emission limits. Both the 

emission limits and the control 

efficiency recommendations in the draft 

CTG reflect what we have concluded to 

be reasonably achievable VOC control 

measures for miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives based on our review of 

Maryland’s adhesives rule, the OTC 

model rule, and the various California 

air district rules. 

The following VOC emission limits 

are recommended in the draft CTG for 

general and specialty adhesive 

application processes and for adhesive 

primer application processes: 

VOC emission limit 

(g/l) (lb/gal) 

General Adhesive Application Processes: 

Fiberglass ......................................................................................................................................................................... 200 1.7 

Flexible vinyl ..................................................................................................................................................................... 250 2.1 

Metal ................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 0.3 

Porous Material (Except Wood) ....................................................................................................................................... 120 1.0 

Rubber .............................................................................................................................................................................. 250 2.1 

Wood ................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 0.3 

Other Substrates .............................................................................................................................................................. 250 2.1 

Specialty Adhesive Application Processes: 

Ceramic Tile Installation ................................................................................................................................................... 130 1.1 

Contact Adhesive ............................................................................................................................................................. 250 2.1 

Cove Base Installation ...................................................................................................................................................... 150 1.3 

Floor Covering Installation (Indoor) .................................................................................................................................. 150 1.3 

Floor Covering Installation (Outdoor) ............................................................................................................................... 250 2.1 

Floor Covering Installation (Perimeter Bonded Sheet Vinyl) ........................................................................................... 660 5.5 

Metal to Urethane/Rubber Molding or Casting ................................................................................................................ 850 7.1 

Multipurpose Construction ................................................................................................................................................ 200 1.7 

Plastic Solvent Welding (ABS) ......................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3 

Plastic Solvent Welding (Except ABS) ............................................................................................................................. 500 4.2 

Sheet Rubber Lining Installation ...................................................................................................................................... 850 7.1 

Single-Ply Roof Membrane Installation/Repair (Except EPDM) ...................................................................................... 250 2.1 

Structural Glazing ............................................................................................................................................................. 100 0.8 

Thin Metal Laminating ...................................................................................................................................................... 780 6.5 

Tire Retreading ................................................................................................................................................................. 100 0.8 

Waterproof Resorcinol Glue ............................................................................................................................................. 170 1.4 

Adhesive Primer Application Processes: 

Automotive Glass Adhesive Primer .................................................................................................................................. 700 5.8 

Plastic Adhesive Primer ................................................................................................................................................... 250 2.1 

Plastic Solvent Welding Adhesive Primer ........................................................................................................................ 650 5.4 

Single-Ply Roof Membrane Adhesive Primer ................................................................................................................... 250 2.1 

Other Adhesive Primer ..................................................................................................................................................... 250 2.1 

The recommended VOC emission 

limits are expressed as mass of VOC per 

volume of adhesive or adhesive primer, 

excluding water and exempt 

compounds.18 For general application 

processes where an adhesive is used to 

bond dissimilar substrates together, then 

the applicable substrate category with 

the highest VOC emission limit is 

recommended as the limit for such 

application. For example, in an 

application process where an adhesive 

is used to bond flexible vinyl to metal, 

the recommended VOC emission limit is 

250 g/l (2.1 lb/gal). 

Our recommended limits are based on 

the limits in the OTC model rule. As 

previously mentioned, the emission 

limits in the OTC rule were California 

ARB RACT standards, which were 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-250 VI-122 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40259 

based on numerous California District 

rules and adopted by other California 

District rules. Furthermore, the OTC 

model rule is intended for adoption by 

States. In light of the above, we consider 

the limits in the OTC model rule to be 

representative of what sources in 

nonattainment areas nationwide can 

achieve technically and economically 

and have therefore adopted these VOC 

limits as our recommendations in the 

draft CTG. 

As in Maryland’s adhesive rule and 

the OTC model rule, we recommend in 

the draft CTG that the following types 

of specialty adhesive application 

processes be exempt from VOC content 

limits: Adhesives or adhesive primers 

being tested or evaluated in any 

research and development, quality 

assurance, or analytical laboratory; 

adhesives or adhesive primers used in 

the assembly, repair, or manufacture of 

aerospace or undersea-based weapon 

systems; adhesives or adhesive primers 

used in medical equipment 

manufacturing operations; and 

cyanoacrylate adhesive application 

processes. 

As mentioned above, we recommend 

the use of low-VOC adhesives in 

conjunction with application methods 

that achieve good adhesive transfer 

efficiency. Specifically, we recommend 

the following application methods: 

Electrostatic spray, HVLP spray, flow 

coat, roller coat, dip coat including 

electrodeposition, brush coat, or other 

adhesive application methods that are 

capable of achieving a transfer 

efficiency equivalent or better than that 

achieved by HVLP spraying. 

A further explanation of the emission 

limits and control efficiency 

recommendations described above can 

be found in the draft CTG. 

In addition to the recommended 

control measures described above, the 

draft CTG recommends the following 

work practices to further reduce VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives: (1) Store all VOC-containing 

adhesives, adhesive primers, and 

adhesive-related waste materials in 

closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing 

and storage containers used for VOCcontaining adhesives, adhesive primers, 

and adhesive-related waste materials are 

kept closed at all times except when 

depositing or removing these materials; 

(3) minimize spills of VOC-containing 

adhesives, adhesive primers, and 

adhesive-related waste materials; and 

(4) convey adhesives, adhesive primers, 

and adhesive-related waste materials 

from one location to another in closed 

containers or pipes. 

2. Cleaning Materials 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials. We recommend that, 

at a minimum, all of the work practices 

be included: (1) Store all VOCcontaining cleaning materials and used 

shop towels in closed containers; (2) 

ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOC-containing 

cleaning materials are kept closed at all 

times except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize 

spills of VOC-containing cleaning 

materials; (4) convey cleaning materials 

from one location to another in closed 

containers or pipes; and (5) minimize 

VOC emissions from cleaning of 

application, storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment by ensuring that 

application equipment cleaning is 

performed without atomizing the 

cleaning solvent and all spent solvent is 

captured in closed containers. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

Based on the 2002 NEI database, we 

estimate that there are 1,048 facilities in 

the U.S. that operate miscellaneous 

adhesive application processes. Using 

the April 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, we estimated that 720 of 

these facilities are in ozone 

nonattainment areas. Based on the 2002 

NEI VOC emissions data, 180 of the 720 

facilities in ozone nonattainment areas 

emitted VOC at or above the 

recommended 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/day) 

applicability threshold. These 180 

facilities, in aggregate, emit an estimated 

4,428 Mg/yr (4,881 tpy) of VOC, or an 

average of about 24.6 Mg/yr (27.1 tpy) 

of VOC per facility. As previously 

mentioned, the emissions from these 

facilities represent less than 6 percent of 

the total reported VOC emissions from 

facilities that operate miscellaneous 

adhesives application operations in 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

As mentioned above, the draft CTG 

recommends the emission limits in the 

OTC model rule. The OTC limits were 

based on California ARB RACT 

standards, which were based on eight 

California Districts’ adhesives rules and 

have been adopted by other California 

Districts and Maryland. Accordingly, for 

purposes of estimating the cost 

effectiveness of our recommendations in 

the draft CTG, we assume that facilities 

in California and Maryland are already 

meeting the recommended emission 

limits. For facilities in nonattainment 

areas outside of California and 

Maryland, we have estimated the total 

annual control costs of using low-VOC 

adhesives to be approximately $603,997, 

and emission reductions will be about 

64 percent. These recommended 

measures are expected to result in a 

VOC emissions reduction of 2,070 Mg/ 

yr (2,281 tpy), and the cost-effectiveness 

is estimated to be $292/Mg ($265/ton). 

The impacts are further discussed in the 

draft CTG document. 

We have concluded that the work 

practice recommendations in the draft 

CTG will result in a net cost savings. 

