# STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN T AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

ON PROPOSED AMENDM ENTS 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

## This page was intentionally left blank.

## 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

## This page was intentionally left blank.

## 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 th e 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 cat egory of volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources covered by any control techniques guidelines (CTG) doc ument 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 redesigna ted 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 esta blishing three alternatives: (1) emission limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings; (2) e quivalent 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 pe rcent for add-on controls.

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

amendment to control VOC emissions from la rge 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 achieve d through the use of low-VOC coatings or a combination of coatings and add- on controls; and (3) an overall c ontrol efficiency of 90 percent for add-on controls. An examination of permits fo r 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.

## I-2

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

amendment to establish new emission limits for i nks, 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 c ontent 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 contro l equipment to meet an overall control efficiency of 90 percent.

Proposed adoptions of Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0961, .0962, .0963, .0 964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and

.0968.



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

, is proposed for adoption to control VOC emissions from h eatset inks, fountain solution, and cleaning materials used in offset lithographic printing ope rations, as well as, VOC emissions from heatset inks used in letterpress prin ting operations at the level suffi cient for RACT requirements.

An examination of permits for existing facilities in this source category revealed that there are no existing facilities with the poten tial 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 opti onal 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 esta blishes applicable VOC content limit of cleaning

material for each of the nine cl eaning 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 activ ity that is subject to other rules to make it clear that only one rule applie s 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 (pigment ed gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling ge l coat, and tooling resin); resin and gel coat mixing operations; and resin and gel coat applicati on 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 onl y low VOC monomer materials w ithin a covered operation, or by averaging the VOC monomer contents for all mate rials 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 diffe rent operations using equations to estimate VOC monomer emission rates from each operation depending on the material and application

## 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 comb ination of those options can be us ed at any affected facility to achieve RACT requirements.

An examination of permits for the existing facili ties in this source category revealed that there are no existing facilities w ith the potential to emit 100 tpy or more VOC emissions located in the area affected by these changes.

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

control VOC emissions from miscellaneous indust rial adhesives. It establishes VOC emission limits based on application processe s (general adhesive application processes, specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primer appl ication processes.) The ru le 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, specif ied application methods, and add-on control. As an alternative to the emission limits, the rule offe rs an overall control effi ciency 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 requir es 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 percen t overall control. The rule applies these control recommendations only to individual surface coating lines with the pote ntial to emit, prior to controls, at least 25 tpy of VOC from coatings. The rule provides the a ffected facilities with the option of using an enforceable limitation on potential to emit to k eep an individual paper, film, and foil surface coating line below this 25 tpy potential to em it threshold. This limit can be met by use of lowVOC content materials or combinatio ns of materials and controls.

15A NCAC 02D .0967, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, is proposed for adoption to control VOC emissions from miscella neous 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 applicati on methods to achieve good transfer efficiency; (2) equivalent VOC emission rate limits based on the use of a combination of low-VOC coatings, specified app lication methods, and add-on controls; or (3) an overall VOC control efficiency of 90 percent fo r facilities that choose to use add-on controls instead of low-VOC content coatings and specified application methods.

15A NCAC 02D .0968, Automobile and Ligh t-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, is proposed for adoption to establish VOC emission limits base d on application processe s (general adhesive application processes, specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primer application processes.) The recommended emission limits for pr imer-surfacer and topcoat operations can be

## I-4

achieved with a combination of higher-solid so lvent-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 Pa rts 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 propos ing 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 wi ll 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 th an 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 faci lity-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 th at 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 sour ce 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) agr ees that the limit is dependent on the nonattainment area classification. DAQ believes that lis ting the actual numerical standard helps the reader understand the current potent ial emission threshold. If the ar ea is designated as serious for ozone, the potential to emit threshold will de crease 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 Superv isor, 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 terminol ogy in the rules shou ld be consistent.

Response: The term “potential to emit” is a wide ly used term in EPA regulations. The definition in Rule 02D .0901 for “potential emi ssions” is identical to EPA’s definition of

## I-5

“potential to emit”. The term “potential to em it” is used in many of the Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents that are the ba sis for the rules in Section 02D .0901.

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

15A NCAC 02D .0922, Metal Furniture Coatings

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 vola tile organic compounds per pound of coating.

Response: Subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) are cons istent 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 equi valent limits in terms of the VOC per volume of coating solids using an assumed VOC dens ity of 7.36 pounds per gallon for the conversion “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coa tings” page 23, EPA 453/R-07-005, September 2007.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 recommenda tions that EPA listed in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings,” September 2007. EPA doesn’t recommend limiting VOC emissions rate de termination to a specific formula.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 Qu ality Supervisor, Mecklenbu rg County Air Quality, recommends adding definitions for the materials su ch as “sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and

maskants.”

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

to include their defi nitions to the rule.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Qu ality Supervisor, Mecklenbu rg County Air Quality, recommends adding the same definition for “app liance parts coatings” as there is in 2D .0922(a)(3) for “metal furniture coatings.”

## 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 orga nic compounds per pound of coating.

Response: EPA recommends expressing emission lim its in terms of mass of VOC per volume of coating (excluding water and exempt co mpounds, 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 45 3/R-07-004, September 2007.

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

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

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 defini tion of “waferboard” is not necessary to include into the rule becau se the waferboard surface coating is not included into the provisions of this rule.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, questions the reason for not listi ng any flat wood products used fo r other applications (such as flooring) in Subparagraphs (b)(1) through (3). Does it mean that su ch 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 co nsistent with EPA recommendations.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Supervis or, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, in his comments indicates that; (1 ) the phrase “factory finished flat wood product operation” in Paragraph (c) is deleted incorrec tly; (2) the breakout under Subparagr aph (1) is not required, and; (3) the word “material” should be replaced by th e phrase “coating applied” in Paragraph (c).

Response: The rule version published in “The No rth Carolina Register, Volume 24, Issue 17” in March 1, 2010 (1) contains the phrase “fact ory finished flat w ood product operation” in Paragraph (c); (2) there is no br eakout 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 Qual ity Supervisor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, in his comments, states that the values given for VOC content in Paragraph (c) for lb/gallon on a

## I-7

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

either/or should be stated.

Response: The values given for VOC content on a lb/g allon of a material basis and lb/gallon of a solid basis in the proposed Pa ragraph (c) are consistent with the same values that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques Guidelines fo r Flat Wood Paneling Co atings,” EPA 453/R-06-004 September 2006, page 10.

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

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

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Qu ality Supervisor, Mecklenbu rg County Air Quality, questions legality of not incl uding any add-on cont rol option for off-se t 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 Guid elines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” EPA 453/R- 06-002, September 2006, page 11.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality suggests that the second (h) should be (j), (j) should be (k), a nd text is missing after the phrase “...mixed in closed” in the second (h).

Response: The rule version published in “The No rth Carolina Register, Volume 24, Issue 17” in March 1, 2010 (1) contains all Paragraphs lis ted 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 Regist er, Volume 24, Issue 17” in March 1, 2010.

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, the Printing Indus try of the Carolinas, in his comments recommends revising the definition for “fount ain solution” to clarify its function and composition. He also requested to include defini tions for alcohol subst itute, 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” presente d in the rule explicitly reflects the

function and nature of the fountain solution. Revi ew is not necessary. The definitions for vapor pressure, heatset, non-heatset and press are added to the rule. Functions and nature of alcohol

## I-8

substitute and cleaning material are too understa ndable 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) applicabil ity 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 pr esses 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 Gu idelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” EPA-453/R-06-002, Sept ember 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 Subpara graphs (1) through (3).

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends replacing the word “reducing” with the word “m aintaining” in Subparagraphs (c) (2) and (d)(1) because the word “reducing” implies that the alc ohol 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 Subparagr aph (c)(1) is consistent with the same language that EPA uses in “The Control Techniqu es 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-pr ess (as applied).”

## I-9

Response: The language in the proposed Subparagr aphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) is consistent with the same language that EPA uses in “T he Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Prin ting,” EPA-453/R-06-002, Se ptember 2006, page15.

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, recommends deleting the term “alcohol subst itute” to provide clar ity 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 Gu idelines 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 no t 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 th e rule. The term “nonheatset” is the preferred term used throughout th e 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 Subpa ragraphs (f) and (h) since bot h 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 Techniqu es Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,” EPA-453/R-06-002 Se ptember 2006, page 13 and 14. Paragraph (f) incorporates EPA recommendations for establishi ng 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 effi ciency 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 le tterpress printing headset including heatset web offset printing pr esses. The new Subparagr aph is not required.

## 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 Para graph (f) doesn’t define the 25 ton per year as an exemption. It defines the 25 ton per year as the thre shold 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 1 00 percent of the VOC vola tilized in the dryer. The capture efficiency test is not required in this situation.

Response: The required language is a dded 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 cont rol 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 th e 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 EP A Method 24 covers VOC emissions from the inks used at offset lithographic printing and letterpress pr inting facilities.

Response: Paragraph (g) is corrected to make sure that the EPA Method 24 covers all VOC content materials including the i nks used at offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing

facilities.

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printi ng Industry of the Carolinas, in his comments, states that the requirement of S ubparagraph (i)(2) is confusing and recommends revising or deleting this Subparagraph because its intent is not evident.

Response: Subparagraph (i)(2) is revised to clarif y 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 “P aragraph (f)” in Subparagraph (i)(3).

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

## I-11

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Industry of the Carolinas advises to replace the term “headset” with the te rm “heatset” in Subparagraph (i)(4).

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

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, The Printing Indus try of the Carolinas, requested to reemphasize exemption of the coati ngs applied during lithographic a nd letterpress operations in Paragraph (i) from the requirements of Ru le 15A NCAC 02D .0966, Paper, Film and Foil Coatings, by specifically refere ncing 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 Printi ng 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 so lution contains more than 70 weight percent volatile organi c compounds; or having cleaning solution VOC pressures higher than 10 mm Hg at 20 o 

## C.

Response: Paragraph (j) explicitly states that the cleaning solutions shall meet the requirements whether containing less than 70 we ight percent volatile organic compounds or having volatile compound vapor pressures less than 10 mm Hg at 20 o 

## C only if their amount exceeds 110 gallons per year.

Comment: Mr. Jeff Stoudt, President, the Pr inting Industry of the Carolinas, advises to delete the reference to Rule .0903 and to establish speci fic recordkeeping requirements needed for this rule because the recordkeeping requirements in the Rule .090 3 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 dilute d material, fountain so lutions, and cleaning material; the temperature of the press fountain solutions for lithographic printing presses using alcohol in the fountain solution; the monthly qua ntity of used cleaning solution, which does not meet the vapor pressure and percentage volat ile organic compound concentration limits per Paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2); te mperature 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 Ru le .0903 are consiste nt 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 th e lithographic printing industry and are necessary for accurate emission determina tions. Mr. Stoudt states that the appropriate

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

## I-12

and retention factors are applied for the purposes of determining appli cability and compliance. Mr. Stoudt also advises to clarify the met hodology for estimating actual emissions in the lithographic printing industry, wh ich 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 w ith the methods to limit VOC emissions from Offset Lithographic Printi ng and Letterpress Prin ting and the way VOC

emissions will be controlled and documented. We be lieve that the rule should not limit methods of the VOC emission determinations by the industr y, 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 ru le 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 Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, recommends including the dipping processes in the definition of the “s olvent 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, ei ther batch-wise or in a continuous process, is the subject of the regulations under the Ru le 15A NCAC 02D .0930, Solvent Metal Cleaning.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, questions legality of the applicability of the “s olvent 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 washer s are the subject of regulations under the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0930, Solv ent Metal Cleaning.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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).

## 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 Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, questions legality of recommenda tions 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 Qu ality Supervisor, Mecklenbu rg County Air Quality, advises to replace the word “material” with the word “c oating” in the phrase “...0.16 lb volatile organic compounds per on e lb of material applied...”

Response: The language in the propos ed Paragraph (c) is consiste nt with the same language

that EPA uses in “The Contro l “Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing,” EPA 453/R-06-003, Septembe r 2006, page14.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Qu ality Supervisor, Mecklenbu rg County Air Quality, advises to insert text or pun ctuation between the word “appl ied” and the wo rd “limits”.

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

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

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

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 so lids applied , or 0.067 pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of coating.

## I-14

Response: Values given for VOC content in a lb/gallon coatings and lb/gallon of solids in proposed Paragraph (d) are consis tent with the same values that EPA uses in “The Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, a nd 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 co ating 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 phr ase “coating lines’ s hould 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 adde d after the phrase “lb/lb of co ating” in Subparagraphs (d)(1); and (2).

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

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

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

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, recommends including definitions for coating ty pes such as “extreme high-gloss”, “extreme performance”, “high-performance architectural” et c., or where the coati ng name/identifier is not descriptive (such as “Drum Coating, New, Interior” and “Electric- Insulating Varnish”).

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

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 Techni ques for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA- EPA-453/R-08- 003, September 2008, pages 33-35.

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 Me tal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA- EPA453/R-08-003, September 2008.

## I-15

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 wo rd “plastic” in the Table 2 Title.

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

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

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, 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 Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality recommends replacing the word “without” with th e phrase “except for” in Subparagraph (b)(4).

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

Comment: Mr. Chuck Greco, Air Quality Superv isor, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, recommends adding the definition “Automobile Topc oat Protocol” with the references to how to find it into Subparagraph (d)(1).

Response: The definition “Automobile Topcoat Prot ocol” 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 Electrode position Primer Operations,” the CTG value in the second column, on the second row shoul d 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 Superv isor, 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 Am erican 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 coat ings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 that EPA recommended in

the final CTG. He stated that the American Co ating Association has been working closely with EPA to change these VOC limits because the Association believes th at SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 is not suitable for consideration as RACT by oz one non-attainment states and areas. Mr. Sell indicated that he was expecting clarification from EPA regarding this matter in the near term.

## I-16

Response: Ms. Whitfield, Environmental Engineer, EP A, 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 impl ement the recommendations contained in the CTG, or any different approaches, DAQ must subm it the rule to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA will make a fina l determination regarding whether the submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA a nd EPA’s regulations. In order to meet these requirements, DAQ incorporated EPA recommenda tions on VOC limits for eight categories of pleasure craft (i.e., recrea tional boats) surface coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1.

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

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

15A NCAC 2D .0902, Applicability

Comment Response Concerns are expressed a bout the applicability of the revised rules to facilities with the potential to emit greater than or equa l 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 ye ar potential to emit applies facility-wide. If the facility-wide potential emissions exce ed 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 “maj or 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 de crease 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 VO C 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.

## 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 definiti ons 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 sa me 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 C oating of Flat Wood Paneling

Comment Response

Recommendation to incl ude 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 provis ions 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 phra se “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 Pr inting 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 Paragrap hs listed in alphabetical order and the phrase with the missing text had

## I-18

been deleted as unnecessary. No change to the

rule.

Recommendations to revi se the definition for

“fountain solution” and to include the definitions for alcohol substitute, cleaning material, composite vapo r 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 dele te 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-h eatset” throughout the

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

## 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 prin ting 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 exemp tion. 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) beca use 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 du ring 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).

## 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 th e 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 Pr inting 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 proce sses 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 th e 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 B oat 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

## 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 “mater ial” with the word “coating” in th e phrase “...0.16 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb of material applied...” The language in the pro posed Paragraph (c) is

consistent with the same language that EPA uses

in “The Control “Techn iques 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 sensit ive 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” af ter 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

## 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 Ligh t-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 refere nces 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 in clude in the NC rule specific VOC limits for eight categories of pleasure craft (i.e., r ecreational 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 cate gories 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 reco rd on the changes to Section .0900-Volatile Organic Compounds during the comment period. One commenter made several

recommendations about units for VOC conten t limits, additions of various definitions,

clarifications of different terms, and applicability of various requirements.

The second commenter recommended revising va rious definitions and terms, clarifying applicability requirements and stack test me thods, and including a dditional provisions for

## I-23

cleaning materials usage, recordkeeping requir ements, and various factors of determining applicability and compliance.

The third commenter focused in his co mments 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., r ecreational 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 fo r Electrodeposition Primer Operations,” to 0.7 lb/gal coatings solids applied in Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0968, Auto mobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings and to replace th e number zero with a degree symbol ( 0 

## F) in Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0963 – “Fiberglass Bo at 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.

## I-24

This page was intentionally left blank.

### II-1

CHAPTER II 1

2

3

REGULATIONS PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION 4

5

SECTION .0900 - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 6

7 15A NCAC 02D .0902 is proposed for amendment as follows: 8

9

15A NCAC 02D .0902 APPLICABILITY 10 (a) The rules in this Section do not apply except as specifically set out in this Rule. 11 (b) This Section applies to sources that emit greater than or equal to 15 pounds of volatile organic compounds per day. 12 (c) Rules .0925, .0926, .0927, . 0928, .0931, .0932, .0933, and .0958 of this Section apply regardless of the level of emissions of volatile 13 organic compounds. 14 (b) (d) Regardless of any other statement of applicability of this Section, this This Section does not apply to: 15 (1) sources whose emissions of volatile organic com pounds are not more than 15 pounds per day, except that this Section 16 does apply to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt and to gasoline service stations or gasoline dispensing facilities 17 regardless of levels of emissions of volatile organic compounds; 18 (2) (1) sources whose emissions do not exceed that emit less than 800 pounds of volatile organic compounds per calendar month 19

and that are: 20 (A) bench-scale, on-site equipment used exclusively for ch emical or physical analysis for quality control purposes, 21 staff instruction, water or wastewater analyses, or non-production environmental compliance assessments; 22 (B) bench-scale experimentation, chemical or physical analyses, training or instruction from not-for-profit, non23 production educational laboratories; 24 (C) bench-scale experimentation, chemical or physical an alyses, training or instruction from hospitals or health 25 laboratories pursuant to the determination or diagnoses of illness; or 26 (D) research and development laboratory activities pr ovided the activity produces no commercial product or 27 feedstock material; or 28 (3) (2) emissions of volatile organic compounds during startup or shutdown operations from sources which use incineration or 29 other types of combustion to control emissions of volatile or ganic compounds whenever the off-gas contains an explosive 30 mixture during the startup or shutdown operation if the exemption is approved by the Director as meeting the 31 requirements of this Subparagraph. 32 (c) (e) The following rules of this Section apply statewide: 33 (1) .0925, Petroleum Liquid Storage in Fixed Roof Tanks, for fixed roof tanks at gasoline bulk plants and gasoline bulk 34 terminals; 35 (2) .0926, Bulk Gasoline Plants; 36 (3) .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; 37 (4) .0928, Gasoline Service Stations Stage I; 38 (5) .0932, Gasoline Truck Tanks and Vapor Collection Systems; 39 (6) .0933, Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Ta nks, for external floating roof tanks at bulk gasoline plants 40 and bulk gasoline terminals; 41 (7) .0948, VOC Emissions from Transfer Operations; 42 (8) .0949, Storage of Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds; and 43 (9) .0958, Work Practices for Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds. 44 (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 45 Rule before July 5, 1995 shall cont inue to comply with these Rules: 46 (1) .0917 through .0937 of this Section, or 47 (2) .0943 through .0945 of this Section. 48 (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 49 per year in the following areas: 50 (1) Cabarrus County 51 (2) Gaston County 52 (3) Lincoln County 53 (4) Mecklenburg County 54 (5) Rowan County 55 (6) Union County 56 (7) Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township in Iredell County 57