These work practices reduce the amount 

of cleaning materials used by decreasing 

the amount that evaporates and is 

therefore wasted. Similarly, the 

adoption of more effective application 

methods, such as electrostatic spray and 

other methods recommended in the 

draft CTG, will reduce adhesive 

consumption and result in net cost 

savings compared to conventional spray 

guns. However, because we cannot 

determine the extent to which these 

practices have already been adopted, we 

cannot quantify these savings. 

Therefore, these cost savings are not 

reflected in the above cost impacts. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

product category under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four 

factors identified above in Section I.D in 

light of the specific facts and 

circumstances associated with this 

product category. Based on that 

analysis, we propose to determine that 

a CTG will be substantially as effective 

as a rule in achieving VOC emission 

reductions in ozone nonattainment 

areas from miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application operations and 

associated cleaning materials. 

This section is divided into two parts. 

In the first part, we discuss our 

conclusion that the most effective 

means of achieving VOC emission 

reductions in this CAA section 183(e) 

product category is through controls at 

the point of use of the products, (i.e., 

through controls on the use of adhesive 

and cleaning materials at miscellaneous 

industrial adhesive application 

operations), and these controls can be 

accomplished only through a CTG. We 

further explain that the recommended 

approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective EPA, 

State, and local VOC control strategies. 

In the second part, we discuss how the 

distribution and place of use of the 

product in this product category also 

supports the use of a CTG. We also 

discuss the likely VOC emission 

reductions associated with a CTG, as 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-123 A-251 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40260 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

compared to a regulation. We further 

explain that there are control 

approaches for this category that result 

in significant VOC emission reductions 

and that such reductions could only be 

obtained by controlling the use of the 

products through a CTG. Such 

reductions could not be obtained 

through a regulation under CAA section 

183(e) because the controls affect the 

end-user, which is not a regulated entity 

under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For 

these reasons, which are described more 

fully below, we believe that a CTG will 

achieve greater VOC emission 

reductions than a rule for these 

categories. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With Existing Federal, State, and Local 

VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important first to identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application operations: (1) Evaporation 

of VOC from adhesives; and (2) 

evaporation of VOC from cleaning 

materials. We address each of these 

sources of VOC emissions, in turn, 

below, as we discuss the CTG versus 

regulation approach. 

a. Adhesives 

A national rule would contain limits 

for the as-sold VOC content of adhesives 

that are marketed as miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives. However, the 

effect of such national rule setting low 

VOC content limits for miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives could be easily 

subverted because a section 183(e) rule 

could not require that a facility use only 

those low-VOC content adhesive 

materials that are specifically marketed 

for miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application operations. Many adhesives 

used in miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application operations are not 

specifically marketed by the supplier as 

adhesives for specific products. 

Therefore, these facilities could 

purchase and use high-VOC specialty 

adhesives materials for routine 

application operations, and this practice 

would effectively nullify the 

reformulation actions of the 

manufacturers and suppliers of lowVOC adhesives, resulting in no net 

change in VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

By contrast, a CTG can affect the end 

users of the adhesive materials and, 

therefore, can implement the control 

measures that are more likely to achieve 

the objective of reducing VOC emissions 

from this product category in ozone 

nonattainment areas. Our recommended 

control options in the draft CTG 

include, among other things, the use of 

application methods with high 

adhesives transfer efficiency and add-on 

controls. In addition, we recommend 

that certain work practices be 

implemented to further reduce VOC 

emissions from adhesives as well as 

controlling VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials. Given the significant 

reductions achievable through the use of 

these recommended control measures, 

the most effective entity to address VOC 

emissions from miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives is the facility using the 

adhesives. 

These control measures are consistent 

with existing State and local VOC 

control strategies applicable to 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives. 

Existing State and local regulations (in 

particular, the regulations in Maryland 

and the majority of the California air 

Districts) that address miscellaneous 

industrial adhesive application 

operations similarly call for VOC 

emission reduction through the use of 

low-VOC content materials, or the use of 

control devices in conjunction with 

high-VOC content adhesive materials. 

Some State and local VOC control 

strategies also include work practices 

and specific application methods. 

We cannot, however, issue a national 

rule directly requiring miscellaneous 

industrial adhesive application facilities 

to use low-VOC content adhesives, 

control devices, specific application 

methods, or work practices because, 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

and (e)(3)(B), the regulated entities 

subject to a national rule would be the 

adhesive manufacturers and suppliers, 

not the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application facilities. By 

contrast, a CTG can reach the end users 

of the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives and, therefore, can implement 

the control recommendations for end 

users that are identified above as more 

likely to achieve the objective of 

reducing VOC emissions from these 

product categories in ozone 

nonattainment areas. Accordingly, we 

are including these recommended 

control measures in the draft CTG that 

applies to miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application facilities as the 

end users of the adhesives materials. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application process: (1) Limiting the 

VOC content, boiling point, or VOC 

vapor pressure of the cleaning materials, 

and (2) implementing work practices 

governing the use of the cleaning 

materials. A national rule requiring that 

manufacturers of cleaning materials for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application operations provide low-VOC 

content or low vapor pressure (high 

boiling point) cleaning materials would 

suffer from the same deficiencies noted 

above with regard to the adhesives. 

Specifically, nothing in a national rule 

that specifically regulates manufacturers 

and suppliers of cleaning materials 

specified for use in adhesive application 

operations would preclude facilities 

from purchasing bulk solvents or other 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

other vendors. The general availability 

of bulk solvents or multipurpose 

cleaning materials from vendors that 

would not be subject to such regulation 

would directly undermine the 

effectiveness of such a national 

regulation. 

The more effective approach for 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials used by miscellaneous 

industrial adhesive application facilities 

is to control the use of cleaning 

materials through work practices. The 

draft CTG recommends that 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities implement work 

practices to reduce VOC emissions from 

cleaning materials during application 

operations. Examples of effective work 

practices are: Keeping solvents and used 

shop towels in closed containers; using 

enclosed spray gun cleaners and 

preventing the atomized spraying of 

cleaning solvent; minimizing spills of 

VOC-containing cleaning materials; 

cleaning up spills immediately; and 

conveying any VOC-containing cleaning 

materials in closed containers or pipes. 

These work practices have proven to be 

effective in reducing VOC emissions. 

Given the significant VOC reductions 

achievable through the implementation 

of work practices, we conclude that the 

most effective entity to address VOC 

emission from cleaning materials used 

in miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application operations is the facility 

using the cleaning materials during 

these operations. This recommendation 

is consistent with measures required by 

State and local jurisdictions for 

reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 

materials used in miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives application 

operations. 

We cannot, however, issue a rule 

requiring such work practices for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities because, pursuant 

to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and 

(e)(3)(B), the regulated entities subject to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-252 VI-124 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40261 

a national rule would be the cleaning 

materials manufacturers and suppliers 

and not the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application facilities. By 

contrast, a CTG can address these 

application facilities. Accordingly, we 

are including in the draft CTG these 

work practices that apply to 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities as the end users of 

the cleaning materials. 

Based on the nature of the 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application process, the sources of 

significant VOC emissions from this 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through control at the point 

of use of the product, (i.e., through 

controls on miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application facilities). This 

strategy can be accomplished only 

through a CTG. The recommended 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective 

existing State and local VOC control 

strategies for other 183(e) product 

categories. These two factors alone 

demonstrate that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation under CAA section 183(e) in 

addressing VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives and 

associated cleaning materials in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives and associated cleaning 

materials. 

First, miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives and associated cleaning 

materials are used at manufacturing 

facilities in specific, identifiable 

locations. Specifically, these materials 

are used in industrial manufacturing 

facilities that apply adhesives to various 

materials, as described in section V.A. 

This stands in contrast to other 

consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, which are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at industrial 

manufacturing facilities, 

implementation and enforcement of 

controls concerning the use of these 

products are feasible. Therefore the 

nature of the products’ place of use 

further counsels in favor of the CTG 

approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve greater 

emission reduction than a national rule 

for VOC emissions from miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives and associated 

cleaning materials. For the reasons 

described above, we believe that a 

national rule limiting the VOC content 

in adhesives and cleaning materials 

used in miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application operations would 

result in little VOC emissions reduction. 