58

### II-2

(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 so urces in that 1 county subject to this Section before the redesignation to attainment shall continue to comply with this Section. 2 (f) If a violation of the ambie nt air quality standard for ozone is measured in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 in Davidson, Forsyth, or 3 Guilford County or that part of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton C reek 4

and back to Yadkin Ri ver, the Director shall initiate analysis to determine the c ontrol measures needed to attain and maintain the ambient 5 air quality standard for ozone. By the following May 1, the Director shall implement the specific stationary source control me asures 6

cont ained in this Section that are required as part of the contro l strategy necessary to bring the area into compliance and to main tain 7 compliance with the ambient air quality standard for ozone. The Director shall implement the rules in this Section identifie d as being 8 necessary by the analysis by notice in the North Carolina Register . The notice shall identify the rules that are to be impleme nted and shall 9 identify whether the rules implemented are to apply in Davidson, Forsyth, or Guilford County or that pa rt of Davie County bounded by the 10 Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Cr eek and back to Yadkin River or any combination thereof. A t 11 least one week before the scheduled publication date of the North Carolina Register containin g the Director's notice implementing rules in 12 this Section, the Director shall send written notification to al l permitted facilities within the county in which the rules are being implemented 13 that are or may be subject to the requirements of this Section i nforming them that they are or may be subject to the requirements of this 14 Section. (For Forsyth County, "Director" means for the purpos e of notifying permitted facilities in Forsyth County, the Direct or of the 15 Forsyth County local air pollution control pr ogram.) Compliance shall be in accordance with Rule .0909 of this Section. 16 (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 17 Dutchville Township in Granville County, th e Director shall initiate analysis to determin e the control measures needed to attain and 18 maintain the ambient air quality standard for ozone. By the following May 1, the Director shall implement the specific station ary source 19

control measures contained i n this Section that are required as part of the control strategy necessary to bring the area into compliance and to 20 maintain compliance with the ambient air quality standard for ozone. The Director shall implement the rules in this Section id entified as 21

b eing necessary by the analysis by notice in the North Carolina Register. The notice shall identify the rules that are to be im plemented and 22 shall identify whether the rules implemented are to apply in Durham or Wake County or Dutchville Township in Granvi lle County or any 23

combination thereof. At least one week before the scheduled publication date of the North Carolina Register containing the Dir ector's 24 notice implementing rules in this Section, the Director shall send written notification to all permitte d facilities within the county in which 25 the rules are being implemented that are or may be subject to th e requirements of this Section informing them that they are or may be 26 subject to the requirements of this Sec tion. Compliance shall be in accordance wi th Rule .0909 of this Section. 27 (h) If EPA reclassifies the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill ozone nonattainment area as serious for ozone under Section 182 of th e federal 28 Clean Air Act, the rules in this Section shall apply to facili ties in Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Union Counties and 29 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 30 compounds per year. Within 60 days of the reclassification, the Director shall notice the applicability of these Rules to these facilities in the 31 North Carolina Register and shall send written notification to all permitted facilities within the counties in which the rules are being 32 implemented that are or may be subject to the requirements of this Section informing them that they are or may be subject to th e 33 requirements of this Section. (For Mecklenburg County, "Direct or" means for the purpose of notifying permitted facilities in Me cklenburg 34 County, the Director of the Mecklenburg County local air pollution control program.) Compliance shall be according to Rule .09 09 of this 35

Section. 36 (i) Sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds are not subject to limitation under this Section may still be subjec t to emission 37 limits on volatile organic compounds in Rules .0524, .1110, or .1111 of this Subchapter. 38

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

41 15A NCAC 02D .0909 is proposed for amendment as follows: 42

43

15A NCAC 02D .0909 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR SOURCES IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS 44 (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) 45 (f) or (h) of Rule .0902 of this Section. 46 (b) Exceptions. This Rule does not apply to: to 47 (1) sources in Mecklenburg County required to comply with the requirements of this Section under Rule .0902(d) of this 48 Section; or 49 (2) sources required to comply with the requi rements of this Section under Paragraph (e) of Rule .0902(c) .0902 of this 50

Section. 51 (c) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone nonattainment area conti ngency plan. The owner or operator of any source subject to this Rule 52 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 53

and schedules: 54 (1) if compliance is to be achieved by installing emission control equipment, replacing process equipment, or modifying 55 existing process equipment: 56

### II-3

(A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit applicati on and a compliance schedule within six months after the 1 Director notices the implementation of rules in the Nort h Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the 2 ambient air quality standard for ozone; 3 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments of progress: 4 (i) a date by which contracts for the emission control system and process equipment shall be awarded or 5 orders shall be issued for purchase of component parts; 6 (ii) a date by which on-site construction or installati on of the emission control and process equipment shall 7 begin; and 8 (iii) a date by which on-site construction or installation of the emission control and process equipment shall 9 be completed; 10 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved within three years af ter the Director notices the implementation of rules in 11 the North Carolina Register that resolves a viola tion of the ambient air quality standard for ozone. 12 (2) if compliance is to be achieved by using low solvent content coating technology: 13 (A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit applicati on and a compliance schedule within six months after the 14 Director notices the implementation of rules in the Nort h Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the 15 ambient air quality standard for ozone; 16 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments: 17 (i) a date by which research and development of low solvent content coating shall be completed if the 18

Director determines that low solvent content coa ting technology has not been sufficiently researched 19 and developed; 20 (ii) a date by which evaluation of product quality and commercial acceptance shall be completed; 21 (iii) a date by which purchase orders shall be issu ed for low solvent content coatings and process 22 modifications; 23 (iv) a date by which process modifications shall be initiated; and 24 (v) a date by which process modifications shall be comp leted and use of low solvent content coatings shall 25 begin; 26 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved within three years af ter the Director notices the implementation of rules in 27 the North Carolina Register that resolves a viola tion of the ambient air quality standard for ozone. 28 (3) The owner or operator shall certify to the Director within five days after each increment deadline of progress in this 29 Paragraph, whether the required increment of progress has been met. 30 (d) Nonattainment areas. The owner or operator of any source subj ect to this Rule because of the application of Paragraph (e) (f) of Rule 31

.0902 of this Section shall adhere to the fo llowing increments of progress and schedules: 32 (1) if compliance is to be achieved by installing emission control equipment, replacing process equipment, or modifying 33 existing process equipment: 34 (A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit app lication and a compliance schedule by August 1, 2007; 35 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments of progress: 36 (i) a date by which contracts for the emission control system and process equipment shall be awarded or 37 orders shall be issued for purchase of component parts; 38 (ii) a date by which on-site construction or installati on of the emission control and process equipment shall 39 begin; and 40 (iii) a date by which on-site construction or installation of the emission control and process equipment shall 41 be completed. 42 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved no later than April 1, 2009. 43 (2) if compliance is to be achieved by using low solvent content coating technology: 44 (A) The owner or operator shall submit a permit app lication and a compliance schedule by August 1, 2007; 45 (B) The compliance schedule shall contain the following increments: 46 (i) a date by which research and development of low solvent content coating shall be completed if the 47 Directo r determines that low solvent content coating technology has not been sufficiently researched 48 and developed; 49 (ii) a date by which evaluation of product quality and commercial acceptance shall be completed; 50 (iii) a date by which purchase orders shall be issu ed for low solvent content coatings and process 51 modifications; 52 (iv) a date by which process modifications shall be initiated; and 53 (v) a date by which process modifications shall be comp leted and use of low solvent content coatings shall 54 begin. 55 (C) Final compliance shall be achieved no later than April 1, 2009. 56 (3) The owner or operator shall certify to the Director within fi ve days after the deadline, for each increment of progress in 57 this Paragraph, whether the required increment of progress has been met. 58

### II-4

(e) If the Director requires a test to demonstrate that complia nce has been achieved, the owner or operator of sources subject to this Rule 1 shall conduct a test and submit a final test report within six months after the stated date of final compliance. 2 (f) Sources already in compliance. 3 (1) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone nonattainment area conti ngency plan. Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall not apply to 4 sources that are in compliance with applicable rules of this Section when the Director notices the implementation of rules 5 in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone and that have 6 determined and certified compliance to the satisfaction of the Director within six months after the Director notices the 7 implementation of rules in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for 8

ozone. 9 (2) Nonattainment areas. Paragraphs (d) of this Rule shall not apply to sources in an area named in Paragraph (e) (f) of Rule 10 .0902 of this Section that are in compliance with applicable rules of this Section on March 1, 2007. 11 (g) New sources. 12 (1) Maintenance area and Charlotte ozone nonattainment area con tingency plan. The owner or operator of any new source of 13 volatile organic compounds not in existence or under construction before the date that the Director notices in the North 14 Carolina Register in accordance with Paragraph (f), (g), or (h) (h) of Rule .0902 of this Section the implementation of 15 rules in the North Carolina Register that resolves a violation of the ambient air quality standard for ozone, shall comply 16 with all applicable rules in this Section upon start-up of the source. 17 (2) Nonattainment areas. The owner or operator of any new s ource of volatile organic compounds not in existence or under 18 construction before March 1, 2007 in an area identified in Paragraph (e) (f) of Rule .0902 shall comply with all 19 applicable rules in this Section upon start-up of the source. 20

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

23 15A NCAC 02D .0917 is proposed for repeal as follows: 24

25

15A NCAC 02D .0917 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURING 26 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 27 (1) "Application area" means the area where the coating is applied by dipping or spraying. 28 (2) "Manufacturing plant" means a facility where auto body part s are manufactured or finished for eventual inclusion into a 29 finished product ready for sale to vehicle dealers. Customizers, body shops and other repain ters are not part of this 30

definition. 31 (3) "Automobile" means all passenger cars or passenger car deriv atives capable of seating 12 or fewer passengers. 32 (4) "Light

- duty trucks" means any motor vehicles rated at 8,500 pounds gross weight or less which are designed primarily 33 for purpose of transportation or are derivativ es of such vehicles except automobiles. 34 (b) This Rule applies to the application area(s), flashoff area(s), and oven(s), of automotive and light

- duty truck manufacturing plants 35 involved in prime, topcoat and final repair coating operations. 36 (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of th is Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from any automotive or light

- duty 37 truck manufacturing plant coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed: 38 (1) 1.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gall on of solids delivered to the applicator f rom prime application, flashoff 39 area, and oven operations; 40 (2) 4.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solid s delivered to the applicator from topcoat and surface 41 application, flashoff area, and oven operation; 42 (3) 13.8 pounds of volatile or ganic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the applicator from final repair application, 43 flashoff area, and oven operation. 44 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of vola tile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this Subchapter an d which has 45 installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before Dec ember 1, 46 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Para graph instead of those contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 47 organic compounds from any automotive or light

- duty truck manufacturing plant coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed: 48 (1) 1.2 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exemp t compounds, delivered to the 49 applicator from prime application, flashoff area, and oven operations; 50 (2) 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coati ng, daily weighted average, excluding water and exempt 51 compounds, delivered to the applicat or from topcoat and surface applicati on, flashoff area, and oven operation; 52 (3) 4.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coati ng, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the 53 applicator from final repair application, flashoff area, and oven operation. 54

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

57 15A NCAC 02D .0920 is proposed for repeal as follows: 58

### II-5

1

15A NCAC 02D .0920 PAPER COATINGS 2 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 3 (1) "Knife coating" means the application of a coating material to a subs trate by means of drawing the substrate beneath a 4 knife that spreads the coating evenly over the full width of the substrate. 5 (2) "Paper coating" means decorative, protective, or functional coatings put on pap er and pressure sensitive tapes regardless 6 of substrate. The coatings shall be distributed uniformly across the web. Related web coating processes on plastic film 7 and decorative coatings on metal foil are included in this definition. Saturation operati ons are included in this definition. 8 (3) "Roll coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of hard rubber or steel rolls. 9 (4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of a ro ll coating technique in 10 which the substance to be applied is temporarily retained in etchings on the coating roll. The coating material is picked 11 up in these recessed areas and is transferred to the substrate. 12 (b) This Rule applies to roll, knife or roto gravure coater(s) and drying oven(s) of paper coating lines. 13 (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule , emissions of volatile organic compounds from any paper coating li ne subject to 14 this Rule shall not exceed 4.8 pounds of volatile orga nic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator from a paper 15 coating line. 16 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of vola tile organic compounds under Rule .0518 (e) of this Subchapter and which 17 has installed air pollut ion control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with th is Rule before December 1, 18 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissio ns of volati le 19 organic compounds from any paper coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed 2.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds pe r gallon of 20 coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the coating applicator from a paper coating line. 21

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

24 15A NCAC 02D .0921 IS proposed for repeal as follows: 25

26

15A NCAC 02D .0921 FABRIC AND VINYL COATING 27 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 28 (1) "Fabric coating" means applying prot ective or functional coatings to a textile substance with a knife, roll, rotogravure, 29 rotary screen, or flat screen coater to impart properties th at are not initially present, such as strength, stability, water or 30 acid repellency, or appearance. Printing on textile fabric for decorative or other pur poses is not part of this definition. 31 Saturation operations are included in this definition. 32 (2) "Knife coating" means the application of a coating materi al to a substrate by means of drawing the substrate bene ath a 33 knife which spreads the coating evenly over the full width of the substrate. 34 (3) "Roll coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of hard rubber or steel rolls. 35 (4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application of a co ating material to a substrate by means of a roll coating technique in 36 which the pattern to be applied is etched on the coating roll. The coating material is picked up in these recessed areas 37

and is transferred to the substrate. 38 (5) "Vinyl coating" means a pplying a functional, decorative, or protective topcoa t, or printing on vinyl coated fabric or vinyl 39

sheets. 40 (6) "Rotary screen or flat screen coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of masking the 41 surface and applying a color or finish using a screen either in flat form or rotary form. 42 (b) This Rule applies to roll, knife, rotogravure, rotary screen, or flat screen coater(s) and drying oven(s) of fabric and vi nyl coating lines. 43 (c) With the exception stated in Paragra ph (d) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from any fabric coating line or vinyl 44 coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed: 45 (1) 4.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator fr om a fabric coating 46 line; 47 (2) 7.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids de livered to the coating applicator from a vinyl coating 48

line. 49 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518( e) of this Subchapter and which has 50 installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before Dec ember 1, 51 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contai ned in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 52 organic compounds from any fabric coating line or vinyl coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed: 53 (1) 2.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and ex empt compounds, delivered to the 54 coating applicator from a fabric coating line; 55 (2) 3.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coati ng, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the 56 coating applicator from a vinyl coating line. 57

58

### II-6

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

2 15A NCAC 02D .0922 is proposed for amendment as follows: 3

4

15A NCAC 02D .0922 METAL FURNITURE COATINGS 5 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 6 (1) "Application area" means the area where the coating is applied by spraying, dipping, or flowcoating techniques. 7 (2) "Coating unit" means one or more coating areas and any asso ciated drying area and/or oven wherein a coating is applied, 8 dried, or cured. 9 (2) (3) "Metal furniture coating" coatings" means the surface coating of any furniture made of metal or any metal part which will 10 be assembled with other metal, wood, fabric, pl astic, or glass parts to form a furniture piece. paints, sealants, caulks, inks, 11 adhesives, and maskants. 12 (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 13 single coating operations. each metal furniture surface coating unit source whos e emissions of volatile organic compounds exceeds the 14 threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 15 (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (d) (f) of this Rule, emissions of all volatile organic compounds from metal furniture coating line 16 unit subject to this Rule shall not exceed: exceed 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating 17 applicator from prime and topcoat or single coat operations: 18 (1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of co ating excluding water and exempt compounds (3.3 pounds of 19 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) delivered from general, one component or general, multi-component 20 types of coating operations; and 21 (2) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of co ating excluding water and exempt compounds (5.1 pounds of 22 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) deliv ered from any other types of coating operations. 23 (d) Any source which has chosen to control emissions of vola tile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this Subchapter and which h as 24 installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before Dec ember 1, 25 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (c) of this Rule . Emissions of volatile 26 organic compounds from any metal furniture coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed 3.0 pounds of volatile organic co mpounds per 27 gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to the coating applicator from prime and topcoat or single coat 28 operations. 29 (d) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of c oating 30 materials used at metal furniture surface coating units unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds 31 content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 32 (e) Emissions limits established in Subparagraph (c)(2) of this R ule do not apply to stencil coatings, safety-indicating coatings, solid film 33 lubricants, electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coatings, touch up and repair coatings, coating application utilizing ha nd- held aerosol 34 cans, or cleaning operations. 35 (f) Any coating unit which has chosen to use add-on control for coating operations rather than the emission limits established in Paragraph 36 (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 37 control equipment on a coating unit to meet lim its established in Paragraph (c) of this R ule. 38 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 39

40 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 41

42 15A NCAC 02D .0923 is proposed for amendment as follows: 43

44

15A NCAC 02D .0923 SURFACE COATING OF LARGE APPLIANCE PARTS 45 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 46 (1) "Application area" means the area where the coating is a pplied by spraying, dipping, or flow coating techniques. 47 (2) "Single coat" means a single film of coating applie d directly to the metal substrate omitting the primer application. 48 (2) "Coating" means paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. 49 (2) (3) "Coating unit" means a unit that consists of a series of one or more coating applicators and any associated drying area or 50 oven where a coating is dried, or cured. 51 (3) (4) "Large appliances" appliance part" means doors, cases, lids, panels, and interior support parts of residentia l and 52

c ommercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerato rs, freezers, water heaters, dishwashers, tra sh compactors, air 53 conditioners, and other similar products. any organic surface-coated metal lid, door, casing, panel, or other interior or 54 exterior metal part or accessory that is assembled to form a large appliance product. 55 (4) (5) "Large appliance product" means any organic surface-coated metal range, oven, microwave oven, refrigerator, freezer, 56 washer, dryer, dishwasher, water heater , or trash compactor manufactured for household, commercial, or recreational use. 57

### II-7

(b) This Rule applies to application area(s), flashoff area(s), and oven(s) of large appliance coating lines involved in prime , single, or 1 topcoat coating operations. each large appliance coating unit source whose volatile organic compounds emissions exceed the threshold 2 established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 3 (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 4

volume of coating does not exceed one quart in any eight

- hour period. 5 (d) (c) With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule, emissions Emissions of all volatile organic compounds from any large 6 appliance coating line unit subject to this Rule shall not exceed: exceed 4.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids 7 delivered to the coating applicator from pr ime, single, or topcoat coating operations. 8 (1) 2.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of co ating, excluding water and ex empt compounds (3.3 pounds of 9 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) delivered from general, one component coating or general, multi10 component types of coating operations; and 11 (2) 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of co ating, excluding water and ex empt compounds (4.5 pounds of 12 volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids) deliv ered from any other types of coating operations. 13 (e) Any source which has chosen to control emissi ons of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518 (e) o f this Subchapter and which 14 has installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an air quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 15 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (d) of this Rule. Emissions of volatile 16 organic compounds from any large appliance coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed 2.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 17 gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delive red to the coating applicator from prime, single, or topcoat any coating 18 operations. 19 (d) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the vola tile organic compounds content of coating 20 materials used at surface coating of large appliances parts facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the vo latile organic 21 compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 22 (e) Emissions limits established in Subpa ragraph (c)(2) of this Rule do not apply to stencil coatings, safety-indicating coat ings, solid film 23 lubricants, electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coatings, t ouch up and repair coatings, coating applications utilizing h and- held 24 aerosol cans, or any cleaning material. 25 (f) Any coating unit which has chosen to use add-on controls for coating operations rather than the emission limits establishe d in Paragraph 26 (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 27 control equipment on a coating unit to meet limits established in Paragraph (c) of this Rule. 28 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Ru le shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 29

30 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 31

32 15A NCAC 02D .0934 is proposed for repeal as follows: 33

34

15A NCAC 02D .0934 COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS 35 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 36 (1) "Heat sensitive material" means m aterials that cannot be exposed to temperatures greater than 180 ° F to 200 ° F. 37 (2) "Air dried coating" means coatings which are dried by the use of air or a forced air drier. 38 (3) "Clear coat" means a coating which lacks color and opacity. 39 (4) "Extreme perfor mance coatings" means coatings designed for hars h exposure or extreme environmental conditions. 40 (5) "Extreme environmental conditions" means exposure to: 41 (A) the weather at all times; 42 (B) temperatures consistently above 203 ° F; 43 (C) detergents, scouring, sol vents, or corrosive atmospheres; or 44 (D) other similar environmental conditions. 45 (b) This Rule applies to application areas, flashoff areas, ovens and other processes that are used in the coating of metal pa rts and products 46 of the following types of manufa cturing plants: 47 (1) large farm machinery including harvesting, fertilizing and planting machines, tractors, combines, and other similar 48 machines; 49 (2) small farm machinery including lawn and garden tractor s, lawn mowers, rototillers, and other similar machi nes; 50 (3) small appliances including fans, mixers, blenders, crock pots, dehumidifiers, vacuum cleaners, and other similar 51 machines; 52 (4) commercial machinery including computers and auxiliary equi pment, typewriters, calculators, vending machines, and 53

other similar machines; 54 (5) industrial machinery including pumps, compressors, conveyor com ponents, fans, blowers, transformers, and other similar 55 machines; 56 (6) fabricated metal products including metal covered doors, frames and other similar structures; and 57 (7 ) any other manufacturing plant that coats metal parts or products. 58

### II-8

(c) This Rule does not apply to: 1 (1) sources covered by Rules .0917, .0918, .0919, .0922, .0923, and .0924 of this Section; 2 (2) architectural and maintenance coating; 3 (3) coating of airpl ane exterior; 4 (4) automobile refinishing; 5 (5) customized coating of automobiles and trucks; or 6 (6) exterior of marine vessels. 7 (d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule , emissions of volatile organic compounds from any coating line sub je ct to this 8

Rule shall not exceed: 9 (1) 10.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator that applies clear 10 coatings; 11 (2) 6.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating app licator in a coating application 12 system that utilized air or forced air driers; 13 (3) 6.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids de livered to a coating applicator that applies extreme 14 performance coatings; 15 (4) 5.1 pounds of volatile organi c compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator that applies coatings of 16 five or more color changes or of five or more colors or applies the coating that is the first coat on untreated ferrous 17 substrate; or 18 (5) where there are less than five color changes and less than five colors are applied: 19 (A) 0.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solid s delivered to a coating applicator that applies 20 powder coatings; or 21 (B) 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator for any other 22 type of coating. Whenever more than one of the af orementioned emission limitations may apply to a process, 23 then the least stringent emission limitation shall apply to the process. 24 (e) 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 Dec ember 1, 26 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of those contained in Paragraph (d) of this Rule. Emissions of vol atile 27 organic compounds from any coating line subject to this Rule shall not exceed: 28 (1) 4.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 29 coating applicator that applies clear coatings; 30 (2) 3.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coati ng, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 31 coating a pplicator in a coating application system that utilized air or forced air driers; 32 (3) 3.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coati ng, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 33 coating applicator that applies extreme performance coatings; 34 (4) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coati ng, excluding water and exempt compounds, delivered to a 35 coating applicator that applies coatings of five or more color changes or of five or more colors or applies the coating that 36 is the first coat on untreated ferrous substrate; or 37 (5) where there are less than five color change s and less than five colors are applied: 38 (A) 0.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, 39

delivered to a coating applicator that applies powder coatings; or 40 (B) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon, ex cluding water and exempt solvents, delivered to a 41 coating applicator for any other type of coating. 42

Whenever more than one of the aforemen tioned emission limitations may apply to a process, then the least stringent emission limitation 43 shall apply to the process. 44

45 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 46

47 15A NCAC 02D .0935 is proposed for amendment as follows: 48

49

15A NCAC 02D .0935 FACTORY SURFACE COATING OF FLAT WOOD PANELING 50 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 51 (1) "Class II hardboard paneling finishes" means finishes which meet the specifications of Voluntary Product Standard PS

52

59

- 73 as approved by t he American National Standards Institute. 53 (1) Flat wood paneling coatings means wood paneling product that are any interior, exterior or tileboard (class I hardboard) 54 panel to which a protective, decorative, or f unctional material or layer has been applied. 55 (2) "Hardboard" is a panel manufactured primarily from inter-felt ed lignocellulosic fibers which are consolidated under heat 56 and pressure in a hot-press. 57

### II-9

(2) "Hardboard" is a panel manufactured primarily from inter

- felted lignocellulosic fibers which are consolidated under heat 1 and pressure in a hot

- press. 2 (3) "Hardwood plywood" means plywood whose surface layer is a veneer of hardwood. 3 (4) "Natural finish hardwood plywood panel" means a panel w hose original grain pattern is enhanced by essentially 4

transp arent finishes frequently supplemented by fillers and toners. 5 (5) "Particle board" means a manufactured board made of individual wood particles which have been coated with a binder 6 and formed into flat sheets by pressure. Thin particleboard has a thicknes s of one

- fourth inch or less. 7 (6) "Printed panel" means a panel whose grain or natural surf ace is obscured by fillers and basecoats upon which a simulated 8 grain or decorative pattern is printed. 9 (7) (2) (3) "Tileboard" means paneling that has a colored wate rproof surface coating a premium interior wall paneling 10 product made of hardboard that is used in high moisture area of the home. 11 (b) This Rule applies to factory finishing of the following flat wood products: each flat wood paneling coatings source whose volatile 12 organic compounds emissions exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) at the facilities with flat wood panelin g coating 13 applications for the following products: 14 (1) class II finishes on hardboard panels; 15 (2) exterior siding; 16 (3) natural finish hardwood plywood panels; 17 (1) (4) printed decorative interior wall interior panels made of hardwood plywood hardwood, plywood , and thin particleboard; 18 panels made of hardwood, plywood, or thin particleboard; 19 (2) natural finish hardwood plywo od panels; and 20 (2) exterior siding made of solid wood, hardboard, or waferboard; and 21 (3) class II finishes of hardboard paneling. 22 (3) (5) tileboard made of hardboard. 23 (c) This Rule does not apply to the following factory finished flat wood products: 24 (1) ex terior siding, 25 (2) tileboard, 26 (3) particleboard used in cabinetry or furniture, 27 (4) insulation board, or 28 (5) softwood plywood. 29 (d) (c) Emissions of volatile orga nic compounds from any factory finished flat wood product operation subject to this Rule shall n ot exceed: 30 exceed 2.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon materi al excluding water and exempt compounds (2.9 pounds of volatil e 31 organic compounds per gallon solids.) 32 (1) 6.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 1,000 square feet of coated finished product of printed interior wall panels 33 made of hardwood plywood and thin particle board, or 34 (2) 12.0 pounds of volatile organic compounds pe r 1,000 square feet of coated finished product of natural finish hardwood 35 plywood panels, or 36 (3) 10.0 poun ds of volatile organic compounds per 1,000 square feet of coated finished product of class II finishes on 37 hardboard paneling. 38 (d) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of c oating 39 materials used at surface coating of flat wood paneling facilitie s unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 40 compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 41 (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 42 coating operation rather than the emission limits established in Pa ragraph (c) of this Rule shall install control equipment with an overall 43 control efficiency of 90 percent or use a combination of coating and add-on control equipment on a flat wood paneling coating o peration to 44 meet limits established in Paragraph (c) of this R ule. 45 (f) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 46

47 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 48

49 15A NCAC 02D .0936 is proposed for repeal as follows: 50

51

15A NCAC 02D .0936 GRAPHIC ARTS 52 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 53 (1) "Flexograph ic printing" means the application of words, designs and pictures to a substrate by means of a roll printing 54 technique in which both the pattern to be applied is raised above the printing roll and the image carrier is made of rubber 55

or other elastometric m aterials. 56 (2) "Packaging rotogravure printing" means printing with a gra vure press upon paper, paper board, metal foil, plastic film, 57 and other substrates, which are, in subs equent operation, formed into containers and labels for articles to be sold. 58

### II-10

(3) " Printing" means the formation of words, designs and pictur es, usually by a series of application rolls each with only 1 partial coverage. 2 (4) "Publication rotogravure printing" means printing upon paper which is subsequently formed into books, magazines, 3

cat alogues, brochures, directories, newspaper suppl ements, and other types of printed materials. 4 (5) "Roll printing" means the application of words, designs and pictures to a substrate by means of hard rubber or steel rolls. 5 (b) This Rule applies to: 6 (1) fle xographic printing, packaging rotogravure printing and publication rotogravure printing operations; or 7 (2) machines that have both coating units and printing units. 8 (c) This Rule does not apply to facilities where the potential emissions of volatile organ ic compounds is less than 100 tons per year. 9 (d) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any printing press or drying oven of a printing operation subject to this Rul e shall not be 10 discharged into the atmosphere unless: 11 (1) The captured volatile orga nic compound emissions are reduced by at least 90 percent by an incineration system or 95 12 percent by a carbon adsorption system or any other control system; and: 13 (A) For packaging rotogravure printing operations, at least 65 percent overall reduction of th e volatile organic 14 compound emissions is achieved; 15 (B) For publication rotogravure printing operations at leas t 75 percent overall reduction of the volatile organic 16 compound emissions is achieved; and 17 (C) For flexographic printing operations, at least 60 p ercent overall reduction of the volatile organic compound 18 emissions is achieved; 19 (2) The solvent portion of the ink, as it is applied on the substr ate, consists of at least 75 percent water by volume and no 20 more than 25 percent organic solvent by volume; 21 ( 3) The ink contains by volume at least 60 percent nonvolatile material; 22 (4) The printing system uses a combination of solvent

- borne and water

- borne ink such that at least a 70 percent by volume 23 overall reduction in solvent usage is achieved when compared t o all solvent

- borne ink usage, or 24 (5) The ink, including any solvents that may be added to it, contains no more than 0.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds 25 per pound of solids in the ink; only flexographic printing and packaging rotogravure printing may use this option. 26 (e) When a facility complies with this Rule using the provisi on of Subparagraph (d)(4) of this Rule, the permit shall contain a condition 27 stating the maximum quantity of solvent

- borne ink that each printing unit may use or that the facili ty as a whole may use. 28 (f) Equivalency calculations for emissions trading, cross

- line averaging, or determining compliance with add

- on control equipment shall be 29 performed in units of pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids. 30

31 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 32

33 15A NCAC 02D .0951 is proposed for amendment as follows: 34

35

15A NCAC 02D .0951 MISCELLANEOUS VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS 36 (a) With the exceptions in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, this Rule applies to all facilities that use volatile organic compounds as solvents, 37 carriers, material processing media, or industrial chemical reactants, or in other sim ilar uses, or that mix, blend, or manufac ture volatile 38 organic compounds for which there is no other applicable emissions control rule in this Section except Rule .0958 of this Secti on. If the 39 only other applicable emissions control rule for the facility in this Section is Rule .0958, then both this Rule and Rule .0958 apply. 40 (b) This Rule does not apply to architectural or maintenance coating. 41 (c) The owner or operator of any facility to which this Rule applies shall: 42 (1) install and operate reasonable available control technology; or 43 (2) limit emissions of volatile organic compounds fro m coating lines not covered by Rules .0917 through .0922, .0923

, 44 .0924, .0934, or .0935 .0935, 0936 or .0961 through .0968 from this Section to no more than 6.7 pounds of volatile 45 organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the coating applicator. 46 (d) If the owner or operator of a facility chooses to inst all reasonable available contro l technology under Subparagraph (c)(1 ) of this Rule, 47 the owner or operator shall submit: 48 (1) the name and location of the facility; 49 (2) information identifying the source for which a reasonable available control technology limitation or standard is being 50 proposed; 51 (3) a demonstration that shows the proposed reasonable ava ilable control technology limitation or standard satisfies the 52 requirements for reasonable available control technology; and 53 (4) a proposal for demonstrating compliance with the pr oposed reasonable control technology limitation or standard. 54

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

57 15A NCAC 02D .0952 is proposed for amendment as follows: 58

### II-11

1

15A NCAC 02D .0952 PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE CONTROLS FOR RACT 2 (a) With the exception in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, this This Rule applies to all sources covered under this Section. 3 (b) This Rule does not apply to sources in Meckle nburg County to which Rules .0917 through .0937 of this S ection apply and which are 4 located at a facility where the total potential emissions of vol atile organic compounds from all stationary sources at the faci lity are greater 5 than or equal to 100 tons per year. 6 (c) (b) If the owner or operator of any source of volatile organic com pounds subject to the requirements of this Section, can demonst rate that 7 compliance with rules in this Section would be technologically or economically infeasible, he may petition the Director to allo w the use of 8 alternative operational or equipment cont rols for the reduction of volatile organic compound emissions. Petition shall be made for each 9

source to the Director. 10 (d) (c) The petition shall contain: 11 (1) the name and address of the company and the name and telephone number of a company officer over whose signature the 12 petition is submitted; 13 (2) a description of all operations conducted at the location to which the petition applies and the purpose that the volatile 14 organic compound emitting equipment serves within the operations; 15 (3) reference to the specific operational and equipment contro ls under the rules of this Section for which alternative 16 operational or equipment controls are proposed; 17 (4) a description of the proposed alternative operational or equipment controls, the magnitude of volatile organic compound 18 emission reduction that will be achieved, and the quantity and composition of volatile organic compounds that will be 19 emitted if the alternative operational or equipment controls are instituted; 20 (5) a plan, which will be instituted in addition to the proposed alternative operational or equipment controls, to reduce, wher e 21 technologically and economically feasible, volatile organi c compound emissions from other source operations at the 22 facility, further than that required under the rules of this Secti on, if these sources exist at the facility, such that aggrega te 23 volatile organic compound emissions from the facility will in no case be greater through application of the alternative 24 control than would be allowed through conformance with the rules of this Section; 25 (6) a schedule for the installation or institution of the alterna tive operational or equipment controls in conformance with Rul e 26 .0909 of this Section, as applicable; and 27 (7) certification that emissions of all other air contaminants from the subject source are in compliance with all applicable 28 local, state and federal laws and regulations. 29 The petition may include a copy of the permit application and need not duplicate information in the permit application. 30 (e) (d) The Director shall approve a petition for alternative control if: 31 (1) The petition is submitted in accordance with Paragraph (d) of this Rule; 32 (2) The Director determines that the petitioner cannot comply with the rules in question because of technological or 33 economical infeasibility; 34 (3) All other air contaminant emissions from the facility are in compliance with, or under a schedule for compliance as 35 expeditiously as practicable with, all applicab le local, state, and federal regulations; and 36 (4) The petition contains a schedule for achieving and maintain ing reduction of volatile organic compound emissions to the 37 maximum extent feasible and as expeditiously as practicable. 38 (f) (e) When controls different from those specified in the appropriate emission standards in this Section are approved by the Director , the 39 permit shall contain a condition stating such controls. 40

41 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 42

43 15A NCAC 02D .0961 is proposed for adoption as follows: 44

45

15A NCAC 02D .0961 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING AND LETTERPRESS PRINTING 46 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 47 (1) “Composite partial vapor pressure” means the sum of the partial pressure of the compounds defined as volatile organic 48 compounds. Volatile organic compounds composite 49 vapor pressure is calculated as follows: 50

51 

# ∑ ∑

=

= 

## ++ = n

i n

i i i

c c

w w i ii

c



## MW W

MW

W

MW

W MWVPW PP

1

1 

## /))(( 52

53

Where: 54 Wi = Weight of the ”the volatile organic compounds, in grams 55

### II-12

Ww = Weight of water, in grams 1 Wc = Weight of exempt compound, in grams 2 Mwi = Molecular weight of the “i”th volatile organic compounds, in g/g-mole 3 MWw= Molecular weight of water, in g/g-mole 4 MWc= Molecular weight of exempt compound, in g/g-mole 5 PPc = Volatile organic compounds composite par tial vapor pressure at 20°C (68°F), in mm Hg 6 Vpi = Vapor pressure of the “i”th volatile organic compounds at 20°C (68°F), in mm Hg 7

8 (1) (2) "First installation date" means the actual date when this control device becomes operational. This date does not change if 9 the control device is later redirected to a new press 10 (2) (3) "Fountain solution" means water-based solution that a pplies to lithographic plate to render the non-image areas 11 unreceptive to the ink. 12 (4) “Heatset” means any operation in which heat is required to evaporate ink oils from the printing ink, excluding ultraviolet 13 (UV) curing, electron beam curing and infrared drying. 14 (3) (5) "Letterpress printing" means a printing process in which th e image area is raised relative to the non-image area and the 15 paste ink is transferred to the substrate directly from the image surface. 16 (6) “Non-heatset” means a lithographic printing process where the printing inks are set by absorption and/or oxidation of the 17 ink oil, not by evaporation of the ink oils in a dryer. For th e purposes of this rule, use of an infrared heater or printing 18 conducted using ultraviolet-cured or electron beam-cured inks is considered non-heatset. 19 (4) (7) "Offset lithography" means an indirect method of printing when ink transferred from the lithographic plate to a rubber20 covered intermediate "blanket" cylinder and then tr ansferred from the blanket cylinder to the substrate. 21 (8) “Press” means a printing production assembly composed of one or more units used to produce a printed substrate 22 including any associated coating, spray powder application, h eatset web dryer, ultraviolet or electron beam curing units, 23 or infrared heating units. 24 (5) (9) " Sheet-fed printing " means an indirect method of printi ng when ink transferred from the lithographic plate to a rubber25 covered intermediate "blanket" cylinder and then tr ansferred from the blanket cylinder to the substrate. 26 (6) (10) "Web printing" means printing when continuous rolls of subs trate material are fed to the press and rewound or cut to size 27 after printing. 28 (b) This Rule applies to any offset lithographic and any lette rpress printing operations sources whose emissions of volatile o rganic 29 compounds exceed the threshold established in Subparagraph Subparagraphs15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 02D .0902(b). and (f) and not 30 covered by 15A NCAC 02D .0966(c)(1). 31 (c) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution from on-press (as-applied) for heatset web offset lithographic printing shall 32 not exceed 1.6 percent alcohol (by weight) in the fountain soluti onor equivalent. This level of control for volatile organic co mpounds shall 33 be achieved by: 34 (1) reducing the on-press (as-applied) alcohol content to 1.6 percent alcohol or less (by weight); or 35 (2) use three percent alcohol or less (by weight) the on-press (a s-applied) in the fountain solution if the fountain solution i s 36 refrigerated to below 60°F; or 37 (3) use five percent alcohol substitute or less ( by weight) the on-press (as-applied) and no alcohol in the in the fountain 38

solution. 39 (d) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain soluti on from on-press (as-applied) sheet-fed lithographic printing sha ll not exceed 40 five percent alcohol (by weight) in the fountain or equivalent. This level of control for volatile organic compounds shall be a chieved by: 41 (1) reducing the on-press (as-applied) alcohol content to five percent alcohol or less (by weight); or 42 (2) use 8.5 percent alcohol or less (by weight) the on-press (as- applied) in the fountain solution if the fountain solution is 43 refrigerated to below 60°F; or 44 (3) use five percent alcohol substitute or less (by weight) th e on-press (as-applied) and no alcohol in the in the fountain 45

solution. 46 (e) Volatile organic compounds content in the fountain solution from on-press (as-applied) coldest non-heatset web offset lithographic 47 printing shall not exceed five percent alcohol substitute or less (by weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution. 48 (f) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from any single lette rpress printing heatset press subject to this Rule shall not exceed 25 tons 49 per year. This level of control shall be achieved by using pe troleum ink oil with volatile organic compounds content 31.25 tons per year 50 volatile organic compounds or less because of the 20 percent ink oil retention. 51 (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 52

the materials used at offset lithographic printing and letterpre ss printing facilities unless the facility maintains records to d ocument the 53 volatile organic compounds content of coating the materials from the manufacturer. 54 (h) Any single letterpress printing heatset dryer owner or operato r subject to this Rule, who has chosen to use add-on control for letterpress 55 printing operation rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (f) of this Rule shall install contr ol equipment 56

with: 57 (1) 90 percent control efficiency for a control device whos e first installation date was prior to July 1, 2010; or 58