By contrast, a CTG can achieve 

significant VOC emissions reduction 

because it can provide for the highly 

effective emission control strategies that 

are applicable to the end-users of the 

adhesives and cleaning materials at 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities. As described 

above, our recommendations in the draft 

CTG include the use of control devices, 

specific application methods, and work 

practices. The significant VOC 

reductions associated with these 

measures could not be obtained through 

a national regulation, because they are 

achieved through the implementation of 

measures by the end-user. In addition, 

and as previously explained, strategies 

that arguably could be implemented 

through rulemaking, such as limiting 

the VOC content in adhesives and 

cleaning materials, are far more effective 

if implemented directly through a CTG 

at the point of product use. For the 

reasons stated above, it is more effective 

to control the VOC emissions from 

adhesives and cleaning materials used 

for miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application through a CTG than through 

a national regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

application facilities affected by our 

recommendations in this draft CTG, as 

compared to the total number of such 

facilities in ozone nonattainment areas, 

does not affect our conclusion that the 

CTG would be substantially more 

effective than a rule in controlling VOC 

emissions for these product categories. 

We recommend the control measures 

described in the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities that emit 6.8 kg/ 

day (15 lb/day) or more VOC. Based on 

the April 2004 ozone nonattainment 

designations, we estimate that 180 of the 

720 miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas emit 6.8 kg/day (15 

lb/day) or more and are therefore 

addressed by our recommendations in 

the draft CTG. We estimate that 540 

miscellaneous industrial application 

facilities would not be covered by the 

recommendations in the draft CTG. 

However, according to the 2002 NEI 

database, these 540 facilities collectively 

emitted about 239 Mg/yr (264 tpy) of 

VOC, which is less than 6 percent of the 

total reported VOC (an average of about 

0.44 Mg/yr (0.49 tpy) per facility) in 

ozone nonattainment areas. The fact that 

the CTG addresses more than 94 percent 

of the VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas further supports 

our conclusion that a CTG is more likely 

to achieve the intended VOC emission 

reduction goal for these product 

categories than a national rule. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application facilities will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

VI. 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.). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

does not contain any information 

collection requirements. 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-125 A-253 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
40262 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed rule I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed action will not impose 

any requirements on small entities. We 

are proposing to take final action to list 

the five Group IV consumer and 

commercial product categories 

addressed in this notice for purposes of 

CAA section 183(e) of the CAA. This 

listing action alone does not impose any 

regulatory requirements. We are also 

proposing to determine that, for the five 

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 proposed determination 

means 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 this 

proposed determination, we are also 

taking comment on the draft CTGs for 

these five product categories. When 

finalized, these CTGs will be guidance 

documents. EPA does not directly 

regulate any small entities through the 

issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA issues 

CTGs 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 

EPA’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 EPA’s 

action on each State’s State 

Implementation Plan. Thus, States 

retain discretion in determining to what 

degree to follow the CTGs. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 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 costeffective 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 the rule imposes 

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, EPA has 

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 (EO) 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 proposed 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 EO 

13132. The CAA establishes the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, and this 

action does not impact that relationship. 

Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this 

rule. In the spirit of EO 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order (EO) 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 proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in EO 13175. This listing 

action and proposed determination do 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

one or more Indian Tribes, in that it 

imposes no regulatory burden on tribes. 

Furthermore, it does 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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

A-254 VI-126 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40263 

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 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an envioronmental standards 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 

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 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 proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering 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 

(February 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 this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

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. Accordingly, 

these actions would help increase 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. 

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: July 3, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 59—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General 

2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

in reducing volatile organic compound 

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; 

(k) Large appliance coatings; 

(l) Miscellaneous metal products 

coatings; 

(m) Plastic parts coatings; 

(n) Auto and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings; 

(o) Fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials; and 

(p) Miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives. 

[FR Doc. E8–15722 Filed 7–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–8691–3] 

Minnesota: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Minnesota has applied to EPA 

for final authorization of the changes to 

its hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). Minnesota has submitted 

these changes so that it may implement 

the EPA-approved Joint Powers 

Agreement (JPA) with Hennepin 

County, Minnesota. EPA has reviewed 

Minnesota’s application and has 

preliminarily determined that these 

changes satisfy all requirements needed 

to qualify for final authorization, and is 

proposing to authorize the State’s 

changes through this proposed final 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 13, 2008. 

Effective Dates and Duration: This 

approval will become effective when the 

final Federal Register notice is 

published. This approval will expire 

automatically if the JPA between the 

State of Minnesota and Hennepin 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS

VI-127 A-255 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58481 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State approval/ 

submittal date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Approval of the 1997 8-hour Ozone 15% Reasonable Further Progress Plan, and 2008 RFP 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets.

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX ................ 05/23/07 10/07/08 [Insert FR 

page number 

where document 

begins].

Revised 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory .... Dallas/Fort Worth, TX ................ 05/23/07 10/07/08 [Insert FR 

page number 

where document 

begins].

[FR Doc. E8–23673 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 59 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0411; FRL–8725–9] 

RIN 2060–AP01 

Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group IV: Control Techniques 

Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for 

Miscellaneous Metal Products 

Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto 

and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings, Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials, and 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

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 five Group IV 

product categories: miscellaneous metal 

products coatings, plastic parts coatings, 

auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials, and miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives. 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 technologylevel controls for these product 

categories. EPA further takes final action 

to list the five Group IV consumer and 

commercial product categories 

addressed in this notice pursuant to 

CAA Section 183(e). 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

October 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established the 

following dockets for these actions: 

Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group IV—Determination to Issue 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0411; Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Miscellaneous 

Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0412; 

Consumer and Commercial Products— 

Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0413; Consumer and Commercial 

Products—Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials, Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0415; and 

Consumer and Commercial Products— 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0460. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the 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 

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 20460. 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 Clean Air 

Act (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: (919) 541–5460, fax number: 

(919) 541–3470, e-mail address: 

moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the determination and 

control techniques guidelines (CTG) 

documents for miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings, or for fiberglass 

boat manufacturing materials, contact: 

Ms. Kaye Whitfield, 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) 541–2509, fax number: 

(919) 541–3470, e-mail address: 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the determination and CTG 

for auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings or the revision of the 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol, contact: 

Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143– 

01), Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number: 

(919) 541–0859, fax number: (919) 541– 

3470, e-mail address: 

salman.dave@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the determination and CTG 

for miscellaneous industrial adhesives, 

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: (919) 541–2421, fax 

number: (919) 541–3470, e-mail 

address: smith.martha@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

A-256 VI-128 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58482 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1See EPA’s definition of VOC at 40 CFR 

51.100(s). 

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: 

Category NAICS code a Examples of affected entities 

Miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts coatings.

331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 482, 811 Facilities that manufacture and repair fabricated metal, machinery, 

computer and electronic equipment, transportation equipment, rail 

transportation equipment. 

Auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings.

336111, 336112, 336211 .............. Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants, producers of automobile and light-duty truck bodies. 

Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.336612 .......................................... Boat building facilities. 

Miscellaneous industrial adhesives .. 316, 321, 326, 331, 332, 333, 

334, 336, 337, 339, 482, 811.

Facilities that manufacture and repair leather and allied products, 

wood products, plastic and rubber products, fabricated metal, machinery, computer and electronic equipment, transportation equipment, furniture and related products, rail transportation equipment, 

and facilities involved in miscellaneous manufacturing. 

Federal Government ......................... ....................................................... Not affected. 

State/local/Tribal government ........... ....................................................... State, local and 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 8, 2008. 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 Control Techniques 

Guidelines Documents (CTGs) 

II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs 

A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings 

B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings 

C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials 

D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

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)1 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 pre-existing 

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 CAA Section 183(e), 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

VI-129 A-257 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58483 

2See 63 FR 48806, 48819, and 48848 (September 

11, 1998); 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73 

FR 15604 (March 24, 2008). 