### II-13

(2) 95 percent control efficiency for a control device w hose first installation date was on or after July 1, 2010. 2010 1 (3) when the inlet VOC concentration is low or there is no identifiable measurable inlet, the control device outlet 2 concentration shall be reduced to 20 ppmv as hexane on a dry basis; 3 (4) VOC capture efficiency can be demonstrated by showing that the dryer is operating at negative pressure relative to the 4 surrounding pressroom. The capture efficiency for VOC can be assumed to be 100 percent of the VOC (ink oils) 5 volatilized in the dryer. Capture efficiency test is not required in this situation 6 (i) The control limits established in: 7 (1) Paragraph (d) shall not be applied to sheet-fed pre sses with maximum sheet size 11x 17 inches or smaller. smaller, or to 8 any press with total fountain solutio n reservoir of less than one gallon; 9 (2) Paragraphs(c) (d), and (e), and (f) shall not be applied to sheet

- fed or coldest web inks, sheet

- fed or coldest web 10 varnishes, waterborne coa tings or radiation (ultra

- violet light or electron beam) cured materials used on offset 11 lithographic presses or letterpress presses; any press with total fountain solution reservoir of less than one gallon; 12 (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 13 printing, and presses with maximum web width of 22 inches or less; and 14 (4) Paragraph (f) shall not be applied to a heatset press used for book printing, and a headset heatset press with maximum 15

web width of 22 inches or less. 16 (j) All cleaning materials used in amount more than 110 gallons pe r year for cleaning a press, press parts, or to remove dried ink from areas 17 around the press shall contain less than 70 weight percent volatile organic compounds or have volatile organic compounds compos ite vapor 18 pressure less than 10 mm Hg at 20°C. 19 (k) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Ru le 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 .0962 is proposed for adoption as follows: 24

25

15A NCAC 02D .0962 INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SOLVENTS 26 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 27 (1) " Organic solvent" means a liquid hydrocarbon, such as methyl ethyl ketone or toluene, used to dissolve paints, varnishes, 28 grease, oil, or other hydrocarbons. 29 (2) "Solvent cleaning" means the process of removing the exce ss penetrant from the surface or a part by wiping. flushing, or 30 spraying with a solvent for the penetrant. 31 (b) This Rule applies to sources whose volatile organic com pound emissions ex ceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0 902(b) 32 from the following cleaning operations: 33 (1) spray gun cleaning; 34 (2) spray booth cleaning; 35 (3) large manufactured components cleaning; 36 (4) parts cleaning; 37 (5) equipment cleaning; 38 (6) line cleaning; 39 (7) floor cleaning; 40 (8) tank cleaning; and 41 (9) small manufactured components cleaning. 42 (c) Cleaning operations covered by Rules . 0921, .0923, .0930, .0934, .0935, .0936, .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and 43 .0968 of this Section are exempted from the requirements of this Rule. 44 (d) Any cleaning material of the nine cleaning operations listed in Paragraph (b) of this Rule shall have: 45 (1) volatile organic compounds content that does not exceed 0.42 pounds per gallon; or 46 (2) composite vapor limit of eight millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 20 degrees Celsius. 47 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of c oating 48 materials used in industrial cleaning solvents operations unle ss the facility maintains records to document the volatile organi c compounds 49 content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 50 (f) Facilities which have chosen to use add-on control rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (g) of this 51 Rule shall install control equipment with 85 percent overall efficiency. 52 (h) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Ru le shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 53

54 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 55

56 15A NCAC 02D .0963 is proposed for adoption as follows: 57

58

### II-14

15A NCAC 02D .0963 FIBERGLASS BOAT MANUFACTURING MATERIALS 1 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 2 (1) "Closed molding" means any fabrication techniques in which pressure is used to distribute the resin through the 3 reinforcing fabric placed between two mold surfaces to either saturate the fabric or fill the mold cavity. 4 (2) "Monomer" means a volatile organic compound that partly co mbines with itself, or other similar compounds, by a cross5 linking reaction to become a part of the cured resin. 6 (3) "Open molding" means the open mold which is first spray-coated with a clear or pigmented polyster resin known as a gel 7 coat. The gel coat will become the outer surface of the finished part. 8 (b) This Rule applies to a facility that manufactures hulls or decks of boats and related parts, build molds to make fiberglas s boat hulls or 9 decks and related parts from fiberglass, or make polyester re sin putties for assembling fiberglass parts and whose volatile org anic 10 compounds emissions exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) from sources for the following operations: 11 (1) open molding and gel coat operations (including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling gel coat, 12 and tooling resin); 13 (2) resins and gel coat mixing operations; and 14 (3) resins and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations. 15 (c) The following activities are exempted from the provisions of this Rule: 16 (1) surface coatings applied to fiberglass boats; 17 (2) surface coatings for fiberglass and metal recreational boats (pleasure craft); and 18 (3) industrial adhesives used in the assembly of fiberglass boats. 19 (d) Volatile organic compounds content limits in resin and gel co at that are used for any molding operations listed in Paragra ph (b) of this 20 Rule and closed molding operations that do not meet the definiti on established in Subparagraph (a)(2) of this Rule, such as vac uum bagging 21 operations, shall not exceed monomer volatile or ganic compounds limits established in Table 1: 22

23 Table 1 Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants Content Requirements for Open Mold ing Resin and Gel Coat Operations (40 CFR 63, Subpart 24 VVVV.) 25

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 The average monomer volatile organic compounds contents liste d in the Table 1 shall be determined by using Equation 1: 27

n 

### 28 ∑ (M i 

### VOC i 

### ) 29

i=1 

### 30

31

Weighted Average Monomer VOC Content =

n 

### 32 ∑ (M i 

### ) 33

i=1 

### 34

35

Where: M i 

### = mass of open molding resin or gel coat i used in the past 12 month in an operation, megagrams. 36

VOC I 

### = monomer volatile organic compounds content, by weight pe rcent, of open molding resin or gel coat i used in 37 the past 12 month in an operation. 38 n = number of different open molding resins or gel coats used in the past 12 month in an operation. 39 (e) Molding monomer and non-monomer volatile organic compounds limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall not be a pplicable 40

to: 41 (1) production resins (including skin coat resins) that shall meet specifications for use in military vessels or shall be 42 approved by the U.S. Coast Guard for the use in the cons truction of lifeboats, rescue boats, and other life saving 43 appliances approved under 46 CFR subchapter Q, or the c onstruction of small passenger vessels regulated by 46 CFR 44 Subchapter T. Production resins that meet these criteria sha ll be applied with nonatomizing resin application equipment; 45

### II-15

(2) production and tooling resins, and pigmented, clear, and tooling gel coat used for part or mold repair and touch up. Total 1 resin and gel coat materials that meet these criteria shall not exceed one percent by weight of all resin and gel coat used 2 at a facility on a 12-month rolling-average basis; or 3 (3) pure, 100-percent vinylester resin used for skin coats that shall be applied with nonatomizing resin application equipment 4 and with the total amount of the resin materials not exceeding five percent by weight of all resin used at a factory on 12- 5 month rolling-average basis. 6 (f) Any molding resin and gel coat operations listed in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, th at a facility chooses to include into av erage emissions 7 among different operations to meet numerical monomer volatile orga nic compounds emission rate limits rather than to comply with the 8 emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall use: 9 (1) Equation 2 to estimate a facility-specific monomer vol atile organic compounds mass emission limit (12-month rolling 10 average). Estimations of emissions average shall be determ ined on 12-month rolling average basis at the end of every 11 month (12 times per year). 12 Equation 2: 13 Monomer VOC Limit= 46(M R 

### ) + 159(M PG 

### ) + 291(M CG 

### ) + 54(M TR 

### ) + 214(M TG 

### ) 14

Where: 15

Monomer VOC Limit = total allowable monomer volatile or ganic compounds that can be emitted from the open molding 16 operations included in the average, kilograms per 12-month period. 17

M R 

### = mass of production resin used in the past 12 month excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams. 18

M PG 

### = mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams. 19

M CG 

### = mass of clear gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams 20

M TR 

### = mass of tooling resin coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams 21

M TG 

### = mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams 22

The numerical coefficients associated with each term on th e right hand side of Equation 2 are the allowable monomer 23 volatile organic compounds emission rate for that particular material in units of kilograms of VOC per megagrams of 24

material used. 25 (2) Equation 3 to demonstrate that the monomer volatile or ganic compounds emissions from the operations included in the 26 average do nor exceed the emission limit calculated using Equation 2 from Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule for the same 27 12-month period. This demonstration sha ll be conducted at the end of the first 12-month averaging period and at the end 28 of every subsequent month for only those operati ons and materials that included in the average. 29 Equation 3: 30 Monomer VOC emissions = (PV R 

### )(M R 

### ) + (PV PG 

### )(M PG 

### ) + (PV CG 

### )(M CG 

### ) + (PV TR 

### )(M TR 

### ) + (PV TG 

### )(M TG 

### ) 31

Where: 32 Monomer VOC emissions = monomer volatile organic com pounds emissions calculated using the monomer volatile 33 organic compounds emission equation for each operation included in the average, 34 kilograms. 35

PV R 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for production resin used in the past 12 36 month, kilograms per megagram. 37

M R 

### = Mass of production resin used in the past 12 month, megagrams. 38

PV PG 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds em ission rate for pigmented gel coat used in the past 39 12 month, kilograms per megagram. 40

M PG 

### = mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams. 41

PV CG 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds em ission rate for clear gel coat used in the past 12 42 month, kilograms per megagram. 43

M CG 

### = Mass of clear gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams. 44

PV TR 

### = Weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for tooling resin used in the past 12 45 month, kilograms per megagram. 46

M TR 

### = Mass of tooling resin used in the past 12 month, megagrams. 47

PV TG 

### = Weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds em ission rate for tooling gel coat used in the past 12 48 month, kilograms per megagram. 49

M TG 

### = Mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams. 50 (3) Equation 4 to compute the weighted-average monomer vol atile organic compounds emission rate for the previous 12 51 month for each open molding resin and gel coat operation included in the average to apply the results in Equation 3. 52 Equation 4: 53

n 

### 54 ∑ (M i 

### PV i 

### ) 55

i=1 

### 56

PV OP 

### = 57

n 

### 58

### II-16

∑ (M i 

### ) 1

i=1 

### 2

3

Where: 4

PV OP 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for each open molding operation (PV R 

### , 5

PV PG 

### , PV CG 

### , PV TR 

### , and PV TG 

### ) included in the average, kilograms of monomer volatile organic compounds per 6 megagram of material applied. 7

M i 

### = mass or resin or gel coat i used within an operation in the past 12 month, megagrams. 8 n = number of different open molding resins and gel coats used within an operation in the past 12 month. 9

PV i. 

### = the monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate fo r resin or gel coat i used within an operation in the 10 past 12 month, kilograms of monomer volatile organic co mpounds per megagram of material applied. Equations 11 in Table 2 shall be used to compute PV 12

13 Table 2 Compliant Materials Monomer Volatile Organic Co mpounds Content for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat. 14

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 (g) If any molding resin and gel coat operations listed in Para graph (b) of this Rule, chooses to use of higher-monomer volatile organic 16 compounds materials rather than to comply with the emission limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule it shall: 17 (1) install control equipment to meet the emission limit de termined by Equation 2 in Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule, 18 applying the mass of each material used during the control device performance test in Equation 2 to determine the 19 emission limit (in kilogram of monomer VOC) that is appli cable during the test, instead of using the mass of each 20 material as it established in Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule; 21 (2) monitor and record relevant control device and captu re system operating parameters during the control device 22 performance test to use the recorded values to establish operating limits for those parameters; 23 (3) monitor the operating parameters for the control device and em issions capture system and maintain the parameters within 24 the established limits; 25 (h) Any molding resin and gel coat operations that use a fille d production resin or filled tooling resin shall calculate the e mission rate for 26 the filled production resin or filled tooling resin on as applied basis using Equation 5. If the filled resin: 27 (1) is used as a production resin than the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 shall not exceed 46 kilograms of monomer 28 VOC per megagram of filled resin applied; 29 (2) is used as a tooling resin than the value of PVF calcu lated by Equation 5 shall not exceed 54 kilograms of monomer VOC 30 per megagram of filled resin applied; 31 (3) is included in the emissions averaging procedure than th e facility use the value of PVF calculated by Equation 5 for the 32 value PVi in Equation 4 in Subparagraph (f)(3) of this Rule. 33

34 Equation 5: 35 (100 -%Filler) 36

PV F 

### = PV U 

### x 100 37

38

Where: PV F 

### = The as-applied monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for the filled production resin or 39 tooling resin, kilograms monomer VOC per megagram of filled material. 40

### II-17

PV U 

### = The monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for the neat (unfilled) resin be fore filler is added, as 1 calculated using the formulas in Table 2. of Subparagraph (f)(3) of this Rule. 2 %Filler = The weight-percent of filler in the as-applied filled resin system. 3 (i) All resins and gel coats included in volatile organic com pounds limits described in Paragra phs (d) through (h) shall meet non-monomer 4 volatile organic compounds content limit of five percent. 5 (j) If the non-monomer volatile organic compounds content of a re sin or gel coat exceeds five percent, then the excess non-mon omer 6 volatile organic compounds over five percent shall be count ed toward the monomer volatile organic compounds content. 7 (k) SCAQMD Method 312-91, Determination of Percent Monomer in Po lyester Resins, revised April 1996 shall be used to determine the 8 monomer volatile organic compounds content of resin and gel coat materials unless the facility maintains records to document th e volatile 9 organic compounds content of resin and ge l coat materials from the manufacturer. 10 (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 11 putties and polyputties, shall have a cover with no visible gaps in place at all times except the following operations: 12 (1) when material is being manually added to or removed from a container; 13 (2) when mixing or pumping equipment is being placed or removed from a container. 14 (m) Volatile organic compounds cleaning solvents for routine app lication equipment cleaning shall contain no more than five pe rcent 15 volatile organic compounds by weight, or have a composite vapor pressure of no more than 0.50 mm Hg at 68 0F. 68 0 

### F. 16 (n) Only non-volatile organic compounds solvents shall be used to remove cured resin and gel coat from 17 application equipment. 18 (o) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Ru le shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 19

20 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 21

22 15A NCAC 02D .0964 is proposed for adoption as follows: 23

24

15A NCAC 02D .0964 MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES 25 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 26 (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 27

atomize the adhesive. 28 (2) " Airless spray" means the application of an adhesive th rough an atomizing nozzle at high pressure (1,000 to 6,000 29 pounds per square inch) by a pump forces. 30 (3) " Application process" means a process that consists of a series of one or more adhesive applicators and any associated 31 drying area or oven where an adhesive is applied, dried and cured. 32 (4) " Dip Coating" means application where substrates are dipped into a tank containing the adhesive. The substrates are then 33 withdrawn from the tank and any excess adhesive is allowed to drain. 34 (5) "Electrocoating" means a specialized form of dip coating wher e opposite electric charges are applied to the waterborne 35

adhesive and the substrate. 36 (6) " Electrostatic spray" means application where the adhesive and substrate are oppositely charged. 37 (7) "Flow coating" means conveying the substrate over an enclosed sink where the adhesive is applied at low pressure as the 38 item passes under a series of nozzles. 39 (8) "HVLP" means a system with specialized nozzles that provide better air and fluid flow at lower air pressure, shape spray 40 pattern, and guide high volumes of atomized adhesive partic les to the substrate using lower air pressure (10 pounds per 41 square inch or less at the spray cap). 42 (9) "Roll coating", "brush coating", and "hand application" means application of high viscosity adhesives onto small surface 43

area. 44 (b) Control of volatile organic compounds emissions from mis cellaneous industrial adhesives product categories covered by Rule s .0921, 45 .0923, .0934, .0935, .0936, .0961, .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and .0968 of this Section are exempted from the requirements of 46

this Rule. 47 (c) This Rule applies to miscellaneous industrial adhesive application sources w hose volatile organic compounds emissions exce ed the 48 threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 49 (d) With the exception established in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, all volatile organic compounds containing materials applied by each 50 miscellaneous industrial adhesive appli cation processes before control shall: 51 (1) not exceed limits established in Table 1 of this Paragraph; and 52 (2) be used in one of the following application methods in conjunction with using low volatile organic compounds adhesives 53 or adhesive primers: 54 (A) electrostatic spray; 55 (B) HVLP spray; 56 (C) Flow coat; 57

### II-18

(D) roll coat or hand application, including non-spray appli cation methods similar to hand or mechanically powered 1 caulking gun, brush, or direct hand application; 2 (E) Dip coat (including electrodesposition); 3 (F) Airless spray; 4 (G) Air-assisted airless spray; or 5 (H) Other adhesive application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that 6 achieved by HVLP spraying. 7 (e) Emission limits established in Subparagraph (d)(1) of this Rule shall be: 8 (1) met by averaging the volatile organic compounds content of materials used oh a single appl ication unit for each day; and 9 (2) calculated as mass of volatile organic compounds per volume of adhesive primer excluding water and exempt 10 compounds, as applied. 11 (f) If an adhesive is used to bond dissimilar substrates together in general adhesive application process (Table 1), then the appli cable 12 substrate category with the highest volatile organic compounds em ission limit shall be established as the limit for such applic ation. 13

14 Table 1. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Limits for General and Specialty Adhesive Application Process. 15

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 (g) Any miscellaneous industrial adhesive a pplication processes subject to this Rule, which chooses to use add-on control for a dhesive 18 application processes rather than to comply with the emission li mits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, shall install c ontrol equipment 19

### II-19

with overall control efficiency of 85 percent or use a combina tion of adhesives and add-on control equipment on an application process to 1 meet limits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule. 2 (h) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of 3 adhesives, other than reactive adhesives, and the procedure esta blished in Appendix A of the NESHAP for surface coating of plas tic parts 4 (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of reactive adhesives unless t he facility 5 maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds content of adhesives from the manufacturer. 6 (i) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 7