3 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile 

Organic Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 

13, 2005). 

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 EPA’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); and 71 

FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). In the May 

2006 revision, EPA added one product 

category, portable fuel containers, and 

removed one product category, 

petroleum dry cleaning solvents. As a 

result of these revisions, Group IV of the 

list comprises five product categories: 

miscellaneous metal products coatings, 

plastic parts coatings, auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass 

boat manufacturing materials, and 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives. 

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 IV by September 30, 2008. On 

July 14, 2008, EPA published its 

proposed determination that a CTG is 

substantially as effective as a regulation 

for each of these five categories and 

announced availability of four draft 

CTGs (miscellaneous metal products 

coatings and plastic parts coatings are 

addressed in one CTG referred to as 

‘‘miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings’’). See 73 FR 40230. 

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, 

portable fuel containers, and aerosol 

coatings.2

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 Control Techniques 

Guidelines Documents (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. 

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 CAA. 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

A-258 VI-130 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58484 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

4See, e.g., 52 FR 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.’’ 

5Memorandum 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. 

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. 

By this action, we are taking final 

action to list the five Group IV 

consumer and commercial product 

categories addressed in this notice 

pursuant to CAA Section 183(e). 

Further, we are issuing final CTGs that 

cover these five product categories in 

Group IV 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 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 CAA 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 one year of the date 

that the CTGs are finalized. 

II. Significant Changes to the Final 

CTGs 

In response to comments, we have 

made certain changes to the final CTGs 

for the Group IV consumer and 

commercial product categories. 

Specifically, we have included 

definitions to clarify the scope of certain 

types of products to which our 

recommended VOC limits apply. 

Further, for various reasons described 

below, we have either added 

recommended VOC limits specifically 

for certain specialty product categories 

that would have otherwise been covered 

by more generic VOC limits 

recommended in the CTG, or changed 

our draft recommended VOC limits for 

certain specialty products. We also 

recommended not applying the 

recommended limits to certain lowvolume materials supplied in small 

containers and clarified that the 

recommended limits do not apply to 

aerosol spray cans. These changes, 

which are described in more detail 

below, do not affect our proposed 

determination in the July 14, 2008 

notice that a CTG is substantially as 

effective as a national rule for 

addressing VOC emissions from the 

Group IV consumer and commercial 

products in ozone nonattainment areas. 

None of the comments raised issues 

with any of the rationales we provided 

in support of our proposed 

determination. Further, because the 

above-mentioned changes to our 

recommended limits make up only a 

very small percentage of the consumer 

and commercial products listed under 

CAA Section 183(e) Group IV, we do not 

believe that these changes alter the VOC 

emission reductions discussed in the 

July 14, 2008 notice in any material 

way. Thus, the rationales we expressed 

in the July notice in support of the 

determination are unaffected by these 

changes. For the reasons described in 

the July 2008 notice and this document, 

we have determined that CTGs are 

substantially as effective as national 

rules for these Group IV consumer and 

commercial products. 

Provided below is a summary of the 

changes made in each of the final CTGs 

addressed in this notice. 

A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

Parts Coatings 

To further clarify the scope of each 

category for which we recommend 

specific VOC limits, the final CTG 

includes a definition for each of the 

coating categories with recommended 

VOC limits. These definitions are 

adopted from the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) and Michigan rules that are 

the basis for the recommended VOC 

limits. 

In response to public comments, we 

have added to our recommendations in 

the final CTG specific VOC limits for 

eight categories of pleasure craft (i.e., 

recreational boats) surface coatings 

based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. We 

learned from the commenters that VOC 

limits for pleasure craft are covered 

under SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 (February 

12, 1999), and not under SCAQMD 

Rules 1107 and 1145, on which the 

recommended VOC limits in the draft 

CTG were based. The commenters also 

noted that pleasure craft surface 

coatings can not achieve the limits in 

SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 and at 

the same time meet performance 

requirements for use in marine 

environments. In response to these 

comments, we reviewed the VOC limits 

for pleasure craft surface coatings in 

SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and found that 

they reflect the RACT level of control 

for these coatings. These limits are the 

same as those in several other California 

Districts. All but three of these limits 

have been in place since 1994 and the 

remaining three (extreme high gloss 

coatings, finish primer/surfacer, and 

non-aluminum antifoulant coatings) 

have been in effect since 2001. There is 

no indication that the SCAQMD Rule 

1106.1 VOC limits recommended by the 

commenters are unachievable or 

unreasonable for sources outside these 

California Districts. We are also not 

aware of any pleasure craft surface 

coating operation performing under 

VOC limits lower than those provided 

in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. For the 

reasons stated above, we recommend in 

the final CTG the VOC limits in 

SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 for pleasure craft 

surface coatings to address these 

coatings’ unique performance 

requirements. 

In the draft CTG, we requested 

comment on whether certain materials 

(sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, and 

cavity waxes) used at automobile and 

light-duty truck assembly plants that 

were included in the miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings category 

and addressed in the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings should instead be included in 

the auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings category and addressed in the 

CTG for that category. All commenters 

on the draft CTG responded that 

recommendations for these materials 

should be in the auto and light-duty 

truck assembly coatings category and 

addressed in the CTG for that category 

to simplify implementation and 

compliance and to clarify EPA’s 

recommendations for these materials. 

In response to these comments, we 

have clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that 

it covers the following materials: 

automobile and light-duty truck cavity 

wax, automobile and light-duty truck 

sealers, automobile and light-duty truck 

deadeners, automobile and light-duty 

truck gasket/gasket sealing material, 

automobile and light-duty truck 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

VI-131 A-259 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58485 

7Exempt compounds are those classified by EPA 

as having negligible photochemical reactivity as 

listed in 40 CFR 51.100(s). Exempt compounds are 

not considered to be VOC. 

underbody coatings, and automobile 

and light-duty truck lubricating wax/ 

compound. For further discussion on 

how we address these materials, please 

see section II.B of this notice and the 

final auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings CTG. 

Similar materials are used in the 

production of vehicles other than 

automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are 

related to the production of a new 

automobile or new light-duty truck at a 

facility that is not an automobile or 

light-duty truck assembly coatings 

facility. These materials are included as 

‘‘motor vehicle’’ materials in the 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings category and addressed in the 

final CTG for this category. The same 

limits that are recommended for 

‘‘automobile and light-duty truck’’ 

materials in the auto and light-duty 

truck assembly coatings CTG are 

recommended for ‘‘motor vehicle’’ 

materials in this CTG. Please see section 

II.B of this notice for the rationale for 

these recommended limits. 

The recommended VOC emission 

limits in the final miscellaneous metal 

and plastic parts coatings CTG for the 

motor vehicle materials described above 

are as follows (grams VOC per liter of 

coating, less water and exempt 

compounds,7 g/l): 

• Motor vehicle cavity wax—650 

g/l. 

• Motor vehicle sealer—650 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle deadener—650 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle gasket/gasket sealing 

material—200 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle underbody coating— 

650 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle lubricating wax/ 

compound—700 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle trunk interior 

coating—650 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle bedliner—200 g/l. 

In the final CTG, we revised the 

recommended VOC content limit for 

high performance architectural coatings. 

The limit for this category in the draft 

CTG was 3.5 lb VOC/gallon, less water 

and exempt compounds. We received a 

comment that there are no liquid high 

performance architectural coatings 

available today that can meet this limit. 