8 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 9

10 15A NCAC 02D .0965 is proposed for adoption as follows: 11

12

15A NCAC 02D .0965 FLEXIBLE PACKAGE PRINTING 13 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 14 (1) "First installation date" means the actual date when the equipment or control device becomes operational. This date does 15 not change if the equipment or control device is later moved to a new location. 16 (2) "Flexible Packaging" means any package or part of a package the shape of which can be readily changed. 17 (3) "Flexographic printing" means a printing process in which an image is raised above the printing plate, and the image 18

carrier is made of rubber or other elastomeric materials. 19 (4) "Rotogravure press" means an unwind or feed section, whic h may include more than one unwind or feed station (such as 20 on a laminator), series of individual work stations, one or more of which is a rotogravure print station, any dryers 21 associated with the work stations, and a rewind, stack, or collection section. 22 (5) "Rotogravure printing" means a printing pr ocess in which an image (type and art) is etched or engraved below the surface 23 of a plate or cylinder. 24 (b) This Rule applies to flexible packaging printing press sources whose emissions of volatile organic compounds exceed the th reshold 25 established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b). 26 (c) Volatile organic compounds content of materials used on any single flexible packaging printing press subject to this Rule shall not 27 exceed 0.8 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb of solids app lied, or 0.16 lb volatile organic compounds per one lb of mate rials applied 28

limits limits. These volatile organic compounds content limits that are consistent with 80 percent overall emissions reduction level and 29 reflect similar control levels as the capture and control option. 30 (d) Any flexible packaging printing press which has chosen to use add-on control for coating operations rather than to comply with the 31 emission limits established in Paragraph (c) of th is Rule shall install control equipment with: 32 (1) 65 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 75 percent and a control device efficiency of 90 percent for a 33 press that was first installed prior to March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 34 installation date prior to July 1. 2010; or 35 (2) 70 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 75 percent and a control device efficiency of 95 percent for a 36 press that was first installed prior to March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 37 installation date was on or after July 1, 2010; or 38 (3) 75 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 85 percent and a control device efficiency of 95 percent for a 39 press that was first installed on or after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 40 installation date was prior July 1, 2010; or 41 (4) 80 percent overall control based on a capture efficiency of 85 percent and a control device efficiency of 95 percent for a 42 press that was first installed on or after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on control device whose first 43 installation date was on or after July 1, 2010. 44 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of c oating 45 materials used at flexible package printing facilities unless th e facility maintains records to document the volatile organic c ompounds 46 content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 47 (f) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 48 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 49

50 15A NCAC 02D .0966 is proposed for adoption as follows: 51

52 15A NCAC 02D .0966 PAPER, FILM AND FOIL COATINGS 53 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 54 (1) "Paper, film, and foil coating line" means a series of coa ting applicators, flash-off areas, and any associated curing/dryi ng 55 equipment between one or more unwind/feed stations and one or more rewind/cutting stations. 56 (2) "Fabric coating" means ap plying protective or functional coatings to a tex tile substance with a knife, roll, rotogravure, 57 rotary screen, or flat screen coater to impart properties th at are not initially present, such as strength, stability, water or 58

### II-20

acid repellency, or appearance. Printing on textile fabric for decorative or ot her purposes is not part of this definition. 1 Saturation operations are included in this definition. 2 (3) (2) "Flexographic coating" means that the area to be coat ed is delineated by a raised surface on a flexible plate. 3 (4) (3) "Rotary screen or flat screen coating" means the applicati on of a coating material to a substrate by means of masking the 4 surface and applying a color or finish using a sc reen either in flat form or rotary form. 5 (5) (4) "Rotogravure coating" means the application of a coating material to a substrate by means of a roll coating technique in 6 which the pattern to be applied is etched on the coating roll. The coating material is picked up in these recessed areas 7

and is transferred to the substrate. 8 (b) With the exception in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, this Ru le applies to paper, film and foil surface coating operations sou rces, including 9 related cleaning activity, whose emissions of volatile organic co mpounds exceed the threshold esta blished in 15A NCAC 02D .0902 (b), at 10 the facility that applies: 11 (1) paper, film, or foil surfaces in the manufacturing of produc ts for pressure sensitive tape and labels (including fabric 12 coated for use in pressure sensitive tapes and labels; photogr aphic film; industrial and decorative laminates; abrasive 13 products (including fabric coated for use in abrasive produc ts) and flexible packaging (including coating of non-woven 14 polymer substrates for use in flexible packaging); and 15 (2) coatings during miscellaneous coati ng applications for production of corrugate d and solid fiber boxes; die-cut paper 16 paperboard, and cardboard; converted pa per and paperboard not elsewhere classified; folding paperboard boxes, 17 including sanitary boxes; manifold business forms and related products; plastic asceptic packaging; and carbon paper and 18

inked ribbons. 19 (c) The following types of coatings are not covered by this Rule: 20 (1) coatings performed on or in-line with any offset lithographi c, screen, letterpress, flexogra phic, rotogravure, or digital 21 printing press; or 22 (2) size presses and on machine coaters that functi on as part of an in- line papermaking system. 23 (d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds from: 24 (1) pressure sensitive tape and label paper, film, and foils coating lines with the potential to emit, prior to controls, less than 25 25 tons per year of volatile organic compounds from coa tings shall not exceed 0.20 pounds volatile orga nic compounds 26 per pound of solids applied (0.067 pounds volatile or ganic compounds per pound of coating applied); 27 (2) paper, film, and foil surface coating lines with the potential to emit, prior to controls less than 25 tons per year of vol atile 28 organic compounds from coatings shall not exceed 0.40 pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of solids(0.08 29 pounds volatile organic compounds per pound of coating). coating applied); and 30 (3) The volatile organic compounds content limits shall be dete rmined in accordance with Subparagraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of 31

the Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0912. 32 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of c oating 33 materials used at paper, film and foil coatings facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organ ic compounds 34 content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 35 (f) Any individual paper, film, and foil with the potential to em it, prior to controls, at least 25 tons per year of volatile organic compounds 36 from coatings shall apply control with overall volatile organic compounds efficiency of 90 percent rather than the emission lim its 37 established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule or use a combinati on of coating and add-on control equipment on a coating unit to mee t limits that 38 are equivalent to 90 percent overall control efficiency. 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 .0967 is proposed for adoption as follows: 44

45

15A NCAC 02D .0967 MISCELLANEOUS METAL AND PLASTIC PARTS COATINGS 46 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 47 (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 48 below 90°C (194°F). 49 (2) “Baked coating” means a coating that is cured at a temperature at or above 90°C (194°F). 50 (3) "Clear coat" means a colorless coating which contains binde rs, but no pigment, and is formulated to form a transparent 51

film. 52 (2) (4) "Coating unit" means series one or more coating applicator s and any associated drying area and oven wherein a coating is 53 applied, dried, and cured. 54 (5) “Drum” means any cylindrical metal shipping container larger than 12 gallons capacity but no larger than 110 55 gallons capacity. 56 (6) “Electric dissipating coating” means a coating th at rapidly dissipates a high voltage electric charge. 57

### II-21

(7) “Electric-insulating varnish” means a non-convertible-type coating applied to electric motors, components of electric 1 motors, or power transformers, to provide electrical, mechanical, and e nvironmental protection or resistance. 2 (8) “Etching filler” means a coating that contains less than 23 percent solids by weight and at least 1/2-percent acid by 3 weight, and is used instead of applying a pretreatment coating followed by a primer. 4 (9) “Extreme high-gloss coating” means a coating which, when tested by the American Society for Testing Material Test 5 Method D-523 adopted in 1980, shows a reflectance of 75 or more on a 60° meter. 6 (10) Extreme-performance coating means a coating used on a me tal or plastic surface where the coated surface is, in its 7 intended use, subject to the following: 8 (A) Chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic or acidic agents, chemicals, chemical fumes, 9 chemical mixtures or solutions; or 10 (B) Repeated exposure to temperatures in excess of 250° F; or 11 (C) Repeated heavy abrasion, including m echanical wear and repeated scrubbing with 12 industrial grade solvents, cleansers or scouring agen ts. Extreme performance coatings include, but are not 13 limited to, coatings applied to locomotives, railroad cars, farm machinery, and heavy 14 (11) “High-performance architectural coating” means a coating used to protect architectural subsections and which meets the 15 requirements of the Architectural Aluminum Manufacturer Association's publication number AAMA 2604-05 (Voluntary 16 Specification, Performance Requirements and Test Procedures for High Performance Organic Coatings on 17 Aluminum Extrusions and Panels) or 2605-05 (Voluntar y Specification, Performance Requirements and Test 18 Procedures for Superior Performing Organic Co atings on Aluminum Extrusions and Panels). 19 (12) “Multi-component coating” means a coating requiri ng the addition of a separate reactive resin, commonly 20 known as a catalyst or hardener, before application to form an 21 acceptable dry film. 22 (13) “One-component coating” means a coating that is ready fo r application as it comes out of its container to form an 23 acceptable dry film. A thinner, necessary to redu ce the viscosity, is not considered a component 24 (b) This Rule applies to miscellaneous metal and plastic pa rts surface coating units whose volatile organic compounds emissions exceed the 25 threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) for coating a nd related cleaning activities of the following types of products: 26 (1) fabricated metal products, molded plastic parts, small a nd large farm machinery, commercial and industrial machinery 27 and equipment; 28 (2) automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exte rior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle 29 accessories, bicycles and sporting goods; 30 (3) toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure cr aft (recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components, railroad cars, 31 heavier vehicles, lawn and garden equipment; 32 (4) business machines, laboratory and medical equipment; and 33 (5) electronic equipment, steel drums metal pipes, and numerous other industrial and household products. 34 (c) This Rule does not apply to: 35 (1) coatings that are applied to test panels and coupons as part of research and development, quality control; 36 (2) performance testing activities at paint research or manufacturing facility; or 37 (3) sources covered by Rules .0921, .0922, .0923, .0935, .0936, .0961 .0962, .0963, .0964, .0965, .0966, .0967, and .0968 of 38

this Section. 39 (d) With the exception stated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule, emissions of volatile organic compounds before control for surface coating of: 40 (1) Metal parts and products shall not ex ceed limits as established in Table 1; 41

42

Table 1. Metal Parts and Products Vo latile Organic Compounds content Limits 43

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

### II-22

Drum Coating, New, Exterior 2.8 2.8

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, Interior 4.2 4.2

1 (2) Plastic parts and products shall not exceed limits as established in Table 2; 2

Table 2. Metal Plastic Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits 3

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

General One Component 2.3

General Multi Component; Metallic 3.5
Electric Dissipating Coatings and Shoc k-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 (3) automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts shall not exceed limits as established in Table 3; 5

6 Table 3. Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits 7

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Automotive/Transportation Coatings

I. High Bake Coatings – Interior and Exterior Parts

N on-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 (4) pleasure craft shall not exceed limits as established in Table 4; 9

10 Table 4. Pleasure Craft Surface Coating Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits 11

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 4.1
High Gloss Topcoat Finish; Primer/Su rfacer; 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 (5) motor vehicle materials shall not exceed limits as established in Table 5. 13

14 Table5. Motor Vehicle Materials Volatile Organic Compounds Content Limits 15

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Motor vehicle cavit y wax ; Moto r vehicle sealer ; Motor vehicle deadener ; Motor 5.4

### 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 (e) With the exception of motor vehicle materials coatings, a ny miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings operations faci lity may 2 choose combination of low volatile organic compounds coatings a nd add-on control equipment on a coating unit. Emissions of vol atile 3 organic compounds before control with such combination shall not exceed limits for surface coating of: 4

5 (1) Metal parts and products as established in Table 1; 6

7

Table 1. Metal Parts and Products Vo latile Organic Compounds content Limits 8

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 (2) plastic parts and products as established in Table 2; 10

11

Table 2. Plastic Parts and Products Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits 12

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 (3) automotive/transportation and business machin e plastic parts as established in Table 3; 14

15 Table 3. Automotive/Transportation and Business Machin e Plastic Parts Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits 16

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids

Automotive/Transportation Coatings1

I. High Bake Coatings – Interior and Exterior Parts

Flexible Primer 11.58

N on-flexible Primer; Non-basecoat/clear coat 6.67

Base Coats 10.34

### 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 (4) pleasure craft surface coatings as established in Table 4; 2

3 Table 4. Pleasure Craft surface Coatings Volatile Organic Compounds content Limits 4

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal solids

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 9.2
High Gloss Topcoat; Finish Primer/Su rfacer; 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 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of c oating 6 materials used at miscellaneous metal and plastic part coating facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic 7 compounds content of coating materials from the manufacturer. 8 (f) With the exception of motor vehicle materials coatings, any miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings operations faci lity may 9 choose to use add-on control equipment with an overall control effi ciency of 90 percent in lieu of using low-VOC coatings and s pecified 10 application methods. 11 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Rule shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 12

13 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 14

15 15A NCAC 02D .0968 is proposed for adoption as follows: 16

17

15A NCAC 02D .0968 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK ASSEMBLY COATINGS 18 (a) For the purpose of this Rule, the following definitions apply: 19 (1) "Automobile" means a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and 20 motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property. 21 (2) “Automobile Topcoat Protocol” means Protocol For Determining The Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate 22 Of Automobile and Light-duty Truck Topcoat Operations 23 (2) (3) "Electrodeposition" means a process of applying a protec tive, corrosion-resistantwaterborne primer on exterior and 24 interior surfaces that provides thorough cove rage of recessed areas. It is a dip coa ting method that uses an electrical field 25 to apply or deposit the conductive coating onto the part. The obj ect being painted acts as an electrode that is oppositely 26 charged from the particles of paint in the dip tank. 27 (3) (4) "Final repair" means the operations performed and coating(s) applied to completely assembled motor vehicles or to parts 28 that are not yet on a completely assembled vehicle to correct damage or imperfections in the coating. 29 (4) (5) "Light-duty truck" means vans, sport utility vehicles, and mo tor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of 30 property with gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less. 31 (5) (6) "Primer-surfacer" means an intermediate protective coa ting applied over the electrodeposition primer (EDP) and under 32 the topcoat. Primer-surfacer provides adhesion, protection, and appearance properties to the total finish. 33 (6) (7) "Solids turnover ratio (R T 

### )" means the ratio of total volume of coating solids that is added to the EDP system in a 34 calendar month divided by the total volume design capacity of the EDP system. 35

### II-25

(b) This Rule applies to automobile and light-duty truck a ssembly coating operations and related cleaning activities whose emissions of 1 volatile organic compounds exceed the threshold established in 15A NCAC 02D .0902(b) at: 2 (1) automobile or light-duty assembly plants during the ve hicle assembly processes with the following primary coating 3 product applications: 4 (A) new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies, or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks; or 5 (B) other parts that are coated along with these bodies or body parts; or 6 (C) additional coatings which include glass bonding primer, adhesives, cavity wax, sealer, deadener, gasket/gasket 7 sealing material, underbody coating, trunk interior coati ng, bedliner, weatherstrip adhesive, and lubricating 8 waxes/compounds; and 9 (2) coatings used in facilities that perform these coating operati ons on a contractual basis without coatings used at plastic o r 10 composites molding facilities 11 (c) This Rule does not apply to: 12 (1) aerosol coatings of automobile and light-truck assembly coatings; or 13 (2) coatings that are applied to other parts intended for use in new automobiles or new light-duty trucks (e.g., application of 14 spray primer, color and clear coat to fascia or bumpers) on coating lines that are not related to the vehicle assembly 15 process at automobile or light-duty assembly plants. They are covered by Rules .0964, and .0967 of this Section; and 16 (3) aftermarket repair or replacement part s for automobiles or light-duty trucks that are covered by Rules .0964, and .0967 of 17

this Section. 18 (d) With the exception of materials supplied in containers with a net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a net weight of one poun d or less, 19 emissions of volatile organic compounds before control for: 20 (1) automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings shall not exceed limits established in Table 1 21

22 Table 1. Volatile Organic Compounds emission limits for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings. 23 Assembly Coating Process Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Limit

When solids

turnover ratio (R T 

### ) ≥ 0.16; When

0.040 ≤ R T 

### <0.160; When

R T 

### <0.040; Electrodeposition primer (EDP) operations (including application area, spray/rinse stations, and curing oven)

0.07lb/gal 0.7lb/gal coatings solids applied. 0.084 0.160-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 (2) miscellaneous materials used at automobile and light- duty truck assembly coatings facilities shall not exceed limits 25

established in Table 2. 26

27 Table 2. Volatile Organic Compounds emission limits for miscellane ous materials used at automobile and light-duty truck assembl y coating 28 facility (grams of VOC per liter of coating excluding water exempt compounds, as applied) 29

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

### 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 (e) EPA Method 24 or 25A (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7) shall be used to determine the volatile organic compounds content of c oatings, 2 other than reactive adhesives used at automobile and light-duty truck coating facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the 3 volatile organic compounds content of co ating materials from the manufacturer. 4 (f) The emission limits established in Paragr aph (d) of this Rule can be achieved with a combination of higher-solid solvent-b orne coatings, 5 efficient application equipment and bake oven exhaust control. 6 (g) The owner or operator of any facility subject to this Ru le shall comply with the Rules .0903 and .0958 of this Section. 7

8 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5). 9

10 15A NCAC 02D .0306 is proposed for amendment as follows: 11

12 15A NCAC 02Q .0306 PERMITS REQUIRING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 13 (a) The Director shall provide for public notice for comments w ith an opportunity for the public to request a public hearing o n draft permits 14 for the following: 15 (1) any source that may be designated by the Director based on public interest relevant to air quality; 16 (2) a source to which 15A NCAC 02D .0530 or .0531 applies; 17 (3) a source whose emission limitation is based on a good engineering practice stack height that exceeds the height defined 18 in 15A NCAC 02D .0533(a)(4)(A), (B), or (C); 19 (4) a source required to have controls more stringent than the applicable emission standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0500 20 according to 15A NCAC 02D .0501 when necessary to comply with an ambient air quality standard under 15A NCAC 21 02D .0400; 22 (5) alternative controls different than the applicable em ission standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0900 according to 15A NCAC 23 02D .0952; 24 (6) a limitation on the quantity of solvent-borne ink that may be used by a printing unit or printing system according to 15A 25 NCAC 02D .0936; .0961 and .0965; 26 (7) an allowance of a particulate emission rate of 0.08 grains pe r dry standard cubic foot for an incinerator constructed befor e 27 July 1, 1987, in accordance with 15A NCAC 02D .1204(c)(2)(B) and .1208 (b)(2)(B): 28 (8) an alternative mix of controls under 15A NCAC 02D .0501(f); 29 (9) a source that is subject to the requirements of 15A NCAC 02D .1109 or .1112; 30 (10) a source seeking exemption from the 20-percent opacity standard in 15A NCAC 02D .0521 under 15A NCAC 2D 31 .0521(f); 32 (11) a source using an alternative monitoring procedure or methodology under 15A NCAC 02D .0606(g) or .0608(g); or 33 (12) the owner or operator requests that the draft permit go to public notice with an opportunity to request a public hearing. 34 (b) On the Division's website, the Director shall post a copy of the draft permit that changes classification for a facility b y placing a 35 physical or operational limitation in it to avoid the applicability of rules in 15A NCAC 02Q . 0500. Along with the draft permit , the Director 36 shall also post a public notice for comments with an opportunity to request a public hearing on that draft permit. The public n otice shall 37 contain the information specified in 15A NCAC 02Q .0307(c) and shall allow at least 30 days for public comment. 38 (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 39 Commission approves a permit containing any of the conditions described in Paragraph (a) of this Rule as a part of the SIP, the Director 40 shall submit the permit to the EPA on behalf of the Commissi on for inclusion as part of the federally approved SIP. 41

42 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1),(3); 143-215.108; 143-215.114A; 143-215.114B; 143-215.114C. 43

44

## 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. 4 th 

## Street, Charlotte, NC 28202 and on Ap ril 29, 2010, at 6:00 P.M., at DENR – Division of Air Quality A nnex Training Room (AQ 526) 2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, NC

27604.