The commenter suggested a limit of 6.2 

lb VOC/gallon. According to the 

commenter, reformulated liquid 

coatings can meet this limit, and further 

reformulation may not be technically 

feasible while still meeting the requisite 

performance characteristics for high 

performance architectural coatings. The 

commenter also referenced the organic 

HAP content limit for these coatings in 

the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MMMM. The commenter noted 

that the NESHAP limit is consistent 

with a VOC content of 6.2 lb VOC/ 

gallon. The commenter also noted that 

converting from a liquid coating to a 

powder coating or installing and 

operating add-on controls would be 

necessary in order to meet the VOC 

limit recommended for this coating 

category in the draft CTG, and that each 

of these approaches would be cost 

prohibitive. The commenter therefore 

argued that the VOC limit for high 

performance architectural coatings 

recommended in the draft CTG is not 

reflective of RACT for these coatings. 

We agree with the commenter that 

liquid high performance architectural 

coatings currently available and in use 

today contain significantly more than 

3.5 lb VOC/gallon. We believe that the 

cost of converting to powder coatings or 

installing and operating add-on controls 

to meet a limit of 3.5 lb VOC/gallon 

generally would be unreasonable 

compared to the emission reduction that 

would be achieved. We further agree 

with the commenter that a limit of 6.2 

lb VOC/gallon can be achieved by the 

liquid high performance architectural 

coatings currently available and in use 

today and that further reformulation 

may not be technically feasible. In light 

of all of the above, we believe that the 

6.2 lb VOC/gallon limit represents 

RACT for high performance 

architectural coatings. Accordingly, in 

the final CTG, we revised our 

recommended VOC limit for high 

performance architectural coatings to be 

6.2 lb/gal. 

In the draft CTG, we recommended 

that VOC limits for red and black 

coatings used for automotive/ 

transportation plastic parts could be 15 

percent higher than for other colors. 

Higher limits were allowed for red and 

black coatings because the organic 

pigments used for these colors absorb 

oil and require more VOC to maintain 

proper coating viscosity. Commenters 

requested that the same allowance 

should also be made for yellow coatings 

since these coatings now use organic 

pigments instead of inorganic pigments, 

and these organic pigments also absorb 

oil and require more VOC to maintain 

proper coating viscosity. The inorganic 

pigments formerly used in yellow 

coatings often contain hexavalent 

chromium. Other environmental and 

worker health programs restrict the use 

of hexavalent chromium in pigments 

because it is a known human 

carcinogen, and it is being replaced with 

organic yellow pigments. So as not to 

create a barrier to the use of organic 

yellow pigments in place of hexavalent 

chromium, we are recommending in the 

final CTG higher VOC limits for yellow 

coatings used for automotive/ 

transportation plastic parts. 

In response to comments on how to 

determine the VOC content of materials, 

we recommend in the final CTG that the 

VOC content of coatings used at 

miscellaneous metal and plastic part 

coating facilities be determined using 

EPA Method 24. In addition, we 

recommend that manufacturer’s 

formulation data be accepted as an 

alternative to EPA Method 24. If there 

is a disagreement between 

manufacturer’s formulation data and the 

results of a subsequent test, we 

recommend that States use the test 

method results unless the facility can 

make a demonstration to the States’ 

satisfaction that the manufacturer’s 

formulation data are correct. 

B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings 

In the July 2008 notice we requested 

comment on whether certain materials 

(sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, 

cavity waxes, glass bonding primers, 

and glass bonding adhesives) used at 

automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly plants that were included in 

either the miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings categories or the 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives and 

addressed in the respective draft CTG 

should instead be included in the auto 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings 

category and addressed in the CTG for 

this category. All commenters on the 

draft CTG responded that 

recommendations for these materials 

should be in the auto and light-duty 

truck assembly coatings category and 

addressed in the CTG for this category 

to simplify implementation and 

compliance and to clarify EPA’s 

recommendations for these materials. 

In response to these comments, we 

have clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that 

it covers the following materials: 

Automobile and light-duty truck glass 

bonding primer, automobile and lightduty truck adhesive, automobile and 

light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile 

and light-duty truck sealer, automobile 

and light-duty truck deadener, 

automobile and light-duty truck gasket/ 

gasket sealing material, automobile and 

light-duty truck underbody coating, 

automobile and light-duty truck trunk 

interior coating, automobile and lightduty truck bedliner, automobile and 

light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive, 

and automobile and light-duty truck 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

A-260 VI-132 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58486 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

lubricating wax/compound. To clarify 

the scope of these materials, the final 

CTG includes definitions for these 

materials. It also includes the following 

recommended VOC emission limits for 

the application of these materials: 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

glass bonding primer—900 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

adhesive—250 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

cavity wax—650 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

sealer—650 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

deadener—650 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

gasket/gasket sealing material—200 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

underbody coating—650 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

trunk interior coating—650 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

bedliner—200 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

weatherstrip adhesive—750 g/l. 

• Automobile and light-duty truck 

lubricating wax/compound—700 g/l. 

We have provided below a brief 

summary of our rationale for each of 

these limits. As discussed in sections 

II.A and II.D of this notice, similar 

materials are used in the production of 

vehicles other than automobiles or lightduty trucks, or are related to the 

production of a new automobile or new 

light-duty truck at a facility that is not 

an automobile or light-duty truck 

assembly coatings facility. These 

materials are included as ‘‘motor 

vehicle’’ materials in the miscellaneous 

metal products, plastic parts coatings, or 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

categories and addressed in the CTGs 

for those categories. The same limits 

that are recommended for ‘‘automobile 

and light-duty truck’’ materials in the 

auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings CTG are recommended for 

‘‘motor vehicle’’ materials in those 

CTGs, and the following rationale 

applies both to ‘‘automobile and lightduty truck’’ materials and ‘‘motor 

vehicle’’ materials. 

The draft miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives CTG recommended a material 

specific limit of 700 grams of VOC per 

liter for glass bonding primer (referred 

to as ‘‘automotive glass adhesive 

primer’’ in that document). Commenters 

indicated that currently used materials 

contain up to 900 grams of VOC per 

liter. Eliminating the use of the 

materials in the 700 to 900 grams of 

VOC per liter range may not be 

technically feasible. The cost of the 

testing required to confirm material 

performance and compliance with 

Federal crash safety standards and 

windshield integrity requirements 

would be unreasonable compared to the 

small emission reduction that would be 

achieved. As a result, we conclude that 

the 900 grams of VOC per liter limit 

recommended in the final CTG is 

representative of RACT for automobile 

and light-duty truck glass bonding 

primer. 

The draft CTGs for miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings and for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives did 

not have product specific 

recommendations for automobile and 

light-duty truck adhesive, automobile 

and light-duty truck cavity wax, 

automobile and light-duty truck sealer, 

automobile and light-duty truck 

deadener, automobile and light-duty 

truck gasket/gasket sealing material, 

automobile and light-duty truck 

underbody coating, automobile and 

light-duty truck trunk interior coating, 

automobile and light-duty truck 

weatherstrip adhesive, or automobile 

and light-duty truck lubricating wax/ 

compound. Rather, these materials fell 

under general product categories in 

these draft CTGs. For each of these types 

of materials, commenters provided 

information on the VOC content of the 

materials currently in use and asserted 

that the cost of the testing required to 

confirm the performance of lower VOC 

content materials would be 

unreasonable compared to the small 

emission reduction that would be 

achieved. We agree with the 

commenter’s assertion and conclude 

that the limits recommended for these 

materials in the final CTG are 

representative of RACT. 

Bedliner is an air dried multicomponent coating typically applied by 

vehicle dealers or aftermarket 

applicators. In the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings, bedliner would have fallen 

under the general multi-component 

coating category which had a 

recommended limit of 340 grams of 

VOC per liter. One commenter indicated 

that bedliner is applied at some of its 

automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly plants. We are not aware of 

any other automobile and light-duty 

truck assembly plants that apply 

bedliner. The bedliner applied at the 

commenter’s plants contains less than 

200 grams of VOC per liter. This is 

similar to the VOC content of 

aftermarket bedliner in the 

miscellaneous metal products, or plastic 

parts coatings categories and addressed 

in the CTG for miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings. As a result, we 

conclude that the 200 grams of VOC per 

liter limit recommended in the final 

CTG for auto and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings is representative of 

RACT for automobile and light-duty 

truck bedliner. 