The hearing considered the proposed amen dments to Rules 15A NCAC 02D .0909, .0922, .0923, .0935, .0902, .0951, .0952, and 15A NCAC 02Q .0306; propo sed 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 hear ing 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.

### 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

## Transcript

Transcripts of the April 27 and April 29, 2010 h earings 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 Apr il 27, Charlotte hearing: Mr. Chuck Greco, Meckle nburg 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, Prin ting 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

### IV-1



## CHAPTER IV

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT PAGE

Proposed Regulations as Publishe d in the Public Notice and Presented at the Hearing IV-2

Hearing Officer Comments at the Public Hearing IV-25

### 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 thi s 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 station s 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 wh enever 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 Serv ice 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 locat ed 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 Guilfo rd 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 contro l measures contained in this Section that are required as part of the control strategy necessary to bring the area into comp liance 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 a ll 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, "Dir ector" means for the purpose of notifying permitted facilities in Forsyth County, the Director of the Forsyth County

### PROPOSED RULES

local air pollution control progra m.) Compliance shall be in

accordance with Rule .0 909 of this Section. (g) If a violation of the ambien t 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 ambien t air quality standard for ozone. By the following May 1, the Director shall implement the specific stationa ry source control measures contained in this Section that are required as part of the control strategy necessary to bri ng 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 containi ng the Director's notice implementing rules in this Section, the Director shall send written notification to all permitte d facilities within the county in which the rules are being implemen ted that are or may be subject to the req uirements of this Section informing them that they are or may be subject to the requ irements 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 reclassifi cation, 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), o r (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 an y 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

### 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 operat or 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 operat or 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 comp liance 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.

### 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" me ans a facility where auto body parts are manufactured or finished

for eventual inclusion in to 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 pa ssenger 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 o f 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 exce ption 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 s olids 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 operat ion; (3) 13.8 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to the applicator from final repair applica tion, 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 ai r quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before December 1, 1989, may comply with the limits contained in this Paragraph instead of t hose 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 c ompounds, 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 sens itive 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) an d 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

### PROPOSED RULES

organic compounds per ga llon 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 equipmen t in accordance with an air qu ality 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 appli cator 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, rot ogravure, 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 defin ition. 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 subs trate. (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 pick ed 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 viny l 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) Th is 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

ga llon 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 qu ality 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 f rom 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 lin e; (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" m eans 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 fu rniture 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 sin gle 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 o perations: (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 so urce which has chosen to control emissions of volatile organic compounds under Rule .0518(e) of this

### PROPOSED RULES

Subchapter and which has installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an ai r quality permit in order to comply with this Rule before Decemb er 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 meta l 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 coa ting 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 furnitur e 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

R

ule 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 R ule. (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" m eans 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 residentia l and commercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, dishwashers, tra sh 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 establishe d 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 q uart in any eight

hour 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 vol atile 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 ha s installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an ai r 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 coati ng of large appliances parts facilities unless the facility maintains records to document the volatile organic compounds conten t 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:

### PROPOSED RULES

(1) "Heat sensitive material" means materials that cannot be exposed to temp eratures greater than

180 ° F to 200 ° F. (2) "Air dried coa ting" 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 machine s, 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

c leaners, 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 app ly 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 Ru le shall not exceed: (1) 10.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of s olids 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 applie s extreme performance coatings; (4) 5.1 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of solids delivered to a coating applicator that applies coatings of fiv e 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

co mpounds per gallon of solids

delivered to a coatin g 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 th e 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 Subchapte r and which has installed air pollution control equipment in accordance with an ai r 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 coa ting 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 pound s 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 a nd 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 c hanges and less than five colors are applied: (A) 0.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, deliver ed to a coating

### PROPOSED RULES

applicator that applies powder coatings; or (B) 3.0 pounds of volatile organic

c ompounds 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 limitatio n 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 finish es" 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

- pre ss. (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, plyw ood, 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 v olatile 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 o f 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 R ule. (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 prin ting" 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 material s. (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) "Printin g" means the formation of words, designs and pictures, usually by a series of application rolls each with only partial

coverage.

### 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 rubb er or steel rolls. (b) This Rule applies to: (1) flexograph ic 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 comp ounds 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 com pound 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 volat ile 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 s olvent

- 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

thi s 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 MI SCELLANEOUS 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 simi lar uses, or that mix, blend, or manufacture volatile organic compounds for which there is no other applicable emissions contro l 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 PETI TION 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

### PROPOSED RULES

Director to allow the use of alte rnative 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 app licable 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 app licable 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 LETTER PRESS 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 ar eas 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 pa ste 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.

### 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 leve l 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 sh all 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 th e 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

### 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 ge l 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 moldin g 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 Requi rements 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 liste d 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 co ntent, 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

### 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(M R 

### ) + 159(M PG 

### ) + 291(M CG 

### ) + 54(M TR 

### ) + 214(M TG 

### )

Where:

Monomer VOC Limit = total allowable monomer volatile organi c compounds that can be emitted from the open molding operations included in the average, kilograms per 12- month period.

M R 

### = mass of production resin used in the past 12 month excluding any materials that are exempt,

megagrams.
M PG 

### = mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt,

megagrams.
M CG 

### = mass of clear gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams

M TR 

### = mass of tooling resin coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams

M TG 

### = mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 12 month, excluding any materials that are exempt, megagrams

The numerical coefficien ts 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 compoun ds 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 = (PV R 

### )(M R 

### ) + (PV PG 

### )(M PG 

### ) + (PV CG 

### )(M CG 

### ) + (PV TR 

### )(M TR 

### ) + (PV TG 

### )(M TG 

### )

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.

PV R 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for production resin used in the past 12 month, kilograms per megagram.

M R 

### = Mass of production resin used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

PV PG 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for pigmented gel coat used in the past 12 month, kilograms per megagram.

M PG 

### = mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

PV CG 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for clear gel coat used in the past 12 month, kilograms per megagram.

M CG 

### = Mass of clear gel coat used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

PV TR 

### = Weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for tooling resin used in the past 12 month, kilograms per megagram.

M TR 

### = Mass of tooling resin used in the past 12 month, megagrams.

PV TG 

### = Weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for tooling gel coat used in the past 12 month, kilograms per megagram.

M TG 

### = 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



### PV OP 

### =

n

### PROPOSED RULES

∑ (M i 

### )

i=1



### Where:

PV OP 

### = weighted-average monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate for each open molding operation (PV R 

### , PV PG 

### , PV CG 

### , PV TR 

### , and PV TG 

### ) included in the aver age, 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 us ed 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 volati le 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 te st, 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 fille d production resin or filled tooling resin shall calculate the e mission rate for the filled production resin or filled tooling resin on as applied basis using Equa tion 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 th e 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)

PV F 

### = PV U 

### x 100

Where: PV F 

### = The as-applied monomer volatile organic compou nds emission rate for the filled production resin or tooling resin, kilograms monomer VOC per megagram of filled material.

PV U 

### = The monomer volatile organic compounds emission rate fo r 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.

### PROPOSED RULES

(j) If the non-monomer volatile organic compounds content of a resin or gel coat exceeds five percent, then the excess non-mon omer volatile organic compounds over five percent shall be coun ted toward the monomer volatile organic compounds content. (k) SCAQMD Method 312-91, Determination of Percent Monomer in Po lyester Resins, revised April 1996 shall be used to determine the monomer volatile organic com pounds content of resin and gel coat materials unless the facility maintains records to documen t 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 c over 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 pe rcent 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 in to 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 oppos ite 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 requir ements of this Rule. (c) This Rule applies to miscellaneous industrial adhesive application sources whose volatile organic compounds emissions

exceed the threshold establishe d 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 a dhesive 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

### PROPOSED RULES

compounds emission limit shall be established as the limit for such application.

Table 1. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Limits for General and Speci alty 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 a dhesive application processes rather than to comply with the emission li mits established in Paragraph (d) of this Rule, shall install c ontrol 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 esta blished 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 vo latile 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.

### 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 asso ciated 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 belo w the surface of a plate or cylinder. (b) This Rule applies to flexible packaging printing press

sources whose emissions of vol atile 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 appli cators, flash-off areas, and any associated cu ring/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 pick ed 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;

### 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 indust rial 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 Rule s .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 Co atings; 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 Architect ural Multi-Component; 3.5 2.3

### PROPOSED RULES

Prefabricated Architect ural 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 busines s 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/c lear coat; Flexible Primer 4.3

Clear Coat 4.0

II. Low Bake/Air Dried Coatings – Exterior Parts

Primers; Basecoat; No n-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 Vo latile Organic Compounds content Limits

Coating Category lbs VOC/gal coating

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 4.1
High Gloss Topcoat Finish; Primer/Su rfacer; 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 vehi cle sealer; Motor vehicle deadener; Motor vehicle underbody coating; Motor vehicle trunk interior coating 5.4

### 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 faci lity 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 co mbination shall not exceed lim its 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; DrumCoating, 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 Architect ural 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 Shoc k-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 machin e 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; No n-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

### 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 organi c 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 coatin g materials from the manufacturer. (f) With the exception of motor vehicle ma terials coatings, any miscellaneous metal a nd plastic parts coatings operations faci lity 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 ofapplying a protective, corrosionresistantwaterborne prim er 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-surf acer provides adhesion, protection, and appearance properties to the

total finish. (6) "Solids turnover ratio (R T 

### )" 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

### 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 (R T 

### ) ≥ 0.16; When

0.040 ≤ R T 

### <0.160; When

R T 

### <0.040;

0.07lb/gal coatings solids applied. 0.084 0.160-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-d uty 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 assembl y coating facility (grams of VOC per liter of coatin g 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-d uty 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-b orne coatings, efficient application equipm ent and bake oven exhaust control.

### 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 o n 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 am bient 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 requir ements 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 b y 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 th e 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 Co mmission 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-25

Hearing Officer's Suggested Hearing Comments

INTRODUCTION

[hearing officer]:

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My na me 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 an d 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 Ai r 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 seco nd 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 Ac t. The public notice for these hearings

has been advertised in the No rth Carolina Register and five newspapers in the state.

Copies of the notice have been sent to th ose on the official DAQ mailing list. I will

## IV-26

enter the public notice and the proposed am endments, repeals and adoptions into the

hearing record without reading them at this time.

Any person desiring to comment is requ ested to submit a written statement for

inclusion into the hearing record. Once ca lled 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 Si gnificant 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 te chnology (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 nonatta inment areas with refere nce 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

## 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]

## IV-28

[hearing officer]:

Is there anyone else who would like to comment? If there ar e no more comments,

then the first hearing is clos ed. 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 ta ke relevant comments to the modification

of 15A NCAC 2D Section .0900, Volatile Or ganic Compounds. B eing 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 Sectio ns 172(c)(1) and 182(b) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA).

DAQ is required, under provisions of C AA Section 172(c)(1), to revise its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to in clude an ozone attainment demonstration

that will lead to attainment of the nati onal ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

for ozone. Section 182(b)(2) of CAA provides that States must re vise their ozone SIP

to include RACT for each ca tegory 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 ti mes through issuance of New Sources

Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations to related in dustries, it finally pr ovided States with

guidance concerning what types of controls could constitute RACT for a given source

category through the issuance of CTGs to comply with th e requirements of Section

182(b)(2). EPA has issued 11 CTGs si nce 2006. The changes in Section .0900-

## 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 op en until April 30, 2010,

for additional written comments.

### This page is intentionally blank

## 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 In dustry of the Carolinas V-9

Mr. Christian von der Heyde American Coating Association V-27

Mr. Richard A. Schutt USEPA, Region 4 V-37

## 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 em issions are equal to or exceed 15 lb/day before control ”

2D .0902(f) states – “The Rules in this Section ap ply 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 revise d rules will apply to facilities with PTE greater than or equal to 1 00 tons/year, regardless of wh ether 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 em it” 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, lik e 2D .0928 – “Gasoline Service St ations - 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 th at, 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

## adhesive process for .0964) be developed be low 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 pr actice standard refe rences, 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 us es 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 seve ral of the new/revised rule whether a limit is stated “delivered, or as applied” or “as supplied”. MCAQ reco mmends that the same terminology be used in every rule for consistency, and an y 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 co ating (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 availabl e 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 da ily 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 vo lume (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 coa tings are used to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, compliance s hall be determined instantaneously. (B) When add on control devices, e.g., so lvent recovery systems or incinerators, are used to reduce emissions of vola tile 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 appl icable, particularly which coatings are “low solvent”or “h igh solids”. MCAQ recommends that each revised/new rule indicate sp ecifically how 2D .0912 applie s. Also, a guidance should be provided for how to calculate the lim its for a line for each of the different averaging periods.

## 2D .0968 – “Automobile and Light-D uty 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 identi cal that in 2D .0921 – Fabric And Vinyl Coating”. Will a facili ty 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 Paragr aph (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 vo latile organic compounds from coatings shall not exceed 0.40 pounds of volatile organic compounds per pound of solids(0.08 pounds volatile organic co mpounds 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 necessar ily equivalent, and for VOC emissions in (2) on a lb/lb of solids applie d 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 le ss than either 0.2 pounds of volatile

## 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 la bel 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 furn iture 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 compone nt 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 ne cessarily equivalent, and fo r VOC content in (2) on a lb/gallon of coating basis and lb/gallon of so lids 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 furnit ure 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 emissi ons 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 co atings” 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 th e 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:

## (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 compone nt 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 ne cessarily equivalent, and fo r VOC content in (2) on a lb/gallon of coating basis and lb/gallon of so lids 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 delete d with the revision. MCAQ r ecommends that definitions for coating types be included, particularly for coatings su ch as “extreme high-gloss”, “extreme performance”, “hi gh-performance architectural ” etc, where the coating

name/identifier is not descri ptive of the application (s uch as “Drum Coating, New ,

Interior” and “Electri c-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 ru le 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 no t exceed limits as established in
Table 2;”, and

Table 2 Title is – “Metal Parts and Products Vola tile Organic Compounds content

Limits”

“ Metal ” in Table 2 title should be replaced by “ Plastic ”

2D .0935 – “Factory Surface Coat ing of Flat Wood Paneling”

1. The definition of “hardboard” has been delete d. 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.

## 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 be fore 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 app lications (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 volati le 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 “fact ory finished flat wood pr oduct 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 co mpounds 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 ar e 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 per cent overall emissions reduction level and reflect similar control leve ls 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 te xt 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 in tent or an omission?

## 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 cont ainers 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 pr ocess 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 “sol vent 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 cont aining materials applied by each

miscellaneous industrial adhesive application pro cesses 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?

### 1 

## April 27, 2010

Mr. Michael Abraczinskas Division of Air Quality
1641 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1641

Re: Comments on proposed ame ndments to 15A NCAC 02D

Dear Mr. Abraczinskas:

The Printing Industry of the Ca rolinas (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 app lication of reasonably available control technology (RACT) in the offset lithography and letter press industries.

To assist the NCDENR in its review of t he 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 repres ents the printing and publishi ng industry (SIC 2700 and various NAICS 323 codes) in North Carolina. PICA currently has 348 members in North
Carolina and there ar e approximately 889 companies em ploying about 25,700 workers engaged in offset lithographic printing in Nort h 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 printe rs in North Carolina employ less than 20 employees. Printing is a prime example of sm all businesses involved in manufacturing.

Overall, PICA supports the NCDENR in its use of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 2006 Control Techniques Gui delines for Offset Li thographic Printing and Letterpress Printing (hereafte r referred to as the CTG) as the basis for developing RACT requirements for the commercial o ffset lithographic printing industry. PICA, however, is concerned with several requirem ents the draft regulation establishes.

There is one section in particular regarding th e applicability of the proposed rule that is both confusing and conflicting. There are critical elem ents contained in the CTG providing guidance on compliance demonstration and emission calculations that were not included in the propos ed amendments. PICA is also concerned regarding the regulatory status of inks, coatings, and varnishes t hat are applied in-line during the lithographic printing as the draft regulation is silent.

### 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, H ealth and Safety Affa irs, 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.

### 3 

## PICA requests that NCDENR consider the co mments 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 te rms of 15 pounds per day and should be revised to the USEPA’s acceptable annual thre shold of 3 tons per year over a 12 month rolling period. In the CTG, USEPA pr ovides several options for expressing the applicability threshold, including the 3 ton per year threshold. The 3 ton per year threshold presents the least burdens ome 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 mate rials and fountain solutions apply to any offset lithographic prin ting 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 equi valent level, before cons ideration of controls.”

Additionally, on Page 4 of the CTG, U SEPA states that “In developing their RACT rules, State and local agencies s hould consider carefully the facts and

circumstances of the affected sources in their States. As noted above, States can adopt the above recommended 15 lb/d ay actual emissions of VOC applicability criterion before consideration of cont rols, or an equivalent applicability level expressed on a mont hly 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 t hat emit greater than or equal to 3 tons of volatile organic compounds per 12 month rolling basis.

15A NCAC 02D .0961 OFFSET LITH OGRAPHIC 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.

### 4 

## b. Definitions for the following s hould be included in the rule: alcohol substitute; cleaning material; co mposite 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 us ed in a fountain solution in place of

alcohol.

(2) “Cleaning material” means a solution us ed for cleaning blanket, roller, plate, metering roller, impression cylinder, r ubber rejuvenators, press, or press parts or to remove dried in k from areas around a press.

(3) “Composite partial vapor pressure” mean s the sum of the partial pressure of the compounds defined as volatile or ganic compounds. Volatile organic compounds composite partial vapor pr essure is calculated as follows:

PP

c 

## = ( W i 

## )( VP i 

## ) / MW i 

## W

w 

## MW

w 

## + W

c 

## MW

c 

## + W i 

## MW i i = 1 n 

# ∑ i = 1 n 

# ∑

Where:

Wi = We ight 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 compoun ds 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 wh ich heat is required to evaporate ink oils from the printing ink, excluding ultraviolet (UV) curing, electron beam

### 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 proc ess 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 pur poses of this rule, use of an infrared heater or printing conducted using ultr aviolet-cured or electron beam-cured

inks is considered non-heatset.

( 9 ) "Offset lithography" means an indire ct method of printing when ink

transferred from the lit hographic plate to a rubbe r-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 s ubstrate 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 subs trate are fed into the press sequentially.

( 12 ) "Web printing" means printing when cont inuous 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 s pecified 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 ar e intended to apply only to facilities

located in nonattainment areas that ex ceed the thresholds established in the CTG, the applicability st atement 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

### 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 Heat set Web Offset Lithographic Presses – 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c)

a. The proposed requirement in S ubparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) that require fountain solutions be used with heat set 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 Subparagr aph 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 c ontent 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 “fiv e” in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) (3) be deleted and replaced with “5.0”.

d. The phrase “on-press (as applied)” shoul d 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 Su bparagraph 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 t he 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 so lution 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

### 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 us ed 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 Subparagr aph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) above, the word “reducing” in Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d) (1) should be deleted and replaced wit h “maintaining”.

c. For the reason stated for Subparagr aph 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 Subparagr aph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) above, the word “five” in Subpar agraph 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 soluti on at 5.0 percent alcohol or less (by weight); or

(2) maintaining the alcohol content of the fountain soluti on at 8.5 percent alcohol or less (by weight) and re frigerate 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 Co ldset 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 solu tions used with coldset web offset lithographic printing to not ex ceed five percent and that the solution contain no alcohol. To provide clar ity, the term “alcohol subs titute” should be deleted.