We also revised the final auto and 

light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG 

to recommend not applying the 

recommended limits to materials that 

are supplied to the automobile and 

light-duty truck assembly plants in 

containers with a net volume of 16 

ounces or less, or a net weight of one 

pound or less. We made this change in 

response to comments that these low 

volume materials have small VOC 

emissions and the cost of controlling 

them outweighs the emission reductions 

that could be achieved. We agree with 

this assessment. 

In response to comments on how to 

determine the VOC content of materials, 

we recommend in the final CTG that the 

VOC content of coatings, other than 

reactive adhesives, used at automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly plants be 

determined using EPA Method 24. We 

recommend that the procedure for 

reactive adhesives in Appendix A of the 

NESHAP for surface coating of plastic 

parts (40 CFR Part 63, subpart PPPP) be 

used to determine the VOC content of 

reactive adhesives. In addition, we 

recommend that manufacturer’s 

formulation data be accepted as an 

alternative to these methods. If there is 

a disagreement between manufacturer’s 

formulation data and the results of a 

subsequent test, we recommend that 

States use the test method results unless 

the facility can make a demonstration to 

the States’ satisfaction that the 

manufacturer’s formulation data are 

correct. 

Finally, in conjunction with the draft 

CTG we prepared a draft revision of the 

Automobile Topcoat Protocol. 

Commenters supported the revision of 

the protocol. We are issuing the final 

revised protocol concurrent with the 

final CTG. 

C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials 

In response to public comments, 

several changes were made to the final 

CTG to clarify the recommended control 

measures. We clarified that certain nonatomizing resin application 

technologies, such as fluid impingement 

technology, meet the recommended 

resin application equipment 

specifications under certain 

recommended compliance options. We 

also revised the description of ‘‘hand 

application’’ to include non-spray and 

non-atomizing application methods 

similar to hand- or mechanicallypowered caulking guns (e.g., similar to 

those used to apply bonding putty), 

brush, and direct hand application. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

VI-133 A-261 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58487 

These are low-emission application 

methods used by many boat builders. 

In the final CTG, we clarified that 

polyester bonding putties are included 

in the fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials category and addressed in the 

final CTG for this category. We 

explained that these putties, which are 

made from a mixture of resin and filler, 

are not considered adhesives since they 

are part of the composite structure. 

However, no VOC content limits are 

recommended for polyester bonding 

putties in the final fiberglass boat 

manufacturing CTG, but we do 

recommend covers for mixing 

containers used to prepare these putties. 

Because these putties are encapsulated 

between the parts or surfaces they are 

bonding, minimal area is exposed to the 

air and most of the styrene is 

incorporated into the cured resin 

matrix. Therefore, VOC emissions from 

these putties are inherently low. For this 

reason, polyester bonding putties are 

not subject to HAP limits, which are 

based on styrene and methyl 

methacrylate (MMA) emissions in the 

Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart VVVV. Similarly, no 

VOC content limits are recommended 

for these materials in the final CTG, but 

covers are recommended for the putty 

mixing containers. 

The final CTG also does not include 

recommended VOC limits for resin and 

gel coat used for mold and part touch up 

and repair. No VOC limits are 

recommended because these materials 

are used in small volumes (e.g., just an 

ounce or two at a time); therefore, VOC 

emissions from these materials are quite 

low. Further, these materials need to 

have higher VOC contents so that the 

repairs will bond to the existing mold or 

part. For these reasons, resin and gel 

coat used for mold and part touch up 

and repair are not subject to HAP 

content limits in the boat manufacturing 

NESHAP; however, under the NESHAP, 

they are subject to a usage limit and 

must not account for more than 1 

percent of the total resin and gel coat 

used at a facility. Similarly, no VOC 

limits are recommended for these 

materials in the final CTG, but we are 

also recommending that resin and gel 

coat used for mold and part touch up 

and repair not exceed 1 percent by 

weight of all resin and gel coat used at 

a facility on a 12-month rolling-average 

basis. 

In response to public comments, we 

are revising the VOC content limits for 

resins and gel coats such that they now 

consist of a monomer VOC content limit 

and a limit on the non-monomer VOC 

content. We received comments that 

compliance with our recommended 

VOC limits, which were equal to the 

HAP content limits in the NESHAP, 

may not be feasible because the VOC 

content in resins and gel coats may be 

greater than the HAP content. As 

previously explained in the draft CTG, 

the NESHAP HAP content limits were 

based on styrene and MMA contents in 

resins and gel coats. Because nearly all 

VOC in resins and gel coats used in 

fiberglass boat manufacturing are 

styrene and MMA, we recommended 

the NESHAP HAP content limits as the 

VOC limits in the draft CTG. However, 

commenters noted that the VOC content 

of resins and gel coats may exceed the 

HAP content since these materials may 

include a small percent of non-HAP 

VOC, about 0.5 to 5 percent of the total 

weight of the resin or gel coat. 

Therefore, it may not be feasible for 

some materials to achieve the 

recommended VOC limits in the draft 

CTG, which only accounted for styrene 

and MMA. 

To resolve this issue, the final CTG 

recommends a control option to address 

all VOC in these materials based on 

monomer VOC and non-monomer VOC. 

Monomer VOCs react in a chemical 

cross linking reaction to convert these 

materials from liquids to solids. The 

only monomer VOCs in these materials 

that we have identified are styrene and 

MMA. According to the commenters, 

other VOC that are not monomers may 

be present in these materials at 0.5 to 5 

percent by weight of the resin and gel 

coat. In light of the above information, 

we recommend in the final CTG that 

States adopt the HAP content limits in 

the NESHAP as monomer VOC content 

limits. In addition, we recommend that 

the States limit the non-monomer VOC 

content of resins and gel coats to 5 

percent by weight of the resin or gel 

coat. If the non-monomer VOC content 

exceeds 5 percent, we recommend that 

the amount over 5 percent be counted 

toward the monomer VOC content of the 

material. For example, if a resin 

contained 34 percent monomer VOC, 

but 6 percent non-monomer VOC, then 

the resin would be treated in each 

recommended compliance option as if it 

had a monomer VOC content of 35 

percent because of the 1 percent nonmonomer VOC that was over the 5 

percent recommended limit for nonmonomer VOC. 

In response to comments on how to 

determine the VOC content of materials, 

we recommend in the final CTG that the 

monomer VOC content of resin and gel 

coat materials be determined using 

SCAQMD Method 312–91, 

Determination of Percent Monomer in 

Polyester Resins. In addition, we 

recommend that manufacturer’s 

formulation data be accepted as an 

alternative to this method. If there is a 

disagreement between manufacturer’s 

formulation data and the results of a 

subsequent test, we recommend that 

States use the test method results unless 

the facility can make a demonstration to 

the States’ satisfaction that the 

manufacturer’s formulation data are 

correct. 

D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

We revised the final CTG to 

recommend not applying the 

recommended limits to materials that 

are supplied to the facilities operating 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application processes in containers with 

a net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a 

net weight of one pound or less. We 

made this change in response to 

comments that these low volume 

materials have small VOC emissions 

and the cost of controlling them 

outweighs the emission reductions that 

could be achieved. We agree with this 

assessment. This is also consistent with 

the small container exemption in the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

model rule. 

In response to comments on how to 

determine the VOC content of materials, 

we recommend in the final CTG that the 

VOC content of adhesives, other than 

reactive adhesives, used at facilities 

operating miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application processes be 

determined using EPA Method 24. We 

recommend that the procedure for 

reactive adhesives in Appendix A of the 

NESHAP for surface coating of plastic 

parts (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) be 

used to determine the VOC content of 

reactive adhesives. In addition, we 

recommend that manufacturer’s 

formulation data be accepted as an 

alternative to these methods. If there is 

a disagreement between manufacturer’s 

formulation data and the results of a 

subsequent test, we recommend that 

States use the test method results unless 

the facility can make a demonstration to 

the States’ satisfaction that the 

manufacturer’s formulation data are 

correct. 