### 8 

## b. To provide consistency with other par ts of the rule, please delete the word “five” and replace it with “5.0”. T he requirement also states that the

concentration “shall not exceed five or le ss 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 delet ed and replaced thr oughout the rule with “non-heatset”. “Non-heatset” is the pr eferred term used throughout the printing industry to describe a lithographic printi ng process where the printing inks are set by absorption and/or oxidation of the ink oil, not by ev aporation 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 pr inting shall not exceed 5.0 ( by weight) and contain no alcohol in the fountain solution.

6. Control of emissions from heatset w eb 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 becaus e 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 simpli fied since both subparagraphs are concerned with controlling ink oil emissi ons from heatset presses and they pertain to the same requirement r egarding add-on contro l 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 se ction 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 Subparagr aph [Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f)] and including heatset w eb offset printing presses. The current proposal only addresses heatset letterpress presses.

c. Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) n eeds to include a requirement that the air dryer pressure be maintained lowe r than the pressroom pressure at all

### 9 

## times the press is in operation. Doing so will assure 100% capture of volatile organic compounds emissions as ident ified 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 drye r 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 destr uction efficiency requirements due to low volatile organic compounds inlet conc entrations or presses that have combined dryers and oxidizers. USEPA ad dressed 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 effici encies when the VOC concentration of the stream entering the control device is too low. Oxidizers tend to have a

rather constant outlet concentrati on around 20 ppmv as compound. As a result, an oxidizer that achieves 90 percent destruction efficiency at inlet concentrations above 200 ppmv as co mpound 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 abov e 400 ppmv as co mpound may not be able to achieve this level of destruction efficiency at inlet concentrations below 400 ppmv as compound. Print j obs (e.g.,book printing) with light coverage will yield low inlet concentrat ions. In addition, there are several instances, such as sources utilizing combined dryers and control devices

that do not have an identif iable measurable inlet where the only option

available is to measure the out let 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 ma y not be achievable, we recommend providing an outlet concentration alter native. Specifically we recommend providing an option to reduce the cont rol device outlet concentration to 20 ppmv as hexane on a dry basis to a ccommodate situations where the inlet VOC concentration is low, or there is no identifiable m easurable inlet”.

### 10 

## Due to the requested delet ion of Subparagraph 15A NC AC 02D .0961 (h), the revised Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D . 0961 (f) needs to include an option limiting the control device outlet concent ration to 20 ppmv as hexane on a dry basis as a control option.

Based on the requested revisions, S ubparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) would read as follows (all changes are italicized):

(f) Any person who owns or operates a si ngle heatset web offset lithographic printing press or heatset web offset le tterpress shall maintain the dryer air pressure lower than the pressroom air pressure at all times the press is operating and operate a contro l system that achieves:

(1) 90 percent control efficiency for a c ontrol device whose first installation date was prior to July 1, 2010;

(2) 95 percent control efficiency for a c ontrol 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 cont ent of coating materials used at offset lithographic printing and offset letterpress printing facilities unless the facility maintains re cords to document the volatile organic compounds content of coating mate rials from the manufacturer.

The subparagraph should be revised to include the term “inks” by inserting it before the term “coatings” so that it is cl ear 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, Appendi x 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 NCA C 02D .0961 (d) for any sheet-fed

### 11 

## press with a maximum sheet size 11” x 17” or smaller or any press with a total

fountain solution reservoir of less t han one gallon. Since Subparagraph 15 NCAC 02D .0961 (d) only applies to fount ain 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 requi rements of Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d), (e) and (f). This requirement is c onfusing, because Subparagraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (d) and (e) pertain to f ountain solutions and Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (f) pertains to exemptions from the control requirements from heatset presses. Since limits for fountai n 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. Subparagr aphs 15A NCAC 02D .0961 (c) and (d) address fountain solution control requi rements for heatset presses and sheetfed presses, respectively, and do not apply to ink volatile organic compounds emissions. The exemptions are mo re 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 wit h “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 decorat ive or protective purposes are considered part of the lithographic printing process and not subject to regulation under any other

standard. We are concer ned 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:

### 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 pre ss 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 hea t set 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 m eet 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 20 o 

## C. Due to the nature of the equipment being cleaned, cleaning soluti ons 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 20 o 

## C 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 co mposite vapor pressure of cleaning materials and limits on the VOC content of cleaning materials, with an exclusion of 110 gallons per year of cleaning materi als which meet neither the low VOC composite vapor pressure recomm endation 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):

### 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 compo unds 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 compli ance 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 reco rds 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 reco rdkeeping requirements need to be

established for this rule. Ther efore, 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 pr ior to use, formulations indicating the final volatile organic compounds content in percent by we ight and the mix ratio of the

fountain solution concentr ate, fountain solution additive and water. Volatile organic compounds c ontent can be determined by using formulation information provided with t he concentrated materials used to prepare the fountain solutions such as the product container label, product data sheet, or the Mate rial 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 cont ent of as applied cleaning solutions are to be determined by one of the following:

### 14 

## a) If diluted pr ior to use, formulations indica ting the final volatile organic compounds content in percent by we ight and the mix ratio of the cleaning solution concentrate and wa ter. 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 d iluted prior to use, then fo rmulation information, product container label, product data sheet or, Material Safety Data Sheet may

be used.

(3) The temperature of t he press fountain solutions for lithographic printing presses using alcohol in the fountain solution;

(4) The monthly quantity of cleaning so lution used which does not meet the vapor pressure and percentage volati le organic compound concentration limits per paragraphs j (1) and j (2);

(5) Temperature readings, taken at 15-mi nute intervals, of the exhaust gas temperature or, in the case of a ca talytic 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 facilit y subject to this rule shall comply
with Rule .9058 of this Section and shall maintain the following records:

(1) The volatile organic compounds cont ent of as applied fountain solutions are to be determined by one of the following:

a) If diluted prior to use, formulat ions indicating the final volatile organic compounds content in percent by weight and the mix ratio of the

fountain solution concentr ate, fountain solution additive and water. Volatile organic compounds c ontent 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 c ontent of as applie d cleaning solutions are to be determined by one of the following:

### 15 

## a) If dilu ted prior to use, formulations indi cating the final volatile organic compounds content in percent by weight and the mix ratio of the cleaning solution concentrate and wa ter. 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 cont ainer label, product data sheet, or the Material Safety Data Sheet.

b) If not diluted prior to us e, then formulation information, product container label, product data sheet or, Material Safety Data Sheet may be used.

(3) The temperature of the press f ountain solutions for lithographic printing presses using alcohol in the fountain solution;

(4) The monthly quantity of cleaning so lution used which does not meet the vapor pressure and percentage volatile organic compound concentration limits per paragr aphs (j) (1) an d (j) (2);

(5) Temperature readings, taken at 15- minute intervals, of the exhaust gas temperature or, in the case of a ca talytic 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 emi ssion and retention factors that are specific to the lithographic printing indus try and are necessary to perform accurate

emission determinations. In order to ensure that the pr oper emission and retention factors are applied for purpos es 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 in dustry, saving administrative time and costs for both the DENR and the printing industry.

The inclusion of the emission and retent ion factors are suppor ted 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 concerni ng factors that may be considered in determining VOC emissions from o ffset 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 r egulations. The factors described below

and other relevant factors are discussed in the 1993 draft CTG, the 1994 ACT and the 2005 Printing TSD”.

### 16 

## Therefore, a new secti on, Subparagraph 15A NCAC 02 D .0961 (l), needs to be

added and should read as follows:

(l) Retention Factors and Capture Effici encies - For purposes of determining volatile organic compounds emissions from offset lithographic printing operations, the following retention fact ors 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 s ubstrates, 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 pr inted on absorptive substrates, meaning 5% of the vola tile 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 towe ls 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, me aning 50% of the VOC used on the shop towels is emitted during the cleaning process.

(2) A portion of the volatile organic co mpounds 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 heatse t 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. Conti nuous 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.

### 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 det ermine they are not subject to the requirements of this rule.

(1) An owner or operator of an offset lit hographic 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 follo wing methods:

a) Material use records that show the facility m eets 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 gall ons, 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 calc ulations shall be based on the following formula using applicable re tention 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

### 18 

## compounds content (pounds per gallon) + amount of cleaning solvent (gallons) x volatile or ganic compounds c ontent (pounds per gallon) x retention factor.

(2) An owner or operator of a heat set 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 dem onstrating such exemption according to the one of the following methods:

a) Material use records that show the facility m eets 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 compoun ds content of each ink used;

Volatile organic compounds calc ulations shall be based on the following formula using applicable re tention factors identified .0961 (l) of this rule

Volatile organic compounds emis sions = amount of ink (pounds) x volatile organic compounds conten t (weight percent) x retention

factor

### This page is intentionally blank

### CHAPTER VI

INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENTS PAGE

1. Economic Assessment of Proposed Changes to th e 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 pleas ure craft in the Control Technique Guidelines

(CTG) for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings VI-139

### 10. EPA memorandum “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic

Parts Coatings – Industry Request for Consideration.” VI-140

### 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 re quirements 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);

### 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 no tice 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, Meta l 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, Appli cability; 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 Clean ing Solvents; 15A NCAC 02D .0963, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing; 15A NCAC 02D .0964, Misce llaneous 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 Plas tic 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 a nd Vinyl Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0920, Paper Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0934, Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Part s and Products; and 15A NCAC 02D .0936, Graphic Arts.

### 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 th e 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 cat egory of volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources covered by any control techniques guidelines (CTG) doc ument 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 recommenda tions or develop its own RACT rules and submit its proposals to EPA for review and approval. EPA ap proval 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 facil ities, 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 indu strial cleaning solvents ar e 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 le tterpress 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 are as, 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 mo re than 15 lbs/day. As a conservative approach in this analysis, facilities with actual emissions great er 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 prog ram usually adopts rules that are identical (or nearly identical) to the DAQ rules and thus proceed thr ough local rule-making procedures and analyses. However, since Mecklenburg County is one of the c ounties 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 th e 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 substan tial economic impact on the affected parties. The changes do not alter the State’s general funds, a nd 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 rep eals is to include RACT for VOC emissions from

### coatings of metal furniture; large appliance parts; flat wood paneling; misce llaneous metal and plastic parts; fiberglass boat manufacturing; assembly of auto mobiles and light-duty trucks as well as from offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing; flexible p ackage printing; paper, film, and foil; and usage of miscellaneous industrial adhesives; and industrial cleaning solvents.

The current rules were developed in 1979 - 19 86 and are based on CTG recommendations that EPA developed in the late 1970’s. These rules establishe d 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 hi gh solvent content coatings in conjunction with an 80-85 percent overall efficiency add-on control system.

The proposed changes are based on Control Techniqu es 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 Octobe r 9, 2007 for paper film and foil coatings, metal furniture coatings, and large applia nce coatings; and in October 7, 2008 for miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and li ght-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives.

The following changes are necessary to follow the guidelines in 40 CF R 59 for the affected industrial

processes:

Amendments to Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0922, Metal Furniture Coatings

The amendments establish three altern atives: (1) emission limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings; (2) equivalent emission limits th at can be achieved through the use of low-VOC coatings or a combination of coatings and add-on co ntrols; and (3) an overall control efficiency of 90 percent for add-on controls. Currently, all existing f acilities 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 emissi on 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. Sh ould 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.

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 operatio ns, as well as, for VOC emissions from heatset inks used in letterpress printing operations at th e level sufficient for RACT requirements.

The level of control for VOC emissions from heatset dr yers is tied to the first installation date of the control device. It varies from 90 percent control effi ciency 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 th is rule. This level of control applies to individual heatset web letterpress printing presses with potential to em it from the dryer, prior to controls, of at least 25 tpy of VOC (petroleum ink oil). The new rule provid es printers with the option of using an enforceable limitation on potential emissions to keep an individua l heatset press below this 25 tpy potential to emit

threshold.

The new rule specifies control options for each app licable printing method to reduce VOC emissions from

fountain solution. The level of control for VOC em issions from on-press fountain solution for heatset web offset lithographic printing is 1.6 percent alcohol (b y 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 fo untain. 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 we ight). The second approach involves using 8.5 percent alcohol or less (by weight) on-press in the fountain so lution provided the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60oF (15.5 oC). The third approach invol ves 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 fac ilities in this source category revealed that there are no existing facilities with the potential to emit 100 t py 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 emi ssions 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 c ontrols 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 ar e 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 regul ated 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 app lication 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 mold ing resin and gel coat limits: (1) achieving the VOC individual monomer content limit through the use of lo w-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 wei ght-adjusted basis; (2) meeting the VOC numerical monomer emission rate limits, which would enable a facility to average emissions among different operations using equa tions 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 me thod based on EPA recommendations to adjust the emission rate under all three options recommended a bove 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 fac ilities in this source category revealed that there are no existing facilities with the potential to emit 100 t py 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

### miscellaneous industrial adhesives to provide flexibility to facilities. It establishes VOC emission limits based on application processes (general adhesive appl ication processes, specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primer application processes.)

The rule defines two options for achieving the requi red 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 adh esives, 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 th e 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 contro l 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 fro m coatings, inks and adhesives used on flexible package printing presses is tied to the first installati on date of the equipment. It varies from overall 65 percent control for a press that was first installed pr ior to March 14, 1995 (the proposal date for the 1996 NESHAP for the printing and publishing industry) and th at is controlled by an add-on control whose first installation date was prior to the effective date of th e 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 re duction 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 u sed in paper, film and foil surface coating. The proposed rule establishes an overall VOC control effici ency of 90 percent for each coating line along with emission limits that are equivalent to 90 percen t overall control. The rule applies the control recommendations only to individual su rface 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. Th is limit can be met by use of low-VOC content

materials or combinations of materials and controls.

In 2002, EPA promulgated the National Emission St andards 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,

### 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 Polluta nts, reflects all provisions of the 2002 NESHAP. Due to the fact that NESHAP limits are more stringe nt than RACT, there is no cost involved to achieve compliance with new RACT standards.

Adoption of 15A NCAC 02D .0967, Miscellane ous 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 us e 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 inst ead of low-VOC content coatings and specified application methods.

In addition, the rule requires the specified use of one or more coat ing 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 captu re 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 no t 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 Misce llaneous 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 de pending on coating operations for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings and for miscellane ous 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 ad hesive 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 solv ent-borne coatings, efficient app lication equipment and bake oven

exhaust control.

In 2004, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobile and Light-D uty Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. The areas covered by the NESHAP include all the equipment used to apply coa ting to new automobile or light-duty truck bodies or body parts and to dry or cure the co atings after application; all stor age 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 manua l 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

### (i.e., sources that commenced construction after Dece mber 24, 2002). The existing Rule 15A NCAC 02D .1110, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r 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 Part s 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 pl astic parts coatings, flexible package printing and, offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing.

Due to this fact, the existing Rules: 15A NC AC 02D .0917, Automobile and Light-duty Truck Manufacturing; 15A NCAC 02D .0921, Fabric a nd Vinyl Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0920, Paper Coating; 15A NCAC 02D .0934, Coating of Miscella neous Metal Parts and Pr oducts; 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 wo rk practice standards in 15A NCAC 02D .0958 to all sources of VOC in the state. Currently, 02D .0958 ap plies 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 obso lete 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 redesigna ted 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 th e small business (facilities with 500 or less employees). This estimation is made using database presen ted 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 chang es 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 th e current Section .0900 VOC rule provisions, all facilities with technological requirements to insta ll add on controls already have it installed.

### Current VOC rules require emissions reductions of 80 to 85 percent from coating operations. The upcoming rule changes require a minimum of 90 pe rcent VOC emission reductions. Consequently, the

affected facilities shall further reduce their VOC emis sions 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 are as, 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 mo re 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 choo se to utilize the low-VOC materials alternative to implement the levels of c ontrol required by these rule changes. This assumption was made for two reasons. First, since facilities ar e 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 calculati ons, this cost is not significantly greater than the cost of materials with higher VOC contents. Secondl y, 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 inform ation regarding which areas will be designated as nonattainment at this time; it considers two approach es 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. Su ch 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 (N ESHAP). Consequently, they do not need to implement further emission reductions and, therefor e 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, mi scellaneous 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 co ating 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 NC AC 02D .0962, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, is calculated using standard industrial codes (SIC) fo r the affected facilities and the state emissions database. DAQ applied the same worst-case scenario a nd 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 cleani ng operations located in

### Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle possible nonattain ment areas equal 1,226 tpy (see Attachment D.) VOC emissions from 1 facility located in Metrolina nona ttainment 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 in clude 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 w ith 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 a ll VOC emissions come from a “degreasing” or cold solvent cleaning/stripping classification and the remain ing 92 percent comes from other solvent cleaning operations.

In order to comply with the new rule, the aff ected 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 cl eaners (please see CTG, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Part VI, Impacts of Recommended Controls.)

Algorithm of cost estimation for the local pr ogram facilities located in Mecklenburg County The cost/savings estimations for the facilities locat ed in Mecklenburg County are based on the same assumptions as for the identical cost/savings es timations made for other nonattainment areas. Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Se rvices Agency provided its database for these calculations. The costs of compliance for 8 fac ilities 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 cl eaning/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 cl assification which is, in accordance with Control Techniques

### 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 cl eaning operations identified as solvent cleaning operations. The estimated costs/savings for a fac ility 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 i ndustrial cleaning solvents located in Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle areas. The savi ngs 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 i ndustrial 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 surf ace 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 th e lower cost of aqueous cleaners in accordance

with EPA estimations.

It is estimated that there is no cost to extendi ng 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 a nd 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 stringe nt controls on new stationary sources or even additional transportation conformity analyses. Un fortunately, 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

### 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 emissi ons from solvent coating and cleaning operations, and because many VOCs also are air toxics, the prop osed 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 effect s, 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 th e 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 Sectio n 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 re gulations 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 re quirements of Section 182(b)(2). EPA has issued 11 CTGs since 2006. The rules analyzed herein addr ess 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 are as, facilities with PTE > 50 tpy of VOC would be subject to these rules. There is another layer of applicability in 02D .090 2(b), which narrows the applicability to sources whose emissions of VOCs are mo re 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 categori es 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 substantia l economic impact for the regulated community. No local government sources or facilities are among the a ffected community. The changes do not alter the State’s general funds; they don’t require additiona l permitting or inspection ac tivity and consequently, they have no economic impact on NCDAQ and Me cklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency. There are no economic impacts rela ted to the permitting of the NC Department of Transportation projects.

### Finally, the total annualized fiscal impact of these ch anges 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 annua l cost per each facility. This is the total cost of switching to lower VOC content materials fo r 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 s ubstantial 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.Attachment BTable1. Cost Calculation forFacilities with the Surface Coating Operations Located in Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle AreasCTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOCEPA Calculated CostEffectiveness Values($ per ton VOCremoved)EPA Estimated VOCreduction%COST$Misc. Metal& PlasticParts02D .0967Berenfield ContainersSE LtdCabarrus05577Title V81.081,7581014,253Flat WoodPanelingCoatingMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .093502D .0964Uniboard USA LLCChatham03449Title V185.05185.051,9002657524,6122,451Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Stanley FurnitureCompany - LexingtonMfgDavidson05780Title V244.68NESHAP00Paper, Film,& FoilCoatingsFlexiblePackagePrintingMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096602D .096502D .0964Exopack –Thomasville, LLCDavidson04444Title V44.8644.8644.861,20020502650 (in complianceNESHAP 2002)205018,392594.4Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964The HON CompanyFranklin02483Title V66.51NESHAP00Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964Stabilus, Inc.Gaston05563Small22.8322.831,7582651054,014303Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964Affinia Group, Inc.,Wix Filtration Corp. -Allen PlantGaston03860Title V42.2142.211,7582651057,421559Attachment BCTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOCEPA Calculated CostEffectiveness Values($ per ton VOCremoved)EPA Estimated VOCreduction%COST$Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964Freightliner LLC--Mount Holly TruckManufacturing PlantGaston03926Title V84.0784.071,75826510514,7291,114Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 Bridgestone-Bandag,LLC Granville 02889 Title V 124.67 265 5 1,652Misc.IndustrialAdhesives102D .0964Georgia-Pacific -Creedmoor Chip-NSaw PlantGranville04048Title V90.9926551,206Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Tegrant DiversifiedBrands, Inc.Granville06727Title V91.7426551,216Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Marsh FurnitureCompanyGuilford03238Title V443.62NESHAP00Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesivesAuto & LightDuty Track02D .096702D .096402D .0968Thomas Built Buses -Fairfield RoadGuilford05727Title V40.2340.2340.231,758265NESHAP40 CFR, part 63,subpart IIII.10507,0725330Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Pactiv CorporationGuilford06095Title V146.0526551,935Misc.IndustrialAdhesives102D .0964 RF Micro Devices,Inc. - FAB 1, FAB 3and PackagingGuilford 08409 Title V 199.99 26552,650Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964Thomas Built Buses -Courtesy RoadGuilford 03209 Title V36.0936.091,758265NESHAP1056.345478Attachment BCTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOCEPA Calculated CostEffectiveness Values($ per ton VOCremoved)EPA Estimated VOCreduction%COST$Auto & LightDuty02D .0968 36.09 40 CFR, part 63,subpart IIII.0 0Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Engineered SinteredComponentsIredell 09174 Small 94.86 26551.257Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964ASC SignalCorporationJohnston 05529 Title V 57.27 265 5759Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Keener LumberCompany IncJohnston 06600 Small 52.43 2655695Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 CPI Packaging, Inc.Lincoln 07362 Title V 221.12 26552,930Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesivesFlexiblePackagePrinting02D .0922Wireway/HuskySystemsLincoln06182Title V18.8118.8118.81NSPS,Subpart EE000000Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 RSI Home Products Lincoln 06883 Title V 83.4326551,105Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 Armacell LLC Orange 08153 Title V 126.2426551,673Misc.IndustrialAdhesivesFlat WoodPanelingCoating02D .096402D .0935Louisiana-PacificCorp - RoxboroPerson 07760 Title V74.4374.432651,900579869,899Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Georgia - PacificRoxboroPerson 07668 Title V 74.59 265 5988Attachment BCTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOCEPA Calculated CostEffectiveness Values($ per ton VOCremoved)EPA Estimated VOCreduction%COST$Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Ball Metal BeverageContainer CorpRockingham 03662 Title V 227.47 26553,014Paper, Film,& FoilCoatings02D .0964 Loparex LLC Rockingham 08031 Title V 52.43 NESHAP00Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964FreightlinerCorporationCleveland PlantRowan 04625 Title V140.05140.051,75826510524,6211,856Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 Norandal USA Inc Rowan 02397 Title V 714.0526559,461Misc. Metal& PlasticParts02D .0967Nomacorc LLCWake09471Title V134.721,7581023,684Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964Nomaco Inc -ZebulonWake 06734 Title V 285.73 2655366.5$187,229Attachment CTable 2. Cost Calculation for Facilities with the Surface Coating Operations Located in Metrolina AreaCTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOCEPA Calculated CostEffectiveness Values($ per ton VOC removed)EPA Estimated VOCreduction%COSTMisc.IndustrialAdhesivesMisc. Metal& PlasticParts02D .0967Berenfield ContainersSE LtdCabarrus05577Title V81.081,7581014,253Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964Stabilus, Inc.Gaston05563Small22.8322.831,7582651054,014303Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964Affinia Group, Inc.,Wix Filtration Corp. -Allen PlantGaston03860Title V42.2142.211,7582651057,421559Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964Freightliner LLC--Mount Holly TruckManufacturing PlantGaston03926Title V84.0784.071,75826510514,7291,114Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 CPI Packaging, Inc.Lincoln 07362 Title V 221.1226552,930Attachment CCTG RULE FACILITY ID COUNTY PERMIT PERMIT TYPE FACILITY VOCEPA Calculated CostEffectiveness Values($ per ton VOC removed)EPA Estimated VOCreduction%COSTMisc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesivesFlexiblePackagePrinting02D .096702D .096402D .0965Wireway/HuskySystemsLincoln06182Title V18.8118.8118.81NSPS,Subpart EE00Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 RSI Home Products Lincoln 06883 Title V 83.4326551,105Misc. Metal& PlasticPartsMisc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .096702D .0964FreightlinerCorporationCleveland PlantRowan 04625 Title V140.05140.051,75826510524,6211,856Misc.IndustrialAdhesives02D .0964 Norandal USA Inc Rowan 02397 Title V 714.0526559,461$82,366Attachment DTable 3. Emission Calculation ofthe Facilities with Industrial Cleaning Operations LocatedIn Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle Possible Nonattainment Areas∑= 1,226 tpyN FACILITY_NAMECOUNTYPERMITPERMIT_TYPEFACILITY_VOC1 Performance Fibers, Inc.Chatham02657NSPS02 Kimberly Clark CorporationDavidson05635Title V67.523 Evonik Stockhausen, Inc.Guilford04535Synthetic Minor 60.854Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. a subsidiary ofSobel USAGuilford08141Small60.075 Shamrock Corporation Tipping DivisionGuilford04900Title V191.266Greensboro Flexible Packaging LLC dbaNorth State FlexiblesGuilford02221Title V115.277 PGI Nonwovens DBA Chicopee IncJohnston03422Title V68.968Norcraft Companies, LP, dba UltraCraftCabinetryRandolph05951Title V119.349 Braxton Culler, IncorporatedRandolph06253Title V12410 B & H Panel CompanyRandolph06559Title V102.1111 Oliver Rubber CompanyRandolph05051Title V144.8712 MillerCoors LLCRockingham03116Title V93.7313 Indopco, Inc. dba Henkel,Rowan05279MACT014Performance Fibers Operations, Inc. -Salisbury PlantRowan03325MACT015 OMNOVA Solutions, Inc.Union03281Title V77.76AttachmentETable 4. Emission Calculation fromthe facilities with the Industrial Cleaning Operations locatedin Metrolina nonattainment areaN FACILITY_NAMECOUNTYPERMITPERMIT_TYPEFACILITY_VOC1 OMNOVA Solutions, Inc.Union03281Title V77.76∑= 78 tpyAttachmentFTable 5.Cost Calculation for the Surface Coating Operations Facilities Located in Mecklenburg County$27,750Site ClassPollutantActualEPA Calculated CostEffectiveness Values$ per ton VOCremovedEPAEstimatedVOCreductionCost$Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives Forbo Movement Systems SM VOC 48.8 265 5 646.6Miscellaneous Industrial AdhesivesCharlotte Pipe & Foundry Company,Inc.TITLEV VOC64.2 265 5 850.7Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic PartsCoatingsMiscellaneous Industrial AdhesivesIndustrial Container Services - NC,LLC (Matthews)SM VOC36.836.81,7582651056,469.4487.6Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic PartsCoatingsMiscellaneous Industrial AdhesivesGerdau Ameristeel US Inc. CharlotteSteel Mill DivTITLEV VOC28.228.21,7582651054,957.6373.7Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic PartsCoatingsMiscellaneous Industrial AdhesivesIndustrial Container Services -NC,LLC (Charlotte)TITLEV VOC35.435.41,7582651056,223.3469.1Offset Lithographic Printing and LetterpressPrintingCadmus SMVOC18.718.718.7Inks 2,010fountain solutions 0Cleaning 855100103,758.701,599.9Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives Genpak LLCSM VOC 50.6 265 5 670.5Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives General Steel Drum Corporation SM VOC 94.4 265 5 1250.8AttachmentGTable 6. Emission Calculation for the facilities with the Industrial Cleaning Operationslocated in Mecklenburg nonattainment area.NFacilityPollutantActual VOC Emissions1Labeltec, Inc./Pharmaprint, Inc.VOC7.9482Blythe Construction, Inc. - North PlantVOC5.743Emerald Carolina Chemical, LLCVOC26.4423Exopack Advanced CoatingsVOC12.5694Aplix, IncorporatedVOC19.035CCL Label, Inc.VOC10.666Cognis CorporationVOC27.9387Process Innovation LLCVOC0.0518SteelFab, Inc.VOC20.4289Sun Chemical Corporation - Printing & InkVOC14.1110INX International Ink CompanyVOC11.07211Ashland DistributionVOC4.868112International Paper CompanyVOC4.751∑= 165.6

### 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_vo c_epa453_r-06-002_litho_l etterpress_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_indu strial_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_ep a453_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

## 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


### 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


### 44523 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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 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 functiona l 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


### 44524 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

3 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 II by September 30, 2006.

4 See 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,


### 44525 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

5 ‘‘ Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans, ’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 2005).

6 See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ‘‘ Compliance
Periods ’’ (November 24, 1987). ‘‘ VOC rules should describe explicitly the compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g., instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret

it as instantaneous. ’’ 7 Memorandum from John O ’ Connor, Acting Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘ Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy. ’’

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 CAAsection 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, theRACT 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


### 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


### 44527 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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 isrendered 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 thelithographic 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 typicallymixtures 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


### 44528 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

9 See. 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 typicallymixtures 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


### 44529 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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.


### 44530 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

10 This 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 andcoldset 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


### 44531 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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 certaincontrol 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


### 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.


### 44533 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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,


### 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 operatecontrol 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


### 44535 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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 someproducts (e.g., tileboard and fireresistant paneling) still require solventborne coatings to provide adequate water, weather, and fire resistance. Quick drying time is another importantreason 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


### 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)


### 44537 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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 someproducts (e.g., tileboard and fireresistant paneling) still require solventborne coatings to provide adequate water, weather, and fire resistance. Quick drying time is another importantreason 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 suchcontrols 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.


### 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 theimplementation 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


### 44539 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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


### 44540 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

11 EPA 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. 12 From 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, miscellaneousindustrial 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


### 44541 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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


### 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.


### 44543 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules

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** 


### 58745 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

closed-to-navigation position and 75feet 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.


### 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 s olvents.

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 ofthe VOC emissions, on a reactivityadjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone


### 58747 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

1 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 II by September 30, 2006.

2 See 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).

4 See, 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 CAAsection 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, theRACT requirement is applied on a shortterm basis up to 24 hours. 4 However,


### 58748 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret it as

instantaneous. ’’

5 Memorandum from John O ’ Connor, Acting Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘ Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy. ’’

6 ‘‘ Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, January 2001, ’’ available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/ policy/search.htm. 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 electroniccomponents 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


### 58749 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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 workpractices are carried out on a facilitywide basis, we believe it is most appropriate for the applicability of workpractices 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.


### 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 sprayapplications 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,


### 58751 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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.


### 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 CTGor 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


### 58753 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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.


## 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


### 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 forreasonably 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


### 37583 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

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, orfunctional material to metal furniture components or products. Large appliance coatings ................................... 335221, 335222, 335224, 335228, 333312,

333319. Facilities that apply coatings to household andcommercial 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


### 37584 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

2 EPA 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.

3 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. 4 See 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 CAAsection 183(e), but can address endusers through a CTG) created by


### 37585 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

5 ‘‘ Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans, ’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 2005).

6 See, e.g. , 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ‘‘ Compliance
Periods ’’ (November 24, 1987). ‘‘ VOC rules should describe explicitly the compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit ( e.g., instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret

it as instantaneous. ’’

7 Memorandum from John O ’ Connor, Acting Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘ Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits

— SIP Revision Policy. ’’

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, theRACT 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


### 37586 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

9 Coating 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. Theapplication 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). Theapplication 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). Theapplication 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


### 37587 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

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. 11 Fabric coating operations for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials are included under paper, film, and foil surface coating.

12 The 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 morecoating 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.


### 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 byusing 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


### 37589 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

13 We 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


### 37590 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

14 The 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 specifiedend 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 significantreduction 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,


### 37591 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

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 requirementsinclude: 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 theimplementation 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


### 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


### 37593 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

16 The 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 VOCemissions 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 asolids 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


### 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 thatif 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 includethe 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.


### 37595 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

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 industryis 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 specifiedend 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


### 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 metalfurniture 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 requirementsinclude: 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.


### 37597 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / 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 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


### 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 fromcleaning 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 asolids 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,


### 37599 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

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 thatif 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.


### 37600 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

18 We 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 includethe 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


### 37601 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

solvent-borne coatings in some instances. As described above, customer specifications, quick drying time (needed to meet production demands and prevent surface damage) and capitalinvestments 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


### 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


### 37603 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

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 toadopt 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


### 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


### 37605 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules

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** 


### 57215 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

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) * * *



### A IR 

### P OLLUTION 

### C ONTROL 

### R EGULATIONS FOR 

### S OUTH 

### C AROLINA

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date **Federal Register** notice

******* Regulation No. 62.96 ......... Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) 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 NO X 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 SO 2 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 NO X 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 forreasonably available control technologylevel controls for these product categories. EPA further takes final action to list the three Group III consumer and commercial product categories


### 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 aff ected. 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


### 57217 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

1 EPA promulgated a national regulation that addresses VOC emissions from portable fuel containers on February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8428).
National VOC emission standards for aerosol coatings currently are under development. 2 See 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


### 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).

4 See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ‘‘ Compliance
Periods ’’ (November 24, 1987). ‘‘ VOC rules should describe explicitly the compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g., instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret

it as instantaneous. ’’

5 Memorandum from John O ’ Connor, Acting Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘ Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits

— SIP Revision Policy. ’’

6 ‘‘ Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, January 2001, ’’ available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/ policy/search.htm. (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 toa 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 moreappropriate 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


### 57219 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

control for a coating line with the potential to emit 25 or more tpy willgenerally 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 workpractices 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-indicatingcoatings; 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


### 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 toadopt 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


### 57221 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

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,


### 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


### 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 forreasonably 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.go v 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,


### 40231 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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


### 40232 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

1 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. 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,


### 40233 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

2 See 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). 4 See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ‘‘ Compliance
Periods ’’ (November 24, 1987). ‘‘ VOC rules should describe explicitly the compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g., instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret

it as instantaneous. ’’

5 Memorandum from John O ’ Connor, Acting Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘ Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits

– SIP Revision Policy. ’’

6 ‘‘ Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, January 2001, ’’ available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/ policy/search.htm

. 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 CAAsection 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, theRACT 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 ’’


### 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.


### 40235 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

7 Heavier 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


### 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, includingpowder 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 itis 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


### 40237 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

9 The 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).

10 The 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.


### 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


### 40239 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

11 As 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).


### 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 coatingoperations: 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 thecontrol options: (1) Store all VOCcontaining coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing andstorage 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 practicesinclude 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 of7,034 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


### 40241 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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 partssurface 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


### 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 anenclosure; 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


### 40243 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

12 Please 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 productcategories, 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 VOCemissions 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 isapplied. 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 theappearance 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,


### 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 fromautomated 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 truckassembly 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, andelectrodeposition 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 truckassembly 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 usedthroughout 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 VOCemissions from automobile and lightduty trucks surface coating operations.
These recommendations are
summarized in Table 1.


### 40245 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

T ABLE 

### 1.

— 1977 CTG R ECOMMENDED 

### VOC E MISSION 

### L IMITS FOR 

### A UTOMOBILE AND 

### L IGHT 

### -D UTY 

### T RUCK 

### S URFACE 

### C OATING

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 ( R t ). 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.



### T ABLE 

### 2.

— 1980 NSPS VOC E MISSION 

### L IMITS FOR 

### A UTOMOBILE AND 

### L IGHT 

### -D UTY 

### T RUCK 

### S URFACE 

### C OATING

Primecoat Operations (Non-EDP) 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42 lb/gal) coating solids applied.

When R t = ≥ 0.16: When 0.040 ≤ R t <0.160: When R t <0.040:

Primecoat Operations (EDP) ......... 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42 lb/gal) coating solids applied. 0.17 × 350 0.160

¥ Rt kg VOC/liter (0.17 × 350 0.160–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 materialsgenerated 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.



### T ABLE 

### 3.

— 2004 NESHAP HAP E MISSION 

### L IMITS FOR 

### A UTOMOBILE AND 

### L IGHT 

### -D UTY 

### T RUCK 

### S URFACE 

### C OATING

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


### 40246 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

14 Heavy 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 includedVOC 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 VOCemissions 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 bodiesor 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 permitrequirements 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 CompoundEmission 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


### 40247 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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 individuallimits 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 mixingand 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


### 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 thecoatings 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 VOCemissions 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 trucksurface 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 cleaningassociated 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 materialsspecific 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 cleaningmaterials 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


### 40249 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

15 As 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


### 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 byhand 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 applyresin 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 resinapplication methods. Industry and EPAsponsored testing has experimentally


### 40251 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

16 This 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 canonly 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


### 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 weightedaverage 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


### 40253 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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


### 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


### 40255 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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


### 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 andcleaning 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.


### 40257 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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


### 40258 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

18 The 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


### 40259 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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 mixingand 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 practicesbe 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


### 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 themanufacturers 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


### 40261 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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


### 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 toadopt 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


### 40263 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

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


### 58481 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

EPA-A PPROVED 

### N ONREGULATORY 

### P ROVISIONS AND 

### Q UASI 

### -R EGULATORY 

### M EASURES IN THE 

### T EXAS 

### 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 forreasonably 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 :** 


### 58482 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

1 See 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


### 58483 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

2 See 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


### 58484 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

4 See, 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.’’

5 Memorandum from John O’Connor, Acting Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits—SIP Revision Policy.’’

6 ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, January 2001,’’ available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/ policy/search.htm. 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, wehave 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


### 58485 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

7 Exempt 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, wehave clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following materials: Automobile and light-duty truck glassbonding 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 trunkinterior coating, automobile and lightduty truck bedliner, automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive, and automobile and light-duty truck


### 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 ofvehicles 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 rationaleapplies 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 methodssimilar to hand- or mechanicallypowered caulking guns (e.g., similar to those used to apply bonding putty), brush, and direct hand application.


### 58487 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

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 35percent because of the 1 percent nonmonomer VOC that was over the 5percent 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


### 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, wehave clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following materials: automobile and light-duty truck glassbonding 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


### 58489 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

8 See ‘‘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–


### 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


### 58491 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

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.


### This page is intentionally blank

## VII-1

CHAPTER VII

The following documentation of filing and notifi cation 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 th at the public notice be published.

5. Affidavits of Publication from newspaper.

6. Memorandum transmitting hearing noti ce and proposal to regional offices for public inspection.

7. Memorandum transmitting hearing noti ce 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.

### This page is intentionally blank