We also clarified in the final CTG that 

polyester bonding putties used to 

assemble fiberglass parts at fiberglass 

boat manufacturing facilities and at 

other reinforced plastic composite 

manufacturing facilities are not 

included in the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives category and are not 

addressed in the CTG for this category. 

These bonding putties are part of the 

composite structure and are not 

adhesives. For further discussions on 

these putties, please see section II.C of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

A-262 VI-134 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58488 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

this notice and the final fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials CTG. 

In the final miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives CTG, we also revised the 

definition of porous material to exclude 

wood. In the draft CTG, we 

recommended separate emission limits 

for wood application processes and for 

porous material (except wood) 

application processes. However, we 

inadvertently included wood in the 

definition of porous material in the draft 

CTG. This was an oversight, and wood 

has been excluded from the definition of 

porous material in the final CTG. 

We also replaced the term ‘‘tire 

retreading’’ in the CTG with ‘‘tire 

repair’’. This change was made in 

response to a comment that the OTC 

model rule, on which the CTG 

definition was based, uses the term ‘‘tire 

repair’’ for the same definition. We 

made this change to be consistent with 

the OTC model rule and to more 

accurately describe the specific process 

being defined. 

In the draft CTG we requested 

comment on whether certain materials 

(glass bonding primers and glass 

bonding adhesives) used at automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly plants 

that were included in the miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives category and 

addressed in the draft CTG for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

should instead be included in the auto 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings 

category and addressed in the CTG for 

that category. All commenters on the 

draft CTG responded that 

recommendations for these materials 

should be in the auto and light-duty 

truck assembly coatings category and 

addressed in the CTG for that category 

to simplify implementation and 

compliance and to clarify EPA’s 

recommendations for these materials. 

In response to these comments, we 

have clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that 

it covers the following materials: 

automobile and light-duty truck glass 

bonding primer, automobile and lightduty truck adhesive, and automobile 

and light-duty truck weatherstrip 

adhesive. For further discussion on how 

we address these materials, please see 

section II.B of this notice and the final 

auto and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings CTG. 

Similar materials are used in the 

production of vehicles other than 

automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are 

related to the production of a new 

automobile or new light-duty truck at a 

facility that is not an automobile or 

light-duty truck assembly coatings 

facility. These materials are included as 

‘‘motor vehicle’’ materials in the 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

category and addressed in the final CTG 

for this category. The same limits that 

are recommended for ‘‘automobile and 

light-duty truck’’ materials in the auto 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings 

CTG are recommended for ‘‘motor 

vehicle’’ materials in this CTG. Please 

see section II.B of this notice for the 

rationale for these recommended limits. 

The recommended VOC emission 

limits in the final miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives CTG for the motor 

vehicle materials described above are as 

follows: 

• Motor vehicle glass bonding 

primer—900 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle adhesive—250 g/l. 

• Motor vehicle weatherstrip 

adhesive—750 g/l. 

Please note that, in the final CTG, the 

term ‘‘motor vehicle glass bonding 

primer’’ replaces the term ‘‘automotive 

glass adhesive primer’’ provided in the 

draft CTG. The terms have the same 

definition, but ‘‘glass bonding primer’’ 

is the term more commonly used in the 

automotive and motor vehicle industry. 

III. Responses to Significant Comments 

on EPA’s Determination 

All 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 miscellaneous metal products 

coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and 

light-duty truck assembly coatings, and 

fiberglass boat manufacturing materials 

product categories agreed with the 

proposed determination. 

In support of EPA’s proposed 

determination and issuance of draft 

CTGs for these product categories, 

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 

received comments noting that the CTG 

approach 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. According to 

the commenters, 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 commenters concluded 

that the CTG approach affords this 

flexibility by allowing the use of a 

variety of mechanisms to achieve 

emission reductions. 

With respect to the miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives category, we 

similarly received comments agreeing 

with EPA’s determination that a CTG is 

substantially as effective as a rule. 

However, we also received comments 

supporting the issuance of a national 

rule rather than a CTG for this product 

category. These commenters raised no 

concerns or issues with EPA’s rationales 

for its proposed determination that a 

CTG is substantially as effective as a 

rule in reducing VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives in 

ozone nonattainment areas. Rather, the 

commenters explained that regulation of 

manufacturers of industrial adhesives 

would cover a wider variety of 

materials, and thus achieve greater VOC 

emissions reductions, than measures 

limiting emissions from the products at 

the point of use. The commenters 

further argued that manufacturers have 

greater control over the VOC content 

and associated emissions of industrial 

adhesives than do users, given that 

individual industrial adhesives are 

formulated to perform specific functions 

and, unlike other coating materials, are 

not ordinarily thinned or otherwise 

altered prior to use by the user. The 

commenters stated that, among the 

categories of adhesive materials covered 

in the proposed CTG, a number of them 

are more likely to be used ‘‘in the field’’ 

or at construction sites rather than in 

manufacturing facilities. One 

commenter added that any uncertainty 

regarding the industry sectors that are 

covered by the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives source category would be 

resolved by regulating industrial 

adhesives at the point of manufacture 

rather than the point of use. The 

commenter expressed concern that a 

CTG for adhesives would require 

enforcement at innumerable 

manufacturing facilities nationwide, 

resulting in significant costs. The 

commenter added that in contrast, a 

national rule applicable to 

manufacturers of industrial adhesives 

would greatly reduce the number of 

regulated entities and simplify 

enforcement, and reduce costs. 

EPA appreciates the commenters’ 

concerns and suggestions. However, for 

the following reasons, EPA rejects the 

commenters’ suggestion that EPA 

should issue a national rule for the 

Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives category. As an initial matter, 

the scope of adhesives that the 

commenters suggest that EPA cover 

under a national rule is broader than the 

Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives category. In EPA’s Report to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

VI-135 A-263 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58489 

8See ‘‘Consumer and Commercial Products: 

Schedule for Regulation’’ (60 FR 15264, March 23, 

1995) 

Congress, Study of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer 

and Commercial Products— 

Comprehensive Emissions Inventory 

(EPA–453/R–94–066–B, March 1995), 

supporting the Section 183(e) consumer 

and commercial product category list 

that EPA compiled in 1995 and the 

schedule for taking action on the listed 

product categories,8 the ‘‘miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives’’ product category 

was clearly described as comprising 

adhesives used in industrial 

manufacturing operations. Accordingly, 

this product category does not include 

field-applied adhesives (e.g., plastic 

solvent welding cements used by 

plumbers to join plumbing pipes on 

construction jobs in the field). 

In the July 2008 notice, EPA proposed 

to finalize the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives product category, as that 

category was listed in 1995. EPA did not 

propose to broaden that product 

category, as EPA had determined that 

the category properly reflected the scope 

of sources needed, in conjunction with 

the other product categories, to meet the 

requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A). 

Petitioners have not alleged or 

demonstrated that EPA’s proposed 

listing is contrary to the requirements of 

Section 183(e)(3)(A). EPA therefore 

takes final action to list the 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

product category, which again includes 

those adhesives used in industrial 

manufacturing operations. 

Further, as discussed in the July 14, 

2008 notice, the effect of a national rule 

that sets VOC limits only for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives (i.e., 

adhesives used in industrial 

manufacturing operations) could be 

easily subverted because such a rule 

could not require that a manufacturing 

facility use only those low-VOC content 

adhesives materials that are specifically 

marketed for miscellaneous industrial 

adhesive application operations. By 

contrast, the miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives CTG applies specifically to 

the products in the Section 183(e) 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives 

category, i.e., adhesives used at 

industrial manufacturing operations. 

Moreover, as discussed above and in 

the July 14, 2008 notice, EPA has 

identified in the CTG flexible and 

effective options for controlling VOC 

emissions from the miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives category, and these 

recommended control options are 

consistent with existing State and local 

VOC control strategies. The 

recommended control options, which 

are directed at the use of these 

adhesives, can only be implemented 

through the CTG approach because the 

regulated entities subject to a national 

rule would be adhesives manufacturers 

and suppliers, not the users. The 

commenters have raised no concerns or 

issues with EPA’s rationales, including 

those reiterated above, supporting its 

proposed Section 183(e)(3)(C) 

determination that a CTG is 

substantially as effective as a regulation 

in reducing VOC emissions from 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives in 

ozone nonattainment areas. For the 

foregoing reasons, EPA is finalizing its 

183(e)(3)(C) determination for 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives in 

this notice. 

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. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

does not contain any information 

collection requirements. 

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 five Group 

IV consumer and commercial product 

categories addressed in this notice for 

purposes of CAA Section 183(e). The 

listing action alone does not impose any 

regulatory requirements. EPA has also 

determined that, for each of the five 

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 five 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 five product categories. 

These CTGs are guidance documents. 

EPA does not directly regulate any small 

entities through the issuance of a CTG. 

Instead, EPA issues CTGs to provide 

States with guidance on developing 

appropriate State 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 

EPA’s CTG. States may follow the 

recommendations in the CTG or deviate 

from them, 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 EPA’s 

action on each State’s SIP. Thus, States 

retain discretion in determining to what 

degree to follow the CTGs. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

A-264 VI-136 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
58490 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector 

because it imposes no enforceable duty 

on any State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. In addition, we have 

determined that this rule is not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As 

stated in section IV.C. this action serves 

to list five product categories, finalize a 

determination that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation in achieving VOC emission 

reductions in ozone nonattainment 

areas for the five categories, and 

announce the availability of the final 

CTGs (i.e., guidance documents) for 

these five product categories. These 

actions do not impose any regulatory 

requirements; therefore, EPA is not 

directly regulating any small entities. 

Please refer to section IV.C. for 

additional details. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

EO 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 EO 

13132. The CAA establishes the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, and this 

action does not impact that relationship. 

Thus, EO 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 (see 73 FR 40230, 

July 14, 2008) 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 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in EO 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

does 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 CAA. Thus, EO 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) 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 EO has the potential to 

influence the regulations. This rule is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it is 

based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in EO 13211 

(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 

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 

EO 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 this final 

rule 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 for all affected populations 

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 CAA 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

VI-137 A-265 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58491 

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 7, 2008. 

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 30, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 59—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General 

■ 2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 59.1 Final determinations under Section 

183(e)(3)(C) of the CAA. 

This section identifies the consumer 

and commercial product categories for 

which EPA has determined that CTGs 

will be substantially as effective as 

regulations in reducing 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; 

(k) Large appliance coatings; 

(l) Miscellaneous metal products 

coatings; 

(m) Plastic parts coatings; 

(n) Auto and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings; 

(o) Fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials; and 

(p) Miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives. 

[FR Doc. E8–23750 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 447 

[CMS–2238–F] 

RIN 0938–AP26 

Medicaid Program; Multiple Source 

Drug Definition 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

definition of ‘‘multiple source drug’’ to 

better conform the regulatory definition 

to the provisions of section 1927(k)(7) of 

the Social Security Act. It also responds 

to public comments received on the 

March 14, 2008 interim final rule with 

comment period. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective November 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Sexton, (410) 786–4583. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In the July 17, 2007 Federal Register 

we published a final rule with comment 

period (72 FR 39142) implementing the 

provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act 

of 2005 (DRA) pertaining to prescription 

drugs under the Medicaid Program. In 

that rule, we codified terms pertaining 

to the calculation and reporting of 

average manufacturer price (AMP) and 

best price and amended existing 

regulations regarding the calculation of 

the Federal upper limits (FULs) for 

certain covered outpatient drugs. The 

rule was effective October 1, 2007. On 

March 14, 2008, we issued an interim 

final rule with comment period (73 FR 

13785) that revised the definition of 

multiple source drug to conform to the 

statutory provisions. As stated in that 

rule, the interim final rule with 

comment period was not issued in 

response to public comments received 

on the Medicaid prescription drug rule. 

We are still considering those 

comments. On November 15, 2007, the 

National Association of Chain Drug 

Stores and the National Community 

Pharmacists Association filed a motion 

for a preliminary injunction in the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia. They contended, 

in part, that the definition of ‘‘multiple 

source drug’’ adopted in the Medicaid 

prescription drug rule is contrary to the 

statutory language in that it defined a 

multiple source drug, in part, as a drug 

which is sold or marketed in the United 

States, as opposed to the State. Plaintiffs 

argued that all drugs are not generally 

available in every State. National 

Association of Chain Drug Stores et al. 

v. Health and Human Services, Civil 

Action No. 1:07–cv–02017 (RCL). 

Although we continue to believe that, 

when an FDA-approved, 

therapeutically, pharmaceutically, and 

bioequivalent drug is sold or marketed 

in the United States, at least one 

therapeutically, pharmaceutically, and 

bioequivalent drug is sold or marketed 

in every State, we issued an interim 

final rule with comment period to revise 

the definition of ‘‘multiple source 

drug.’’ We stated that we expected the 

effect of the revision, if any, to be 

minimal. 

We are publishing this final rule to 

address comments received on the 

interim final rule with comment period 

published on March 14, 2008 (73 FR 

13785). Specifically, we are addressing 

comments pertaining to the definition of 

‘‘multiple source drug’’ in the March 14, 

2008 interim final rule with comment 

period. For a full discussion of the 

multiple source drug definition 

provisions see the March 14, 2008 

interim final rule with comment period 

(73 FR 13785). 

As noted in the interim final rule with 

comment period, this rule to the extent 

that it may affect Medicaid 

reimbursement rates for retail 

pharmacies, is subject to the injunction 

issued by the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia in 

National Association of Chain Drug 

Stores et al. v. Health and Human 

Services, Civil Action No. 1:07–cv– 

02017 (RCL). 

II. Provisions of the Interim Final Rule 

In § 447.502, we defined key terms 

used for payment and rebates for 

Medicaid covered outpatient drugs. We 

defined multiple source drug, with 

respect to a rebate period, as a covered 

outpatient drug for which there is at 

least one other drug product which is: 

(1) Rated as therapeutically equivalent 

(for the list of drug products rated as 

therapeutically equivalent, see the 

FDA’s most recent publication of 

‘‘Approved Drug Products with 

Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations’’ 

which is available at http:// 

www.fda.gov/cder/orange/default.htm 

or can be viewed at the FDA’s Freedom 

of Information Public Reading Room at 

5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A–30, 

Rockville, MD 20857); (2) 

pharmaceutically equivalent and 

bioequivalent, as determined by the 

FDA; and (3) sold or marketed in the 

United States during the rebate period. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES

A-266 VI-138 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
VI-139 A-267 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-268 VI-140 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
VI-141 A-269 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
A-270 VI-142 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
VI-143 A-271 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
This page is intentionally blank 

A-272 VI-144 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
VII-1 

CHAPTER VII 

The following documentation of filing and notification is incorporated as part of this 

hearing record and is maintained on file: 

1. DENR 101 Internal Approval Form. 

2. Submission for Notice Form and material submitted to the Office of 

Administrative Hearings. 

3. The public notice as it appears in The North Carolina Register Volume 24, 

Issue 17, pages 1508-1539. 

4. Letters to newspapers requesting that the public notice be published. 

5. Affidavits of Publication from newspaper. 

6. Memorandum transmitting hearing notice and proposal to regional offices 

for public inspection. 

7. Memorandum transmitting hearing notice and proposal to local programs. 

8. Letter notifying EPA of hearing. 

9. Submission of Filing Forms and material filed with Office of 

Administrative Hearings. 

 10. Letter transmitting hearing record to EPA. 

A-273 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record
This page is intentionally blank 

A-274 VII-2 Enclosure1-VOC CTG Grp. IV Hearing Record